http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/04/camcorders-that.html#more

Any comments from those with first-hand experience with the above or similar vs. Canon 40D or other still cameras appreciated.

Try doing a search. I'm pretty sure there was thread about Red a while back.

Scotti

I read that interview about 3 times. Is that guy serious?

Just one of his quotes,

'Here's the thing about RED, everything is subject to change, at any point in time. Today we like this logic.'

I havent used one but was shooting with someone who was. He liked it and talked a lot about it but in the end I couldnt really see what the benefit was. To me its like combining a fridge and a microwave into one. If you want to shoot stills you can do that with a cheap DSLR. If you want to shoot moving their are countless high quality cameras around.

Hope that helps, in some way.

Cheers
Mike

Look around on Google for pictures of people using these. They are not hand-holdable like a DSLR is. Their quality is a revolution for video and motion film guys, but it does not exceed what we are used to for digital stills. If you're going to give up the flexibility of a DSLR, then you might as well look at medium format digital, which knocks the socks off of Red.

Here are a few stills taken from it, down at the bottom of the page for Peter Jackson's "Crossing the Line". Judge for yourself.
http://www.red.com/shot_on_red

I dabble in film and there they are sort of a big deal. Sodenberg just finished a movie here in Puerto Rico shot with them, I believe this is the second project in which he uses them. Seems they where used in the movie "Jumper" as well.

The big deal of the camera is that it records images in 4K which is the same resolution motion picture film scanners have that are used to create "digital negatives" of footage so CGI can be added to them.

I would not mind having one for personal use and to rent out! A very basic package is going to run you at least 50 grand, add some goodies and a set of Cooke prime lenses and you are talking around $100,000. They are made by the guy that owns Oakley.

They do not have any in stock and there's a waiting line I hear of something like 3000 buyers that have already given the $5 grand deposit for a serial number, wait is months long and when your camera is ready you gotta pay up the rest.

I downloaded a still demo from their site www.red.com and the quality pretty much resembled that of my Nikon D2x.

For film, absolutely, for still, I don't think so.

If you think still camera lens prices are a bit high, check out lens prices (good lenses) for 2/3 chip cameras, or C-mount.

Thanks for responses.
Is it a matter of either footage or stills
or can one do both simultaneously, e.g.,
still RAWs from footage pixels?
I shoot stills for destinations -- I might add to my $$ if I could simultaneously offer footage...
How to describe RED stills in terms of my Canon 40D 10mp RAWs?
a. better quality
b. same quality
c. slightly inferior
d. way inferior

Jeff:

Couple things to think about:

1. It is recording every frame as individual RAW files that can be pulled one by one as stills, if desired. That is indeed cool.

2. Movie standards are based on 35mm film running vertically, so it is corresponding to the standard where 24mm is the long side, with a 12MP chip that is about 1/3 the size of a full frame DSLR sensor. Those are some tiny pixels. I've seen significant noise in those still frame samples Red has on their web site. Not bad by movie film standards, but problematic by ours.

3. Film and stills are shot differently. Film shooting incorporates pans and zooms as part of its moving narrative. We as still shooters tend to try to isolate a moment in sharp stillness. Technically, yes you can pull still frames from the footage, but shooting good footage might mean the camera is in motion across a still object, rendering the still frames not as useful on their own. Just something to think about.

So in general, I would say I'd describe their comparison to a 40D file as slightly inferior.

I agree with Tyler.

Jeff, it would drive you nuts going through countless frames trying to pick out suitable still images. You would miss more than you got simply because you wouldn't frame the shot in the same way. Eg: a blink on a movie is nothing, you dont see it, but look at it frame by frame and sticks right out.

Also, if you really want to capture both, then why not just get a cheap video camera so you can shoot the still then the movie. Save yourself a small fortune.

Cheers
Mike

In other words, there's a reason film production folk [still] hire still photogs.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Greenberg:
[qb] How to describe RED stills in terms of my Canon 40D 10mp RAWs?
a. better quality
b. same quality
c. slightly inferior
d. way inferior [/qb]

Look at the samples and compare for yourself. The RED files appear to be ~7MP, and they look a bit soft at that. Also, the aspect ratio is quite different from what your typical client might expect - though you might be able to use it to your advantage.

I wouldn't replace my dSLR with one of these, but it would be nice having the option to pull individual raw frames if one happens to record something still-worthy while using it. Probably best for PJs and such.

there is a big discussion about this over on LL's site.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24323

''over on LL's site.''

What's Ken Rockwell have to say, or does it matter?

quote:

Originally posted by mmc:
[qb] ''over on LL's site.''

What's Ken Rockwell have to say, or does it matter? [/qb]

who cares about that guy

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/red-raw.shtml

"who cares about that guy"

Seems a few over there have an opinion, or at least a caricature of one on what ol Kenny says.

I'll be looking more closely when they have a model that comes with a focus puller, so long as it's really really fast and quiet, until then it's the long roll 70 and RB.