|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The future of film ... according to (a guy at) Arri
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-10-2009 11:48 PM
James, I do....I'm merely judging based on what I see on the screen...regardless of what got it there. And yes, I'm priviledged...I get to see some grades of prints that most others never get to see but I also see the common release print too.
I've definitely seen digital from the editing stage on out...and I haven't seen digital come close yet...not on a finished feature...show it to me and I'll be with you.
Remember too, just like with film, digital has to go through its projection aspect with the limitations in the medium (file size) and the projection technology.
The worst thing I've seen with film in recent years was the 2K DI...it has really ruined the image...lowered the bar a bit....I'm hopng that 4K will raise it back up some.
As for audio...while the dynamics of DJing dictate what people want/need best...that has nothing to do with the quality of the recordings on the digital vs analog. That is, on the whole, I don't hear any marked superior recordings in digital world than I did in the analog world...in fact, I'll go as far to say as they seem to be worse...sure they are technically more complex than analog could have ever provided but the end results just don't seem to have it.
For me...the biggest thing I've seen from digital is to get rid of the annoying shutter flicker of film (3-wing shutters can do tha for film too). Also, I wish they would loose the 24fps crap.
When I see the digital image look as good or superior to the film image, I'll be right there with you. But I have not seen it yet in a theatre or screening room other than things like flicker and color consistancy (that is another thing I don't like about film...no two rolls/processing seem to identically match...let alone two projectors/lamphouses).
I'll give digital its credits where it earns them and likewise film. But just because digital opens up this new world of digital manipulation to do things that can't be done in the analog world mean that they are necessarily better or help with the story (if there even is one!)...I definitely have not heard it in audio recordings and, for the most part, have not seen it in film shows beyond adding some effects here and there much the same as matte paintings could augment movies in lieu of impossible sets.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 07-12-2009 01:07 AM
quote: James B Gardiner
I personally think that FILM is pushed by those in positions of power as it is more likely to keep them there.
There excuses are based on lazyness and being frightened by that they don;t understand. But in general, they cannot be bothered to learn the new digital technology.
James again more conspiricy theories, Do you really live in the same Australia that I do? The country that pioneered high budget digital film production with the final Star Wars films and Superman returns etc?. A country that the government film making bodies will only finance short films shot with digital cameras?
The digital revolution is happening but your expections are before the technology is in place. Having started my career as a cinecamera assistant at ABC television, I know several of the people that are involved and there is a lot of issues with this new technology that we simply would not expect. From new post production work flows from the red raw codec, to issues with digital viewfinders and special effects shots on Superman Returns.
quote: James B Gardiner
Grain is nothing but an artistic choice. If you prefer it and consider it organic, great. The young kids most likely consider it noise.
Grain is more a product of high speed films and decreasing lighting budgets in an attempt to speed up production. If one was to light with care as was done in the past I am sure grain would not be a issue with the few vision diserning young kids you like to hang with. It is this same low lighting that creats the rather crappy video look of "Public Enemy" from what I have seen in its trailer.
quote: James B Gardiner
I have noticed that film-tech seems to be an ivory tower with man holding onto the romance of film. Personally I don;t care. I am a computer tech that has drifted into the doing digital side of exhibition. I just observe and based on what I see, make conclusions.
James have you ever seen film projected in a Film Guard(by film tech) equiped cinema? If you had then you may understand why we are passionate on this particular website about what film can be in the year 2009, ie dust and scratch free presentation but you really have to see it to believe it. It does cost a lot less than a 2k projector! Just click on the products <<<<<<< just under forums button.
quote: James B Gardiner
A typical 2K system will ALWAYS look better due to the massive lossy process the film has to go through.
Why is it that on a DI print you don't see the the flyscreen that the typical 2k system features?
I personally think that cinema must evolve in the near future into a vastly better experience than it is today now that home has 1080p to simply remain relevent.
I look forward to this technology that will create a better bigger more immersive cinema experience, not something good enough like 2k/1080p. I am sure it will not be to many more years that we will have to wait as cinema continues to evolve.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 07-22-2009 07:19 AM
Speaking on the subject of grain, now that I can see it up-close-and-personal on many blu-ray transfers thanks to the high definition, I've come to dislike it quite a bit.
