quote: Julio Roberto

---

Also, he says their digital cameras offer the SAME QUALITY of images as film, although at first he (wrongly) says that film offers more dynamic range than digital (this is no longer true, as some digital sensors offer not only noticeably larger dynamic range than film but higher sensibility and lower noise as well).

---

If video cameras really were better than film in every measure there wouldn't be any of the soupy, smeary, unsightly CRAP all too irrefutably visible in electronically shot movies like Public Enemies, Get Smart and quite a few others.

Video camera technology just is not there yet. All we're getting from the guys at Arri and any other company selling video cameras is a sales pitch.

Film photography still has greater resolution as well as better color balance, contrast and black levels in its CMY subtractive color model.

The only area where video is any better than film is color gamma range. The additive RGB color model is wider in dynamic range than any subtractive model. However, we don't ever see any of that in "digital movies" because the assholes who want to replace every film camera with a video camera don't have the balls to allow video to look like video.

If you want that full RGB additive synthesis model to shine through, as well as the properly balanced color curve of it, then you can't squash it through a bunch of pretentious film look filters. Further, if the "film look" processing isn't done just exactly right, that switch from RGB to CMY color intensities will result in a drab looking mess that still looks like video, just shitty looking video.

The same RGB to CMY problems exist in translating digital still camera images to CMYK mode for print publishing. Just clicking Image>Mode>CMYK in Photoshop can make a good looking RGB digital camera photo suddenly look like shit. Much of the highest quality photography in magazine & book publishing is still shot on film. The imagery, sometimes in the form of large format chromes, can be acquired using drum scanners that process the images in the CMYK model.

Here's the even more important factor: in areas where film fails to photograph the image it fails gracefully. Video just gets the shot all screwed up to hell. If you underexpose a film shot you still have clearly discrete film images. A video camera doesn't manage that so well. The CCD or CMOS imager chokes on that low light source struggling to see what's out there. That can create a data traffic jams that results in a smeary mess. This is easily seen in low light settings and very visible in light challenged scenes with lots of movement. Try compensating by boosting the gain and you end up with clearly visible red and green pixel noise in the black areas of the image (watch certain scenes of The Lookout to see the Panavision Genesis camera fail in that regard).

The funny thing is if the video fans had the courage to allow video to stay looking like video those motion artifacts wouldn't be quite so distracting. We're used to seeing stuff like that with video that's allowed to stay looking like video. When it's trying to pretend to look like film the motion artifacts become distracting.

CCD and CMOS imagers will eventually improve to match and surpass native resolution of 4-perf 35mm film as well as increase processing speed and sensitivity levels. I don't know when that will happen, but it's obvious to me the technology just isn't there currently.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-10-2009, 11:17 AM:
 
Bobby,

We agree to dissagree once more . With just about every single point.

Specially video failing over film in underexposed situations were, precisely, they hold the advantage over film, which degrades better-looking in highlights but worse looking (grain) when underexposed. The amount of noise ("random colored pixels") in digital is, usually, far less than the amount of noise (random dark blotchs of grains) in film. Visit some astronomy sites and figure why they are using digital over film to shoot the (dark) skies nowadays. They have nice comparisons with film.

So, in this point, I have the absolute opposite view from you.

On the rest of them, I also don't share most of it, but at least the opinion is not radically opposited.

Or maybe it is. You are mixing and matching several points, some of which I don't think are (that) relevant to the comparison.

Let me point you out to this gentleman, with his charts to prove it. Let's talk about resolution.

He is comparing FULL FRAME film (which is quite larger than academy or super-35 frame, which is at the same time larger than 1.85 cropped frame, which is further screwed up once you account for the generational copies inter-positive, inter-negative, needed for an exhibition print, which is then further screwed by the inherent wow-and-flutter of mechanical projection) and let me extract one sentence:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

quote:

---

The handwriting is on the wall for film. 16 megapixel sensors (10 for the X3 sensor, if they can produce it) have resolution challenging medium format film. Large users of film have already switched to digital. Film sales are rapidly dropping. Film production lines will shut down as sales drop. Variety will decrease and prices will increase. Traditionalists will complain, but the quality of digital images will carry the day. At 16 megapixels, many traditional view camera applications are migrating to digital, where they can take advantage of Canon and Nikon tilt-shift lenses that turn 35mm/digital cameras into baby view cameras.

---

And he is talking about 16mpx cameras and MEDIUM film format. The camera I just got for myself, i.e, is 21.1Mpx, and here we are talking about S35 35mm frames at best.

There are many myths in the film-vs-current-moderm-digital-sensors, like the above mentioned resolution and the bothersome dynamic range being superior in film which, until recently, was true, but not anymore, at all beyond the shadow of doubt to anyone who wants to see the data.

