File :-(, x, )
what could it be!!! Anonymous
speculation? predictions? excitement?

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21835
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2000Image Height1300Number of Bits Per Component8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:12 21:28:30Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width800Image Height712
>> Anonymous
plastic. lots and lots of plastic.
>> Anonymous
That thing's packing more shiny black plastic than a fetish club.

Reminds me of a shitty Toys-R-Us special ...anything that you'd get for your 10th birthday.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>293093
but will it blend?
>> Anonymous
>>293093
I wonder if that thread can be classified as "Cam Whoring"
>> Anonymous
Are you a moron? You've been posting about this for weeks. Just wait and see. I doubt you'll be able to afford it anyway, so it doesn't matter.
>> Anonymous
Viral marketing is viral
>> Anonymous
looks like a evf viewfinder :s
>> Anonymous
>>293113
> looks like a evf viewfinder :s
Electronic viewfinder viewfinder?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293114
It's not polite to make fun of people who suffer from RAS syndrome.
>> Anonymous !nzFagDPRLs
a 6x17cm sensor, holy jebus thats a huge bitch.
>> Anonymous
Excitement about gear I'll never own is stupid.

You can remove three words from the above sentence and it'll still make precisely as much sense.
>> Anonymous
>>293120
lets keep our cynical poorfag opinions to our fucking selves oy
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'm impressed by the thinking behind this- all the modularity, configurability, etc. is really the direction digital should be going, because it can and it's perfect- but the execution is really wanting. The styling is exactly what you'd expect from the now-billionare who started Oakley sunglasses and flies a camouflage business jet with a big-ass RED logo painted on the tail. Following from that, lots of these configurations (especially the still ones) look chunky as hell to shoot with.

No RED-mount primes for 36x24 (except a 300/2.8), though it'll take F and EF ones, 24 megapixels. For $12,000, with no grip, viewfinder, lenses, just the sensor, processor, etc. Who the hell would want that over a 1Ds, D3, a900, or Mamiya 645 set-up?

I'm a big fan of EVFs, I'm buying the G1 as soon as some adapters hit for delicious manual primes on it, but the one in the OP looks like a fucking joke. The whole system does. You get a guy who's photographic experience is shooting races and his dogs, give him billions of dollars, and the desire and hubris to make his own camera company, and you turn out a conceptually sound system with the most ridiculous, not-for-shooting-with implementation possible. Could you really imagine any serious photographer except Jim Jannard shooting with one of these?

http://jannard.com/race.html
http://jannard.com/life.html

Or any good photographer?

From what pskaught said in a post a few weeks ago- I'm not a cinematographer, I wouldn't know- the cine ergonomics are shittastic, too.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2000Image Height1300Number of Bits Per Component8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:13 01:22:48Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width900Image Height875
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>293126
Yeah, Raymond Depardon is going to be all over the dunes with this.

The sad thing is, in principle something like this would be perfect for people like him who are both still photographers and filmmakers. I mean, really, Jannard gets what digital technology can do perfectly, but he shows not a damned gram of understanding of what taking photographs is like.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2000Image Height1300Number of Bits Per Component8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:13 00:36:20Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width900Image Height856
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
jesus fucking christ what is this shit.
>> sage else !L6xabslN96
>>293126
looks like something out evangelion. what do they use it for?
>> Anonymous
As Pskaught pointed out already, their systems are far from ideal. The cult like following they seem to have from people who don't even own their gear is downright creepy. The OP is a blithering idiot for posting this garbage. A rare level of stupidity.

Gear faggotry at its worst. Cancer.
>> Anonymous
what the fuck is this shit?

>speculation? predictions? excitement?

no. no. no.

go fuck yourself
>> Anonymous
>>293131
Supposedly the thing that will kill the market for DSLRs and high-end video cameras. In one.

In other words, shit.

>>293134
This looks like a configuration designed to shoot stills. The details are on the third page of the OP link.

That's right, your new convergence overlord uses stickied and locked threads on his Internet message board to make product announcements.

The thing in the middle is the "brain," i.e. the digital back. $2,500 for an entry-level one with a sensor half the size of Four-Thirds. $7,000 for one a couple of millimeters larger than the M8, 1D not-S, etc. $12,000 for 36x24. Non-entry-level versions are available for even more, as are a 645 and 617 back. Both the half-the-size-of-four-thirds and M8-size backs are only 12-bit A/D conversion.

The shit stuck on the side is the grip, also costing extra.

The big thing on top is the "BombEVF;" there seems to be no native provision for an optical finder of any sort in the system, though I'm sure you could buy a Voigtlander or even a Leica one and stick it on top for even less than this BombEVF costs if you wanted to.

Oh, but do read the ad copy. It's obvious he wrote it himself. There's so many goddamn ellipses.
>> Anonymous
>>293139
So, yeah, this reads like a ridiculously bad joke.

$12,000 + grip + finder for a still/video camera with the same size sensor as the 5D Mark II, which retails at $3,499.95 with a lens.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293141
>$12,000 + grip + finder for a still/video camera with the same size sensor as the 5D Mark II, which retails at $3,499.95 with a lens.
Yeah, I think the crushing weight of Moore's Law is going to steamroll over Red. Right now the 5DII probably isn't as good as a Red for video recording (in b4 "Hey, remember when you said the D90 was a credible competitor to the Red One?") since it's not really set up for video other than having the basic capability for it. E.g., it doesn't give you proper control over exposure, it can't record in RAW mode or as high resolution as the RED, and it doesn't really have the ergonomics of a movie camera. But the market forces pounding Canon--especially having to claw tooth and nail against Nikon's similar video offerings--are likely to improve the video mode significantly over the next couple of years.

I'm wondering how long it'll take Canon to ditch the 2/3" sensors in their high end video cameras and replace it with an APS-C. Right now their top-of-the-line DV cams can take an EF (but not EF-S, far as I know) lens with an adapter and a huge crop factor. If they replaced that with an APS-C sensor and a standard EF-S mount, it would be pretty epic.
>> Anonymous
>>293145
I might also add that most of this new RED stuff exists only as prototypes or on paper, as evidenced by its late release dates and some components being dependent on technology that doesn't even exist yet (e.g. the too-awesome-to-be-true 6x17 cm, 260 megapixel sensor), so Canon/Nikon/Sony have time to catch up with their video offerings.
>> Anonymous
as a still camera system it will probably be total fail, but looking at it as a cinema system...
6x4.5 at 50 fps... that's better than fucking IMAX
>> Anonymous
>>293183

Except that says nothing of how the camera system is to use. Their current cameras aren't so good in that respect.
>> Anonymous
>>293183
The big question is, where do they intend to get these sensors? So far the biggest commercially available CMOS sensors measure 36x24 mm and are quite expensive due to low yields, but now RED suddenly pops up and announces a 60x45 sensor and an even more outrageous 60x170 one.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293188
>The big question is, where do they intend to get these sensors?
They plan to make them.