Distracting as hell to see constanly dancing black dots all over the movie on MANY "classic" modern transfers, specially with "night" scenes (lately, I've been bothered by it on Blade Runner and The Matrix 2 blu-discs).
Anyway, the point of this post was this article in Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-panavision20-2009jul20,0,5682188.story
quote:
Panavision's future is in need of focus
The camera maker's bright past has been overshadowed by heavy debt, CEO shake-ups and decreasing demand for its equipment as many filmmakers switch to digital technology.
When producer John Wells was preparing to shoot his crime drama "Southland," he chose a digital camera that few had heard of a few years ago. The Red One was inexpensive, easy to use and enthusiastically endorsed by his friend and director Steven Soderbergh, who used it to film his two-part movie last year about Che Guevara.
Wells was so taken with the Red camera that he even used it to film the final six episodes of "ER." That was a blow to Panavision Inc., the movie camera rental company whose roots go back more than half a century in Hollywood and which had provided cameras for hundreds of episodes during the hospital drama's 15-year run.
"Panavision was completely in shock," recalled Arthur Albert, cinematographer for "ER." "It was like a slap in the face."
...
Once known for its stable management, Panavision in recent years has more resembled the revolving executive suite door of a Hollywood studio, with four chief executives in the last six years. The most recent, William M. Campbell, lasted less than three months on the job.
"Anybody who uses Panavision equipment has to be concerned," said Richard Crudo, past president of the American Society of Cinematographers. "Our biggest concern is that something disastrous might happen and suddenly they're not with us any longer. That would be a major blow to the industry."
....
In response to the slowdown, Panavision laid off about 200 employees, reducing its total workforce to 1,200. It plans to consolidate offices, currently split between Woodland Hills and Hollywood, into a location in Burbank this year.
....
But demand for film cameras has steadily declined in recent years. Although filmmakers still debate the merits of shooting on 35-millimeter film versus shooting digitally, the switch to digital equipment has been dramatic, especially in television, where studios have been pressuring producers to cut costs. Virtually all the TV pilots were shot digitally this year.
...
"Suddenly the camera that nobody has access to, everybody has access to," said Brook Willard, a digital imaging technician who works with the Red camera and served as an advisor on "Southland" and "ER."
...
Bevins acknowledged that Panavision needs to more quickly adapt to the changing marketplace. To that end, the company recently acquired 15 Sony digital cameras for $35 million and is developing a new line of digital cameras.
Due to panavision too little-too late moves into the digital domain, they may end up the way Polaroid and others (Kodak?) may go in the (distant?) future.
Another film-player that is living on borrowed time is Nikon, and actually may survive thanks to sensors provided by third parties (Sony), a good line of lenses and a loyal customer base and reputation, but which digital expertise was way too low to (theoretically) keep it as a major player in the new era.
And this is the BEGINNING of the digital revolution. Far better and MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE (even) equipment is scheduled to appear this year (and the next and the next), further diminishing the advantages of film over digital adqusition.
2009 is the year of the BEGINNING of the death of film as an adquisition medium for motion pictures. How long it takes for it to (virtually) die is anybody's guess, but the writing is on the wall for sure.
Now theatrical exhibition is the only "stronghold" for film-based moving images. And the way it's going with the pitiful DCI conversion process, film will be with us for quite a bit longer.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-22-2009 10:42 AM
quote: Julio Roberto
Speaking on the subject of grain, now that I can see it up-close-and-personal on many blu-ray transfers thanks to the high definition, I've come to dislike it quite a bit.
I don't find visible film grain distracting. I'm used to seeing visible film grain because I've been picky with regard to where I pay to see movies for more than 20 years. If a theater's film projection setup is properly maintained the imagery will be bright and sharp enough for the viewer to see grain, unless a very fine grained film stock or large format film stock was chosen to make the image effectively grainless.
If visible grain is present on the original camera negative, I want it visible on the Blu-ray movie version as well. The grain makes up the detail in the image. If you try to get rid of the grain you absolutely will destroy detail in the process.
Using filters to smooth out grain can make visual items like fabric weave disappear. Skin textures get smoothed out to a waxy looking appearance. The contrasty "pop" in the image vanishes and you end up with an overall soft looking piece of junk. To make matters worse, the studios will then try to re-sharpen the soft image so viewers are stuck looking at visible halos and ringing along object edges.
