Jump to content


Photo

Sneak Attack from Behind


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 12 December 2007 - 10:05 PM

Slowly but surely, Digital Still cameras will probably begin to invade the jobs that currently go to both film and HD. If that is true, does it make sense to invest in a purchase of an expensive HD camera if in another 2-3 years many commercial shoots might be being done via digital stills? (commercial as in 30 second commercials).

It seems to me that sticking with film and and then babystepping into Hd with a digital still camera for short duration projects might be an interesting option. Thoughts anyone?
  • 0

#2 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 07:52 PM

Slowly but surely, Digital Still cameras will probably begin to invade the jobs that currently go to both film and HD. If that is true, does it make sense to invest in a purchase of an expensive HD camera if in another 2-3 years many commercial shoots might be being done via digital stills? (commercial as in 30 second commercials).

It seems to me that sticking with film and and then babystepping into Hd with a digital still camera for short duration projects might be an interesting option. Thoughts anyone?



Uhhh, sorry, this is a ridiculous assumption, for obvious reasons: a digital still camera does stills, not motion.
Unless you're asking if the entire industry is suddenly going to lose it's collective mind and want to single-frame animate everything from now on.

MP
  • 0

#3 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 13 December 2007 - 09:23 PM

There is simply no way that your premise could happen. The still industry uses cameras that far exceed video cameras in still picture taking, let alone make ergonomic cameras designed for stills, and have entire processes designed for the way it is done now. Digital still cameras are very much a big part of that industry now and that will not change. Digital still cameras will just get better. While the result of digital stills still has not equaled the aesthetic quality of analog film to most pros, in such things as catalog shooting, and fashion, digital cameras are now the standard. We have a saying in the still world, it doesn't matter whose back you use on a camera, they all end up really looking the same. So while technology has made it all easier, we really lost an important aesthetic with digital still photography. But HD video cameras will never be used to take still cameras. In a way we already use the same principles in stills. We have a camera with a digital back that is hard wired to a computer that captures the stills on a drive. Same thing really, just a different genre so different tools.
  • 0

#4 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 13 December 2007 - 10:23 PM

Uhhh, sorry, this is a ridiculous assumption, for obvious reasons: a digital still camera does stills, not motion.
Unless you're asking if the entire industry is suddenly going to lose it's collective mind and want to single-frame animate everything from now on.

MP


Digital still cameras that do bursts of digital still frames have already been developed and already exist. In most cases the duration of the burst may not be long enough or fast enough for 24 frames per second, but the digital still cameras are getting faster and the total frame capacities are increasing, that spells a recipe for slow but steady market erosion, perhaps moreso for HD than film? That is what I cannot figure out. Who gets hurt first, The 50,000 dollar HD market, or the motion picture film market?
  • 0

#5 Jason Ing

Jason Ing
  • Guests

Posted 13 December 2007 - 11:31 PM

www.red.com
  • 0

#6 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 13 December 2007 - 11:51 PM

I think we all get the notion that film will eventually be replaced by digital. But, for now, storage is too slow, sensors have too little latitude and color rendition still stinks. We'll all jump off the digital bridge when the time comes. Until then, 35mm film is still an aesthetically superior medium.
  • 0

#7 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 14 December 2007 - 04:33 AM

www.red.com


Now imagine spending a fraction of what you spend on RED so you can specifically do 30 second commercials, especially the stop motion, single frame variety.
  • 0

#8 K Borowski

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

Posted 14 December 2007 - 09:53 AM

Now imagine spending a fraction of what you spend on RED so you can specifically do 30 second commercials, especially the stop motion, single frame variety.


Well, at almost $30K for a 39MP digital back, and $20K for a 20MP back, the price of a Red, with all it does over a digital back (which can only shoot maybe 2FPS tops) would be worth its increased price.

Just as 35mm still SLRs never took over movie cameras, with the exception of a few obviously specialized applications, digital stills are a completely different animal and certainly aren't going to take over the commercial market.

Even if, a long time down the road, the two media did comingle, what would it matter? They still need people to operate them.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I want nothing to do with any of this, in still photography or filmmaking. Resolution is not the most important part of the equation, color rendition and dynamic range are.
  • 0

#9 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 14 December 2007 - 03:37 PM

Digital still cameras that do bursts of digital still frames have already been developed and already exist. In most cases the duration of the burst may not be long enough or fast enough for 24 frames per second, but the digital still cameras are getting faster and the total frame capacities are increasing, that spells a recipe for slow but steady market erosion, perhaps moreso for HD than film? That is what I cannot figure out. Who gets hurt first, The 50,000 dollar HD market, or the motion picture film market?


As of right now it's a specialty tool with limited applications. There has been a long history of new imaging technology, and NONE of them have outright replaced all other imaging technologies for all markets. This is just one more tool in the box.

