| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Food for thought: video 60 fps - 11 megapixels
Vincent Laforet, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 1:01 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> From Endgadget.com
" Aside from shooting HD footage at 60fps with those fine 11.4-megapixels, the all-aluminum cam is finally making its debut, and a few glamour shots of the first prototype, dubbed "Spike," have now been released. ... While the initial batch of $17,000 pre-orders are long gone, the firm just might take more orders for a small window of time in "early 2007," but it's shakily committing to a "May 31st"..."
http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/28/first-pics-of-red-spike-camcorder-protot.../ |
|
Chris Stanley, Photographer
|
John Harrington, Photographer
 |
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 1:57 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> At 29.97 FPS, the previous standard, and with a smaller chip, HD was "almost there" in replacing still photography at major news and sporting events. It would have required special merging software to take two frames that were shot at 1/30th and merge them into one sharp image.
Now, at 1/60th of a second, AND with 11.4MP, you can bet for certain that the 2008 Superbowl and ensuing Olympics will be shot primarily with these cameras, and were *I* the holder of the TV rights to the broadcasts, I would be looking to monetize key-moment stills from my events, and talking with, say, a major sports wire service to license out those images from their 15+ cameras at each game.
Yes yes, TV would need an amendment to their contract, probably, for the rights to sell still images, but once say, CBS put a number on that, the leagues would take that number to commercial photo agencies and dictate a pay-to-cover scenario. This will then leave, at best, local-to-the-team newspaper coverage, who would then have to pay careful attention to NOT allowing the commercial photos to get too much play, or risk their own independant access/credentials.
This means that the glory of covering "the big game" is fading fast. What little assignment money that remains will come from smaller college games, and events where TV is not covering, or is covering with antiquated equipment. So, in about a year, pay close attention to the TV guy next to you, it may be his corporate parent company that you are competing with, along with the skycam Red HDTV images never before seen in print, as well as the rest of the unseen cameras around each stadium, that is your competition!
John |
|
Michael R. Sisak, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 2:11 PM on 12.29.06 |
| ->> Makes me rethink getting that 400... unless, does the Red accept Canon lenses? |
|
Michael R. Sisak, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 2:46 PM on 12.29.06 |
| ->> Looks like a rebadged Nikon 300... |
|
Mike Morelock, Photographer
 |
Greenwood | AR | USA | Posted: 2:57 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> Anyone really up on the Red camera? How's the dynamic range? That's been the big killer in all prosumer and lower digital video equipment i've ever seen. It's typically several stops smaller than top of the line DSLR's. This may give the still shooter a few more years. Same with noise. Everyone moved to Canon because Nikon was just soo noisy at high ISO. Let's see how this thing performs real word before tossing out still photography. Well ok it's going to get tossed, but lets hope it takes a few more years before HD is actually equal technology wise.
And then there's all that footage. Everyone remembers the story of Sports Illustrated at the Super Bowl, the multiple photographers, the memory card runners, the editors culling through looking for THE shot. Imagine doing that with a terrabyte of video. Even when you know that a certain moment was the moment you still have a few hundred frames of it to pick from instead of a dozen. I guess a nice problem to have. |
|
John Lee, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 3:10 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> getting close to switching "sportsshooter" to "sportsvideoshooter." or there's always wedding video photography...
either way, another nail is being hammered into the coffin. |
|
John Lee, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 3:30 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> just took a closer look at the youtube video on the camera. seems like this thing is initially built for motion picture studio film work, as a better camera for filmmakers. definately better than a canon xl2 or the hd equivalent.
i crunched the numbers on the compressed file size of the footage. according to their numbers, a second of compressed image is 27 megs. so an hour of footage is about 100 gigs. so if that was to be translated into a nfl game, each camera would be shooting about 300 to 400 gigs of information per game. multiply that by 10 or 14 cameras per game, and we're talking about a lot of hard drives.
so i can realistically see the film industry using this, but perhaps not for all sporting events in the near future. at least only in the big games, as what john harrington suggested. maybe the superbowls, or final fours, etc...
still shooters on movie sets might be shaking in their boots a little more than sports shooters, but those movie still guys will have to worry as they're swimming in their hollywood hills swimming pools or driving around in their convertible bmws.
but you can bet that this technology will trickle down eventually, as hard drive space gets better. |
|
Michael R. Sisak, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 4:19 PM on 12.29.06 |
| ->> Theoretically, couldn't a film studio mkake still images off of a motion picture print already? This would seem to have the same effect on that facet of photography, only now digitally. |
|
Vern Verna, Photographer
 |
Greenville | SC | United States | Posted: 5:24 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> John is right, it is another nail in the coffin, only thing different is this one is a spike! Its coming, i figured it was at least 10 years out but i think that window with this is a lot shorter. That is quality enough for a double truck. at 60 frames per second, think about how many frames u have to chose from on a touchdown catch and video is usually in focus all the time. Fox does the nfl game with 10 cams. one of them is gonna have an angle to kick our butt. The nfl pulled the local tv this year and my thinking was that we will be at video in 10 years so y fight the still photogs who now have terminal cancer. fox can add a couple cameras to every game with the additional revenue from web sites sales and then they get even more angles and no other photogs to get in the road. Plus the stadium can add seats all the way to the field so it will be like arena fb games and what will people pay for a sideliine seat to the superbowl???
Hopefully it want hit quite as bad as my scenario but i think we all need to open our eyes and prepare for it, i know i am. |
|
Colin Lenton, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 5:26 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> Michael,
The potential threat that John is speaking about - I believe - is the extremely low cost of the Red camera - at $17k it is well below the cost of any 35mm cinematic camera available and certainly within the financial reach of most television/cable news teams. However, at least for now, the backend cost of shooting and processing footage from this camera will be quite the financial hurdle for anyone who decides to go this route - thus should this camera catch on-- at least for the near future -- the only feasible games to cover with this technology would be a Superbowl, Final Four, etc.
In my opinion though, I don't believe it poses any immediate threat to our business, in fact I'm excited for the day when technology such as this is more readily available for still shooters. I think that regardless of how many frames per second a camera has, still shooting is still a way of seeing, and not an aspect of technology. That is to say that when I shoot motion pictures, I'm thinking about my composition, mood, exposure, etc in an entirely different manner then when I'm shooting for still images.
In the end I think that people who have the talent, the business smarts, and the dedication to do the best work will win out, and make a succesful living shooting how they want to be shooting. |
|
Dave Yoder, Photographer
|
Milan | IT | Italy | Posted: 6:10 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> I'm not much of a sports shooter anymore--ok, never have been really--but aren't the styles of shooting between video and still dramatically different? Seems to me there'd have to be a whole heck of a lot more megapixels (and better lenses) to crop down on the normally very loose frame that video tends to shoot, especially in sports.
And moving beyond sports, we move our camera to work better angles, and adjust quickly for the subjects' movement. i'd think that would often be the opposite of what is required for video.
Obviously it's coming... I just think to what degree and how soon it becomes the norm is pretty speculative. I don't see the need for still photography disappearing anytime soon. |
|
Ben Jenkins, Photographer
 |
Geneva | IL | USA | Posted: 6:16 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> Right now the Red's target is the high end production/film industry. But like all great things, the technology will spread.
I imagine by 2008 (and certainly by 2010) you'll see a bunch of these (or similar cameras) being used at the Olympics and other major events. With multiple onsite server farms and storage area networks, processing, storing and editing 100TB of data a day isn't going to be out of the question--especially then.
And yes, I'm sure you'll be seeing plenty of front page newspaper and magazine photos taken with a Red or similar camera. Sad, but true. |
|
Damon Moritz, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Woodbridge | Va. | USA | Posted: 6:37 PM on 12.29.06 |
| ->> I wouldn't call this a nail. Instead I'd call it a great thing for photojournalism. This will bring "us" back as the necessary technicians and artists. We've been victims to technology making our jobs nearly disposable as mom and pop bought the same equipment and gave their photos away. Now we can all show our professional prowess in producing sharper images that can span true HD or larger prints. Embrace it and this type of technology could bring in bigger contracts and more of them. |
|
Peter Hoffman, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Naperville | IL | U.S. | Posted: 7:36 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> I'm not sure why this is being called sad?