Let's also not forget this fact: digital cameras do not always shoot grain free images. Video noise can pop up, especially in low light settings. Think that natural film grain is distracting? Try looking at a bunch of visible red and green pixels dancing in the shadows. Several parts of The Lookout, shot with the Panavision Genesis video camera, have that problem. Miami Vice, also shot on video, was noise city.
Yet another factor to consider: "grain" is sometimes added artificially. That was the case with 300. Much of the Battlestar Galactica TV series was shot with digital video cameras. Noise was present in some of the imagery and the producers chose to add a lot more.
quote: Julio Roberto
2009 is the year of the BEGINNING of the death of film as an adquisition medium for motion pictures. How long it takes for it to (virtually) die is anybody's guess, but the writing is on the wall for sure.
You obviously sound like you're rooting for film photography to vanish.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 07-22-2009 12:50 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
You obviously sound like you're rooting for film photography to vanish.
I wouldn't call it "rooting", just being realistic. If I had a choice, I would choose for film to continue existing alongside digital.
I *do* consider digital somewhat more "democratic", as "anyone" can shoot/edit in their homes while with film, specially after the (virtual) dissapearance of super8, you had to rely on film-labs and what-not messy cycles to get stuff on the "big screen".
With digital, you could (somewhat) cheaply shoot your own short or commercials and put them up in "thousands" of big screens. It's feasible to create a DCI Package on one's laptop with a cheap digital camera/software. Or will be soon.
With film, it's a more convoluted process that involves labs, digital sound licenses and whatnot to get the same level of accomplishment. Not to mention financial risk.
So yeah, I like digital's flexibility and "democracy". I find film a bit "elitist" but do not wish for its dissapearance, as it has its virtues and is just as good (or better at times), result-wise, as digital.
Unfortunately, the market is likely gonna get rid of one of them. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
One line from that article that summarises Panavision status quite well:
quote:
"We've decided to redouble our efforts to develop product for the digital marketplace," he said. "We can't rent what people don't want."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-22-2009 03:36 PM
quote: Julio Roberto
I *do* consider digital somewhat more "democratic", as "anyone" can shoot/edit in their homes while with film, specially after the (virtual) dissapearance of super8, you had to rely on film-labs and what-not messy cycles to get stuff on the "big screen".
There is a long established joke in Hollywood that film stock is the cheapest ingredient in a movie production. Eliminating film doesn't do much to allow movie making to somehow become more "democratic" and accessible to many more people. It takes a whole lot more than just a good camera to make any kind of movie or video piece that's worth watching at all.
quote: Julio Roberto
With film, it's a more convoluted process that involves labs, digital sound licenses and whatnot to get the same level of accomplishment. Not to mention financial risk.
Nearly all the same issues, including financial risk, are in place even if you shoot on video. You may not have to develop any film. However, you'll have to cough up some serious dough for "film look" processing, color grading and overall digital intermediate work. Plenty of movies shot in "digital" still have to work through a digital intermediate stage.
In terms of sound production absolutely nothing changes by shooting on video. The same audio work flow remains. I hope you don't think you can do professional work using top mic audio from the camera. All the same post production looping, foley, mixing, encoding, etc. still has to be done. And you'll probably still be stuck paying Dolby and/or DTS licensing fees too, after all DVD is far from a dead format and lossless/uncompressed 5.1 formats probably will never get use on HD broadcast/cable either.
Also, this whole notion of somehow being "democratic" with the creative process annoys the hell out of me. It takes a lot more than just acquiring a piece of equipment like a video camera or a software application like Photoshop for anyone to pass themselves off as some sort of artist or "filmmaker."
I can go buy a set of the same golf clubs Tiger Woods uses. That won't help me play golf like Tiger Woods. Not one bit.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 07-22-2009 04:30 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I can go buy a set of the same golf clubs Tiger Woods uses. That won't help me play golf like Tiger Woods. Not one bit.
Sure, Bobby.
But until now, even if you played as good as Tiger, Panavision/Arri/Kodak/Labs/etc were the only makers of the golf clubs. And they were priced at say $20.000/week rental.
Now, the same clubs are available at $200/week.
