Jump to content


Photo

What did I always say about digital stills cameras?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 September 2007 - 07:03 PM

Ok fine so we don't know yet what this thing is like, we only have numbers, but it looks promising.

A friend of mine has seen test footage and it looks amazing apparently.

http://www.casio.co......gital Camera/

Video cameras suck.


I've heard they are also going to market it as a video camera, so it avoids the European trade charges for stills cameras. To bring the price down even further.

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith, 16 September 2007 - 07:04 PM.

  • 0

#2 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 September 2007 - 07:10 PM

Some vids:

http://world.casio.c.../features3.html


Apparently it shoots 60fps at the full 6 megapixels. But I've heard it's only 2-3 seconds bursts at that rate. Which sucks...

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith, 16 September 2007 - 07:15 PM.

  • 0

#3 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 September 2007 - 07:53 PM

It's not the ability of the camera itself that is limiting right now. It's the ability to save data fast enough, which is why you can only do bursts.
  • 0

#4 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 September 2007 - 07:59 PM

The clips on the web site are pretty long, and that's at 300fps. I just hope there's way you can knock it down to 25fps or whatever and shoot at HD quality. That should give a lot longer bursts.

Out of choice I probably wouldn't shoot at the full 6 megapixels anyway. And I have very little use for 300fps.



But either way you gotta admit, pretty impressive for a cheap stills camera!

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith, 16 September 2007 - 08:00 PM.

  • 0

#5 Douglas Sunlin

Douglas Sunlin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Student

Posted 17 September 2007 - 12:09 PM

Will they take a Canon Rebel EOS in trade? :)
  • 0

#6 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 17 September 2007 - 12:46 PM

Demo movie here:

http://world.casio.c...ov_concept.html
  • 0

#7 Chris Walters

Chris Walters
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 September 2007 - 01:14 PM

That is some camera! Is that available in the US yet? whats the price range. I might want to get my hands on that thing. The high speed stuff looked amazing!
  • 0

#8 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 18 September 2007 - 06:40 AM

It could be 1,000 megapixels and still not interest me because of the brassy skin tones, crushed dynamic range, terrible overexposure latitude and flat colors.
  • 0

#9 Chad Stockfleth

Chad Stockfleth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 622 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Louisville, KY

Posted 18 September 2007 - 02:34 PM

what if it was a million and the skin tones were bronzy?
  • 0

#10 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 24 September 2007 - 01:42 AM

what if it was a million and the skin tones were bronzy?


Cute. . . .

Any serious reflections, or just less-than-serious ones? I work with this stuff every day, and every day someone tells me that their 5-MP something can out-resolve my 6x7 cm Mamiya RB because it doesn't have grain (incidentally, an RB has approximately 11x the res of 35mm anamorphic or academy). Now someone is telling me that some $400 (L/180) digital camera shoots better movies than a $3/4 of a million Panavision with Vision2 50D. Forgive me for still being skeptical of people touting consumer cameras over tried and true professional cameras with over a century of development behind them, coupled with over 11 decades of film emulsion advancement.

Getting even more down to basics, you could give a Panavision 65mm with a spy satellite lens to a 10-YO and he'd still probably not be able to make a movie. Why is it that that same 10-YO, armed with this aforementioned technology is suddenly a consumate artist with the experience necssary to top a 40-YO cinematographer who has ate, slept and dreampt movies all of his professional life?

It is, after all, the eyes behind the lens that tell the story, not the technolgy between that lens and that set of eyes.
  • 0

#11 klas persson

klas persson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Director
  • Bollnäs. Sweden

Posted 24 September 2007 - 04:10 AM

Now someone is telling me that some $400 (L/180) digital camera shoots better movies than a $3/4 of a million Panavision with Vision2 50D.

Who said that?
  • 0

#12 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 September 2007 - 07:11 AM

It is, after all, the eyes behind the lens that tell the story, not the technolgy between that lens and that set of eyes.

I think it's not a case of one or another. It's a mixture of everything.

It's like how people go on about these new super HD cameras not giving any advantage, if you shoot crap all you will get is high resolution crap. But I don't think Star Wars would have been the same on 8mm or 16mm...


But come on, < $500 of stills digital camera that can pull that off... it's insane.
  • 0

#13 Simon Miya

Simon Miya
  • Sustaining Members
  • 82 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, OR

Posted 24 September 2007 - 11:49 AM

Now someone is telling me that some $400 (L/180) digital camera shoots better movies than a $3/4 of a million Panavision with Vision2 50D.



Who said that?


Nobody said that.

And nobody is going to say that any Panaflex is capable of shooting 300 fps, because they aren't. The high-speed capabilities of the Casio is the whole point of this thread, after all. I think someone missed the point.
  • 0

#14 darrin p nim

darrin p nim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca from Portland, Or

Posted 24 September 2007 - 02:36 PM

It could be 1,000 megapixels and still not interest me because of the brassy skin tones, crushed dynamic range, terrible overexposure latitude and flat colors.


i hope your not judging it from that flash video. although i do know what your saying, alot of these highspeed HD cameras use the same technology, including the cmos sensor, ive shot on a Redlake Highspeed HD camera and it has the same "pre-shot" or in my case pre-trigger option aswell as the image quality. Because of the sensor has to perform at highspeeds the dynamic range is crushed in order to operate at such fast frame rates. Sometimes the resolution just cant make up for the loss of image quality. Its interesting that the technology has made it into a standalone DSLR body.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Opal

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post