Look at it practically; there are dozens of HD cameras out there (multiples from the same manufacturer), each with their own unique qualities. Producers often have a hard time picking just ONE HD camera that fits all their needs, and that's just within the realm of traditional motion picture imaging. Do you think producers would dump all of that just because a digital still camera is capable of producing motion images?

Even if digital MP and still technologies continue to merge, there will continue to be purpose-built specialty tools. It's simply impractical to have one machine that does everything exceptionally well, when you can have multiple tools that perform specific tasks even better. In 35mm alone Arriflex has the 235, 435, 535, Arricam(s)...
  • 0

#10 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 14 December 2007 - 04:37 PM

There has been a long history of new imaging technology, and NONE of them have outright replaced all other imaging technologies for all markets.


Um.. Guess you never heard of the RED camera. :) Being unnessasarily facetious
  • 0

#11 Hal Smith

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

Posted 14 December 2007 - 05:47 PM

So who's going to make a $250 lens that performs like a $25,000 lens on our $200 digital rapid shot still camera?
  • 0

#12 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 14 December 2007 - 06:17 PM

So who's going to make a $250 lens that performs like a $25,000 lens on our $200 digital rapid shot still camera?


Hi Hal,

I guess they will take that $250 lens rehouse it and sell it for $2495. 90% of the quality for 10% of the price.

Stephen
  • 0

#13 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 15 December 2007 - 09:07 PM

Is it significant that single frame shoots can be shot with digital still cameras that can actually do bursts well above 2 frames per second.
  • 0

#14 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 15 December 2007 - 09:17 PM

Here is an interesting article. It also shows how the film side has gotten a bit lazy. As good as the digital looks, was there really no way to make a small film camera with rock steady registration, do one second exposures with a low ASA film for an incredible look and increased depth of field because the one second exposure would allow for a higher number f-stop?

And because of the relatively low number of frames, could not a table top style of processing/scanner have been created?
Instead the film side sits back with their 80 year old mitchell cameras and dares the other side to knock them off. 80 years and nothing sleeker could have been designed?

Instead Digital fits the need better when compared to a heavy and clunky mitchell.

http://www.editorsgu...cover_story.htm
  • 0

#15 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 07:45 PM

Is it significant that single frame shoots can be shot with digital still cameras that can actually do bursts well above 2 frames per second.


Ok, then go shoot some useable footage on one and post it here.
Argument over.


And as for the RED camera, I have two things to comment:
1. It's not a digital still camera, so it has nothing to do with this discussion.
2. Try to buy one NOW. As far as I can tell, the RED is a semi-infinite "put your deposit down" scheme. I'm not saying it will never be out here for people to buy, but until it is, it's just another vaporware marketing propaganda scheme.

MP
  • 0

#16 Daniel Sheehy

Daniel Sheehy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 17 December 2007 - 11:52 PM

And as for the RED camera, I have two things to comment:
....
2. Try to buy one NOW. As far as I can tell, the RED is a semi-infinite "put your deposit down" scheme. I'm not saying it will never be out here for people to buy, but until it is, it's just another vaporware marketing propaganda scheme.

In all fairness, I think the idea that it's a scam has been well and truely laid to rest.
  • 0

#17 Daniel Sheehy

Daniel Sheehy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 18 December 2007 - 12:07 AM

EDIT: Slow on the edit, missed my chance. <_<

I don't think DSLR's are going to be a viable cinematgraphy option, ever. Experimental maybe, but not serious.

They are engineered for a different style of work, and so the manufacturer has no need to look at solving the issues with sensors at continuous high frame rates.

I think digital cinematography will get cheaper and smaller, and will continue to draw on inovation in the DSLR technology, but I think DSLR's will only cross over to digital cinematography in stop-motion & timelapse work.

Edited by Daniel Sheehy, 18 December 2007 - 12:10 AM.

  • 0

#18 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 18 December 2007 - 12:25 AM

Instead Digital fits the need better when compared to a heavy and clunky mitchell.

http://www.editorsgu...cover_story.htm


Hey, wait a minute. You're talking about the camera I love. 'dems fighten' words! I am the proud owner of a Fries Mitchell. I'll have you know it only takes two guys to heave it up onto the head (four on a union shoot).
  • 0

#19 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 December 2007 - 02:55 PM

So who's going to make a $250 lens that performs like a $25,000 lens on our $200 digital rapid shot still camera?

The thing that makes this whole idea worth considering is that the sitll camera market is huge, so the fixed costs of design and setup get amortized over a few orders of magnitude more units sold. That's why a $250 lens can make quiet good pictures.

Digital still cameras don't have the mechanical registration problem we have with film stills, so they could be made to work for things like claymation. Increase the storage capacity and frame rate to where they could do motion, and you're basically trying to re-invent Red.





-- J.S.
  • 0

#20 Daniel Smith

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

Posted 24 December 2007 - 01:39 PM

Well there's that Casio 300fps camera coming out. That already rocks most of the video cameras at a similar price level and even higher.
  • 0


Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

The Slider

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly