Nikon to acquire RED(nikon.com)
nikon.com
Nikon to acquire RED
https://www.nikon.com/company/news/2024/0307_01.html
207 comments
Red cameras are overhyped, but picture quality is not the issue. It is very likely that what you describe is more due stylistic differences in lighting, color grading and editing than due to the camera itself — coming from someone who professionally had to match colors on films shot on multiple different cameras on more than one occasion.
Reliability is the main reason why Red cameras are overhyped, but you get good pictures and specs for the price, just like with black magic cameras but a notch higher. Most DOPs I know would go fo ARRI if given free choice.
Reliability is the main reason why Red cameras are overhyped, but you get good pictures and specs for the price, just like with black magic cameras but a notch higher. Most DOPs I know would go fo ARRI if given free choice.
Red were kinda the Tesla of the film camera world. New name, new tech, new price point, fashionable branding Vs existing long established players.
Thing is ARRI pivoted and covered the new tech pretty well, and had the existing business links into the rental market allowed them to continue unflustered. Red got the layman hype because they seemed to make high quality available to more people at an achievable (but still high) price point. The industry didn't really care though. They rent cameras, not buy them and they were already affording the old stuff.
Thing is ARRI pivoted and covered the new tech pretty well, and had the existing business links into the rental market allowed them to continue unflustered. Red got the layman hype because they seemed to make high quality available to more people at an achievable (but still high) price point. The industry didn't really care though. They rent cameras, not buy them and they were already affording the old stuff.
RED does have a nice image pipeline, and some neat stuff like the Komodo. Wish I still had the spare change to get one.
I've seen a handful on my local FB marketplace lately (nowhere near Hollywood or anywhere that you'd expect to see them) but ~$5k for a Epic-X Dragon with a lens.
5k for an EPIC-X? Wild. Good thing that that's not local to me, or my bank account would be complaining.
The killer would be a Komodo. Global shutter and autofocus is amazing in something that price.
Lol - one posted within range of my search - listed at $6,500 but I bet you could talk them down:
Red Komodo 6k
SmallHD indie 7 with Red control
Red outrigger Handle
2 512GB cards
2 Canon BP-995
4 Jupio BP-975
2 NEO Mini 98wh
SmallRig Handle
BP battery charger
CFast 2.0 card reader
Core SWX Battery Plate
Red Komodo 6k
SmallHD indie 7 with Red control
Red outrigger Handle
2 512GB cards
2 Canon BP-995
4 Jupio BP-975
2 NEO Mini 98wh
SmallRig Handle
BP battery charger
CFast 2.0 card reader
Core SWX Battery Plate
That sounds amazing. Please stop before my wife finds out I'm even thinking about this.
I don't even make movies but the Red reputation + general deviant behavior in terms of buying unnecessary tech makes this a dangerous search on my part too. Wish the FB algorithm would stop recommending them (though not enough to manually tell it not to....)
I got a Komodo a few months ago in LA area for $3500 used with multiple cards and gold mount batteries, outrigger handle, pl mount adapter, etc. They’re out there, a lot of people upgrading to the X.
ARRI also has their own "picture style", at least the ARRI Alexa. I remember seeing video on YT where the guy bought a really old ARRI Alexa that was used in Hollywood back in 05 or 06. When they showed some of the footage they took with it, it looked exactly like an mid-2000's big screen movie, I honestly didn't realize those movies even had a "look" until I saw his video.
> I remember seeing video on YT where the guy bought a really old ARRI Alexa that was used in Hollywood back in 05 or 06. When they showed some of the footage they took with it, it looked exactly like an mid-2000's big screen movie, I honestly didn't realize those movies even had a "look" until I saw his video.
Is this the video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hahBgDUESjE
Is this the video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hahBgDUESjE
that's the one!
Do you mean the D20? The Alexa wasn't released until 2010
Most movies in 2005 were film. So the style in 2005 was the film look. Collateral (2004) was the first major movie shot on video and it's got a very different look and the tech was so new, Tom Cruise had to wear a certain shade of gray suite so as to not blow the highlights in some of the scenes.
I suppose this is another illustration of "defaults are powerful"
As a photographer I know next to nothing about film, let alone cinema. Hence the question, is ARRI gear really as good as people say, and as expensive?
The thing about ARRI is, yeah their gear is expensive, but it is just an incredible combination of good design and stellar engineering. Their cameras are surprisingly straightforward to use, definitely easier than a RED or Sony (with their "every-surface-needs-to-be-covered-in-buttons-but-few-are-where-you-would-expect-them"-mentality).
Their light gear is just stellar. I have seen ARRI HMI lamps that took 40 years of beatings and still worked flawlessly.
The thing is, sure ARRI is expensive, but depending on your production losing a day might be more expensive than buying a whole new camera.
Generally my experience is that a lot of the price of high end gear goes towards reliability, this is true for most other fields of tech as well.
Their light gear is just stellar. I have seen ARRI HMI lamps that took 40 years of beatings and still worked flawlessly.
The thing is, sure ARRI is expensive, but depending on your production losing a day might be more expensive than buying a whole new camera.
Generally my experience is that a lot of the price of high end gear goes towards reliability, this is true for most other fields of tech as well.
I 100% agree on the correlation of price and reliability in the professional video world. My experience is in live event production and while Blackmagic has revolutionized the accessibility of high-quality production it does come with a non-dollar price. I've never had a Ross router, switcher, or other auxiliary gear go down during a show. I have experienced multiple show stopping failures of Blackmagic devices. I once was on a show where the BM router locked up fight before showtime. Doors were open and power cycling was not an option. All existing routes were passing signal just fine, it was just control that was gone. We just had to make do for the event, fortunately there were no critical audience facing changes that we needed.
For some clients the savings are worth the risk. For others they absolutely are not. With live you get no chance to shoot it on another day or go back and fix it in post. If there's thousands of people outside the room watching you better make sure that signal chain is rock solid.
For some clients the savings are worth the risk. For others they absolutely are not. With live you get no chance to shoot it on another day or go back and fix it in post. If there's thousands of people outside the room watching you better make sure that signal chain is rock solid.
After spending my career in supply chain and logistics, I am now at the interface of design and support for complex systems. So, reliability, or rather the full Reliability-Availability-Maintainability-Testability-Supportability, RAMT(S), is really important for my work.
It is quite fascinating, that besides the overall performance and capabilities of a system, pros care about RAMT a lot. Regardless of the field. Nice to see that confirmed, in yet another field I knew next to nothing about.
It is quite fascinating, that besides the overall performance and capabilities of a system, pros care about RAMT a lot. Regardless of the field. Nice to see that confirmed, in yet another field I knew next to nothing about.
When folks talk about reliability of these cameras, what are we talking about? Like, the camera longevity, or ruggedness? Or like they reliably produce a consistent output, versus producing different results under the same conditions where one would expect consistency?
I work as a director of photography and own an Alexa Mini.
Reliability in this context means that the camera will record and the footage will not be corrupted on the media.
Film sets are very rough on equipment and things break all the time. Sometimes one films in very harsh conditions that anre either very cold or very dusty and hot. Often you don’t have the luxury of being able to repeat a moment or you have travelled to very remote locations so having gear that will continue to work is worth paying a huge premium for.
The Arri sensors and imaging pipeline also offer the best overall image quality. This means it can handle very high dynamic range scenes better than all other cameras. For example the new Alexa35 sensor can record 11f stops of information above middle grey. Most prosumer video cameras can record above and below middle grey around 12 stops total with most of the information in the shadows.
It also means consistent image quality in different shooting environments. Arri has very sophisticated cooling to keep the camera sensor within a specified temperature for consistent noise performance.
Because Arri make more than just cameras it also means that the camera fits into the whole professional eco system and synergises with other pieces of filmmaking equipment like the Arri wireless focus systems, camera remote heads etc etc. Meaning you can focus on the hard bit which is creating amazing stories.
Reliability in this context means that the camera will record and the footage will not be corrupted on the media.
Film sets are very rough on equipment and things break all the time. Sometimes one films in very harsh conditions that anre either very cold or very dusty and hot. Often you don’t have the luxury of being able to repeat a moment or you have travelled to very remote locations so having gear that will continue to work is worth paying a huge premium for.
The Arri sensors and imaging pipeline also offer the best overall image quality. This means it can handle very high dynamic range scenes better than all other cameras. For example the new Alexa35 sensor can record 11f stops of information above middle grey. Most prosumer video cameras can record above and below middle grey around 12 stops total with most of the information in the shadows.
It also means consistent image quality in different shooting environments. Arri has very sophisticated cooling to keep the camera sensor within a specified temperature for consistent noise performance.
Because Arri make more than just cameras it also means that the camera fits into the whole professional eco system and synergises with other pieces of filmmaking equipment like the Arri wireless focus systems, camera remote heads etc etc. Meaning you can focus on the hard bit which is creating amazing stories.
Thank you, this was exactly the sort of elaboration I was looking for.
The Alexa does not have 11 stops of info above middle grey. More like 6-7 at most.
Speaking for lighting: all of it. ARRI stuff is expensive AF but worth every penny if you have the need for it.
Is this different in some way from the still photo world where you have like Broncolor that’s unreasonably expensive and no one can explain why?
Broncolor is expensive just because they're old and entrenched, and some people are always in the mindset that more expensive must equal better.
If reliability is a concern, you can easily buy multiple Godox units of approximately the same specifications (or better) for the same price as one Broncolor.
If reliability is a concern, you can easily buy multiple Godox units of approximately the same specifications (or better) for the same price as one Broncolor.
