Posted by Vandit Kalia on September 20, 2008 at 5:58 AM
This is an interesting teaser posted by one of the founders of Red:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710
He mentions several times that this is going to "kill" DSLRs. Going by what Red has offered so far in the video segment, I am thinking really high DR, interchangeable sensors, ability to accept various mounts, etc. I am quite intrigued myself.
Vandit
Posted by Don Miller on September 20, 2008 at 9:12 AM
The competing title might be "The End of Red?"
It looks like the 5DII shoots high quality 1080p. How much would it cost Canon to use the full 21mp image off the sensor? Probably less than $100 dollars. I really like where this technology is going. But the first to the market is seldom the winner.
Posted by David Bostedo on September 20, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Vandit - I don't know about interchangable sensors, given how closely tied they are to the rest of the system. But the rest of it sounds like what they'd be gunning for. But when he says it will kill DSLR's, it seems he means it will force all DSLR cameras to take video, making them DSMCs (Digital Still and Motion Cameras). I think Canon and Nikon already agree that that's the case, having added video to the D90 and 5DII. Of course, I'd still call these DSLR's, but RED can call them whatever it wants to.
Don - Why do you think it would be so easy for Canon to take video at 21 MP?
I don't know about this for sure, but here's some speculation. It's likely to be incredibly hard an expensive, since it involves so much data, and would affect ALL of the circuitry of the camera, including image processors, and connections, and bandwidth to the storage medium. There's a reason that the RED ONE, which takes 12 MP, 30fps video, costs so much and has so much of it dedicated to storage of massive files and the speed to actually store them. 21 MP video would of course create ever larger storage problems.
I find it interesting that the promise of taking HD stills with a video camera still hasn't been fulfilled whereas the ability to take rather acceptable video's on a still camera is more palatable and acceptable.
Posted by Vandit Kalia on September 20, 2008 at 2:36 PM
David, I dont think it would be that difficult to make an interchangeable back for an SLR body. It is a relatively simple (albeit detailed and non-trivial) engineering challenge that can be solved by standardizing some design elements with current and future bodies. It will probably add some bulk and weight to the cameras, but a lot of people might put up with it.
If Red were to launch, say, a modular system with interchangeable mounts capable of accepting up to MF lenses (doable if that is built into the design elements from the start), interchangeable backs, ability to shoot xxMP video at 30+fps... that would be a pretty decisive kick in the privates for Canon & Nikon.
You are right - there are engineering challenges especially with storage, battery life and physical size. But the possibility is out there.
This Red teaser did get me thinking a little, however.
I do think we are in for a paradigm shift (ugh, I HATE that phrase) when it comes to still cameras. With 21MP already starting to stretch the limits of the lens capabilities, manufacturers are going to be faced with a dilemna - how do they keep launching improved products and maintaining their price/profit margins? Sure, you can do some stuff with DR and ISO capabilities, but let's face it - that is a pretty small segment right there. The bulk of your D-Rebel purchasers are not going to buy into that the way they did with megapixels.
So the market is ripe for some big change. The question is - what is it? I don't think it is video. Sure, that is a very useful feature and will probably sell a lot of bodies to hobbyists as well PJs/sports shooters, but whither photographers who believe in the still image as an art form?
Are we doomed to a fringe existence (like say LF users or B&W film users) as the world switches to video? Surely not. The market for still photography is far too large for that - video has been around and we are still shooting stills, so it isnt as if having video in the DSLR is going to make us give up stills.
A lot of people seem to think getting rid of the mirror box is the most-needed change, which to me seems yo be much ado about nothing (really.. is that optical finder such a bad thing???). I have heard some buzz about vector-based imaging that would allow adjusting of focus and DoF in post-processing - now that is something interesting. Canon has been working on some different lens technology, which could also be the next step forwards in photography.
I just hope that video isnt the direction taken by photography... although it seems to be the case.
Vandit
Posted by David Bostedo on September 20, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Vandit - I was thinking of a pure sensor swap on a camera similar to today's SLRs. What you are talking about is something like what RED already does with motion picture cameras, and perhaps that is where they are headed with still cameras. But that comes with a lot of attendant costs, and standards, and bulk usually - and I'd be surprised if they were able to keep it neatly packaged enough to appeal to most DSLR buyers.