Sure you still "need" all the other stuff. Maybe (i.e. not-so much if your movie is the Blair Witch). But at least, now, the clubs are more "democratic" and available.
Having the clubs won't make you a Tiger. But if you are a Tiger and you only have $200 in your pocket, now you finally can play some golf while before you had to beg for somebody to donate $20.000/week for you to play.
All other expenses remain the same. But it's a "myth" that film stock is the cheapest part of a production (in the way that the stock implies transportation/development/color timing/neg cutting/sound printing/possitive printing/replication .... or nowadays film-scanning/DI manipulation/film-out printing).
You are just cutting off the film->to->digital->and->back->to->film cost (around $100.000 and up) and you are switching $20.000/week camera packages for $2000/week camera packages, let's say.
All the rest can be as cheap or as expensive as it has always been.
Except distribution as well. You swap $1000 print/transportation/digital sound licence/disposal for a $10 hard drive rental.
What also bothers me are those that say that film is so easy, so cheap, so convinient and that digital doesn't save or add any flexibility to it and then would never dream to shoot a short or a commercial due to film's up-front high cost and soon will be editing out slides advertisements for theatres out of their Photoshops directly into JPEG2K DCI packages for virtually no cost in materials.
Bobby, do you remember the time when the only way to get signage were through really expensive offset printers, optical cameras/scanners, etc, and how now with a few thousand $$$ you can have Photoshop based home system and large format digital printer that can approximate (or surpass) the capability of used-to-be-million-dollar-machinery?
Same desktop graphics digital revolution thing, but with motion pictures. Now, with cheap computers/software/scanners/printers, a lot of people can afford a SHOT at becoming a player in the graphics art. Good or bad. And soon, a lot of people are gonna be able to afford a SHOT at becoming a filmaker, good or bad, but with some cheaper tools to help along that used to be available only to the "elite" before.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-23-2009 10:56 PM
quote: Julio Roberto
Having the clubs won't make you a Tiger. But if you are a Tiger and you only have $200 in your pocket, now you finally can play some golf while before you had to beg for somebody to donate $20.000/week for you to play.
In the end, unless you have a lot more than $200 in funding coming in (often from other investors), you're probably only going to end up with a cheap, nearly unwatchable home movie.
If you have a lot of talent and a lot of time to do every production task yourself you can put together an interesting short feature. But that sort of thing is not really commercially viable. Such projects are usually only done either for fun or to stick on a reel in the effort of getting an actual feature project off the ground.
Julio, you talk about digital cameras like the Red One. Do you really think that sort of camera system is truly "democratic" and accessible to anyone on any budget? There is a lot more involved with the Red camera than just the core block part of it. The lens packs that attach to it often cost a LOT more than the imaging block itself. What do you do about streaming and storing the data? What about the sound? What about the lighting? Oh, and by the way, what exactly is the amateur budding "filmmaker" intending to film in the first place? Does he have any actual lights, sets, costumes, production design or even something like a decent script? Who is he paying to step in front of the camera? His brother or baby?
If shooting video was really so "democratic" why is the infrastructure of so many TV stations pretty much unchanged? Why is it that a national network's video quality looks 10,000 times better than the $600 camcorder you pick up at Best Buy? Both are "digital" right? Since they're both "digital" they both should have the same quality, right?
quote: Julio Roberto
All other expenses remain the same. But it's a "myth" that film stock is the cheapest part of a production (in the way that the stock implies transportation/development/color timing/neg cutting/sound printing/possitive printing/replication .... or nowadays film-scanning/DI manipulation/film-out printing).
By far the biggest cost for any legitimate movie production is talent. The actors cost a LOT more than anything else. Sets cost a fortune to build. Shooting on location at various places costs a lot. You need people to handle all the permits. Then you need others to handle all the legal clearance crap, such a song that happens to be playing in the background over a take you cannot afford to lose. The list goes on and on and on. Film really is a minor cost. And that especially goes for any major studio production.
quote: Julio Roberto
You are just cutting off the film->to->digital->and->back->to->film cost (around $100.000 and up) and you are switching $20.000/week camera packages for $2000/week camera packages, let's say.
Yeah, let's say. You're making up hypothetical figures.
In the overall scheme of a major studio feature production or even a significant independent production the difference you're throwing out is very minor when compared to the overall production budget.
quote: Julio Roberto
You swap $1000 print/transportation/digital sound licence/disposal for a $10 hard drive rental.