> If reliability is a concern, you can easily buy multiple Godox units of approximately the same specifications (or better) for the same price as one Broncolor.
I got burned enough, once even literally, by cheap Chinese speedlights that I am now a firm subscriber to the philosophy of "buy once, cry once".
I got burned enough, once even literally, by cheap Chinese speedlights that I am now a firm subscriber to the philosophy of "buy once, cry once".
Broncolor is “buy once, cry once, then cry again when you need an attachment, and also cry when you need to replace a bulb.”
I mean, a Godox V1 is $200. The Profoto A1 is $1,100. They're very comparable apart from price. I have 6 Godox speedlights of different tiers and only one broke, apart from some screws that just needed to have some Loctite put on them (which they fixed with later models).
Obviously don't go for the $30 plastic wonders.
Obviously don't go for the $30 plastic wonders.
In my judgment ARRI fixtures are not unreasonably expensive. Yeah they are pricey, but you get what you pay for, the engineering, including the elctrical engineering is stellar, the reproducability amazing.
Now whether you actually need those things is another question, but my opinion on ARRIs stuff is that it costs exactly what I would expect it to cost on that level of quality (and that isn't true for all manufacturers).
Now whether you actually need those things is another question, but my opinion on ARRIs stuff is that it costs exactly what I would expect it to cost on that level of quality (and that isn't true for all manufacturers).
In the end it's reproducibility for both - you know that when you have a specific setup, it will look exactly the same.
[deleted]
> The thing is, sure ARRI is expensive, but depending on your production losing a day might be more expensive than buying a whole new camera.
This is generally true when purchasing equipment for personnel. If you have to purchase three new €2500 family MacBooks because of a burst pipe, that’s mighty expensive. Even for a small IT company, that’s just half a month’s wage per developer.
I know that with expensive camera gear we’re talking about €250 000 per camera or whatever, but you rent those.
This is generally true when purchasing equipment for personnel. If you have to purchase three new €2500 family MacBooks because of a burst pipe, that’s mighty expensive. Even for a small IT company, that’s just half a month’s wage per developer.
I know that with expensive camera gear we’re talking about €250 000 per camera or whatever, but you rent those.
Thanks! Totally get the point of price being relative. After all, if you use gear professionally, as in earning money with it, the calculation of cost is different.
Edit: Nikon is generally doing a decent job on those "pro" aspects if cameras, ergonomics, buttons, reliability and so on. Should be interesting to see how this acquisition plays out.
Edit: Nikon is generally doing a decent job on those "pro" aspects if cameras, ergonomics, buttons, reliability and so on. Should be interesting to see how this acquisition plays out.
> Generally my experience is that a lot of the price of high end gear goes towards reliability, this is true for most other fields of tech as well.
Great point. I have this in non-professional settings the first question people ask is why this stuff is so expensive. Because if things work with little bit of fidgeting that's good enough.
Great point. I have this in non-professional settings the first question people ask is why this stuff is so expensive. Because if things work with little bit of fidgeting that's good enough.
FWIW "every surface needs to be covered in buttons" is exactly how a Canon person™ once explained to me why they are not a Nikon person. So that checks out wrt this acquisition, at least.
The only thing more hilarious than the pointless Canon vs. Nikon quabble are when you throw in Leica shooters into the mix.
I'm a Nikon person™ because my Canon printer once refused to scan because it was out of yellow... When it came time to buy a DSLR I chose Nikon and honestly I haven't been disappointed.
I worked with ARRI for a few years when they were working on the predecessor to the ARRI Alexa, called the D-20. That was already an awesome camera but they didn't really take it into production because they wanted to make it simpler, easier to use and basically "better". They could've shipped, but they waited multiple years because they wanted their flagship digital camera to live up to their reputation. It's extremely well-deserved.
In terms of the image, I think a big advantage Arri cameras have is a patent on simultaneous dual gain sensors. Perhaps somebody will tell me I've misunderstood that though.
Aside from that, I think a lot of what you pay for is reliability, support and general non-sketchiness, which are not areas where RED have a particularly good reputation.
Aside from that, I think a lot of what you pay for is reliability, support and general non-sketchiness, which are not areas where RED have a particularly good reputation.
ARRI cameras have much better IR filters in front of the sensor. RED IR filters were horrible quality when we measured them, leading to worse image quality.
Yup, precisely why comparing "stops" doesn't tell the whole story.
The Bayer color array also makes an enormous difference (and is unique to each manufacturer). Good ones are NOT cheap to make.
The Bayer color array also makes an enormous difference (and is unique to each manufacturer). Good ones are NOT cheap to make.
ARRI has a specific look and almost perfect directly out of the camera. Compare it to Red or Sony Venice and you see that it is the most appealing. You can make other cameras look like it, but ARRI is just industry standard and produces amazing colors. Their sensor is just fantastic.
Is it the sensor? I though it was the processing.
Yes.
But No.
Red V-Raptor S35 XL has 16.5 stops of dynamic range with 250-12,800 ISO. ARRI Alexa 35 has 17 stops of range with 160-6400 ISO. Both use rolling shutters, both have native ISO of 800. Alexa has better low light noise reduction at higher ISO, but Alexa is sharper and has better dynamic range in low light since it uses 8K to 4K down sampling.
The real difference is in the colour straight out of the chip and how the workflow is for DIT on set.
THe major difference I think is that Arri is already easy to use and slots in to the Hollywood human knowledge base and workflows while RED was mostly used by indie filmmakers, documentarians, Youtubers, and Silicon valley people (if you work at Apple in the US you can buy RED cameras cheaply through company benefits). This pretty much created a different culture of what images should look like around the two cameras. an Alexa camera sets you back close to 80K and a fully equiped RED sets you back about 44K. So its easier to buy it and use it while hollywood rents it on the day for the shoots.
You can get a RED to look like it was shot on Alexa and vice versa in post processing today, but the people who work with the different cameras have different cultures of what is "cinematic" image.
btw this is a good comparison https://wolfcrow.com/red-v-raptor-s35-xl-vs-arri-alexa-35-wh...
Red V-Raptor S35 XL has 16.5 stops of dynamic range with 250-12,800 ISO. ARRI Alexa 35 has 17 stops of range with 160-6400 ISO. Both use rolling shutters, both have native ISO of 800. Alexa has better low light noise reduction at higher ISO, but Alexa is sharper and has better dynamic range in low light since it uses 8K to 4K down sampling.
The real difference is in the colour straight out of the chip and how the workflow is for DIT on set.
THe major difference I think is that Arri is already easy to use and slots in to the Hollywood human knowledge base and workflows while RED was mostly used by indie filmmakers, documentarians, Youtubers, and Silicon valley people (if you work at Apple in the US you can buy RED cameras cheaply through company benefits). This pretty much created a different culture of what images should look like around the two cameras. an Alexa camera sets you back close to 80K and a fully equiped RED sets you back about 44K. So its easier to buy it and use it while hollywood rents it on the day for the shoots.
You can get a RED to look like it was shot on Alexa and vice versa in post processing today, but the people who work with the different cameras have different cultures of what is "cinematic" image.
btw this is a good comparison https://wolfcrow.com/red-v-raptor-s35-xl-vs-arri-alexa-35-wh...
You can’t compare the spec sheets. You need to look at the over and under tests. There is no camera close to the Alexa35 in dynamic range
[deleted]
[deleted]
Probably reproducibility and consistency.
Yes, and it's worth every penny.
This. RED cameras are overhyped for a few reasons:
- They were once the "hot startup" promising acceptable resolution (filmic 4K when nobody needed it, everything was 2K at most). But they oversold resolution at the cost of bizarrely slow-to-decompress proprietary RAW format and some loss to image quality, and stayed true to that. Arri came to market later and they did the right thing - picked convenience and stability over super-duper-extra-super-high-res. - Their cameras would routinely overheat - Cameras would have severe reliability issues with software updates - Some haptics/controls felt wanky at times - They wanted hard to sell you "just the body", for "cheap cheap cheap", but it meant that to have something usable you would need the whole loadout - which would ship in pieces, with periods of delay for availability, and the quality of some components would be meh. Want an EVF? Wait 2 years for one to ship. Want functioning grip? Separate. Want etc. etc.? Separate. I.e. they were very inviting to "now you, as a DOP, can finally own a camera", but owning "the camera and the kit required for it - sans lenses" would be a painful proposition.
This was certainly the case in 2006-2010s, dunno if it has gotten much better lately. It does seem that RED kept to the theme of severely overselling their users extreme picture resolutions, at the cost of having the files super-painful to process, proprietary codecs, and lackings in other areas such as dynamic range.
- They were once the "hot startup" promising acceptable resolution (filmic 4K when nobody needed it, everything was 2K at most). But they oversold resolution at the cost of bizarrely slow-to-decompress proprietary RAW format and some loss to image quality, and stayed true to that. Arri came to market later and they did the right thing - picked convenience and stability over super-duper-extra-super-high-res. - Their cameras would routinely overheat - Cameras would have severe reliability issues with software updates - Some haptics/controls felt wanky at times - They wanted hard to sell you "just the body", for "cheap cheap cheap", but it meant that to have something usable you would need the whole loadout - which would ship in pieces, with periods of delay for availability, and the quality of some components would be meh. Want an EVF? Wait 2 years for one to ship. Want functioning grip? Separate. Want etc. etc.? Separate. I.e. they were very inviting to "now you, as a DOP, can finally own a camera", but owning "the camera and the kit required for it - sans lenses" would be a painful proposition.
This was certainly the case in 2006-2010s, dunno if it has gotten much better lately. It does seem that RED kept to the theme of severely overselling their users extreme picture resolutions, at the cost of having the files super-painful to process, proprietary codecs, and lackings in other areas such as dynamic range.
