|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 'Oklahoma!' Todd-AO version restoration / premier at TCM Fest 2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 04-08-2014 02:56 PM
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
umm, I thought 'Django Unchained' WAS shot on 35mm ??
It was, but it was scanned at 4K and actually delivered as a 4K DCP. Many 35mm movies only receive a 2K transfer. In my opinion, many 35mm shots (especially the grainy ones) scanned to 2K look quite ugly, primarily because the film grain often ends up looking like digital noise, which I find very distracting.
quote: Leo Enticknap
They might not be for long: rumours are that a 4K version of the Blackmagic camera is just around the corner, and that Arri are working on a four-chip (R, G, B and key image) body.
If Blackmagic can make that work for the same aggressive price as their current 2.5K model, both RED and Arri might be in an interesting position...
Personally, I really prefer the look of both the Sony and Arri gear above the strangely unsaturated look of the RED cameras almost any time. I've only seen the 2.5K Blackmagic camera once, at a trade show, so I cannot really say anything about the quality, but many of their products are surely game changers, especially given their pricing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-08-2014 05:21 PM
quote:
rumours are that a 4K version of the Blackmagic camera is just around the corner,
Already out.
quote: Leo Enticknap
and that Arri are working on a four-chip (R, G, B and key image) body.
I'd be interested in where you heard that, Leo, as such a camera files in the face of common sense and economics in the digital cinema world. As Scott mentioned above, and as I have mentioned before, such a camera would involve beam-splitting prism optics, which would mean that no PL mount cinema lens would work on it, which would pretty much negate the point of it. The fourth sensor being for a "key image" (I presume that you are talking about luminance only, as generating a key signal internally is pretty pointless) is difficult technology, Ikegami tried something like that years ago and couldn't get it to work.
What Arri DID recently do is team up with Ikegami on a 3-chip, B4 lens mount broadcast camera, which uses the Super-35 imagers from the Alexa and an conventional HDK-97 back end. Perhaps that's what you'd heard of.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 04-08-2014 05:51 PM
We're probably going slightly off-topic, but then again...
quote: Mark Ogden
Already out.
But is it already shipping? The 2.5K model only started shipping halfway past year, while it was officially announced and available for (pre-)order in 2012.
quote: Mark Ogden
The fourth sensor being for a "key image" (I presume that you are talking about luminance only, as generating a key signal internally is pretty pointless) is difficult technology, Ikegami tried something like that years ago and couldn't get it to work.
Besides the focal length problem already in place, wouldn't this be as "easy" as just bouncing off the light off a semi-transparent mirror to a single CMOS or CCD sensor? Of course, it would introduce some other issues: your RGB sensors will lose light, but maybe your separate luminance channel is worth it and can easily compensate for that.
And regarding that focal length problem: Arri also sells lenses. So, couldn't they be the first ones sufficiently brave to introduce a new camera that needs new lenses? Maybe they could even pull a Gillette on this one: Make the camera body dirt cheap, but you will need new razor blades/lenses for this one to actually do something meaningful.
Maybe this step needs to be taken or we will be stuck with stupid Bayer filters for eternity.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-08-2014 06:58 PM
The Blackmagic 4K camera is out now and available for retail purchase at many dealers.
As far as the four-chip Alexa goes (if such a thing really is happening): I suppose that Arri could do such a thing, bring out a dedicated line of lenses for it. I just don't see either the practical or economic point of it. Arri makes a great lens, but what about DPs who like Cooke, Schneider, Panavision et. al. ? The entire point of the single chip design was to allow people use whatever commonly available PL mount (or E or EF) lens they wanted. As far as I know, there is no B4 mount prime lens available, so you lose that as well. Unless this alleged camera is light years over and above what is now available, it's going to be hard to get other manufactures to go along. What's to be gained? There's nothing inherently wrong with Bayer technology, the entire digital photography industry runs on it, and the already existing Alexa makes a stunning image.
The only advantage to a fourth luminence-only imager is somewhat increased resolution IF you spatially offset it from the other chips (I can't imagine what happens to the sampling rate then). As I mentioned above, Ikegami was fooling around with this years ago but never did anything with it, partially because the proposed increase in detail and S/N wasn't worth the engineering headache.
I'm not saying "no way", but if this camera is for real, I will be very interested in hearing the philosophy behind it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-08-2014 09:17 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
If Blackmagic can make that work for the same aggressive price as their current 2.5K model, both RED and Arri might be in an interesting position...
Maybe. And then again maybe not. The potential customer base for d-cinema capable cameras is very small, especially if one is trying to overcome all the built in limitations with everything priced in a remotely affordable range to the "prosumer" market.
It's possible to buy a low priced camera that can shoot 4K video. The just announced Sony A7s mirrorless camera features a full frame sensor in native 4K resolution (rather than the typical 24 or so Mpixel resolutions of other full frame cameras). There's no down-sampling involved with shooting 4K video, unlike nearly all other still cameras offering video capabilities.
This is all fine and good until you want to pair it up with a good lens. Still camera lenses are best used for shooting still images, not video. Cine lenses are expensive as hell. "Digital" has done absolutely nothing to change this.
Even though the camera bodies and sensors are getting better, they still have some serious issues. Fundamentally I don't like all the problems that come from rolling shutters. Moving to 4K across all camera levels from consumer to professional is fine.
But now a lot more work needs to be centered on developing global shutter sensor designs. Every pixel "sees" the image frame simultaneously rather than being recorded in a linear fashion, which is what CMOS sensors typically do. Global shutter sensors wouldn't have all the distorted, sheared video imagery in zip pans like you get with rolling shutter based image sensors.
Global shutter sensors in DSLRs and mirror-less cameras could be a God-send for certain types of still photography. If someone wants to use controlled lighting outdoors and use high shutter speeds to kill ambient light from the sun, he has a couple choices. He can use a ridiculously expensive camera system with specialized lenses with things like leaf shutters. Or he can try using a less expensive DSLR system with speed lights tricked into "hypersync" with Pocket Wizards. Unfortunately hypersync is a good way to burn up a good speed light. Global sensors and a different shutter curtain design would negate that nonsense. $2000 of camera would be able to do what a $50,000 camera could do without any tricks.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-09-2014 01:03 PM
With respect to major motion pictures (i.e. the kind that get released into large numbers of theatres and that have major advertising campaigns behind them), does anyone really care about the cost of cameras? Cameras are rented, not purchased, by these productions, and the rental cost is probably a fraction of the catering budget on a large film.
That is not to say that a cheap 4K video camera wouldn't be nifty, but cameras are not the reason why movies are expensive to make. Even for low budget productions, high-quality video cameras may be cheap(-ish) now, but everything else (lenses, lighting, grip equipment, locations, set design, actors, sound equipment, crew, permits, music/book rights, insurance, etc.) is still as expensive as it ever was....
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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