In this video Ted Schiowitz from RED camera talks about the future of movie making (3D, 48fps, etc):
now that we got quality 24p on consumer cameras they want to convince us that we need 48p
they are just afraid that a lot of new people will get into the cinema business because it is much more affordable nowadays : )
I dont know very much about the video side of things, but can’t consumer cameras like the sony a77 do 60fps? surely its just the thing displaying the videos that needs to be bettered?
Yeah, my Sony HX9V pocket camera can do 60 fps, 1080P & 3D even, and does a pretty darn good job of it at least when viewed on a 24″ 1920×1200 monitor.
But I wouldn’t try to shoot The Hobbit or Avatar 2 with that thing. lol
A 4-5K camera with a 35mm size sensor is going to deliver several orders of magnitude higher quality.
Btw, what i find ironic and disappointing about this video is that Ted is talking about these 4-5K cameras in a video downgraded to 360 res.
Jest exactly how are you suppose to stream 4K to your desktop?
well… (I can see improvements even scaled down to 1080 compared to “native” 1080 stream)
I can see improvements even scaled down to 1080 compared to “native” 1080 stream…
they’re already arround!
how are you “supposed” to
wtf is up with that annoying soundtrack? looks aren’t everything ya know…
Arri Alexia is way beyond RED, and I’ve shot with both.
Arri and Sony are always above RED..
Good old RED. Still beating their chest, still chanting that they are number one while belittling the competition, still not delivering products they promised years ago, still shipping products that are in perpetual beta…
When RED cameras work and deliver they are good, but at this point they are not the only game in town or even the best game in town.
Take a look at the Arri Alexa or new Sony F65. Heck, if you’re on a budget get a Sony F3 with the s-log upgrade.
I think a lot of people are over RED, regardless of a few big names shooting with them. Personally I don’t give a crap what Peter Jackson is shooting with.
Greg: “I don’t give a crap what Peter Jackson is shooting with.”
Or James Cameron?
Craig: “Just how exactly are you supposed to stream 4K to your desktop?”
I don’t know if you were replying to my message directly above or not, but I wasn’t saying I expected a 4K quality YouTube video of Ted’s interview. I was thinking 1080p or 720p which is common now. Something HD would’ve been more appropriate than lame 360.
>Posted September 15, 2011 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
>Greg: “I don’t give a crap what Peter Jackson is shooting with.”
>Or James Cameron?
No, not even Cameron. While I respect his knowledge, his choice of camera would not determine my final decision. Cameron also happens to use cameras from different manufacturers. He just recently endorsed Arri.
I don’t understand the 48p thing. The big deal about 24p is the smoothness of the motion, especially with a high-degree shutter. In the old days, you could spot stuff shot on video because it had that gnarly 30fps motion that looked “too real.” So why would we shoot 48p now?
Ever here of Showscan??? Sixty FPS 30 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan Used for Park Rides.
Lol… RED, so funny.
Great… most people posting here will never buy one.
Why is everything 3D these days? I never seem to see anything coming out of the screen, to me it justs looks like a crappy effect added to a 2D movie.
Maybe it’s because I wear glasses and watching a 3D film when you need your own glasses sucks.