Any RAW image that comes out of a modern digital sensor can be made to look like anything else, as Steve Yedlin thoroughly demonstrated. They look the same because they are lit, edited and color graded the same
> as Steve Yedlin thoroughly demonstrated
I'm interested in this, do you have a link?
I'm interested in this, do you have a link?
Some Yedlin links. I found his process to be methodical, precise, thorough and definitive. The question as to whether there is any perceptible visual difference between film and video that has been post-produced by an expert was definitively answered for me.
Resolution Demos: https://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html
On Color Science for Filmmakers: https://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/index.html
Resolution Demos: https://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html
On Color Science for Filmmakers: https://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/index.html
Pet peeve, by why do people persist in using wide aperture closeups to test resolution? If almost everything in the frame is out of focus, then duh, you're not going to notice much difference between 'high resolution' and 'very high resolution'.
past f8 on full frame (and wider on smaller frames) you run into diffraction, so you actually do get more detail with a slightly wider aperture. i only glanced at the links but it seems about right.
also, everyone knows what a face looks like
also, everyone knows what a face looks like
Sure, but why not shoot a subject at infinity? (I said "wide aperture closeups".) It's hard to even know which tiny part of the face is actually in perfect focus. And at the resolutions tested, you will need perfect focus to see any difference.
Yep. This is the correct answer to OP.
No, why “everything looks the same” is 100% down to lens, lighting and grading choices.
Part of it is that modern lenses are incredibly accurate and much better technically than they used to be - a lot of the movies that people praise the photography of are now using vintage lenses that are 30-50 years old modified to modern lens mounts, since they have “visual character” instead of being so clean.
Part of it is that modern lenses are incredibly accurate and much better technically than they used to be - a lot of the movies that people praise the photography of are now using vintage lenses that are 30-50 years old modified to modern lens mounts, since they have “visual character” instead of being so clean.
> a lot of the movies that people praise the photography of are now using vintage lenses that are 30-50 years old modified to modern lens mounts
Isn't this confounded by who chooses to buck the trend? IMO, it's the very skilled DPs who are not only skilled, have earned enough social capital to experiment and have excellent reasons for using old soviet lenses, or lenses designed for use on the moon or some other exotic origin story. This self-selecting bunch are likely to produce outstanding work regardless of the equipment.
Isn't this confounded by who chooses to buck the trend? IMO, it's the very skilled DPs who are not only skilled, have earned enough social capital to experiment and have excellent reasons for using old soviet lenses, or lenses designed for use on the moon or some other exotic origin story. This self-selecting bunch are likely to produce outstanding work regardless of the equipment.
I don't know how old you are, but as a younger millennial these look pretty awful to me (no disrespect). I'm sure nostalgia plays a part. I feel the same way about videos/sci-fi shows from the 2000s - none of the modern stuff quite feels the same.
But as another commenter said, I don't think it's the camera itself - it's the stylistic changes in lighting, camera angles, direction, etc. Each decade has a distinct 'feel' - films/shows in the 80s don't feel like the 90s, or the 2000s like the 2010s, etc.
But as another commenter said, I don't think it's the camera itself - it's the stylistic changes in lighting, camera angles, direction, etc. Each decade has a distinct 'feel' - films/shows in the 80s don't feel like the 90s, or the 2000s like the 2010s, etc.
It seems to be too much now to me. Overproduced maybe is the word? Too vibrant of coloration, too much lighting, too much movement. The best way I can put it is that new shows and movies feel "plastic" compared to older stuff.
I think it’s called the Netflix look. If you look it up you get several discussions on color grading and other matters.
That's because Nikon don't have a cinema line of cameras, and the cameras they do have have only very recently added support for higher-end video features like log and ProRes RAW support.
The RED cameras are perfectly capable of delivering great picture quality and good color science. The "Netflix look" doesn't come from cameras, but from the fact that everything in their cheaper productions is rushed, including the color grading.
Portrait of a Lady on Fire for instance, was shot on RED cameras at 8K. And it's one of the most beautiful digital films ever made, IMO.
Portrait of a Lady on Fire for instance, was shot on RED cameras at 8K. And it's one of the most beautiful digital films ever made, IMO.
I loved that movie! It truly is gorgeous, right up there with Blade Runner IMO. I just wish they'd release it in 4k, I'd re-buy it in a heartbeat.
Maybe that's nostalgia.. I personally think the clips you shared look awful compared to any modern camera.
I seriously doubt the average person notices any difference between RED cameras and any other modern camera with roughly the same properties.
I seriously doubt the average person notices any difference between RED cameras and any other modern camera with roughly the same properties.
Not maybe, movies are simply shot in different ways, people expect different things. Nothing in this world is static.
Now its perfectly fine to dislike 'modern' approach, but in digital era that has absolutely nothing to do with some lens/sensor combo and everything how director decides given scene or whole movie should 'feel'.
Now its perfectly fine to dislike 'modern' approach, but in digital era that has absolutely nothing to do with some lens/sensor combo and everything how director decides given scene or whole movie should 'feel'.
Yeah Netflix definitely has a directing "style" across lots of its shows. Two things I've noticed are lots of shaky-cam shot as though someone's spying on the scene, when it's just the camera; and often a top down view from high up with loads of detail to showcase some visually impressive event, in mild slow-mo.
When the hammer is invented, of course you will be eager to solve problems that look like nails. I feel like this happened after quadcopters got good.
You can tell the difference between RED and other camera makers just by checking the black levels (because RED has horrid IR filtering and so you get a bit of picture greying.)
It's really noticeable when you fire off a DPSS LASER at 532nm. You can see both the IR beam and the converted visible light beam, making the LASER appear a weird green-purple color.
It's really noticeable when you fire off a DPSS LASER at 532nm. You can see both the IR beam and the converted visible light beam, making the LASER appear a weird green-purple color.
For the 1990s, that Sony demo video looks amazing. The colors pop, skin pores are visible, brush strokes are visible! The colors and styles are very 90s, but it was the 90s so things are expected to look that way.
I think you are mistaking stylistic choices for something technical.
Netflix shows look and feel the same because they are shovelware, produced to look and feel the same. This is part of why they have style guides and approved equipment lists, but as far as the sensors are concerned -- any modern sensor is up to the task.
There are no Nikon video cameras on the list because Nikon does not make video cameras, although I guess now they do.
Netflix shows look and feel the same because they are shovelware, produced to look and feel the same. This is part of why they have style guides and approved equipment lists, but as far as the sensors are concerned -- any modern sensor is up to the task.
There are no Nikon video cameras on the list because Nikon does not make video cameras, although I guess now they do.
Watching all that Sony stuff.
Part of what's giving you that effect is not the resolution, or color accuracy etc: it's that you're looking at what is really a very primitive system. It's the analog vs. digital all over again, but with video. More than that, it's compressed video, versus a more immediate but more primitive analog system. What I'm seeing of RED suggests it's all about sensor resolutions, but compression is always a point of contention and color space is an issue.
If you're digitally compressing data like this and running into an area where there are challenges, you're running into areas where the algorithms get twitchy: they're designed to optimize for certain things and you can throw pathological image sequences, pathological colors, at them.
Some of the challenges inherent in getting really high sensor resolution out of a RED are irrelevant to old Sony analog HD camera technology, apples and oranges.
Part of what's giving you that effect is not the resolution, or color accuracy etc: it's that you're looking at what is really a very primitive system. It's the analog vs. digital all over again, but with video. More than that, it's compressed video, versus a more immediate but more primitive analog system. What I'm seeing of RED suggests it's all about sensor resolutions, but compression is always a point of contention and color space is an issue.
If you're digitally compressing data like this and running into an area where there are challenges, you're running into areas where the algorithms get twitchy: they're designed to optimize for certain things and you can throw pathological image sequences, pathological colors, at them.
Some of the challenges inherent in getting really high sensor resolution out of a RED are irrelevant to old Sony analog HD camera technology, apples and oranges.
Color grading always changes the colors in post anyway. Film movies often looks better than digital to my eyes but i think that is at least partly because color grading did not exist like it does now and there was no push to make every object "pop" by being oversaturated. To me, Film is more likely to give you a single scene in each frame while color graded digital movies often seem to be made of several disparate scenes cobbled together. Movies from the past used less greenscreening in favor of matte paintings which were often included in the scene they were used itself rather than edited in or they were the only shot in the scene. You can make digital film look however you want, even to look like film, but most Netflix shows apparently do not opt for that.
> Pretty interesting. If you look on netflix approved camera list[0] there are none from Nikon.
I looked at that list and did some Googling, and it looks like Nikon just doesn't make video cameras like the other vendors. All they make are DSLRs that do a little bit of video.
This Quora answer (https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-...) bluntly states; "Nikon has never sold a dedicated camcorder of any format."
I looked at that list and did some Googling, and it looks like Nikon just doesn't make video cameras like the other vendors. All they make are DSLRs that do a little bit of video.
This Quora answer (https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-...) bluntly states; "Nikon has never sold a dedicated camcorder of any format."
Nikon also makes mirrorless cameras that do video a lot better than their DLSRs did (especially, for example, the Z9).
But, yes, they don't make dedicated camcorders...
But, yes, they don't make dedicated camcorders...
Agreed, I hate the way a lot of their stuff looks. It's OK for TV but a lot of their film stuff looks sterile to me. I think that's part of why the Arri digital camera has a lot of fans.
