Wired article hinting at a DSLR or a Digital Rangefinder

[jmarcus]

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/the-red-dslr-a.html

And, best of all, RED could 'out-Leica' Leica itself with a digital rangefinder camera that actually works.

 

[jaapv]

Beautiful vapourware 🙄

 

[Nh3]

A prototype of the RED camera.

I see the use of video with a DSLR but at the same time I have no interest in it whatsoever.

 

[jmarcus]

Why do you say Vapourware? This guy has delivered in the past, maybe not a DRF but I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility for them to create a DSLR.

 

[jmarcus]

Ugly. what do you think?

 

[Ray Nalley]

Taking on Canon and Nikon with a completely new DSLR camera and lens system would be challenge. It's a tough market.

 

[Nh3]

Seriously, they think photographers would use the video feature and then split the frames for that "one shot".

Who the hell they think photographers are and what they do?

The best part of still photography is that you edit in real time. why the hell would you shoot hours of video and then edit thousands of images later on? 10 minuets of video at 25fps is 250 images, and some photographers who work 12 hour days, how much footage they'll have to edit.

If that's what RED the company thinks and it seems like it from that article then they're a bunch of morons who have no clue whatsoever about still photography.

 

[jaapv]

Why do you say Vapourware? This guy has delivered in the past, maybe not a DRF but I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility for them to create a DSLR.

Let'see a real camera first, and then judge..My guess is it will be never...

 

[Nh3]

Think of video and still photography in terms of a waterfall and a car chase. If you videotape a waterfall its freaking boring, even if its Niagara falls it will get boring after a few minuets.

But then you can take a still photograph of the same waterfall in decent light with a great composition and hang it in your home and whenever you look at it it will make you feel as if you're there.

The same way a car chase video is always going to be more interesting and thrilling than a photo of a car chase (no matter how good the photo is).

So, there are certain subjects that will only be interesting with video and other subjects with still photography. Anyone who's trying to change the paradigm is simply deluding themselves because they lack the simple aesthetic understanding of the two mediums.

I liked Nikon's response to this new hoopla about video and still photography convergence by putting the video feature in D90 (a camera for soccer moms' demographic) rather than the D700.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

It is quantity v. quality argument. There are many people that prefer their camera to have both features.

 

[Ray Nalley]

It is inevitable that DSLR's of the future will have the capability of shooting 60 frames per second. The Casio EXILIM EX-F1 can already do it, so that's a no brainer. I suspect Canon and Nikon will do it pretty soon. This will, despite the protests, have a significant impact on photography. This isn't frame grabs from movies. These are discrete frames. Whether we like it or not, it will level the playing field between amateurs and pros. The most inexperienced photographer can get the same action shots as the pros. The beginning wedding photographer can capture every moment of the ceremony, every fleeting expression.

While the impact on the landscape photographer and fine art photographer will be less, it's ultimately going to devalue the market for professional photography even more.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Whether we like it or not, it will level the playing field between amateurs and pros. The most inexperienced photographer can get the same action shots as the pros. The beginning wedding photographer can capture every moment of the ceremony, every fleeting expression.

Sorry, Ray; couldn't disagree more. This ignores two enormous questions. One is where the photographer stands (viewpoint). The other is where he points his camera. Together, they constitute knowing what to shoot; and when; and how to compose it. Being able to soot 60 fps in many cases will merely mean that you get more bad pictures.

Second, consider editing time. Far less important than the first point, but still non-negligible.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aizan]

that's not hinting, that's just daydreaming.

 

[Kin Lau]

A billionaire with the technology, resources and the drive to make it happen. Why not.

Jannard is the type to ignore the "it can't be done", and get it done. He doesn't have to answer to a board of directors or such to pursue a project like this.

You just have to convince him a DRF is what he wants to build.

 

[oris642]

A Video Primer for Photographers

A Video Primer for Photographers

Michael Reichmann's opinion - published this morning.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/video-primer.shtml

 

[micromontenegro]

I understand that the many amateur and short footage filmakers are quite excited about the D90- they see it as a substitute for 16mm

 

[photogdave]

These kind of cameras are a dream for photojournalists who are currently required to carry around two complete systems, one still and one video.
Anyway, it's pretty safe to say that the folks at RED are not morons. Anyone who has spent some time in the video world knows this!

 

[micromontenegro]

It seems quite real, but no RF: http://www.red.com/nab/scarlet

 

[capitalK]

These kind of cameras are a dream for photojournalists who are currently required to carry around two complete systems, one still and one video.

BINGO! The newspapers have started to wake up and realize that pretty soon people won't be buying papers and that they need to offer more. The stopgap solution is to have their photojournalists carry video and still equipment or a video camera that handles stills well.

The reality is that the photojournalists that can do video as well are the ones that are most hirable right now, not necessarily the best photographers.

 

[thomasw_]

Seriously, they think photographers would use the video feature and then split the frames for that "one shot".

Who the hell they think photographers are and what they do?

The best part of still photography is that you edit in real time. why the hell would you shoot hours of video and then edit thousands of images later on? 10 minuets of video at 25fps is 250 images, and some photographers who work 12 hour days, how much footage they'll have to edit.

If that's what RED the company thinks and it seems like it from that article then they're a bunch of morons who have no clue whatsoever about still photography.

Actually it is worse than you write. That equals 60 x 25 x 10 or 15, 000 images in 10 mins of footage @ 25 fps.. Remember it is 25 frames in 1 second.