There was not an APS-C sensor that could spit out RAW images at motion picture framerates at the time the Red One was first released, either.

Who says Sony, Canon, and Kodak are the only companies allowed to make sensors?
>> Anonymous
>>293196

Uhhh. It's not a case of whether they are "allowed to", it's a case that there are only so many fabrication plants for these things and they cost vast sums and don't just appear out of thin air on command when some small company has a wacky idea.
>> Anonymous
>>293196
Well, it was of sensible size and resolution, it just could work at 30 fps instead of 10 fps in pro DSLRs. Now we're dealing with stuff that's like 10 times the resolution, size and speed of current state-of-the-art sensors. (Size is my main concern about the 6x17 sensor, as it increases the cost and decreases yields exponentially)
>> Anonymous
>>293204
And the guy behind this is an eccentric sunglasses billionaire who cultivates shitty cameras instead of trophy wives/mistresses or spaceship companies.

>>293205
Somebody's already made a panoramic medium format digital camera. Seitz, I think.

Frame rate was much slower, obviously, but that's where the (IIRC) $20,000 price difference that camera's complete body and just the back for this. Put enough output circuits in and I figure you could move the data fast enough just by sheer brute scale.
>> Anonymous
>>293211
the seitz one is a scan back, this is an actual 6x17 sensor
>> Anonymous
>>293213
Technically it is, but it scans fast enough that the results are more like a single-exposure back.

Also see:

>Put enough output circuits in and I figure you could move the data fast enough just by sheer brute scale.

Either way, the camera's fail, and 135-sized sensors are good enough you could just make a longer one of those and have all the quality anyone would ever need. Better than film 617.
>> Anonymous
>>293216
>it scans fast enough that the results are more like a single-exposure back.

That's what Seitz wants you to believe. However,

>This scan back 6x17 camera is extremely fast. The image results are comparable to a one-shot digital or film back. <...> The fastest exposure speed is 1/2'000 per pixel - or one second for the entire 6x17 scan at full resolution!

HAHAHA OH WOW.
>> Anonymous
The backside in the first pic makes it look like an alternator.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293205
>Now we're dealing with stuff that's like 10 times the resolution, size and speed of current state-of-the-art sensors.
Not really. Okay, yeah the 617 is bigger than anything out there, but you can go down to your corner Phase One or Hasselblad dealer and pick up a 6x4.5 back.

The state of the art moves forward every day. And a little bit more quickly every day, too. Note that the estimated ship dates of their 645 and 617 are spring of 2010. That gives them over a year for them to figure out how to actually pull it off in such a way that it makes money.
>> Anonymous
VIDEO IS THE DEATH OF PHOTOGRAPHY! WE MUST FIGHT AND RESIST THIS!!!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293235
Sadly, I think this is true. It'll be just like when photography completely ended the practice of painting (Wikipedia it if you've never heard of it. It's how people used to make still images before Daguerre) and how painting signaled the death of sketching.

It's very sad.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
I'm disappointed, prices are much higher than I expected. Also it does seem a little strange the only viewfinder possible is an EVF.

Would these autofocus with Canon and Nikon lenses? The adapting mounts certainly don't look that way
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
As amusing as this all is, I do remember sony threatening to put the alpha mount on their high end video cameras. If they do it, canon will do it and if canon do it they will do it. Both canon and sony provide a complete video system from entry to broadcast, what does RED think it can acheive by pissing them off?
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>293255
sounds like some sort of complicated Nash equilibrium game.
>> Anonymous
>>261 megapixels
wat.

seriously, wat.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>293257
Yeah but with two companies making up 99% of the market already.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>293242
oh man, prepare for endless bokeh hype and HDR on youtube.
>> Anonymous
That shit is horrendous.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>an eccentric sunglasses billionaire who cultivates shitty cameras instead of trophy wives/mistresses or spaceship companies.

Behold, Dr. Frankenshit.

(Photo by Amy Crilly)

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width630Image Height474
>> Anonymous
>>293231Phase One or Hasselblad dealer and pick up a 6x4.5 back.

uhhh, those aren't using 56x42mm sensors
>> Anonymous
So is this shit really just vaporware? All I'm seeing are cg renders and the numbers on those sensors are pretty out there...
>> Anonymous
>>293299
"'Everything in life changes... including our camera specs and delivery dates...'" - Jim Jannard's signature on his forums.

I swear, this has to be some sort of troll.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293289
Eh. 53.9mm x 40.4mm. The extra ~2 square millimeters doesn't really affect my argument all that much.

(And I just noticed that the Hasselblad isn't actually full frame at all. But still. P65+ is pretty close)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293299
>So is this shit really just vaporware? All I'm seeing are cg renders and the numbers on those sensors are pretty out there...
Right now, yes. But I assumed that the Red One was snakeoil when it was first announced, too, and people are actually shooting movies with 'em now.
>> Anonymous
>>293300
Well, given how Epic and Scarlet were almost completely different at the beginning of the year from the current offerings, I'd say he is either half-troll or he needs investors to get all of this shit done.
>> Anonymous
>>293308

ownt
>> Anonymous
>>293309
1) Make billions of dollars selling sunglasses.
2) Build shitty digital cine cameras and market them like cars or teen clothing, complete with celebrity endorsements, e.g. Steven Soderbergh, Peter Jackson. Price like crack compared to powder.
3) Announce a higher-end product and a lower-end product.
4) Before actual production launch, etc, of the aforementioned new products, announce they are quote, "undergoing change," en quote.
5) This.
6) ???
7) Either a, LOSS!!!! of some fraction of a fortune from no one buying these overpriced sci fi props masquerading as cameras, or b, "you have been trolled... you have lost... have a nice day... and some more ellipses for the hell of it..."
>> Anonymous
>>293255

i'm pretty sure sony does have teh a mount on atleast one of it's cams?
>> Anonymous
>>293351


just the dslr not the pro video.
>> Anonymous
oh! my nikon 40D is better!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>293433
Honestly? I strongly dislike SLRs and I'd rather shoot with either a Nikon D40 or a Canon 40D than a RED DSMC, no matter how awesome the view in the BombEVF is.