I got my first Nikon camera a few years ago after all previous ones being Canon. At first I was a little taken aback by how things looked slightly smeared when you zoomed into the individual pixels...but I rapidly came to love it. Perhaps their sensors/glass are less 'perfect' but I love more of the pictures I take with it.
I got my first Nikon camera a few years ago after all previous ones being Canon. At first I was a little taken aback by how things looked slightly smeared when you zoomed into the individual pixels...but I rapidly came to love it. Perhaps their sensors/glass are less 'perfect' but I love more of the pictures I take with it.
Nikon doesn't do video.
Referencing the Netflix approved vendor list is misleading, because they aren't in the cinematic video business.
Referencing the Netflix approved vendor list is misleading, because they aren't in the cinematic video business.
Has anyone done an analysis into what gives Netflix shows that strange look? It is uncanny valley like for me, so I avoid them altogether. I assumed it must be a blend of camera choice, lighting, and post-processing, and its just awful.
It’s the rushed post process. You can go on r/colourists and ask. You might be able to find some old posts from people who worked on these things explaining it.
It’s 100% not the camera. Portrait of a Lady on Fire was shot on RED. You can do virtually anything with digital cameras these days. Steve Yedlin proved he could make digital look like film beyond anyone’s ability to distinguish them.
Netflix just rushes everything so it’s all a similar level of not good.
It’s 100% not the camera. Portrait of a Lady on Fire was shot on RED. You can do virtually anything with digital cameras these days. Steve Yedlin proved he could make digital look like film beyond anyone’s ability to distinguish them.
Netflix just rushes everything so it’s all a similar level of not good.
Netflix is the minor leagues. People who do well there don't tend to stay there.
It appears to me they accept many RED cameras?
https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360...
https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360...
I remember first watching 4k HDR films (I remember gemini man in particular) and it looked different from previous films and I had to adapt.
maybe too high res? Or maybe HDR eliminated artifacts like bloom or something that seemed to make it too perfect.
maybe too high res? Or maybe HDR eliminated artifacts like bloom or something that seemed to make it too perfect.
When the camera pans. I find it unnerving. I don’t enjoy watching that pixelated panning. I blame it on the digital recordings.
It might probably look better if they recorded it on film but no producer seems to be addressing my whimsical preferences
It might probably look better if they recorded it on film but no producer seems to be addressing my whimsical preferences
I think what you're seeing is due to bandwidth limitations: when the picture pans the info changes rapidly and places a bigger demand on the bandwidth, so streamed shows will suffer in quality and show pixelation. If this is what you're seeing, it has nothing to do with the content itself, it will be fine if you watch it directly from disk.
This. Digital video sends a key frame every N frame and deltas in between (well, slightly more complicated...) Lose a frame or two due to bandwidth and you see motion tearing.
I notice it on TV as well.
The Olympics are a live event, delaying the broadcast by days to cater to your niche nitpick about image quality would indeed be whimsical
Interesting that some time ago Red filed a lawsuit against Nikon for using a RAW video compression algorithm that Red claimed infringed its patents, but later dismissed it:
https://dpreview.com/news/5338402238/red-is-suing-nikon-for-...
https://dpreview.com/news/9301564383/nikon-denies-red-s-laws...
https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/04/28/red-patent-lawsuit-ag...
https://dpreview.com/news/5338402238/red-is-suing-nikon-for-...
https://dpreview.com/news/9301564383/nikon-denies-red-s-laws...
https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/04/28/red-patent-lawsuit-ag...
Am I reading this right in that Red has somehow managed to patent the idea of compressing 4K RAW footage on device which holds up the whole industry?
Not quite. The claims, in the only one I've seen regarding RAW compression, are for a specific pre-emphasis curve being applied to the raw data, then the raw data being compressed and only cover this being done in a video camera.
When looking at a patent check the "Claims" section. An infringing device would have to perform those steps in the order provided for the patent holder to have a claim.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I've had a lot of dealing with patents.
When looking at a patent check the "Claims" section. An infringing device would have to perform those steps in the order provided for the patent holder to have a claim.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I've had a lot of dealing with patents.
the patent is this one: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7830967B1/en
Which looks like it's patenting debayering. However I'm not a patent lawyer so I don't know.
I suspect that Nikon were using something like jpeg2000 to store raw frames, and thats why RED were getting all pissy.
Which looks like it's patenting debayering. However I'm not a patent lawyer so I don't know.
I suspect that Nikon were using something like jpeg2000 to store raw frames, and thats why RED were getting all pissy.
It’s patenting compressing the raw photo site values before debayering, which saves space and in theory allows for better, non-realtime debayering algorithms (more relevant when the patent was filed).
if its not an actual algorithm, but merely the thought of compressing the raw data (im not saying it is/isnt, I dont know), then its obviously totally ridiculous, and frankly, anyone that would even presume to think one should apply for such a patent should just be taken out back and disposed of. And then of course the patent office aswell
Maybe, Redcode is based on JPEG2000
https://youtu.be/IJ_uo-x7Dc0
https://youtu.be/IJ_uo-x7Dc0
> Maybe, Redcode is based on JPEG2000
Oh it is JPEG2000, I _think_ it used to be stored in a tar-like wrapper, but I could be misremembering. however It is 100% JPEG2000.
Oh it is JPEG2000, I _think_ it used to be stored in a tar-like wrapper, but I could be misremembering. however It is 100% JPEG2000.
It must be a specific implementation because Black Magic has had their own brand of this for years and don’t seem to have been targeted by RED, though I may be out of the loop on something?
Blackmagic raw is actually debayered in the camera, which would avoid RED’s “compress raw video by color plane” patent.
> A drawback of Blackmagic RAW over other RAW formats is that it does a partial de-bayer within the camera. This means that you are not actually working with fully raw data from the camera sensor. According to the Blackmagic website the “noise management, sensor profiling and new edge reconstruction algorithms” are part of the partial de-mosaic.
> A drawback of Blackmagic RAW over other RAW formats is that it does a partial de-bayer within the camera. This means that you are not actually working with fully raw data from the camera sensor. According to the Blackmagic website the “noise management, sensor profiling and new edge reconstruction algorithms” are part of the partial de-mosaic.
They settled out of court, Nikon started paying licensing fees. Was confirmed by Jarred on a podcast last year.
Maybe that’s what’s partially responsible for the acquisition - also Red struggling to get market share from Arri Alexa on bigger budget productions, and facing pretty stiff competition from lower priced cameras by Blackmagic, Sony etc
Maybe that’s what’s partially responsible for the acquisition - also Red struggling to get market share from Arri Alexa on bigger budget productions, and facing pretty stiff competition from lower priced cameras by Blackmagic, Sony etc
Makes sense from a Nikon perspective: I have to pay anyway, over period X that amounts to sum Y, put that next the acquisition price and the estimatebof how long you want to use the tech you are paying for and there is your business case.
Plus, you get new business and a new product range you don't have yet. That alone justifies an acquisition.
Plus, you get new business and a new product range you don't have yet. That alone justifies an acquisition.
Right, its like RED was in the middle market, which is a bad place to be in any product/industry. Too expensive for consumers, but still not able to command premium pricing from top end pros?
I started following the RED story before those folks ever released a camera, and I liked their spirit and mission.
Some time passed and ultimately it was Black Magic Design that accomplished what RED said they wanted to do.
If you say you want to make high end cinema technology, or even just high quality imagery, accessible to the average person, a $17,500 price tag for just the camera body shows that you might have strange ideas about what constitutes an average person.
Some time passed and ultimately it was Black Magic Design that accomplished what RED said they wanted to do.
If you say you want to make high end cinema technology, or even just high quality imagery, accessible to the average person, a $17,500 price tag for just the camera body shows that you might have strange ideas about what constitutes an average person.
I think if you know the RED story you know that at the time there were effectively 0 consumer-tier high end digital cameras. We're talking basically the advent of the DSLR revolution, where either you shot on a Canon 5D MK II or... an Alexa? Alexas retail around $50,000 (and weren't out until 2010), so RED offering actual 4K video digital camera with an easy conversion to EF mount glass (Canon) and a body that is literally half the size of an Alexa AND was consumer-purchasable at $17,500 (Alexa purchase process isn't "just buy on B&H") - it was huge.
The other thing is that the camera market and the concept of "consumer" isn't really like normal "consumer" end stuff. High-end digital camera "consumer" stuff has different purchase cycles that traditional "consumer" things like iPhones don't have. Camera Operators/DPs typically buy these huge cameras and then rent them out or bill their cost back into their day rate.
When RED says consumer, they mean that any person with money can buy one. Alexas, Panavision Cameras, Fony F65s, etc. all usually need to be bought by a cinema rental house and then are rented to operators. RED went around that and allowed people to buy cinema-tier cameras directly, which was huge. The market has adjusted since then and I think Blackmagic (and the Sony Alpha line) now more directly serve traditional definitions of "Consumer", but IMO none of that would have happened without RED paving the path.
The other thing is that the camera market and the concept of "consumer" isn't really like normal "consumer" end stuff. High-end digital camera "consumer" stuff has different purchase cycles that traditional "consumer" things like iPhones don't have. Camera Operators/DPs typically buy these huge cameras and then rent them out or bill their cost back into their day rate.
When RED says consumer, they mean that any person with money can buy one. Alexas, Panavision Cameras, Fony F65s, etc. all usually need to be bought by a cinema rental house and then are rented to operators. RED went around that and allowed people to buy cinema-tier cameras directly, which was huge. The market has adjusted since then and I think Blackmagic (and the Sony Alpha line) now more directly serve traditional definitions of "Consumer", but IMO none of that would have happened without RED paving the path.
Yo there were way more video cameras back then than just the Canon 5D and ARRI. News organizations, smaller productions and documentary makers were not just whipping around expensive ARRI’s. Sony and Panasonic made a ton of other professional video-focused cameras. I have an old Panasonic HVX200 right next to me.
But the Red One was definitely still extraordinary because they managed to make a relative-cheap production 4K camera in 2007.
That said, the impact was muted because people didn’t really care about 4K as much in 2007. I don’t think ARRI even released a 4K camera until years later.
But the Red One was definitely still extraordinary because they managed to make a relative-cheap production 4K camera in 2007.
That said, the impact was muted because people didn’t really care about 4K as much in 2007. I don’t think ARRI even released a 4K camera until years later.
ENG cameras had sensors a fraction of the size of Red/5D [1] so the resultant crop factor and CCD sensors paired with not-great glass choices (mostly zoom lenses, fixed focal length rare, etc.) made nice DoF/Bokeh hard to come by, making the output of them not really look like what a lay person would say "cinema" looks like. If you want to talk real Cinema-DV options from around that time (and ignoring punk cinema stuff like Dogme 95/Harmony Korine), you're mostly talking about the Viper, which again is a six-figure camera.
> The impact was muted because people didn’t really care about 4K as much in 2007.
This is just not true. Look at the Wikipedia post here [2] and then also just look for movies shot on the One/MX/Epic. The camera was immediately adapted into hollywood feature productions.
[1] https://therobbcollections.blogspot.com/2019/09/digital-came... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema#Red_One
> The impact was muted because people didn’t really care about 4K as much in 2007.
This is just not true. Look at the Wikipedia post here [2] and then also just look for movies shot on the One/MX/Epic. The camera was immediately adapted into hollywood feature productions.
[1] https://therobbcollections.blogspot.com/2019/09/digital-came... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema#Red_One
The role of ENG video is not precisely the same thing as digital cinema, though there's some overlap. I remember a lot of indie filmmakers in that era struggling to shoot for cinema with ENG-focused cameras and gear, and often struggling to get what they wanted out of it.
They’re not but there were ENG-style cameras with interchangeable lenses and 422 output too. There were a lot of options between DSLR and an ARRI.
Still are.
Still are.
An insightful post indeed.
I was acutely aware of it, shooting projects on horrible looking mini DV and expensive film stock.
No question they spurred progress, I'd just envisioned that they would continue to carry the torch with all of their piss and vinegar.
Now Black Magic Design produces ~$2000 cameras that produce consistently better images than RED to this day.
I was acutely aware of it, shooting projects on horrible looking mini DV and expensive film stock.
No question they spurred progress, I'd just envisioned that they would continue to carry the torch with all of their piss and vinegar.
Now Black Magic Design produces ~$2000 cameras that produce consistently better images than RED to this day.
The thing you'll hear from any camera pro though is that the actual shooting experience of Blackmagic isn't great. Making Blackmagic's behave for film is its own cottage industry and there's a reasons most people use stalwarts like Arri/Panavision/Sony/Red. If you're an entry level videographer, I'd much more recommend going the C300 route than being enticed by the BM price tag, as there are a lot of other hidden costs to just make things Work Well.
The most affordable kinds of cameras at the time that you could realistically use for something going to theatrical release was the (1080p) Sony F900 and then F950, which were in the $250K ballpark… Then the Arri D-21 came out, I can’t even remember what price but same ballpark, it was a bit higher than 2K res. $17,500 for 4K was wild, and it was insane they actually managed to deliver it with the RED ONE.
All good points, though following these acts of instigation for the industry, their competitors overtook them in the path to their goal.
>If you say you want to make high end cinema technology, or even just high quality imagery, accessible to the average person, a $17,500 price tag for just the camera body shows that you might have strange ideas about what constitutes an average person.
To be fair, their competition at the time was $200,000+ Panavision rigs that were completely prohibitive to independent filmmakers.
To be fair, their competition at the time was $200,000+ Panavision rigs that were completely prohibitive to independent filmmakers.
A fair consideration indeed but a very relativistic use of terminology. $17,500 is not $200,000 that's for sure, but it's also not $5000 or $2500 or $100 (not that I expect $100 cine cameras).
My only point is that their hearts were in the right place, but they may have ultimately done their best work as instigators.
As well, despite my appreciation for their company, I never liked the images from their cameras.
My only point is that their hearts were in the right place, but they may have ultimately done their best work as instigators.
As well, despite my appreciation for their company, I never liked the images from their cameras.
It’s not a hobbyists’s impulse buy, but it puts a week’s rental at a couple grand - that’s plausibly a group of upper middle class teenagers. It’s also something the equipment lending library in a media studies department can make available to student projects.
Big step up from shooting on iPhones or hacked DSLR bodies, for a relatively small (in the universe of film production) increment in budget.
Big step up from shooting on iPhones or hacked DSLR bodies, for a relatively small (in the universe of film production) increment in budget.
Very fair points. I'm just nit picking about RED's instigation and influence being more valuable to camera industry than the cameras they delivered and the price points they delivered them at.
Z-Cam has full frame 8K cameras for $6000 and full frame 6K cameras for $3000 which is sort of affordable.
Smart for Nikon as they've been losing relevance somewhat to Sony/Canon, and not had a great video offering. So this immediately makes them a competitor in the space.
Given how the stills & cine markets have contracted and converged, its unlikely Nikon & RED would survive in a healthy fashion as standalone for say the next decade.
Given how the stills & cine markets have contracted and converged, its unlikely Nikon & RED would survive in a healthy fashion as standalone for say the next decade.
Red was a revolution when it came out in 2007, offering 4K for under $20K! When I heard the announcement of its development I wondered how a guy who made sunglasses was going to pull it off.
Yeah I thought it was a scam. To be fair some of the most ridiculous things they announced when they put up the website, like the IMAX camera with a sensor that would basically take a wafer end to end to cut, didn't come out.
Something that industry hasn't seemed to have noticed is that Nikon has recently released a couple of camera bodies that are very capable hybrid shooters. The Nikon Z9 and Z8 cameras can record up to 8.3K 60fps RAW video in-body[1], and the shutter speed is fast enough to be very nearly "global shutter". They also inherit features common to stills cameras but rare in video cameras such as eye-detect auto focus.
Some samples I've found online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR5BV1L7tCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFkgs0GsbpA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3cAwDwvK-M
Notably, these videos were made by essentially amateurs. Even if the shooters are industry pros, they're still taking these shots on their own without a film crew and a professional setup. Just running around with a "normal" camera you can carry in one hand.
I wonder if this is going to be a dead end now that Nikon has acquired RED. I have a sinking feeling that the product lines will be split again, and that the stills bodies will not get any new video features, which will be relegated to dedicated video cameras.
[1] Something I've heard is that perceived video quality is more strongly correlated to the data rate than pixel resolution. These cameras can record at about 6,000 Mbps which is in the same league a "large format" and IMAX style cine cameras.
Some samples I've found online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR5BV1L7tCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFkgs0GsbpA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3cAwDwvK-M
Notably, these videos were made by essentially amateurs. Even if the shooters are industry pros, they're still taking these shots on their own without a film crew and a professional setup. Just running around with a "normal" camera you can carry in one hand.
I wonder if this is going to be a dead end now that Nikon has acquired RED. I have a sinking feeling that the product lines will be split again, and that the stills bodies will not get any new video features, which will be relegated to dedicated video cameras.
[1] Something I've heard is that perceived video quality is more strongly correlated to the data rate than pixel resolution. These cameras can record at about 6,000 Mbps which is in the same league a "large format" and IMAX style cine cameras.
Sony’s “affordable” global shutter A9 III likely changed the competitive landscape. For photography Z9’s stacked sensor is superb but videography is a different story.
I don’t see how. That sensor is only 6K and the global shutter makes no practical difference compared to Nikons “very fast” shutter.
The Sony camera can only record up to 4K in-body, and only with h.265 or similar formats up to 10 bit.
The Nikon can record full-frame RAW with 12-bit log, which is far more useful for colorists to work with than anything the Sony can record.
Even the Nikon DX crop mode has more pixels and more HDR range than the Sony!
The Sony camera can only record up to 4K in-body, and only with h.265 or similar formats up to 10 bit.
The Nikon can record full-frame RAW with 12-bit log, which is far more useful for colorists to work with than anything the Sony can record.
Even the Nikon DX crop mode has more pixels and more HDR range than the Sony!
RED is a shitty company that relied on patent trolling the entire industry. It’s sad Nikon was basically forced to pay the ransom. RED is a classic example of what’s wrong with our outdated patent system.
It's good for Nikon, IMO. Canon and Sony both have cine equipment. This will level the field.
While I moved to Sony, I don't want to see dominance, but competition.
While I moved to Sony, I don't want to see dominance, but competition.
This will level the field? If you think Canon's cine options are equal to Red maybe it levels it. However, I think this tilts the field away from Canon to Nikon's favor while leaning more toward Sony as well than Canon. Maybe Canon can tilt it back in their favor if they were to buy Alexa.
Canon absolutely owns the video market, in many ways. Different context from RED, but you see Canon DSLR video cameras everywhere, especially consumer-level stuff, like streamcasters. Most videos you see, by semipro influencers, and whatnot, are recorded on Canon kit.
Also, the TV and movie industry makes heavy use of Canon DSLR kit for their work.
It’s an interesting acquisition, and I wish them luck. The rub will be cultural clash. I don’t know anything about RED’s culture, but I know a bit about Nikon’s. They are … less-than-flexible. Culture clash has been the fly in the ointment, for most of Nikon’s partnerships.
Also, the TV and movie industry makes heavy use of Canon DSLR kit for their work.
It’s an interesting acquisition, and I wish them luck. The rub will be cultural clash. I don’t know anything about RED’s culture, but I know a bit about Nikon’s. They are … less-than-flexible. Culture clash has been the fly in the ointment, for most of Nikon’s partnerships.
I'm a colorist with over a decade experience in the industry. I work on about one hundred projects a year (film/tv/commercial/music video) and about 1-2% are canon (dslrs or otherwise). 70% are Arri, 20% Sony (either Venice or FX line), and the remainder are red.
Canon has almost no presence in the professional market.
Canon has almost no presence in the professional market.
While I would never call myself a colorist, I would say colorist adjacent while I spent a few years in a professional color post house. This would reflect my experience as well. I spent a lot of time with the Sony F55 when it came out, and even with its abilities it was still considered less than Alexa and Red.
The only people that shot Canon in our market were a few that shoot time lapse.
The only people that shot Canon in our market were a few that shoot time lapse.
this is accurate ^
Sony is big and gaining more traction by the day. RED is very popular, Personally I know an equal number of filmmakers with RED and Sony. Arri is the premium brand. Canon is almost exclusively used in documentary these days, they had their moment with the 5DMK2 years about but squandered it. Sad really.
Sony is big and gaining more traction by the day. RED is very popular, Personally I know an equal number of filmmakers with RED and Sony. Arri is the premium brand. Canon is almost exclusively used in documentary these days, they had their moment with the 5DMK2 years about but squandered it. Sad really.
Canon's 5Dmk2 "moment" brought large sensor/shallow depth of field, interchangeable lenses, and very affordable pricing to a market that was dominated 2/3"-1" sensors, wide depth of field (ENG look), and high price tags.
It also brought the high contrast and saturated look baked in as a very unfriendly in post MP4 format. It also tried to sell a photo camera to a video world where the body form factor and external device connectivity was a joke. Professionals HATE all of that. Canon instead released the 100 - 700 series "cine" style bodies that were all primarily still shooting some form of MP4. It was all again a slap in the face with the added bonus of much higher price tags.
Canon has consistently told the market it doesn't understand it, and will just do what it wants
It also brought the high contrast and saturated look baked in as a very unfriendly in post MP4 format. It also tried to sell a photo camera to a video world where the body form factor and external device connectivity was a joke. Professionals HATE all of that. Canon instead released the 100 - 700 series "cine" style bodies that were all primarily still shooting some form of MP4. It was all again a slap in the face with the added bonus of much higher price tags.
Canon has consistently told the market it doesn't understand it, and will just do what it wants
Good to know.
I realize that my information is dated. Also, the company that I worked for, directly competed with Canon, and it's likely that Canon's influence may have been overstated.
I realize that my information is dated. Also, the company that I worked for, directly competed with Canon, and it's likely that Canon's influence may have been overstated.
Canon has a good share of the market but not to the extent that you are suggesting. Sony is massive particularly for semipro influencers, Panasonic some share, Nikon very little.
Source: Managing 150PB+ of customers video content.
Source: Managing 150PB+ of customers video content.
Cool. Thanks for the data. Sounds like my experience is dated. I know that Sony has taken the crown for mirrorless.
Yep. It’s no more the era of 5DmkII
The 5D definitely grabbed the industry by the lapels, and gave it a good shake. Black Magic followed a few years later, and did their own version of it. For the price of that 5D, you now have the BMD cine cameras. We're pretty much to the point that the lens mount and the physical size of the sensor is the limit to how small a camera can get. It is fun times indeed.
I don't work with anyone who's streaming specifically, but when shooting tourism content for social media and web everyone I've noticed has been Sony - either the Alpha bodies, or FX6/FS7 for more career video guys.
What Canon bodies are you thinking of? Something like R5 or C70?
What Canon bodies are you thinking of? Something like R5 or C70?
I am a streamer/content creator: Most of what I encounter in order is Sony, Canon, and sometimes time Lumix.
Sony has held the crown for the best auto-focusing system for a long time now which for content creators can be very important. Canon is also pretty good, but Sony really has gone all in making sure their system works really well for many scenarios.(People, animals, face and eye tracking.) Lumix's auto-focus system is passable and only if the lens itself works well with it.
Personally I use a mixture of Sony and Canon lenses on a Sony A7S III along with a Sony A7R IV. I used to have a Lumix S1H that I loved the image rendering, but buying lenses for L-Mount was difficult since it is such a new mount. I would love to use Canon exclusively since their button layouts are far superior to Sony's absolute mess.
Sony has held the crown for the best auto-focusing system for a long time now which for content creators can be very important. Canon is also pretty good, but Sony really has gone all in making sure their system works really well for many scenarios.(People, animals, face and eye tracking.) Lumix's auto-focus system is passable and only if the lens itself works well with it.
Personally I use a mixture of Sony and Canon lenses on a Sony A7S III along with a Sony A7R IV. I used to have a Lumix S1H that I loved the image rendering, but buying lenses for L-Mount was difficult since it is such a new mount. I would love to use Canon exclusively since their button layouts are far superior to Sony's absolute mess.
Yes, that is my understanding also regarding the autofocus preferences for content creators. Even accounting for people picking their body and then graduating to shooting manual focus afterwards.
FWIW, my wife shoots Sony after moving from Canon, and I have a Lumix S5ii and GH5.
FWIW, my wife shoots Sony after moving from Canon, and I have a Lumix S5ii and GH5.
> Canon absolutely owns the video market,
Even after reading other people's comments, this statement is absolutely mind boggling to not respond to it.
> Also, the TV and movie industry makes heavy use of Canon DSLR kit for their work.
I'm going to need citations for this claim. Nobody in the TV/movie industry likes the DSLR workflows. The record format is shite. The form factor of the camera is shite. The photo lenses with a maximum rotation of 90° for pulling focus from one end to the other is absolute shite. The DSLR movement was a godsend for prosumers and the wedding photographer being taxed with also capturing video.
Even after reading other people's comments, this statement is absolutely mind boggling to not respond to it.
> Also, the TV and movie industry makes heavy use of Canon DSLR kit for their work.
I'm going to need citations for this claim. Nobody in the TV/movie industry likes the DSLR workflows. The record format is shite. The form factor of the camera is shite. The photo lenses with a maximum rotation of 90° for pulling focus from one end to the other is absolute shite. The DSLR movement was a godsend for prosumers and the wedding photographer being taxed with also capturing video.
Hey, thanks for the sack dance. I already stated twice, that I was wrong, and thanked the posters for the corrections. This was all long before you wrote this.
And now you've said it a third time. It doesn't matter. You made a bold comment that was inaccurate, and people will call you on it to set the record straight. Nobody called you names, nor are they picking on you. It may feel that way, but I don't have any emotions toward you at all. The emotions are on your end.
Actually, I don't really care. I always promptly admit when I'm wrong. Just the way I live.
I just felt like being a bit of a pedant, by pointing out your unnecessary, unkind, and inflammatory comment. I took it exactly the way that you intended. You admit that you read the comments, but made the decision to post this, anyway (sack dance).
There's a better than even chance that we would actually find a lot in common, but I guess that's not to be. I also happen to have a fairly unique perspective, here. Not everything that I wrote was wrong.
Have a great day!
I just felt like being a bit of a pedant, by pointing out your unnecessary, unkind, and inflammatory comment. I took it exactly the way that you intended. You admit that you read the comments, but made the decision to post this, anyway (sack dance).
There's a better than even chance that we would actually find a lot in common, but I guess that's not to be. I also happen to have a fairly unique perspective, here. Not everything that I wrote was wrong.
Have a great day!
RED, Canon and Sony's cine equipment fills different niches, Sony having the broadest spectrum in the bunch. They're an audiovisual company for decades, which can handle/design/build the whole pipeline from acquisition to production to reproduction.
However, from what I see, Canon is filling a very specific niche and they're good at it. RED is the same.
So, it will not level the big three "capability" wise, but Nikon will have a hand (and feet) in cine market, which will provide them great feedback, development avenues and some cash hopefully.
So, they'll be able to compete in one way or another.
However, from what I see, Canon is filling a very specific niche and they're good at it. RED is the same.
So, it will not level the big three "capability" wise, but Nikon will have a hand (and feet) in cine market, which will provide them great feedback, development avenues and some cash hopefully.
So, they'll be able to compete in one way or another.
Canon don’t really care about the same cine market. Their bread and butter is more documentary, indie and news style shoots instead.
They’ve never shown an interest in competing outside of that.
They’ve never shown an interest in competing outside of that.
Makes sense. Blackmagic Design is a serious competitor to RED and got around their raw patent through partial debayering. Also lower price. Canon has been wiping the floor with Nikon this century.
Now you have a legendary cinema brand with some solid fundamental technology to combine with Nikon lenses for a mid to upper market product play.
Now you have a legendary cinema brand with some solid fundamental technology to combine with Nikon lenses for a mid to upper market product play.
Unfortunately my enthusiasm for BMD is muted by the extreme non-freeness of BRAW.
What? It’s free. Perhaps you should read the history around Red as a patent troll, how they price gouge their media, etc.
Blackmagic sold their cameras with support for CinemaDNG advertised, and removed that support after the fact, leaving only BRAW that more or less locked you into Resolve.
This is a deal breaker for anyone using OSS processing pipeline, since 1) BRAW isn’t lossless, AFAIK and 2) it was impossible and to this day is problematic to convert BRAW to something raw development tools understand (DNG).
Luckily, I noticed that just before I bought a unit (!). Now I’m a happy owner of a Sigma fp, which not only is sold with CinemDNG support—shows that BM did have some choice, after all—but is also technically superior.
If I ever do something where their gear is required and someone leases it, sure, but I don’t see why I would give my personal money to BM after how they handled this.
This is a deal breaker for anyone using OSS processing pipeline, since 1) BRAW isn’t lossless, AFAIK and 2) it was impossible and to this day is problematic to convert BRAW to something raw development tools understand (DNG).
Luckily, I noticed that just before I bought a unit (!). Now I’m a happy owner of a Sigma fp, which not only is sold with CinemDNG support—shows that BM did have some choice, after all—but is also technically superior.
If I ever do something where their gear is required and someone leases it, sure, but I don’t see why I would give my personal money to BM after how they handled this.
As a fellow fp enjoyer, I will point out that I believe the fp's CDNG support avoids patent issues by only supporting output to USB drive. RAW video to internal media is where Nikon ran into trouble. It's also a bit of a bummer how terrible the fp's h264 encoder is, but the CDNG makes up for it, I suppose.
Not true. I record to SD card these days, the only downside is no 4K (presumably due to speed limitations), but for 1080p 60 fps it works just fine.
You must get a top spec 64GB (larger capacities are too slow, smaller capacities have not enough space to record anything). Sigma publishes a list of known compatible SD cards.
If you suffer from the shadow flicker issue, let me know. I couldn’t truly enjoy fp until I worked around that.
You must get a top spec 64GB (larger capacities are too slow, smaller capacities have not enough space to record anything). Sigma publishes a list of known compatible SD cards.
If you suffer from the shadow flicker issue, let me know. I couldn’t truly enjoy fp until I worked around that.
Oh wow, you’re absolutely right! I guess I should read my manuals more carefully. :) I’ll have to give that a shot next time.
It's free as in beer (for regular consumers anyway), but (unless you know different?) only available via obfuscated binaries, with no documentation of the actual file format. Correspondingly, it's the only video format I know of that I can't use industry standard open source tools like ffmpeg with.
I'm very aware of the manifold ways in which RED suck.
Edit: There's a certain irony about it. RED took a bunch of free stuff and pretended it was proprietary. BM created a proprietary format and pretended it was free.
I'm very aware of the manifold ways in which RED suck.
Edit: There's a certain irony about it. RED took a bunch of free stuff and pretended it was proprietary. BM created a proprietary format and pretended it was free.
Then I'll give you another one: ProRes RAW. Just the same as Braw, but even worse documentation.
Previously: RED Sues Nikon for patent infringement.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31532285
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31532285
Hahahaha
This means Nikon acquires a license to Canon’s mounts due to the prior RED patent trolling.
This means Nikon acquires a license to Canon’s mounts due to the prior RED patent trolling.
A role reversal from the 1930's - the first Canon cameras used Nikkor lenses!
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/...
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/...
Depends on the terms of the license. It could be written to exclude this kind of successor rights acquisition, or to apply narrowly only to RED-like products.
This is great news. As a long time (decades) Nikon user, their video support has been lagging lately even though the cameras and lenses are now the best they’ve ever been. I hope this means an improved, more “professional” video mode on future cameras as well, perhaps even shutter angle, fingers crossed
Previous discussion about their legal relationship:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31532285
This could actually be pretty interesting, don’t RED have a patent on compressed raw video? I’m amazed that this patent is allowed but I guess we’ll see Nikon cameras with more advanced video features and probably increased difficulty offering ProRes compressed raw for other manufacturers. I hate software patents so much.
I believe so. Although RED was always being super mysterious and hype-y about it their RedCODE codec is ultimately just JPEG2000 so hopefully Nikon can relax this situation somewhat, which would be a benefit to all manufacturers.
Doubtful Nikon will relax it, just use it as a cash cow to get licensing revenue (like Red has) or as a competitive moat if they stop licensing it
Yeah, RED tried to sue Nikon over it:
https://petapixel.com/2023/04/27/reds-lawsuit-against-nikon-...
https://petapixel.com/2023/04/27/reds-lawsuit-against-nikon-...
Yeah I think this will be huge for in-body RAW.
I think Nikon is more likely to play patent licensing than REzd and we’ll see more ProRes RAW offerings going forward.
I think Nikon is more likely to play patent licensing than REzd and we’ll see more ProRes RAW offerings going forward.
So uh compressed raw would be just like a regular (loss-less) compressed image format, then? I thought the distinction between raw and non-raw was the use of lossy compression formats like JPEG.
RAW doesn’t denote compression, contrary to the name.
In Still cameras, it usually means pre-debayering.
On film cameras, it is a little more muddled but usually just means linear colourspace and higher bit depth.
In Still cameras, it usually means pre-debayering.
On film cameras, it is a little more muddled but usually just means linear colourspace and higher bit depth.
RAW is in linear light. Think spring-fresh, straight from the ADC.
JPEG is in perceptual (~log) light. Out of the tap, terrible.
It's also compressed.
There are lossless and lossy compressed RAW formats.
JPEG is in perceptual (~log) light. Out of the tap, terrible.
It's also compressed.
There are lossless and lossy compressed RAW formats.
Wow. The tap water isn't so good, where you are then?
In the case of red’s patents, the relevant issue for RAW compression is that the sensor values are compressed before de-bayering. It’s still lossy.
It would be kind of cool Nikon is able to bring the price of RED cameras down. I've wanted a truly professional-grade camera for awhile, but I cannot justify spending $10k-20k for something that would fundamentally be a glorified toy to me (since I don't do anything professional with camera).
I was hoping that pro-grade 4k cameras would drop to the sub-$500 mark by now, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Even the comparatively cheaper Blackmagic Pocket Cinema cameras are on the order of $2,000-$3,000. I guess the engineering for cameras that nice has fairly high "minimum cost" that can't easily be brought down by industrialization?
I was hoping that pro-grade 4k cameras would drop to the sub-$500 mark by now, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Even the comparatively cheaper Blackmagic Pocket Cinema cameras are on the order of $2,000-$3,000. I guess the engineering for cameras that nice has fairly high "minimum cost" that can't easily be brought down by industrialization?
Isn't 10k already pretty budget price for a _professional_ video camera? Like film class.
At least the film ones (like ARRI Alexa) approach 100k and can be rented as a result.
I think the panavision ones were even more back in the day, but not 100% sure.
At least the film ones (like ARRI Alexa) approach 100k and can be rented as a result.
I think the panavision ones were even more back in the day, but not 100% sure.
That's fair, but using computers as an analogy: a professional-grade computer from the 90's (e.g. a Silicon Graphics machine) used in professional films would cost like $40,000, but now you can buy something orders of magnitude more powerful than a 90's era SGI workstation for peanuts; virtually any modern gaming rig made in the last 15 years or will outperform even a top of the line SGI from 1995, because computer hardware prices have benefited enormously from industrialization.
I realize it's not apples to apples, but I first heard about the Red One 4k in 2008, about 16 years ago, but it doesn't feel like prices have dropped in the same way that computer prices have. In fact, it's hard to even get a used one from 2008 for less than a grand right now.
I'm not even claiming that it's overpriced, not everything can drop to near-zero-margins like computer hardware can and make up for it in scale. I just really want to use a pro-grade camera and I don't want to spend $10+k to do it.
I realize it's not apples to apples, but I first heard about the Red One 4k in 2008, about 16 years ago, but it doesn't feel like prices have dropped in the same way that computer prices have. In fact, it's hard to even get a used one from 2008 for less than a grand right now.
I'm not even claiming that it's overpriced, not everything can drop to near-zero-margins like computer hardware can and make up for it in scale. I just really want to use a pro-grade camera and I don't want to spend $10+k to do it.
Yeah the Reds are really nice, but I (a consumer) haven't been able to tell the difference between what a RED can do and what, say, a $7k SLR type camera could do, film-wise.
So honestly not sure if there is a market of people who can tell a difference between those AND people that are looking to cut costs on the camera because their film crew's time would be much more expensive.
(Mostly thinking out loud, doesn't intuitively add up to me.)
So honestly not sure if there is a market of people who can tell a difference between those AND people that are looking to cut costs on the camera because their film crew's time would be much more expensive.
(Mostly thinking out loud, doesn't intuitively add up to me.)
Absolutely; if you're a movie studio buying a new pro camera ever five years, it doesn't really matter what the camera costs. You can very easily buy a new camera for basically any price, and it'll still be like .01% of the cost of the budget.
> I guess the engineering for cameras that nice has fairly high "minimum cost" that can't easily be brought down by industrialization?
It may be a value thing. Why would you sell a $500 toy to the consumer market who are un-fun customers to deal with, if you could sell the same thing to a professional for $5000 and they won’t even blink because they can leverage that same tool into $500,000 of revenue?
Plus at the $5000 price you can afford to have proper customer support, good service department, and all the other stuff that professionals value. You can make an actually better product even if the tech itself is the same.
And you don’t need to play silly expensive consumer marketing games. Focus on making great cameras and the professionals will market among themselves.
It may be a value thing. Why would you sell a $500 toy to the consumer market who are un-fun customers to deal with, if you could sell the same thing to a professional for $5000 and they won’t even blink because they can leverage that same tool into $500,000 of revenue?
Plus at the $5000 price you can afford to have proper customer support, good service department, and all the other stuff that professionals value. You can make an actually better product even if the tech itself is the same.
And you don’t need to play silly expensive consumer marketing games. Focus on making great cameras and the professionals will market among themselves.
Totally fair, I guess I was hoping it would be like servers.
