View Full Version : RED still camera
01-24-2007, 10:14 AM
I know, with a company called Red Digital Cinema Camera Company, they make cinema cameras. And I also know this has been discussed before. And also it may be too soon for this. But if they can make such a revolutionary cinema camera, why not make a revolutionary still camera? A lot of the same technology can be applied to this new camera: Advanced wavlet based JPEG 2000 compression for RGB images, using wavlet compression on a RAW bayer images, Mysterium sensor with a really high dynamic range, Cooke lenses, a 320GB hard drive.
What do you think? What else could be possible with the current technology?
01-24-2007, 11:38 AM
Haven't you just described RED ONE though?
01-24-2007, 11:47 AM
if you were to shoot at 50 fps, that would give the option of choosing your *decisive moment* in post!
go on, take a pick! any one you want!
01-24-2007, 01:44 PM
The thing is, you can't really make disruptive technology in the dSLR sector since the market is quite mature. The Digital Rebel is like $600 and has all that and more.
Also, who uses a Cooke lens (I guess besides medium format) on a still camera? Someone who has $100,000 to blow on lenses and might as well just buy a digital back in the first place.
01-24-2007, 02:09 PM
But... If you already have the camera in your hands...
Think about an action shooting, a sport shooting, even a portrait.
You have a LOT of picture to select. Everyone at a smart quality.
You need only to take the frame you want, extract, send to Photoshop for your basic/advanced manipulation. And you're done.
01-24-2007, 07:39 PM
Oh and since the RED ONE is so much higher resolution than than most cameras, six times High Definition, make it six times the resolution of the 1Ds MkII! 96MP!
I don't know...
01-24-2007, 07:47 PM
And to find a lens with that resolution :-)
01-25-2007, 08:32 AM
Truth be told, I just found out I will have to pay 33% at customs to import my Red camera so I am seriously entertaining the idea of selling my Eos 1Ds and 5D to cover the extra expenses and use the Red camera to shoot stills too :)
01-25-2007, 08:39 AM
Nutman - where are you based? Is that Sales tax + duty or just duty. As a business I'd assume you'd get back the sales tax?
01-25-2007, 11:02 AM
My guess would be in Europe, sounds about right (import duty wise).
01-25-2007, 05:44 PM
Graeme, I'm based in Greece.
Nothing to do with a company though, I am a freelance 3D / VFX artist.
I am getting the camera mostly to sattisfy my cravings and to help a friend with a final year project (where I'll be doing the VFX)
So I'd rather spend the tax money on a trip to the US to collect the camera rather than just throw it away.
I mean, for a camera + red flash + 300mm lens the tax (33%) is going to be about 8k$ which I don't really think I (or anyone else) would like to just throw out of the window.
Please let me know if I am being unreasonable. :)
01-25-2007, 05:46 PM
Nutman, you're not unreasonable. There's very little RED can do about value added tax though. We can, like the camcorder manufacturers with the DV-in fiasco, have the camera attract less duty.
Due to the significant costs on RED, it might be worth setting up a small company and claiming the VAT back though.
Just got to add, I'm not a tax or duty expert, so double check with an official or expert!
01-25-2007, 06:27 PM
LoL, I like flying so there's very little holding me back from taking my loved one for a week or two in CA, pick up the camera and fly back with a smile on my face and the customs officers none the wiser.
Talked to a customs officer and that was his take, any sort of camera (still or video) or image recording equipment over $18.00 is taxed at a total of 33%, period.
They seem to be a bit backwards but whatever, we'll decide what to do when the time is right.
Heh, what a coincidence! http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=66062
Anyways, I think the thread has strayed a bit from it's initial path so let's put this idea on the backburner for now and we'll see later on.
But I will look into setting up a company just for the purpose :)
J. Bernard Vallon
01-25-2007, 09:13 PM
On the subject of a RED still camera;
I think when Jim and Co sat down to build the r1, they tried to make the perfect motion camera that had no compromises. If they wanted to build a revolutionary digital still, they would have to do the same thing. Yes, the market is very mature, but a lot of the tech they've designed for the RED1 would translate. I've red (either Graeme or Jim) say 'its actually more like a digital still camera that happens to be able to shoot 60fps continuously.'
If i thought of my perfect digital still camera, it would have these features:
-14 or 16 bit depth
-full frame, 36mm x 24mm, or bigger. Maybe a medium format sensor with a 35mm windowed sensor.
-Eliminate the reflex mirror. Have an electronic viewfinder that turns on when you put your eye to it, turns off when you drop it. I know that's sacrilege, but in doing so you'd solve lots of problems: First, eliminate a moving part, which makes it last longer and drops the price. Second, you now have room in the flange to fit lenses like the 12mm voitlander (sp?).
-flash sync at any speed like the hasselblad. But do it by eliminating the shutter entirely. Why can't a camera have a purely electrical shutter? That way you dont have to worry about sync speed, because the sensor would turn on and off in a fraction of a second, every pixel.
-HUGE dynamic range. Something like the mysterium but maybe with less pixel density.
-Modular design, so i can have my chip and buffer and autofocus system upgraded.
-Oh, and definitely a wavelet compression applied to bayer information, just so i can shoot RAW all the frikkin time.
AWESOME what you guys are doing, i'm not complaining. But as long as we are on the subject, i'd just like to say there is still room for improvement on the digital still market.