Good God, I can't imagine walking around with one of those things. It looks like somebody raided the prop closet of some sci-fi series and glued shit onto the body of one of those early DSLRs that similarly had a huge bucket of electronics hanging beneath them. Pic related.

Why they're so hung up on really fast framerates and the electronics needed to support them I don't know. 24 FPS seems to have worked fine for cinematographers for decades.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>293436
Watch some full 60fps HD.
>> Anonymous
>>293436

3/4/5/6/9/28K motherfucker
>> Anonymous
>>293437
Where would I find this?

I'm just saying I've never noticed any oddness in motion whatever when I've been watched any film past 1920 or so, and I've heard that HD cameras routinely feature a mode to dial the FPS back down to 24 FPS because that's what people are used to.
>> Anonymous
http://rcjohnso.com/REDFACTS.html
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>293437
shitsux. HD is way too saturated. might be cool for animated films but live action just doesnt look real anymore, like when you're baked and everything is uber vivid.

also anything above 24fps just doesn't feel cinematic anymore...

inb4 pretentious.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>293440
nfi, do your own work.

>>293444
saturation is MORE on hd than film? wtf are you smoking and can i have some? I notice framrates with 24fps occasionally, pisses me off.
>> Anonymous
>>293447
What, are HD videos tagged with their framerate or something?

>>293443
Websites like this, reminding the world why there's professional designers since 1993.
>> Bad Credit Personal Loans FarmIrrennyfv
07949. [url=http://www.bebo.com/HighRiskPersoO][b]personal loan credit[/b][/url] 11691. [url=http://www.linkedin.com/in/verycheapairlinetickets][b]airline tickets online[/b][/url] 13289. [url=http://downloadfreeringtonesnow.hi5.com/][b]download free polyphonic ringtone[/b][/url] 16161. [url=http://www.mylot.com/CHEAPEST_CIALIS][b]Cheapest Cialis[/b][/url] 17616. [url=http://www.linkedin.com/in/badcreditstudentloans][b]bad credit student loan[/b][/url] 17755. [url=http://www.linkedin.com/in/badcreditcreditcards][b]bad credit credit card[/b][/url] 17811. [url=http://www.linkedin.com/in/badcreditpersonalloans][b]personal loan for people with bad credit[/b][/url] 17992. [url=http://www.linkedin.com/in/freeonlinecasino][b]best online casino[/b][/url]
>> Anonymous
>>293458
a page with nothing but content doesn't need design
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293443
> http://rcjohnso.com/REDFACTS.html
Aww. When I saw that filename, I was really hoping it would be something like this:
* The EPIC 617 is so high resolution that it actually has a higher pixel count than reality
* Orson Welles came back as a zombie just so he could try shooting with a RED ONE. Unfortunately, as soon as he looked at it, he immediately had a heart attack from the excitement and died again
* RED cameras never ship late. They ship exactly on time, it just takes reality a while to catch up.
* The number one reason for RED returns: Cinematographers liked them so much that they couldn't help but try to make love to the lens mount. Afterwards, the camera still worked flawlessly, but the filmmaker always feels so inadequate in the face of how skillful a lover the RED is.
>> Anonymous
>>293466
Are you looking at that webpage? The overall effect is just harsh. I'm not saying anything complicated, I hate shit like that, too, but just something that doesn't literally make my eyes hurt when I try to read it.
>> Anonymous
>>293469
>make love to the lens mount

The idea of this really is a motif for you, isn't it?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293473
Don't judge me.
>> Anonymous
>>293473
>>293496
>> Anonymous
>>293471
reminds me of the ken rockwell page design

which i happen to like

moar info, less bullshit
>> Anonymous
>>293469
I'll admit, I did too.

the read was enlightening, however.
>> Anonymous
i read the whole thing and while i'm not exactly a red fanboy, this sounded a lot like a butthurt filmfag/digital hd fag
>> Anonymous
>>293502
or in the case of ken rockwell: more bullshit, less ads.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>Sony has been able to build image processing software and native hardware that can fit inside the camera and do full-quality lossless processing in real time. Red didn't build it on-board and they can't do it in real time. That's not an advantage for Red. Red's image processing software has to work much harder than Sony's because the camera only gathers one piece of data per pixel instead of three, and the processing software has to work hard to turn that subsampled data into an intelligible color image.

I did start laughing here.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
What its up against for you lot
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
Would be a hard choice between the two.

Also does anyone make viewfinders for lefties?
>> Anonymous
it suuure is popular to use a digital camera to film movies

Feature films shot with Panavision Genesis include:[1]
The Spirit (2008)
"Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008)
21 (2008)
Apocalypto (2006)
Asterix in the Olympic Games (2008)
Balls of Fury (2007)
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)
The Comebacks (2007)
The Condemned (2007)
Click (2006)
Deja Vu (2006)
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) (limited portions)
The Ferryman (2007)
Flyboys (2006)
Grindhouse (2007) (Planet Terror only)
His Majesty Minor (2007)
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (2007)
The Lookout (2007)
La Maison Du Bonheur (2006)
Next (2007)
The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)
Reign Over Me (2007)
Slipstream (2007)
Scary Movie IV (2006)
Superbad (2007)
Superman Returns (2006)
A Tiger's Tale
>> Anonymous
>>293512
gearfag measurebator sense of humor
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>293520
You know how much they cost right?

>>293540
I'm 1/2 laughing at sony being slaughteringly good with respect to /p/ and 1/2 laughing at why the fuck this team hasnt stuck their nose into the Alpha team to sort out their sensor issues.
>> Anonymous
>>293544You know how much they cost right?

your point? you know how much it costs to shoot in film, right?

fact is, it's just not popular to shoot entirely in digital.

>>2935441/2 laughing at why the fuck this team hasnt stuck their nose into the Alpha team to sort out their sensor issues.

100% laughing at you thinking it's a "sensor issue", Sony knows how to make sensors. they make every fucking kind of sensor for every one. case in point, the D300 sensor works great. what they don't know, and have proved it on a consistent basis, is how to use those fucking sensors
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293544
>You know how much they cost right?
It's more because directors are used to film and don't trust digital as much. The cost of a RED One is less than the cost of film stock used on a full-length movie, even without taking into account the (also large) cost of film camera rental.
>> Anonymous
inb4 butterfly I'M JUST TROLLLING LOL
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>293547
If it isnt a price issue then its performance, if people arnt happy with the (evidently) outperforming sony/panasonic systems then how does RED intend to win this market?

If the cine team can get amazing results out of sony sensors why is the slr team unable too? I know sony makes everyone's sensors and they do a great job so WHY their slr division cant do it is amusing and frustrating.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>293551
what makes you think this entire _thread_ is nothing but that? We're bitching about equipment that none of us even know how to operate nevermind afford owning.
>> Anonymous
>>293552then how does RED intend to win this market?

made stupid claim, proved the fuck wrong, twisted it back into a question that aligns with the general opinion of the group. awesome failure strategy
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>293555
That sounds strangly famil- FUCK
>> Anonymous
>>293552I know sony makes everyone's sensors and they do a great job so WHY their slr division cant do it is amusing and frustrating.

Because they have absolutely zero experience doing so?

Because they just bought out another company and sell their products as their own?

Because they have no interest in putting time and money on it?

Because they make more money supplying parts to companies than selling digital SLRs?

Because Sony sucks?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>293557
>Because they have absolutely zero experience doing so?
Yes, as i've said many times, why are you answering rhetorical questions?
>Because they just bought out another company and sell their products as their own?
Who were using their sensors already.
>Because they have no interest in putting time and money on it?
Thats naive.
>Because they make more money supplying parts to companies than selling digital SLRs?
Probably true, but why did they bother buying minolta then?
>Because Sony sucks?
[whatever you like/buy/masturbate too] sucks!
>> Anonymous
>>293558Yes, as i've said many times, why are you answering rhetorical questions?

Because you either like being a dumbass all the time or enjoy pretending you're trolling asking stupid question?

>> Who were using their sensors already.

And what? They make the sensors, they have no interaction whatsoever in anything beyond delivering those sensors to Minolta. Just because you know how to make the thing doesn't mean you know how to use it.

>> Thats naive.

They make far more money selling Cyber-shots than selling digital SLRs. Why would they invest so much money into the digital SLRs when they can make so much already with something else?

>> Probably true, but why did they bother buying minolta then?

for the lulz?

I don't know. Further milk the Zeiss partnership, consolidate still camera and video camera one day, rootkit.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>enjoy pretending you're trolling asking stupid question?
pretty much, i have an odd sense of humour.

>And what? They make the sensors, they have no interaction whatsoever in anything beyond delivering those sensors to Minolta. Just because you know how to make the thing doesn't mean you know how to use it.
Right so that experience dissapeared when they bought them? (For the lulz)

>They make far more money selling Cyber-shots than selling digital SLRs. Why would they invest so much money into the digital SLRs when they can make so much already with something else?
I DONT FUCKING KNOW, THATS THE DILEMA! Sure having a Total Product Lineup(tm) makes sense but this isnt exactly economic boomtimes and sony doesnt go buying shit for fun if they dont expect to make any money out of it.

I know this is now going horribly off topic but still:

Sony own the entire workflow for cinema, the studios that make the films, the equipment they shoot it on and the software they process it with, no one else has that level of bredth.

Besides, isnt sony an electronics company, how on earth are they failing at the electronics of cameras so hard!
>> Anonymous
>>293572Right so that experience dissapeared when they bought them? (For the lulz)

They sold their technology to Sony. Who knows if it's the same engineers.

It's up to you to choose to believe in Minolta people on Sony payroll being incompetent or Sony not knowing what the hell they're doing.

>> rest of post

I'll be honest, I don't care enough to think any more about this. Once they break 20% market share world wide and actually threaten Nikon and Canon, I'll start caring. They are pretty much insignificant at this point other than for the 2 leaders to keep themselves in check.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Goddamn this is bad ass. Fuck the haters who say it's like Fisher Price or a bad science fiction movie.

This looks fucking hot.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:13 01:20:44Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width800Image Height443
>> Anonymous
>>293596
that config looks awesome, if they make the grip comfy enough and if it competes at a sane price point then god damnit I'd rock that.
>> Anonymous
>>293599

It looks like a good video configuration, like for news videographers.

For stills or cinematography, definite no. The latter will be mounted on something unless it's some handheld stuff, in which case that wouldn't be suitable either. For the former... no. Just no.

One good thing that could come out of this: stable videography platforms that don't look like rocket launchers at first glance. People have gotten shot in warzones from shoulder video cameras catching a soldier's eye and reflexes the wrong way.
>> they see me trollin' pskaught !!CrjzPzel1dX
     File :-(, x)
>>293126
and here comes red fucking up still photography too.
this is an ugly fucking camera, I'm guessing thats an evf, which means no optical viewfinder. The only possible plus to this thing is the possibility of using PL mount lenses with it. But fuck that, any decent PL mount lenses are too expensive to buy. Owning this camera will probably cost you the same if not more than picking up a phase one package. RED is notorious with their proprietary shit, you probably can't use any CF card or some retarded shit like that. save your cash. I've attached something i received in my e-mail which I thought was hilarious, I do not want to work on a still camera like this for video work.

piece of shit looks like its made of legos. harrumph!

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:10 15:50:18Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height800
>> Anonymous
>>293436
>Why they're so hung up on really fast framerates and the electronics needed to support them I don't know. 24 FPS seems to have worked fine for cinematographers for decades.
fuck you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGX2hn9RQqw

I know, it's a stupid, attention whore being stupid on camera. But just imagine how awesome could those 120fps be used in music videos, or action scenes (in during the matrix)
24fps is the bare minimum, and in this day of age, should only be sufficient for youtube.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>294005
youtube is 29.97fps.

anyways the matrix trilogy spawned and killed the uber slow motion trend simultaneously.
inb4 weaboos whine about anime being the first to have it.
>> Anonymous
>>294010
Woo was, is and will be using slow-motion (bullet time) regardless if The Matrix ever existed or not.