Cite some actual sources for your price claims. A virtual print fee costs more than just $10.
quote: Julio Roberto
What also bothers me are those that say that film is so easy, so cheap, so convinient and that digital doesn't save or add any flexibility to it and then would never dream to shoot a short or a commercial due to film's up-front high cost and soon will be editing out slides advertisements for theatres out of their Photoshops directly into JPEG2K DCI packages for virtually no cost in materials.
No one is saying film is cheap. The thing I won't agree on is that digital is cheap either. It's only convenient and only convenient at a cost of harming visual quality.
I just saw the trailer on TV for The Goods and that comedy movie has the "this was shot on video" look pasted all over it. Just like Public Enemies, that new comedy visually looks like shit. I hope it turns out to be really funny. Because the movie makers (I refuse to use the term "filmmakers") sacrificed quite a lot for the digital convenience. I hope all the extra takes they could have shot turned out some comedy gold. It's just too bad they ran the video through the CMY/film look computer filters to muddy up otherwise probably decent looking RGB 6 o'clock news looking video footage.
quote: Julio Roberto
Bobby, do you remember the time when the only way to get signage were through really expensive offset printers, optical cameras/scanners, etc, and how now with a few thousand $$$ you can have Photoshop based home system and large format digital printer that can approximate (or surpass) the capability of used-to-be-million-dollar-machinery?
Signage only via offset printers? What? Exactly what is your expertise in sign manufacturing?
This analogy only bolsters my earlier point. Only a half-wit who didn't quite think through his business plan would be retarded enough to believe he could run a sign business only with a computer running Photoshop and whatever inkjet printer he could afford. But there are many who try! There is a whole lot more to the sign business and outdoor advertising industry (lately called "out of home" or the gay sounding "OOH" acronym) than a mere computer hooked up to an over-sized printer.
Let's take some amateur who got a copy of Photoshop (warez as usual via the torrent-du-jour of the moment) and shelled out $3000 for the cheapest large format HP Designjet printer he could find. Customer calls up:
Customer: "Yeah, I need a sign."
Wannabe sign guy: "We make signs!"
Customer: "I need something that lights up at night."
Wannabe sign guy: "Um, I can't build lighted cabinets. Gotta order them."
Customer: "I'm really thinking of channel letters. With neon."
Wannabe sign guy: "We really have to order that kind of stuff."
Customer: "I'm also interested in those LED jumbotron things."
Wannabe sign guy: "Uh, we. Uh. We don't do that."
Customer: "Why not?"
Wannabe sign guy: "The LED signs are too complicated for us to set up and repair."
Customer: "Can you install the signs you order?"
Wannabe sign guy: "We have to hire out a crane truck operator."
Customer: "You don't have your own crane trucks?"
Wannabe sign guy: "Uh, no. No we don't."
Customer: "Can you repair existing neon?"
Wannabe sign guy: "I have to order that."
Customer: "Do you know how to install neon?"
Wannabe sign guy: "I don't know anything about electrical wiring."
Customer: "So I take it you have no electrician's license."
Wannabe sign guy: "I changed out a light socket in shop class."
Customer: "What kind of signs can you actually make?"
Wannabe sign guy: "I can print you a pimped out banner!"
Customer: "Pimped out, huh? What formal training do you have?"
Wannabe sign guy: "I have a copy of Photoshop."
Customer: "Do you have an actual business location?"
Wannabe sign guy: "Yeah, my garage!"
Customer: "Goodbye."
Wannabe sign guy: "Wait! I'm cheaper than anyone else!" Hello? Hello!?"
quote:
Same desktop graphics digital revolution thing, but with motion pictures. Now, with cheap computers/software/scanners/printers, a lot of people can afford a SHOT at becoming a player in the graphics art. Good or bad. And soon, a lot of people are gonna be able to afford a SHOT at becoming a filmmaker, good or bad, but with some cheaper tools to help along that used to be available only to the "elite" before.
The vast majority of people out there need to keep their day jobs.
The situation with talent for writing, general storytelling, artistic talent, overall creative talent, etc. really isn't any different than the talent for singing. But we know terrible singing when we hear it. Too bad we're stupid about almost everything else. American Idol and other similar TV shows get big ratings off people tuning in so they can laugh at people who foolishly believe they can sing when they really don't have the talent for it at all.