I personally think a sensor that can capture a larger dynamic range than you can see would be a very interesting breakthrough. Or something that can tune ISO or exposure at a pixel by pixel level.
And I've heard a lot of complaints about getting rid of the optical finder - although I would like that. I'm so used to having a little computer screen to look at with it's live histogram and other shooting info superimposed that looking at an optical finder with it's little red or yellow letters and numbers seems like looking through something very old fashioned. The view of the scene is great - but the rest of the setup seems lacking.
Posted by David Prichard on September 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM
A touch of irony when one considers the 35m camera was devised to test motion picture film stock.
As I understand it there are two things working against a dual camera currently. The first being buffering, the second being image quality. Most motion picture productions have a still photographer for publicity photos as the quality of a single motion picture image may not be of good enough quality for the purpose.
While the difficulty of buffering may be solved by improved technology would such a camera have two modes, one for video and one for still? If it were a single mode, i.e. each frame good enough for a still reproduction would it also alter the quality of video and the way we perceive it?
I'm told the Toronto Globe and Mail has two positions open for videographers to shoot with the Nikon D90. The first thought is why a newspaper would want such positions until you consider the internet and the desire to put up news videos on their site in addition to stills.
One of the drawbacks Red might face is the investment many photographers have made in glass. The quality of their camera will have to far surpass that of other manufacturers for people to abandon their systems unless they provide models with mounts to existing lenses.
Last year two Canadian researchers announced they had developed a lens that had superior optics to existing lenses with the elements being much thinner and lighter. It is hard to tell where the technology is going and what sort of results it will deliver, but it is interesting speculation!
Posted by Don Miller on September 20, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Posted by Don Miller on September 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Don - Why do you think it would be so easy for Canon to take video at 21 MP?
Its very roughly 4x what the 5DII does now at 1080p. I can't imagine that costing more than a couple hunderd dollars. If the 5DII sold in the same volume as Red it would be a $50,000 camera, That's Red's problem. Canon. Sony, and Panasonic will be doing what Red does when the volume exists.
Posted by David Bostedo on September 21, 2008 at 12:59 AM
I agree with the last sentiment Don, about the volume....
But if it were easy to take 21 MP video, they'd likely have 30 fps still picture taking as well (or something close). And the 5DII is only 3.9 fps (I think). Even the kings of speed right now (D3 and 1DMkIII) are only ~10 fps. Maybe our definitions of "easy" are different.
This goes back to what Dave Prichard mentioned, about a high enough res camera not even needing a still mode. This is somewhat true of the Red cameras, in that each frame is essentially a 12 MP file. Too some extent, you could get high quality stills from each frame, although I don't know what the drawbacks are to doing that. (Could be DOF, detail resolution, DR, etc....I really don't know. There might be none.)
Posted by Don Miller on September 21, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Video doesn't record a full image for each frame. It also doesn't use a mechanical shutter. I believe video on the 5DII is compressed with a dedicated chip. Not much of the 5D II cost goes towards the video portion. So I'm guessing that uping video size is not too big of a deal.
What kind of video will be in the 1D4 if 1090P is in a mid line camera?
Posted by David Bostedo on September 21, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Actually, progressive scan video does record a full image for each frame I think. It's the interlaced versions that only need half for each frame. I think that one of the reasons (other than potential costs) that you won't see video above 1080p be very common is the medium that it's shown on. Most people aren't recording for anything but their TV sets (and possibly computer monitors) which makes 1080p the most practical high end resolution.
And if video at 1080p needs its own chip for compression, what would video at something like 4000p need?
Discussion
11 replieshttp://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710
He mentions several times that this is going to "kill" DSLRs. Going by what Red has offered so far in the video segment, I am thinking really high DR, interchangeable sensors, ability to accept various mounts, etc. I am quite intrigued myself.
Vandit
It looks like the 5DII shoots high quality 1080p. How much would it cost Canon to use the full 21mp image off the sensor? Probably less than $100 dollars. I really like where this technology is going. But the first to the market is seldom the winner.
Don - Why do you think it would be so easy for Canon to take video at 21 MP?
I don't know about this for sure, but here's some speculation. It's likely to be incredibly hard an expensive, since it involves so much data, and would affect ALL of the circuitry of the camera, including image processors, and connections, and bandwidth to the storage medium. There's a reason that the RED ONE, which takes 12 MP, 30fps video, costs so much and has so much of it dedicated to storage of massive files and the speed to actually store them. 21 MP video would of course create ever larger storage problems.
