Convergence between Video and Still cameras appears to be a hot item with the release of the Nikon D90 and imminent release of the Canon D5 MK II.

I have been following the development of the Red Camera System for some time now. At first the “Red” home page on the net reminded me of vaporware announcements prevalent throughout the world. As time passed I came to see that this might in fact be a real commercial entity with a real product, but it was just too good to be true.

My initial derision was shortly replaced by a sharp dislike for their marketing approach to selling and enhancing the visibility of their product. It appeared to me to be long on BS and short on facts. Images of their imminent product were computer generated rather than actual photographs. Heck, they even wanted potential customers to pre-order and place a deposit. Definitely reminiscent of a sure recipe for a scam.

Their web presence is still here today.

Red Camera System

Today I see that Mike Johnson has created a Red post.

Despite my misgivings propagated by the Red commerce, I must say I like the idea. A comment on the TOP post by Chad Thompson ads further enlightenment.

Again I really like the concept.

Through my life I have spent much more time and money on Video equipment than on still cameras. This has not been because I value or desire video more than stills. It is just due to the fact that video equipment places higher demands on the technology resulting in higher prices and that processing video is much more complex than stills.

Some video design goals that influence the end price of the product could be as follows:

1) Lens with large zoom range, typically 10 X or larger. Still camera lens like to use 3 X.
2) Dynamic auto focus (Focus while recording). The angle of view should not change while focusing and focus distance should not change while zooming. Both of these features are rarely produced by still camera lenses.
3) Very quiet operation (Virtually silent) to minimize interference with on board microphones. I have never played with a motorized still lens that came close to silence.
4) Zooming microphones. Most still cameras do not even have audio recording capability that could very nicely be used to capture notes related to the shot.
5) Low light capability. Typically camcorders have modes that allow operation with indoor lighting. The most expensive still camera lenses do operate in low light.
6) Dynamic auto exposure to accommodate changes in subject lighting while recording. Still cameras certainly come close to offering dynamic auto exposure.
7) Stabilized line of sight. Offered on some still cameras.
Damped pan and tilt head for the tripod. This feature is analogous to the ubiquitous ball head of the still camera but much more sophisticated and expensive. The video head eliminates vibration while allowing smooth control of the line of sight.

Another very interesting feature of video cameras that I don’t think is a cost driver is what I like to refer to as the operational form factor. This is the orientation and shape of the camera during recording. Video cameras do not seem to be wedded to tradition as the still cameras. Several different form factors are in use by video where as still cameras all seem to use variations on the same approach. The video cameras are all optimized to allow dynamic subject composition during recording. A trivial little example of this is that the video cameras all have some way of accommodating the photographers nose so that it does not interfere with operation of the camera. This simple feature has yet to be inserted into still cameras.

At each significant increment in improved video technology I had upgraded my cameras typically at a higher cost than upgrading my still camera equipment. The four technological breakthroughs that prompted new purchases where:

1) Auto exposure
2) Auto focus
3) Stabilized line of sight
4) Digital Video

Note: I’ve never appreciated more pixels as a significant technology improvement although it does carry with it some importance.

The first three improvements made the camera much more usable. Unlike a still camera the video camera needs to constantly change and adapt exposure, focus, position and line of sight. These technology improvements meant that a single operator had a chance of using the system unlike the professional studios with several people operating the camera. Each increment in technology increased the regime of video operation.

The last increment was Digital Video (DV). This was probably the biggest advancement despite really only impacting post processing. It was DV that really brought post processing into the operational realm and affordability of entities other than mega studios. For me, the reason that DV was so important is that I found Raw footage to be incredibly boring. Post processing now allowed us to actually make a “Movie” that might possibly be entertaining.

Around the same time that DV hit the consumer market we also had the advent of three CCD technology in video cameras. 3 CCD technology is very common if not universal in professional video cameras, except for the “Red System” that uses on the Bayer pattern.

Also debuting with DV was the added capability of Camcorders to produce still photographs although the realization of that capability seems mostly as a marketing come on rather than a real feature. The reason I perceive the still photo as a come on, is that the operator interface to the still camera was just appalling.

On the other hand the introduction of three CCD’s to still photography seems to have gone unnoticed.

Below are two photographs of myself taken last summer where I tried to compare Bayer and 3 CCD technology. I wanted test photos that included skin tones and I could not prevail upon anyone else to pose for the experiment.

3 CCD, Panasonic GS400 with 12X Lica lens

Bayer pattern, Nikon D80 with 18-200mm Nikor lens

The two photos above were taken with cameras of similar cost and features/capability. The still camera has substantially better resolution and thus this is not quite a fair comparison. I’m using this example only to illustrate the differences in color rendition of the different systems employed by the two cameras.

My general impression is that the 3 CCD system produces significantly more natural color than the Bayer system. On the other hand the Bayer system is using a much larger CCD with better resolution and dynamic range. The Bayer photo produced skin tones that were too red and greens that were too blue. My photoshopping skills are not sufficient to make the necessary corrections to the color of the Bayer photo.

I must have at least 6 different still cameras all using the Bayer approach and I would like to say that none of them have ever produced decent color. Another interesting issue is that no matter what I do in pre and post processing I can not get the color from one camera to match the color from another, or for that matter to match up with film.

The photo’s were taken late in the day with the sun low on the horizon producing redish light.

Now if only Panasonic had given us decent camera controls on the GS400 then it might have been a reasonable camera despite it’s lack of pixels (claimed to be 4 Mpixels, but probably more like 2 Mpixels)

So despite the Red System and the Nikon D90 or the Canon D5 MK II, I am still looking for convergence with something other than Bayer. The only other approaches that I’ve seen are 3 sensors and the Foveon technology. I have no experience with Foveon so have no comment. 3 Sensors on the other hand sure is an improvement over Bayer but it comes at a cost.