The label "elite," which is often applied to those who do have the talent and dedication to succeed at a certain creative pursuit, is more than off putting. It's only a statement for people with no talent to somehow prop up themselves so they can act like they are on the same level as those who would have succeeded anyway regardless of whether the movies were being shot on film or video.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 07-24-2009 02:45 AM
Well, we once again agree to disagree ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
I never said, if you read my posts, that you could do a full feature film like Transformers for "dirt cheap". But at least you can try (and surely fail), while before even that was out of the question.
To randomly answer some of your issues (no point in long discussions since we disagree in the fundamentals, it seems), if you do your own DCP on the desktop for a theoretical short or 2-minutes commercial, and you are doing your own "in my garage" distribution, you could "rent out" a hard drive for $10 (i.e. buy a new 200GB hard drive for $40 and re-use it or re-sell it on ebay after your own home-distribution is done). If you are a big studio distributing a movie through a recognized large distributor, they may get nailed whatever they can be nailed for replication etc.
About signage: I was talking mostly about posters and such, referring to images printed offset for posters, i.e. (with "old traditional film-based separation/matrixing) or vinly cut signes (in old expensive plotters, i.e.)
20 years ago, only very expensive machinery could do large formats. Nowadays, small plotters and flexible-surface "large format" printers are far more affordeable to allow tiling etc to approximate (sometimes surpass) "professional" results that used to command hundreds of K of $$$$ machinery. All this in a "desktop" w/o resorting to (purely) photographic processes for printing plates, etc.
Even with LED signage etc, digital is changing the scope as costs are reduced in large panels etc at a rate that makes feasible displays that before, perhaps, required the rental of hundreds-of-k's projectors as an alternative, etc.
My point: Digital will make/is making shooting (small stuff) with a quality level that (very much so) challenges a market (35mm film) that until now was (mostly) available to "elite" only and at (mostly) affordable price points.
A camera BETTER than the RED one is about to come out (in a few months) at HALF the price of the RED, i.e.
DCI currently puts 2.1 megapixels 1998x1080 on (virtually) all the "professional cinema" screen. Even with film-theatres, this MAX resolution is retained, as film has gone through a film-out process after a 2K DI. Even more, many film-printers only put 1828 X 988 pixels RESIZED from the 1998x1080 DI into an 1.85 film area. Account that film being random-spot analog is not gonna be able to capture all that detail, plus it's gonna go through at least a one-generation replication loss for an exhibition print, and we are talking at perhaps as little as 1.7 megapixel equivalent in virtually all theatrically film-based motion pictures exhibited in the past 5+ years.
The camera I'm shooting my daughter's birthday this Sunday has a 21.1 (bayer) sensor, which still equates on a worse case scenario to a 7 megapixel "full rgb". It does 12bits (and more, with full uncompressed raw, albeit in photo mode, of course, up to 4fps). This camera is ARTIFICIALLY limited by the manufacturer, but even when shooting video at a HIGHER rate than "theatrical film" (30 fps), it still utilizes a matrix of full 2 megapixels-rgb (by skipping two lines out of three vertically from the 7Mp-rgb, 21.1mp bayer), just as many as DCI/current film process puts on the screen AT BEST.
In "short", I'm shooting in my home for around $3000 at (about) the same quality level as I, a non professional with a limited budget for lenses etc, could've only obtained until recently renting a 35mm film camera, buying film stock, lighting for around 500ASA (instead of my camera well over 1500 equivalent), setting the speed to 30fps and sending the stock I exposed out for processing/scanning, and then using the digital files to edit in Adobe Premiere, let's say.
Yes. I think there has been a digital revolution in many aspects of our lives, like Desktop Editing (with i.e. inexpensive laser printers), graphics artistry, and now (or soon) with motion picture adquisition (digital), delivery (internet, cheap drives/memory cards/BD-r) and exhibition (cheap LCD TV's, projectors, DCP packages, e-cinema).