If Red were to launch, say, a modular system with interchangeable mounts capable of accepting up to MF lenses (doable if that is built into the design elements from the start), interchangeable backs, ability to shoot xxMP video at 30+fps... that would be a pretty decisive kick in the privates for Canon & Nikon.
You are right - there are engineering challenges especially with storage, battery life and physical size. But the possibility is out there.
This Red teaser did get me thinking a little, however.
I do think we are in for a paradigm shift (ugh, I HATE that phrase) when it comes to still cameras. With 21MP already starting to stretch the limits of the lens capabilities, manufacturers are going to be faced with a dilemna - how do they keep launching improved products and maintaining their price/profit margins? Sure, you can do some stuff with DR and ISO capabilities, but let's face it - that is a pretty small segment right there. The bulk of your D-Rebel purchasers are not going to buy into that the way they did with megapixels.
So the market is ripe for some big change. The question is - what is it? I don't think it is video. Sure, that is a very useful feature and will probably sell a lot of bodies to hobbyists as well PJs/sports shooters, but whither photographers who believe in the still image as an art form?
Are we doomed to a fringe existence (like say LF users or B&W film users) as the world switches to video? Surely not. The market for still photography is far too large for that - video has been around and we are still shooting stills, so it isnt as if having video in the DSLR is going to make us give up stills.
A lot of people seem to think getting rid of the mirror box is the most-needed change, which to me seems yo be much ado about nothing (really.. is that optical finder such a bad thing???). I have heard some buzz about vector-based imaging that would allow adjusting of focus and DoF in post-processing - now that is something interesting. Canon has been working on some different lens technology, which could also be the next step forwards in photography.
I just hope that video isnt the direction taken by photography... although it seems to be the case.
Vandit
I personally think a sensor that can capture a larger dynamic range than you can see would be a very interesting breakthrough. Or something that can tune ISO or exposure at a pixel by pixel level.
And I've heard a lot of complaints about getting rid of the optical finder - although I would like that. I'm so used to having a little computer screen to look at with it's live histogram and other shooting info superimposed that looking at an optical finder with it's little red or yellow letters and numbers seems like looking through something very old fashioned. The view of the scene is great - but the rest of the setup seems lacking.
As I understand it there are two things working against a dual camera currently. The first being buffering, the second being image quality. Most motion picture productions have a still photographer for publicity photos as the quality of a single motion picture image may not be of good enough quality for the purpose.
While the difficulty of buffering may be solved by improved technology would such a camera have two modes, one for video and one for still? If it were a single mode, i.e. each frame good enough for a still reproduction would it also alter the quality of video and the way we perceive it?
I'm told the Toronto Globe and Mail has two positions open for videographers to shoot with the Nikon D90. The first thought is why a newspaper would want such positions until you consider the internet and the desire to put up news videos on their site in addition to stills.
One of the drawbacks Red might face is the investment many photographers have made in glass. The quality of their camera will have to far surpass that of other manufacturers for people to abandon their systems unless they provide models with mounts to existing lenses.
Last year two Canadian researchers announced they had developed a lens that had superior optics to existing lenses with the elements being much thinner and lighter. It is hard to tell where the technology is going and what sort of results it will deliver, but it is interesting speculation!
Its very roughly 4x what the 5DII does now at 1080p. I can't imagine that costing more than a couple hunderd dollars. If the 5DII sold in the same volume as Red it would be a $50,000 camera, That's Red's problem. Canon. Sony, and Panasonic will be doing what Red does when the volume exists.
But if it were easy to take 21 MP video, they'd likely have 30 fps still picture taking as well (or something close). And the 5DII is only 3.9 fps (I think). Even the kings of speed right now (D3 and 1DMkIII) are only ~10 fps. Maybe our definitions of "easy" are different.
This goes back to what Dave Prichard mentioned, about a high enough res camera not even needing a still mode. This is somewhat true of the Red cameras, in that each frame is essentially a 12 MP file. Too some extent, you could get high quality stills from each frame, although I don't know what the drawbacks are to doing that. (Could be DOF, detail resolution, DR, etc....I really don't know. There might be none.)
What kind of video will be in the 1D4 if 1090P is in a mid line camera?
And if video at 1080p needs its own chip for compression, what would video at something like 4000p need?