I love photography, and haven't really shot video much before...and I'm not super into sports photography but I don't see this technology as harmful once it trickles down to being an affordable standard.
It's still not an excuse to badly compose a shot. Still photographs from still cameras are still going to be needed, maybe not from sports games as much but there will still be a need for people who know how to light, and see the light, and catch a moment in one decisive image. If it's photography you really love, then advertising work shouldn't be a problem...and there will be still cameras for this sort of work I imagine for a long time coming...and here you have complete control over every aspect of your image.
and if it's photojournalism you really love, then what's wrong with a better tool to use?
It's an evolving industry, but from what I've read and seen, this world is becoming increasingly visual and visual content is increasingly in demand from more and more populations. I'm kind of excited to see where things go, and for everyone here (who I assume is a producer of visual content) that doesn't think that because a 35 mm isn't convenient anymore that photography is dying. It's just changing, and I think that's gonna be opening more doors than its shutting, especially for the folks who know what they are doing (again, most people here). |
|
Scott Morgan, Photographer
 |
Burlington | IA | United States | Posted: 8:24 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> Can someone tell me why they think TV is going to adopt this technology? I can't see anyone other than perhaps ESPN and NFL Films using this for anything. The only use I can see ESPN having is the ability to crop in on specific areas, but not for the bulk of their cameras. The post processing and down-conversion would take a huge amount of computer power and time, just to get the quality available from the cameras they are using now.
Here is my reason for thinking this:
"Full HD" at the moment is 1080 progressive video. The only way to watch 1080p video is via BluRay or HD-DVD. Broadcasters are delivering content at 1080i or 720p, and are using the bandwidth available to provide more streams of content at this lesser quality. I haven't heard of anybody, not even HD Net that is going to broadcast 1080p.
This format standard is going into effect now. My understanding is that it had been pushed back several years, and that the broadcast industry resisted it at every step because of the enormous costs associated with adopting the new technology, and the expense of the televisions available to view the media in high-def. Do you think people are going to go out and trade in their brand new HDTV's so they can upgrade to this technology? Are the networks and ESPN going to upgrade again?
So far as I can tell, the move to HD video isn't like the move from film to digital, where quality keeps getting better and better every year. The maximum deliverable HD quality is set at 1080p, and broadcasters are shooting at 1080i or 720p. That's not to say that 1080p frame grabs aren't good quality, but it's not like in two years everyone will be using 2000p cameras, just for the added benefit of still frame grabs. Are they?
Please feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, for I don't claim to have special knowledge. It just seems like all the worrying is missing out on these points.
-sm |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
 |
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:34 PM on 12.29.06 |
| ->> the sky is falling....the sky is falling... |
|
John Lee, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 9:24 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> scott morgan's right. 1080i is plenty for a while. and right now i can't imagine the networks wanting to invest the large amount of money for this, all mostly for still photo rights. i don't think the cost benefit would be worth it for networks to want to go to that much trouble. getty will still continue to make deals with the various sports leagues and edge everyone out. what i can see is getty being the sole still image provider for most major sporting events. but the red technology will trickle down into other cameras. and when that quality is the standard, then that's when the still image camera photoj will drop.
but quality of the video image is not the central reason why still image photojournalism is fading. it's the market's increasing demand for video and decreasing demand for still images. still image photojournalism and high end editorial photography/portraiture will always exist in some fashion, but the amount of people going it will drop dramatically. supply and demand will dictate that. photographers will be more like illustrators. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
 |
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:49 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> Scott, Don't lull yourself into a false sense of security. While it's true that most broadcast is either 720P or 1080i, when Feb 2009 comes around and they pull the plug on analog signal, things will heat up in a hurry.
This past Christmas selling season, the "step up" TV product was 1080P. The lower priced HDTVs weren't 1080P - my point is that 1080P was being talked about with consumers, and was being sold. There is awareness for the product NOW.
Once analog is dead, how long do you think it will be til a broadcaster seriously embraces and promotes 1080P? Answer: 10 minutes. One of the networks will make a big deal of being "the only 1080P - twice as sharp - network" They'll use it to try to gain market share.
I'm with Damon and Peter. While it may mean there will be 3 guys shooting the Super Bowl, I look at this as the answer. (I gave up the NFL last season when I couldn't make enough money. A good friend of mine that still shoots it was complaining this season how he's getting screwed because what he's getting paid to shoot it this year - and this is before Big RED shows up?
Hell, I remember telling my wife that the Nikon d1 body was only $4000 - the $17K price tag is the same as the original digital still bodies wasn't it?
Just think: Be able to offer HD Stills AND full motion video to your employeer and clients. I think the word I'm looking for is SWEEEETTTTTTTTTTTTT!
Michael |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:01 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> By the way, on the video, the presenter talks about using 35mm lenses. Tell me you can mount Canon or Nikon lenses on this thing ... :)
It's the computing side that could be a monster... the camera almost looks affordable... :D |
|
Scott Morgan, Photographer
|
Burlington | IA | United States | Posted: 11:35 PM on 12.29.06 |
->> Michael,
Don't get me wrong, I think it would be foolish to dismiss the advances in technology and hope that nothing is going to change. All I had to do was take one look at MediaStorm to know I'd better start learning as much as I can about every visual form of communication that I can.
That being said...
You said, "While it's true that most broadcast is either 720P or 1080i, when Feb 2009 comes around and they pull the plug on analog signal, things will heat up in a hurry."
1080p is where things are headed, true. But I don't think if you were handing over 1900x1080 pixels (2 megapixel) files to your newspaper, magazine or agency, that they would be keeping you on the payroll. My point was, with the format set in stone the way television formats are, they aren't going to turn around in five years for an upgrade.
On the other hand, all that resolution is great for print, but for online viewing, 2mpx is probably more than enough. If newspapers and magazines decide that printing all those pictures on paper isn't worth the cost, when they can deliver it cheaper online, then we're in trouble. |
|
Maxwell Yedor, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Ventura | CA | USA | Posted: 12:55 AM on 12.30.06 |
->> I agree with those who say that the Red could signal the end of the professional Photo Journalist (not that we couldn't adapt and still have jobs). However this is one of those great inventions like the hover car, I'll beleive it when I can touch it. Current HD cameras, not the little toys like HVX, XL2s and such, but real brodcast quality HD cams start well over 100k
A lot of my freinds are in cinematography and needless to say they are fairly interested in this beast. The running theme though is that it doesn't exist, or if it does it will cost $317,500, at the cheapest. If it really is just around the corner there would be no reason for studios to spend litteraly millions on 70mm movie cams just to produce images for HD DVD on 1080p televisions that won't take over the market untill after the Red is available anyhow.
I somehow don't think that a private company could somehow produce a product that puts anything made by Canon/Sony/Arri/Nikon/Panasonic to shame and especially at that price. The Red retails for $17500, so it wholesales for around $16000, wich would meen that it would have to cost somewhere in the relm of $13000 to produce, by those numbers (estimates though they may be) a 1Ds should cost about $75 to produce. Add to it that no other company has even been rumored to be working on a competitor, and something just doesn't make sense.
Don't get me wrong, if it does what they say it will, for that price and that soom, I'll trow my Canon gear in the trash and run to the nearest shop that stocks the Red. But I doubt that will happen |
|
Jared Dort, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Cottonwood | AZ | usa | Posted: 2:03 AM on 12.30.06 |
->> I remember my first NC2000e. What a beaut. Pretty sure that cost my paper and others close to $17,000.
I wouldn't say it'd be a money issue with the Red. Photographers are already being asked to shoot some video for the web, so this might make since. However, at 1/60th you're limited and hard drives are expensive. Plus, you can't shoot a game the same as with a SLR.
I doubt the Red is the future for '07, or even '09, but if it is, what do we do about it? Shoot your way, comply or deliver pizzas?
Isn't film dead? Didn't video kill the radio star? Was disco the true music of the 70s?
Digial SLRs are not Beta and 8-Tracks. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
 |
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 8:12 AM on 12.30.06 |
->> "Fox does the nfl game with 10 cams. one of them is gonna have an angle to kick our butt."
Come on, Vern. In how many years of instant replay, haven't we learned that TV almost NEVER has the "perfect shot"? |
|
Gil Batzri, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 10:41 PM on 12.30.06 |
->> Looking at the RED camera briefly that thing doesn't hold a candle to what the broadcast cameras are using.
My recollection is the big "Laser Weapon" camera that is the standard emplacement at my home field in Oakland from FSN has something to the effect of a 5-500 f1.4 lens on it.
The 35mm mount lenses may be usable for studio use, but I don't think this thing is even close to what they shoot sports with.
gil |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 1:28 AM on 12.31.06 |
->> "At 29.97 FPS, the previous standard"
It's still the standard. 29.97 fps is the standard for NTSC recording and transmission. 25 fps is the standard for PAL and SECAM. They ain't gonna change...
Current NTSC video cameras film at 1/60th of a second while current PAL cameras do it at 1/50th. |
|
Brett Gundlock, Photographer, Assistant
|
Calgary | AB | Canada | Posted: 2:03 AM on 12.31.06 |
| ->> I would not want to try to get that through airport security. |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
 |
Belvidere | IL | USA | Posted: 2:36 AM on 12.31.06 |
->> For those of you who haven't seen the story about how Sports Illustrated handles Super Bowl photos (the story to which Mike Morelock referred), here it is from March of 2004:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821
If you haven't seen the story before it's definitely worth a read. The SI editors were seemingly almost crushed under the sheer volume of still digital data they had to process on deadline and I cannot imagine how they would process all that data from video footage in the same amount of time. From the story:
"[SI director of photography] Steve Fine is looking at two pictures every second. He's been keeping up that pace, with frequent short interruptions, for over four hours, and he'll keep it up for three more." |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
 |
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 3:06 AM on 12.31.06 |
| ->> This is not a "sky is falling" kinda thing. It's just another tool. There will be places where it will make sense to use this tool. But it is not designed as, nor will it ever be used as, a general-purpose still photography tool. The cameras we have today do a very nice job of that already...and they are much more flexible and usable in that role compared to the Red. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
 |
Tempe | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:21 AM on 12.31.06 |
->> A camera like this is just the thing to hammer that nail in as media merges. With TV, newspaper, internet, magazines, and ipod videos stacking up on a single palette for these companies to try and make money, this kind of tool will take it a jump forward in doing it. Sooner or later, depending on your clientele, just like the jump from analog to digital, you will have to learn this to stay afloat.
So quit throwing up the crucifixes and hoping it scares them away, bare your throat and go with it. |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:18 PM on 12.31.06 |
->> Well, the interesting development - for the high-end sportsshooter will be more along the lines of the frame-capture (read: shutter) speed, not the frame rate. If it's all the camera can do to keep up with the sensor by scanning it 60 times/second with an effective 1/60th of a second, or worse, there'll be plenty of motion blur and handshake. Which will be a limiting factor in moving into the "double-truck" territory.
But, yeah, this will cause a lot of damage to a lot of photographer's wallets.
In a lot of ways the bigger damage is going on right now in the relative widespread access to broadband internet, and the age of Google Video, YouTube, et al. Why show a still photo on a website - or cell phone, when you can easily put up a video? With magazine and newspaper circulations collapsing, video is already taking over - without having "frame capture stills" being more than a novelty.
Still photography is becoming a specialty niche. Not only is the future video, it's quite possible that the future is already here. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
We BUY & TRADE you OLD Gear
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
We all have some cameras & lenses sitting around collecting dust right?...Or you work at a Newspaper that has downsized?...What to do with your excess photographic equipment? Adorama's Used Dept is looking for your used gear to purchase or take in trade. Contact me directly jsnyder@adorama.com or 1-800-223-2500 X2435 and I can fill you in on the details. Cash in your pocket is better than sitting on the shelf, right?
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