I just gave the trilogy as an example of how slow-downs can be used well in action scenes.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>294013
Posting in John Woo thread.
Woot.
>> Anonymous
>>294047

jeremo, reply needed here>>293909
>> Anonymous
HOLY SHIT A 617 SENSOR.

SERIOUS WHAT THE FUCK?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
DO WANT, eh?

I think it'd be fun, but .. ugh, think of the monstrosity of a lens it'd need. An imaging circle >16cm across....now try carrying 3-4 lenses for this baby...
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>294575
>>293596

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:14 09:21:59Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width908Image Height1016
>> Anonymous
You guys must have no in built filter for advertising hype or marketing. You open wide and swallow all the shit coming from that gaping anus right in front of your face, pumping out a fresh pile of steamy poop as fast as you can eat.

I can only imagine you dialling up the phone with your credit card in hand during every infomercial or advert you witness.
>> Anonymous
Nice try, trying to sound all detached and "don't give a shit". I'm sure I reacted exactly like you described; I shit my pants in joy, and transfered some money from my savings to my checking, in anticipation. Faggot.

Why don't you try your forced cynicism on /r9k/ where it will be appreciated. When was the last time a MAJOR company announced sensor technology and didn't deliver?
>> Anonymous
>>294612
When was the last time RED was a major company?
>> Anonymous
>>294620
Since they can afford the hype, and micro-fab facilities of a major company.

If it quacks, etc. They certainly didn't get the money to pull of this stunt from venture capitalists.
>> Anonymous
Red a "MAJOR" company? Only in your dreams.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
sure is ugly and expensive for a 2/3" sensor. but a modular camera is an interesting concept.
>> Anonymous
>>294679
/thread
>> Anonymous
>>294679

Sure are a lot of people who have no idea how video cameras work posting in here and treating these as still cameras.

You realize the smallest sensor available in the Scarlet is still larger than the professional HD camcorders that retail from the same price to 3 times the price? You realize those same camcorders have nil upgradeability with their fixed lenses? You realize even the low end Scarlet captures at least 3 times the resolution?

The big selling point is _close to_ cine quality at digital HD prices, along with versatility of a "I'm going to customize it for each project" thing.

With that said, these things aren't going to revolutionize the market as the Red people want to think. It fits in an in between that's made up of a handful of people. People will either shoot conventional HD or shoot film.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>294846
>Sure are a lot of people who have no idea how video cameras work posting in here and treating these as still cameras.
Red is specifically marketing this as a Digital Still/Motion Camera. I.e., if Red wants us to think of it as an option as a still camera, I'd say we're justified in criticizing it as such.
>> Anonymous
>>294846
>You realize the smallest sensor available in the Scarlet is still larger than the professional HD camcorders
High-end pro camcorders also have 2/3" sensors, don't they? Plus I was under the impression that some of them, unlike RED, have 3CCD systems instead of Bayer-pattern sensors, so a "2K" one may actually have resolution comparable to "4K" Bayer sensor on RED.
>> Anonymous
>>294620
when they announced, made and released ONE.
>> Anonymous
>>294620
>>294677
Nice counter argument guys. Because NOBODY uses Red right? At least nobody within your tiny sphere of influence, because you can afford it, amirite?
>> Anonymous
>>294904
Because countering an argument automatically means you do not need to have any arguments to back up your statement? srsly, RED is not a major company, because it just isn't in the same league as it's competitors.
>> Anonymous
>>294906
And its competitors are? Film? This is a new market and this is an emerging technology.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
RED's competitors are Sony, Canon and Panasonic.

They're not a major player, even if you include Panavision.
>> Anonymous
>>294889Red is specifically marketing this as a Digital Still/Motion Camera. I.e., if Red wants us to think of it as an option as a still camera, I'd say we're justified in criticizing it as such.

Just like how I can say the D90 and 5D II have piss poor ergonomics and handling for video, don't have actual controls for settings, don't have serious audio input, don't have a useful viewfinder, don't have smooth transitional automatic zoom, don't have fast and usable autofocus?

They're both photo cameras that can take video. The new Red products are video cameras that can take photos.

You _can_ use them as their secondary function but no one in their right mind would want to given a proper tool for the job instead.

>>294892

The only ones I know for sure are the Panasonic P2 models, the cheapest one is like $5,000 with a fixed lens. There are no cameras like the Reds that offer flexibility of taking everything apart in this price range.

With that said, anyone who knows what they're doing instead of going LOL RED LOL would rather use a conventional HD camcorder instead because people don't really want to fuck around with Red and their proprietary shenanigans.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>294917

arrghh, what? please don't post in threads when you have no idea what you're talking about
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i wouldn't take ac so seriously

he's the guy who said the d90 is a competitor to the red, he's probably being butthurt right now about the new red
>> Anonymous
What finishes this junk for me is that it isn't even that cheap. Once you buy into the system then you quickly find that it's not worth the downgrade from the established big names.
>> Anonymous
>>294949
btw, the second poster is wrong, RED ONE shoots 4k at 30 FPS, while recording at full hd it can shoot up to 120fps.

just saying
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>294949
>he's the guy who said the d90 is a competitor to the red, he's probably being butthurt right now about the new red
Do you have the part of the thread screencapped where I owned up to being wrong? Or the subsequent realization that I was even more wrong than I thought when the jellyfulness of its video mode came to light?

There is a continuum between "Always right" and "always wrong". I'm somewhere in the middle. The fact that I occasionally say stupid things doesn't mean that I always (or even mostly) say stupid things.

(You, on the other hand, say nothing but stupid things)
>> Anonymous
>>294946

RED is not aiming at hobbyist, it's the pro video.
>> Anonymous
ITT: /p/ tries to talk video but fails
>> Anonymous
>>294944
>They're both photo cameras that can take video. The new Red products are video cameras that can take photos.

Except Jim Jannard/RED are calling this new system a, quote, "DSLR killer," en quote. Canikon aren't calling their offerings "camcorder killers." You're right it's ridiculous, but Jannard/RED/etc. don't get that. They're putting as official statements, design principles, and marketing the sort of bullshit that usually only comes from rank fanboys or the uninformed.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>295981
yeah all that on top of the fact that they don't have an official release date or even a fuckin product to show.