If you think that digital hasn't changed the landscape for these industries, hasn't "democratized them" and taking them out of the EXCLUSIVE hands of the elite, and that we still have to spend the same as we always have for those things, well, as I said, we just agree to disagree. No big deal. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif) But I still remember the times when a half decent video projector was a $25.000+ investment and it sucked compared to today's $3000 High Definition ones which, finally, can (somewhat) compete with "elite" 35mm results.
I do fully understand and TOTALLY AGREE with your point that, having this possibility of doing any of those things (playing golf, develop singages, shoot movies) for "relatively cheap" has NOTHING TO DO with the true-quality of the final product, or even the overall cost of the things needed (training/etc) as someone with lots of talent can take a crappy super 8 camera and turn out an amazing film for peanuts while all the money in the world in digital/film/Imax equipment couldn't buy Michael Bay talent ![[Wink]](wink.gif) Still, with the right budget and the Imax cameras, he can get millions to watch his film. I don't think he could've done that with a mini-DV Sony camcorder (just kidding), which until recently, was all we could afford under (say) $20.000/week.
And the guy shooting that awesome film in Super 8 could've probably done a little better could he afford a (theoretical) 16mm one that was even cheaper and use the money saved with the cheaper rental for lighting/better actors/whatever.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 07-24-2009 09:40 AM
quote: Lyle Romer
Who is making this camera?
RED is one of the players (Sony, Canon, Nikon and Panasonic will have something to offer soon to).
RED Scarlett body will cost $9750 and have a new(er) generation 6K (bayer) FF35 sensor *BETTER* than RED one's 4K (4.5K bayer) and which sold for $17500.
Also, if you can live with 5K bayer, which still is more than RED one's 4K and has a better dynamic range, there is a cheaper Scarlet model with S35 sensor for $7000.
http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/
It seems that perhaps there could be a (small, gradual, long term) move from the S35 sized sensors to FF35 sized ones, which can also use S35 lenses on crop factors besides taking advantage of FF35 lenses for which there is also a broad and inexpensive market offering.
The thing about pixel count etc comes from the way most cameras capture color (with a single sensor) as oppossed to the way DCI projectors puts them on the screen (with 3 "overlapping" imaging chips).
Although Bayer can be proven to offer FAR better results than worse-case-scenario, EASILY and MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN approaching those of true photosite count, one has to assume a worse case and divide the number of photosites by 3 (one for each primary color r-g-b).
Thus, a 6K bayer sensor, like (almost) the one in my Canon 5D Mk2, with 21.1 million photosites in a ff35 format (1.5:1 aspect ratio) 5616 x 3744 photosites matrix, could give, at worse, a result similar to "true" DCI 2K specs 1998x1080. At best, it will give results similar to "true" DCI 6K projection (if such thing existed). Generally speaking, it can be agreed that it could give a result equivalent to between 3K and 4K for most situations (i.e. at least statistically 50% of the time).
At some point, in the very near future, they could start doing whatever they want with sensor designs, like rgb stripes and whatnot, although (smart) bayer is better for most situations (proven not only mathematically, but experimentally through the shooting of resolution color charts in both dimensions of 2D space simultaneously, and yes, this means diagonally too), as at worse it will give the results of almost 1/3 an rgb stripe and at best it will (almost) triple the amount of captured spatial luminance detail, while nicely preserving the color to over 50% or theoretical resolution, thanks to smart de-bayering beating the odds of purely 50% color resolution-per-dimension chance of capturing true-color-detail.
Here we are again. Debating and picking on cameras which output can easily surpass in resolution (equivalent to about 2.7K) what movie theatres have been putting on the screen for the past +5 years, or which George Lucas used for the later Star Wars, or Robert Rodriguez for Spy Kids, all for under (say) $30k and we are still complaining
And soon, this will be 20% "better" and 40% cheaper and we'll still be picking about some other stuff like wavelet raw compression or avchd and whatnot, I'm sure.
For me, the short version is: I don't care if film or DCI or whatever is better than a (theoretical) high-end "domestic" camera at (say) $5000 price point or not (there is a 3K-bayer $3750-complete model by Red), or if DCI is better than blu-ray or not. The thing is that the quality is SIMILAR and perfectly comparable for non-professional uses, like home viewing blu-ray discs or video-taping? birthday's parties.
One would hope that with the price tag of DCI etc, it would at least (try to) hold an edge over domestic/semi-pro offers at 1/5 (or less) the price.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic