Video camera to end photographers?

I was wondering what everyone thought about this new video camera just announced.

Take a look at this.

http://www.red.com/nab​/epic

Does this mean, that eventually people will just be able to slice video out and take prints of it, basically ending a photographers job?

Whats your thoughts about it?

Those are great units getting a lot of attention in the film biz but starting at $17.000.00 for the basic module I'll stick with what I have. Why would a still photog lug that around anyway. Those aren't new either, been around for at least a year. OOps, sorry. Just noticed it's a new model out 2009

It's intended to compete with 35mm motion picture film but at 12Mp with a res of 4520 X 2540 pixels, well, yeah, you could pull a pretty good still.

I'm sure folks who use Final Cut Pro HD and have CS3 installed as well could easily make some nice prints from their footage.

It doesn't have the portability of a dSLR and at $17K for just the guts of it (glass, viewfinder and external monitoring extra...) it's a pretty steep price tag for use as just a "linear still camera" (how's that for a new buzz term?)

looks good for making a documentary or short film or your own music video. but lugging it around as a walkabout recording device, no thanks. now that makes my 1D looks compact & lightweight for sure!!

I was thinking this too, but then theres the problem of having to go through hundreds of thousands, or millions of still images. With photography you only have ~500 or so to go through from a normal day of shooting.

To get normal video without the stroboscope effect you need to have a shutter speed of about 1/60 per second.

Things are very blurry when you pull them out of video like that.

And BTW, the RED camera is smaller than a 1D with a lens on it.

The blur comes from the traditional SD video raster being interlaced. Odd fields and even fields.

If this can actually shoot at 100fps and it's progressive scan, you'll get clean stills.

[EDIT] Corrected Odd/Even .. It's fields not frames. Two fields make up one complete frame.

100fps PROGRESSIVE SCAN!!!

HOLY ****!!!!

IMAX HD is only at 60i

and 17K for an HD live feed camera is a steal!!!!


Studio HD cams are easily 50k+ not to mention big enough for Paul Bunion

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5330706
The blur comes from the traditional SD video raster being interlaced. Odd frames and even frames.

If this can actually shoot at 100fps and it's progressive scan, you'll get clean stills.

No, the bloor comes because the shutter speed has to be slow.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #5330799
No, the bloor comes because the shutter speed has to be slow.

Ummmm... video doesn't really have shutter speeds to open a film plane... this is 1000% HD Digital, highest rated fps, esp Progessive scan is about as fast as you can get.

the SD(Standard Definition) that he's referring to is the NTSC 29.97 fps at a MAX of I believe 480p... this camera is like 6x that with 3x the frames per second simulated film speed rate

beezwax wrote in post #5330807
Ummmm... video doesn't really have shutter speeds to open a film plane... this is 1000% HD Digital, highest rated fps, esp Progessive scan is about as fast as you can get.

the SD(Standard Definition) that he's referring to is the NTSC 29.97 fps at a MAX of I believe 480p... this camera is like 6x that with 3x the frames per second simulated film speed rate

I think you might be confused.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #5330799
No, the bloor comes because the shutter speed has to be slow.

Not entirely.

As I said above, NTSC video is 30 frames per second comprised of two fields per frame (odd and even.)

If you deinterlace the frame, you are, in fact, only getting 1/2 the information but most motion blur occurs because of the interleave between fields. Eliminate one field at it does make the image more crisp (however at the expense of losing half the info...)

When Sony developed their original 1" tape-based "Super Slo Mo" units, they ran at 90 frames per second and today's hard drive-based EVS "Super Slo Mo" units run at 120 frames per second and this is independent of the shutter speed set at the camera head itself.

This is the actual video frame rate...

artyboy wrote in post #5329873
looks good for making a documentary or short film or your own music video. but lugging it around as a walkabout recording device, no thanks. now that makes my 1D looks compact & lightweight for sure!!

this is overkill for Doc's and Shorts, even INDIES.

I've shot/produced/edited about 4 or 5 shorts for the Gulf Coast Film and Video festival here in Texas (Film and Video was my Major in Coll.) and about 95% of all entries were shot with an XL1 or lesser. I've even entered in my first shot with a Sony TRV140 Digital 8mm.

With that being said, this is another movement going towards Video instead of film. Rate Film rate transfers from Film to Video still lose quality, even with 16mm and 3/4 film. I'm still... to this day in question how you can get 1080 horizonal lines of resolution on compact tape? Is it real HD or simulated.

back onto the real topic, I use Sony Vegas 7HD NLE, as previous verisons, you have the capability or "Snapping" any image right from the timeline and saving as jpg. The quality is terrible... you see the interlaced lines just like Photoguy said.. with this unit, having that 5k resolution in digital form, you SHOULD be able to capture quite a nice looking image from it's memory.

I have had the opportunity to speak to representatives from Canon and Nikon and I believe (as do they) that the video camera is the natural evolution of photography. It may not be this one, but it will be video. And most if not all camera makers are in a serious race to develop a video-still capable system with the quality photographers need.