Apeshit hype over renders.
>> Anonymous
>>295982


and there prolly using sony's sensor. lol
>> Anonymous
>>295981Except Jim Jannard/RED are calling this new system a, quote, "DSLR killer," en quote. Canikon aren't calling their offerings "camcorder killers."

can you find the quote?

Engadget, idiots they are, said it was a 5D II killer. i've seen him say it would be an event to remember, never said anything about killing off anyone.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296153
Google Uber Alles.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710
>> Anonymous
>DSLR killer
>$2500 for the lowest spec "brain" without batteries/viewfinder/storage

Hahaha oh wow. So which DSLR are they going to kill?
>> Anonymous
>>296173
>>296157

uhhhh wow, lot of confusion around here

the epic and scarlet have been retooled to be part of the DSMC system, they're not the advertised "dslr killer" you are thinking about

>> While (insert code name) is not a replacement for Epic or Scarlet, it is strategically targeted at the DSLR space.

>> We believe, and are developing for late 2009, a replacement for DSLRs. Currently, we call it a DSMC (Digital Still & Motion Camera).

this is a completely different product
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296182
I don't know that I agree with your reading of that. He's saying the "DSMC" is the DSLR killer, then the recent announcement explained that the DSMC was a large system that comprised both the Epic and Scarlet as components. And strongly implying that everything Red produced from here on would be part of this overarching system. I.e., I really don't see them coming out with some magical DSLR killer completely separate from the Epic/Scarlet Legocam. The Epic/Scarlet Legocam is it.
>> Anonymous
how do you want to explain

>> While (insert code name) is not a replacement for Epic or Scarlet, it is strategically targeted at the DSLR space.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296203
Well, it's not a replacement. Like saying that EOS isn't a replacement for the 40D. If he hadn't said that, people would have been all "What? DSMC? What happened to Epic and Scarlet?" He was just being cagey by not pre-announcing that Epic and Scarlet are part of the overarching DSMC strategy.

In the post he calls the "DSLR killer" the DSMC. In the announcement from last week, he calls the whole Epic/Scarlet system the DSMC. I don't think it's a big stretch to go from the following statements he's made:
1. "We believe, and are developing for late 2009, a replacement for DSLRs. Currently, we call it a DSMC (Digital Still & Motion Camera)." (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710)
and
2. "Scarlet and EPIC are the DNA of RED's new DSMC system" (http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/)

to the conclusion that EPIC and Scarlet are the thing he said was going to be a DSLR killer.

The other possibility, of course, is that it's a case of
>"Everything in life changes... including our camera specs and delivery dates..."

But the posts at the end of that "DSLR-killer" thread also seem to imply that everyone else (including the RED staff, or at least forum admins) agree that the DSLR-killer he was hyping is the DSMC/Epic/Scarlet.
>> Anonymous
The Red fanboy is really pathetic.
>> Anonymous
>>296228Like saying that EOS isn't a replacement for the 40D

that doesn't make any sense

you are completely twisting what he posted out of whack

>> >> While (insert code name) is not a replacement for Epic or Scarlet, it is strategically targeted at the DSLR space.

there is clearly a different product that is not the epic or the scarlet that is aimed at dslrs

>> to the conclusion that EPIC and Scarlet are the thing he said was going to be a DSLR killer.

no... he clearly says there's something else coming up not replacing the epic or scarlet
>> Anonymous
>>296252
From the link in the OP:

>Scarlet® and RED EPIC® are part of the same DSMC system.

-----

>A DSMC is a camera that shoots stills and motion. Configure that camera any way you want.

>Select a brain. Configure your body.

-----

>Scarlet and EPIC have "Multiple Personalities".

[Pretty clearly referring to their configurations in the style of still cameras, cine-style motion cameras, or camcorder-style motion cameras.]

-----

>Scarlet and EPIC [the two "brains"] are the DNa of RED's new DSMC system... Configure your camera to handle like a DSLR [haha]... [sic] or a cinema camera... [sic] or anything you can imagine [except a real good camera body, like a Nikon Fx or Leica M].

Also check the section titled "Obsolescence obsolete," which makes it 100% clear Scarlet and EPIC are DSMC, but is too long for me to recopy from the image file to win an argument on 4chan.
>> Anonymous
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>296375
best post in thread
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296252
>>Like saying that EOS isn't a replacement for the 40D
>that doesn't make any sense
Yes it does. Just as individual Canon cameras are part of the EOS system, Scarlet is part of the overall RED DSMC system which Jannard thinks is a DSLR killer. So the DSMC doesn't "replace" EPIC and Scarlet, because it *is* EPIC and scarlet, but also more than that.

So the "DSLR killer" is not a separate product from EPIC/Scarlet. It's an aspect of EPIC/Scarlet. It's EPIC/Scarlet configured as a still camera.

If you still don't agree with me... Well, everyone else in the thread does. And:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=325401&postcount=18
>We have alot DSLR shooters at RED and yes, we see Scarlet replacing our DSLRs.
So do RED employees. So I guess you're just ineducable, which means I should stop trying. Enjoy your stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>296473

yeah, sure... that (insert code name here) that comes out later sure is the exact same thing as the epic and the scarlet

okay, i'm going to trust ac, grandmaster of /p/, about what the ceo of red said, okay that makes a lot of sense.
>> Anonymous
>>296473


Dude, you're arguing with people who think anything not made by Canon or Nikon is the shittiest product they've ever seen.
>> Anonymous
>>296485

But it's true.

Pentax has lenses but no full frame.

Olympus is Four-Thirds = fail.

Sony doesn't know what the hell they're doing for sensors.

Only Canon and Nikon can provide quality products over and over again. So yes, anything not made by Canon or Nikon is shitty.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296485
Actually I'm pretty sure I'm arguing with either a RED fanboy or a troll, not a Canon/Nikon fanboy. He's trying to posit that RED has some *other* big announcement that's going to raep the DSLR market rather than admitting that the Scarlet/EPIC announcement was it because the consensus here seems to be that it's not a very good still camera.

But I think the key to understanding how they think Scarlet/EPIC is going to be a DSLR killer is to shift your perspective by 90 degrees. They're *not* trying to say that the RED DSMC system is the best still camera system evar. What they're saying is that still cameras are *obsolete* in a world where you can take 30+fps video where each frame is as good as a DSLR RAW frame. It is sort of the next step in the natural progression from multi-minute daguerreotype exposures to multi-second plate exposures to fractional second film exposures to multiple FPS in motor-wound film cameras and digitals.