New servers are also super expensive, and don't directly market to consumer, but their used value is basically nothing. You can buy a used server on eBay, even with relatively nice specs for a consumer, for less than a grand, often substantially less than a grand (mine was $150 for 128gb of RAM and 24 cores).
It doesn't appear that pro-grade cameras fall the same way though.
New servers are also super expensive, and don't directly market to consumer, but their used value is basically nothing. You can buy a used server on eBay, even with relatively nice specs for a consumer, for less than a grand, often substantially less than a grand (mine was $150 for 128gb of RAM and 24 cores).
It doesn't appear that pro-grade cameras fall the same way though.
> It doesn't appear that pro-grade cameras fall the same way though
I wonder if cameras are just too durable and don’t need to be upgraded as often?
Even a consumer camera will last you roughly forever in my experience. I still use a DSLR from 2015 that works great and does everything I need.
I wonder if cameras are just too durable and don’t need to be upgraded as often?
Even a consumer camera will last you roughly forever in my experience. I still use a DSLR from 2015 that works great and does everything I need.
Yeah, I think that's the thing. The reason that companies liquidate servers for so cheap is because nearly any large company that buys a server would always benefit from a server that's any amount better. e.g. If you can push 10% more trades, that roughly correlates directly to profits, so the relative cost of "just buying a new server" is nothing.
A nice 4k (and especially 8k) camera, on the otherhand, is likely "good enough" for a lot longer. A studio can probably get a lot more value out of a 10 year old Red One than a trading company can get from a 10 year old server, so there's not really the constant need to upgrade your camera every year or two.
Also, it would be worth considering that a new camera would (I assume) require a bit more learning on the operators part, since there might be subtle differences between color grading and compression and the like. A server, on the other hand, is somewhat standardized; Linux is basically Linux, if you're running the same OS you're getting basically the same experience, so the process of upgrading is pretty easy.
A nice 4k (and especially 8k) camera, on the otherhand, is likely "good enough" for a lot longer. A studio can probably get a lot more value out of a 10 year old Red One than a trading company can get from a 10 year old server, so there's not really the constant need to upgrade your camera every year or two.
Also, it would be worth considering that a new camera would (I assume) require a bit more learning on the operators part, since there might be subtle differences between color grading and compression and the like. A server, on the other hand, is somewhat standardized; Linux is basically Linux, if you're running the same OS you're getting basically the same experience, so the process of upgrading is pretty easy.
Nikon d850, their top model and one of the best slr's ever made came out in 2017.
My most used digital camera is a Canon 5d from 2005, I prefer it over my much newer Fuji XT3 most of the time because of its colors. (And one of my most used analog cameras is a 1939 Leica)
Pro cameras have a volume problem. Too few are sold.
Imagine if Intel only sold 10000 CPUs a year, but the fabs still cost billions of dollars. Do you still think you would have $500 CPUs?
Imagine if Intel only sold 10000 CPUs a year, but the fabs still cost billions of dollars. Do you still think you would have $500 CPUs?
No argument here.
That’s where my analogy with servers falls apart; it’s not weird for large companies like Amazon or Apple to purchase thousands of servers, which they periodically need to upgrade, and thus liquidate the old ones. Simple supply and demand dictates that the more supply we have, the lower the price (generally speaking).
I agree that if intel didn’t sell millions and millions of CPUs the price would definitely be much higher.
That’s where my analogy with servers falls apart; it’s not weird for large companies like Amazon or Apple to purchase thousands of servers, which they periodically need to upgrade, and thus liquidate the old ones. Simple supply and demand dictates that the more supply we have, the lower the price (generally speaking).
I agree that if intel didn’t sell millions and millions of CPUs the price would definitely be much higher.
Precisely. ARRI is only a viable business because they also have lighting and lenses. Sony and Canon imaging subsidize their cine lines with their high-volume consumer products.
A Canon R100 is under $500 and probably has similar or better image quality to the CineAlta used on Star Wars 25 years ago. A ZV-E10 is slightly better for slightly more money.
Sony and Canon have well established and respected, widely used cinema camera product lines.
Nikon, presently, does not. You will not see Nikon cameras (video, not still image) being used for 'serious' film, tv or documentary production use right now.
Acquiring RED gives them this product line and capability.
I would also bet that if Jannard is a majority shareholder of RED, he's now 74 years old and wants to enjoy his retirement, so selling the company for a pile of money seems like a sensible move.
Nikon, presently, does not. You will not see Nikon cameras (video, not still image) being used for 'serious' film, tv or documentary production use right now.
Acquiring RED gives them this product line and capability.
I would also bet that if Jannard is a majority shareholder of RED, he's now 74 years old and wants to enjoy his retirement, so selling the company for a pile of money seems like a sensible move.
https://vimeo.com/1340684
skate - shot on red #1347 - 120 fps
15 years ago
my "introduction" to who/what RED was
skate - shot on red #1347 - 120 fps
15 years ago
my "introduction" to who/what RED was
RED were the future, in 2012.
However, now, not so much.
They promised excellent resolution for a supposedly cheap price. At the time there was an explosion of "HD" cameras, a lot of them coming from modern DSLRs lead by the canon 5D suddenly opened up the world of good enough resolution and colour to the world.
However at the time RED footage was a massive pain to deal with. redraw was JPEG2000, which from memory is wavelet based. In a world when GPUs were for graphics, CPUs couldn't decode rthe frames in anywhere near realtime.
you could buy a $4k super fragile ASIC card that would allow decoding in real time, but it was a dick to use. It might have got better, but GPUs took over.
However, the big problem with RED is that they over promised and under delivered. They had devoted fans who would foam at the mouth for any company or person that dared to be critical.
THey didn't have a global shutter, they were quite noisy, and they were nowhere near as cheap to run as they made out.
THey kept on making new products, but never managed to really execute them properly. For example they were going to make a 4k laser project that would blow cristie or barco out of the water. Turned out that it didn't work, and at IBC/NAB they were using an overdriven barco.
The tech support people were very nice, however part of the cache of working there was "being in the know" so as soon as it came to getting techincal details you needed to make a decision (liek the redray) things went back to vague marketing terms.
Arrl and Sony all make much better cameras, the might have less pixels, but much better dynamic range and optical resolution. moreover the workflow isn't shite and they are reliable.
However, now, not so much.
They promised excellent resolution for a supposedly cheap price. At the time there was an explosion of "HD" cameras, a lot of them coming from modern DSLRs lead by the canon 5D suddenly opened up the world of good enough resolution and colour to the world.
However at the time RED footage was a massive pain to deal with. redraw was JPEG2000, which from memory is wavelet based. In a world when GPUs were for graphics, CPUs couldn't decode rthe frames in anywhere near realtime.
you could buy a $4k super fragile ASIC card that would allow decoding in real time, but it was a dick to use. It might have got better, but GPUs took over.
However, the big problem with RED is that they over promised and under delivered. They had devoted fans who would foam at the mouth for any company or person that dared to be critical.
THey didn't have a global shutter, they were quite noisy, and they were nowhere near as cheap to run as they made out.
THey kept on making new products, but never managed to really execute them properly. For example they were going to make a 4k laser project that would blow cristie or barco out of the water. Turned out that it didn't work, and at IBC/NAB they were using an overdriven barco.
The tech support people were very nice, however part of the cache of working there was "being in the know" so as soon as it came to getting techincal details you needed to make a decision (liek the redray) things went back to vague marketing terms.
Arrl and Sony all make much better cameras, the might have less pixels, but much better dynamic range and optical resolution. moreover the workflow isn't shite and they are reliable.
Right years after RED lost it's competitive edge sounds exactly like the thing Nikon would do. The weapon was the last camera with an advantage and it's now 8 years old?
Yeah... as someone in VFX who deals with plate footage from major films, in the past five years RED doesn't seem to be used that much these days: it's mostly ARRI/Sony...
I think I've even seen more footage from Panavision (which often do have RED sensors) than RED cameras...
I think I've even seen more footage from Panavision (which often do have RED sensors) than RED cameras...
I wonder if they will relax scrutiny of use of CinemaDNG, or honestly if Nikon produced CDNG that would be cool.
Great news, that should help them stay relevant. We will always want to make more movies.
Jim Jannard, truly a brilliant and under discussed entrepreneur, probably because the guy won't let anyone interview him. From what I have managed gathered over the years, the guy is a seriously cool dude who and also a genius.
"The one thing I will say about Jim is, he’s always been one to have a vision,” Takumi concludes. “When you think about people like that, you think about Steve Jobs, Elon Musk — guys like that. I mean obviously, you’re talking about sunglasses and cameras — [Jannard founded Red Digital Cinema in 2005] — but when you have that, really probably the only way to bring it to life is if you have your own hands on it.”
https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a740060/jim-jannard-oakl...
https://www.oakleyforum.com/guides/oakley-founder-jim-jannar...
"The one thing I will say about Jim is, he’s always been one to have a vision,” Takumi concludes. “When you think about people like that, you think about Steve Jobs, Elon Musk — guys like that. I mean obviously, you’re talking about sunglasses and cameras — [Jannard founded Red Digital Cinema in 2005] — but when you have that, really probably the only way to bring it to life is if you have your own hands on it.”
https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a740060/jim-jannard-oakl...
https://www.oakleyforum.com/guides/oakley-founder-jim-jannar...
I wonder if they will stop selling overpriced SSDs now...
They use regular CFexpress cards now (CFast on Komodo)
first reaction is that in we will see raw inside nikon internal recording soon
Z8 and Z9 already record 8K60 12 bit RAW internally, but of course more cameras joining the list is welcome
[deleted]
[0] https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63flkf3S1bE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW26YMe8iUQ