They're saying that in the future, we'll just take video and grab the decisive moment from the video stream if we want a still.
>> Anonymous
>>296494
... and therein, the end of photography.
>> Anonymous
photography isn't going away..

you guys don't realize how much more equipment is involved to get "professional" quality results on video. HD, and i'm not talking about that dinky ass camcorder you get at best buy HD, requires a lot of fucking light. you can't just roll up to a place with your camera and expect to get anything half decent

give any of the /p/ idiots any digital slr with your beloved 50/1.8 and he'll probably turn up something usable. give him a video camera and it's going to be a fucking mess.

hiding flaws in a half assed still photo is a lot easier to hide than a video
>> Anonymous
see example

vimeo and flickr, search: fashion event

http://www.vimeo.com/1840837
vs.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/justmax/2857410565/

don't kid yourself, a video shot with the D90 and 5D will look like that too. video takes so much more planning than snapping a photo
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296504
Yep. Just like the flood of amateurs who came along when the dry-plate process was invented signaled the end of photography. And let's not forget when photography ended back when Kodak started marketing little film cameras to people, or when people started using tiny little rinky-dink 35mm negatives and enlarging them instead of making real 4x5" or at least 6x9cm negatives, or when autofocus and autoexposure were invented. And, of course, Digital, which struck the final and clenching blow that absolutely and totally killed photography forever.

Yeah, this one will kill Photography for real. Really for real this time. Seriously.

>>296510
Don't think of it in terms of what people have been doing for video up until this point. Think of it like a DSLR that can take so many frames per second that it can add up to be video. Or you can choose just one of those frames and use it as a still. So if you're intending to make a still image, it's just like using a normal still camera except you'll have orders of magnitude more potential frames to choose from.
>> Anonymous
except dealing with exposure on a still camera and a video camera are 2 completely different things

put a midrange camera and a midrange HD camcorder in the same spot, start recording and shooting. while your photo may look okay, the video will look like shit

and no, the new Red cameras are not going to be magically better
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296529
...which completely doesn't matter if you're not going to be using the video, just using one still frame from the video.
>> Anonymous
>>296532

uh, someone's never seen a still photo taken with a video camera

1.3 MP CCD photos FTW, man, can't wait to see those
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296535
>uh, someone's never seen a still photo taken with a video camera
>1.3 MP CCD photos FTW, man, can't wait to see those
Could you post a self-portrait of yourself with like a '/p/ 2008-11-19' sign? I'm thinking of asking anyone who I suspect of trolling me to do that so I can figure out if it's just one idiot or if /p/ is full of idiots.

I'm not talking about a 1.3MP CCD still from a mini-DV cam here. Nobody here is talking about a 1.3MP CCD camera. Look at the fucking thread you're responding to. We're talking about the RED DSMC. Minimum 2/3" sensor with 4.9MP resolution. And it's recording full RAW frames, not doing some trickery where it only records half an interlaced frame at a time.
>> Anonymous
first of all, read my original post, i've never said anything about Red. why yes it's possible to talk about other things in a Red thread.

then, YOU'RE the one who said "use a still from the video", _i've_ never said that

my original point is that run of the mill still photo equipment will continue to provide better quality content than run of the mill video

then you were like, HO HUM just use one frame for your video, there you go instant art. but no, it does not work that way.

before we go in the technical things, these are not even real specifications so arguing about any of the new Red products is retarded

now, do you realize how they squeeze that kind of resolution of a 2/3" sensor, where everyone else relies on THREE 1/3" or 2/3" to do the same thing at 1/4 of the resolution. that comes at a fucking cost. shit doesn't magically appear out of nowhere

frame for frame, a conventional HD camera will have more information, read detail, than that extrapolated bullshit Red does.

and if these same cameras are better than the Red for video, and these same cameras have shit quality for single frames, then the Red is not going to fare better.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296549
>why yes it's possible to talk about other things in a Red thread.
Well, when we're all talking about things in the context of the Red in a Red thread, I don't think I was out of line in assuming that you were talking about the Red when you came in with this:
>except dealing with exposure on a still camera and a video camera are 2 completely different things
So congratulations. You're right, but you're also posting a complete non-sequitur. It would have been just as relevant to say "This is stupid. A 35mm still frame has way more resolution than 8mm movie frame."
>> Anonymous
>>296521
>Or you can choose just one of those frames and use it as a still.

Why the hell would anyone do that?
>> Anonymous
>>296562Well, when we're all talking about things in the context of the Red in a Red thread

did i say anything about Red in my original post? no

it was pretty damn clear i was replying to the guy saying oh noes photography si dead! as a random remark

>>296562I don't think I was out of line in assuming that you were talking about the Red when you came in with this:

hah. i didn't "come in" with this, nice twist there, man

YOU'RE the one who brought this up replying to ME

you replied with this bullshit to my original post:

>> Or you can choose just one of those frames and use it as a still. So if you're intending to make a still image, it's just like using a normal still camera except you'll have orders of magnitude more potential frames to choose from.

>> So congratulations.

thanks dawg, thanks

>> You're right, but you're also posting a complete non-sequitur. It would have been just as relevant to say "This is stupid. A 35mm still frame has way more resolution than 8mm movie frame."

no... it's not out of line at all because I'M not the one who said HO HUM TAKE A STILL OUT OF THE VIDEO.

my original post, again says, run of the mill still camera provides a better content than run of the mill video.

YOU ARE the one who said choose a frame of the video and use it as a still. to which i replied it's retarded to do so

thanks for playing
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296567
I'm serious about that request for a self-portrait. Or at least tell me, are you the samefag from>>296564and all of the other recent times I've been trolled?
>> Anonymous
dude, how am i trolling you?

do you realize you've completely, COMPLETELY deviated from my original ">>296510photography isn't going away" post and went on some ridiculous tirade about taking a still frame from video

and THEN finally admitting i was right because your point didn't make sense at all in the first place?

that's not me trolling you, that's just you posting some random stuff that didn't make sense
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296575
>dude, how am i trolling you?
Effectively!

Please stop. I have things I need to be doing.
>> Anonymous
>>296587

...

let's keep it simple without going looking for quotes, becaue we both know what we said

i come in the thread, made a random comment to someone else that someone with a run of the mill photo camera can deliver better content than someone with a run of the mill video camera.

you reply saying OH WELL WITH THE RED, you can just take a FRAME out of the video and have a WHOLE LOT MORE choices for frames because it's a video

now... do you see already how that makes very little sense to reply to my post by saying something like that?

i thought you didn't see it and then explained to you pretty clearly, that shit looks like shit when you take a frame out of a video even on the highest end camcorders. that's just how it is, it's not a big secret. it just doesn't compare

and then you have the nerve to say, yeah congratulations on being right EXCEPT IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE IN THIS THREAD

and still call me a troll in the end? come on, man. grow the fuck up and admit you're wrong and didn't put much thought in your first reply
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296590
>made a random comment to someone else
You didn't link to a post to specify who exactly you were replying to. The post immediately before yours was>>296504saying
>... and therein, the end of photography.
which was itself a reply to MY post saying that RED's idea was that its video cameras were DSLR killers because each frame of their video was as good as a still from a DSLR.

Now... do you see already how that makes perfect sense as a reply to your post?

Who the hell were you responding to if not>>296504?
>> Anonymous
>>296587
I lol'ed so, so hard.
>> Anonymous
>>296596You didn't link to a post to specify who exactly you were replying to

.. it was RIGHT after a post saying "and therein, the end of photography." and my FIRST line is "photography isn't going away.." WOW, I THINK I REPLIED TO SOMEONE ELSE BUT JUST HAPPENED TO POST RIGHT AFTER HIM

you're really grasping at straws here, man. saying i'm an idiot... saying i'm a troll... now finally taking me seriously and trying to twist the posts in your favor

okay, we'll play it your way and let you somehow link MY post to yours. but this now just brings us back to me explaining to you how a still frame captured from a video

WILL
NOT

be as good as a still photo.

now you're going to say of course, i agree, you're right anon. but your post was completely out of context!

oh man, that was so difficult for you huh? that i made a random comment to someone who said it was the end of photography. you just had to fuck it all up into this bullshit
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296599
>.. it was RIGHT after a post saying "and therein, the end of photography." and my FIRST line is "photography isn't going away.." WOW, I THINK I REPLIED TO SOMEONE ELSE BUT JUST HAPPENED TO POST RIGHT AFTER HIM
Okay, so:
1. I make a post about the red
2. Someone responds to my post about the red, in the context of the red
3. You respond with a complete non-sequitur about non-Red video cameras.

That's what I said in that last post of mine. Did you not read it all the way through? You brought up non-Red video cameras when nobody else was talking about them, and gave no indication that it was specifically non-Red video cameras you were talking about. How the hell am I supposed to know that you were talking about non-Red video cameras?

>okay, we'll play it your way and let you somehow link MY post to yours.
You replied to someone replying to me.

That's...not a hard series of steps. It's not like 6-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon.

>but this now just brings us back to me explaining to you how a still frame captured from a video WILL NOT be as good as a still photo.
...assuming you're talking about a small-sensor video camera that doesn't output full RAW data at tens of megapixels of resolution. Which you were, but nobody else in the thread was.
>> Anonymous
>>296610You brought up non-Red video cameras when nobody else was talking about them, and gave no indication that it was specifically non-Red video cameras you were talking about.

i don't know how you missed these. maybe it's because you're raging so much at being wrong

>> before we go in the technical things, these are not even real specifications so arguing about any of the new Red products is retarded

>> now, do you realize how they squeeze that kind of resolution of a 2/3" sensor, where everyone else relies on THREE 1/3" or 2/3" to do the same thing at 1/4 of the resolution. that comes at a fucking cost. shit doesn't magically appear out of nowhere

>> frame for frame, a conventional HD camera will have more information, read detail, than that extrapolated bullshit Red does.

>> ...assuming you're talking about a small-sensor video camera that doesn't output full RAW data at tens of megapixels of resolution.

first of all, the Red with 2/3" sensor has an effective resolution of 4.9 MP

second, i don't think you know what you're talking about here.. RAW for photo cameras has little nothing to do with the "RAW" Red likes to advertise. it's not some magical thing that just made your video better.

conventional camcorders will have some form of compression on the fly and then you bring it back in whatever format it is, HDV, AVCHD, DVCPRO P2 in your computer for it to read. what the Red "RAW" does is not compress it at all in whatever proprietary format it is they use and then you still have to compress it back for your editing program to read it.

it has nothing to do with image quality
>> Anonymous
oops kind of forgot another part

and now that you understand RAW and "RAW", we can now talk about how three 1/3" or 2/3" CCD/CMOS camcorders take fairly mediocre stills and a single frame out of a video will not look as good as a still photo. and i hope you're not going to argue with me on that

now, assuming SOMEHOW you put some mucho awesome L/Zeiss/Nikkor lens on your fancy Red, it's still not going to be any better, i'm sure it'll match the normal camcorders, but there's no way it will beat a still photo

and that is why photography isn't going away
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296614
>first of all, the Red with 2/3" sensor has an effective resolution of 4.9 MP
And the next smallest of the DSMC brains has a roughly APS-C-sized chip that spits out 13.8MP. Up from that has a 24x36mm full-frame 35mm chip that puts out 24MP. I was thinking more of those than of the 2/3" model.

If Red's advertising is to be believed--and, of course, these are all "Coming, Fall 2009! We hope!", so it is to be taken with a massive block of salt--the DSMC basically acts just like a still camera with an enormous frame rate. I.e., not the low-res, high-noise, lossy-encoded, interlaced video you get out of current camcorders, but rather a lot closer to the stills you get from a digital SLR.

>and that is why photography isn't going away
While I agree with this statement, my point is that your argument is bad. He was saying that it was dead because the NEXT generation of CAMERAS will allow for full 30fps spray-and-pray at full DSLR quality, and you're arguing against that because the CURRENT crop of CAMCORDERS don't have very good image quality. You're comparing the genetically enhanced nuclear superapples of tomorrow with the oranges of today.
>> Anonymous
WRYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyYYYY
YYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyYY
YYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYY
YYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYY
YYyyYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YyyyyyyyyyYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYY
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYY
YYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYY
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyYYY
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyY
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyY
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyy
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyy
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyy
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyYY
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyYY
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
.scirbtiS .

??? .
.devs uyel eht nepO3

j.nahc4 s tieaS 2
.gam it nep .1

F