The ONLY advantage of film over digital, nowadays, is the handling of OVEREXPOSED areas. All the rest: resolution, gamut, fidelity, sensitivity, noise, underexposed handling (crushing blacks or lack of detail or excessive noise in dark areas), dynamic range, motion rendering, etc, are surpassed, sometimes appreciably, by digital, but mostly just matched.

Now: I'm not saying that there are tons of digital products out there that (cleanly, easily) match-or-surpass film, and MOST OF THEM DON'T. I'm saying that it's no longer impossible to make them and the digital sensors to do them exist in the market and the products are starting to appear.

Also, I'm not saying that most current digital motion pictures or photographs made in the past years clearly surpass film-based ones in terms of quality. Most clearly don't. But this has more to do with the creators of such images than with the technology to create them being necessarily, substantially, "inferior".

But no point on having this argument right now. Let's just wait about 1, perhaps 2 more years, and then you'll be able to see with your own eyes in (hopefully) 4K projectors at the theatre the images we are talking about here and then become convinced yourself, first-hand, w/o theoretical arguments, which has the edge: 2010-digital-video vs 2010-35mm-motion-picture-film.

Although to be honest, the comparison is gonna be hard as I'm pretty sure you won't be able to see film that hasn't been scanned, digitally manipulated (graded, color-corrected, screwed with) and then printed-out again, so I guess it will still have to be a theoretical comparison or will have to be watched right after an 80's revival film-festival.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-10-2009, 11:26 AM:
 
Important distinction: negative film (the type normally used for motion pictures) is more tolerant of overexposure than underexposure, while reversal film (the type used for slides and, historically, for 16mm TV news film) is more tolerant of underexposure.

In general, overexposing color negative film slightly (by 1/2-2/3 of a stop) will decrease grain and improve shadow detail.

If we are going to discuss image "quality," then we need to define what that means. Is it resolution? Color depth? Ability to reproduce motion? Subjective opinions from audience surveys? And are we measuring the original image as formed in the caera, or are we measuring an answer print or release print or a projected D-cinema image? All but the first involve processes that happen outside of the camera itself which can affect image quality.

And are we talking about ideal conditions or real-world conditons?

Also worth noting is that not everyone necessarily wants an image with the highest possible resolution. Some films are (intentionally) shot with older lenses, diffusion filters, on 16mm, on SD video, etc., and these are legitimate aesthetic choices.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-10-2009, 11:44 AM:
 
Yeah, I agree, Scott.

Ideally, this doesn't need to become another long, boring, theoretical thread about film-vs-digital.

They are both good. Which one is "better" (and what "better" means) is not that important.

I just wanted to point out that even Arri, the biggest player in film-adquisition together with Panavision, is pbbly considering film a dying medium some 10+ years from now and that they consider current (2009-2010) digital video adquisition "just as good" for motion picture use.

I kind-of-wanted to dismiss the notion that digital (adquisition) MUST be "vastly" inferior nowadays to film, specially since some sensors exist that are actually appreciably superior in most of the parameters that could measure image "quality".

That's all.

Now film is still great and, if you are after a film look, it may end up being cheaper and better to use film. I certainly would consider (and even favor it) for some uses. But that's not to say that shooting digital would necessarily produce an inferior quality image. Not any more.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-10-2009, 11:51 AM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Wow...the editing in that video is truly horrible.

---

quote:

---

We agree to dissagree once more [Wink]. With just about every single point.

---

Julio, you must be putting on a blind fold when watching movies that were shot with video cameras.

If what you're claiming about video is true, there should be absolutely no problems in image quality with movies like Public Enemies, etc. None of those very real, VERY VISIBLE problems should be present at all. Actually, with what you're claiming, new high water mark standards in image quality should be newly achieved with electronic cameras versus film cameras.

With video produced movies such as Collateral or Miami Vice we should be seeing image quality far better than the cinematography in Heat -particularly in the night scenes if what you're claiming in your huge passages of text is true.

The funny thing is the film-based stuff STILL LOOKS BETTER. Paste in 100 pages worth of white papers about video cameras if you like. It won't change anything.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-10-2009, 02:49 PM:
 
The problem with Julio's arguements is it is in the theoretical as far as movie aquisiton is concerned.

They are not shooting with the latest most anything...they are shooting, by and large in 2K...a resolution that is visibly vastly inferior to 35mm 1.85 film...even to the untrained eye.

I don't have any doubt that digital will surpass film and that in some respects it already does.

I've yet to see, in a motion picture film, video ever look superior to film...in fact, just the opposite, if there is a DI involved, then the film output suffers from that weak link...it isn't film's fault...the the film maker for using such an inferior format such as a 2K DI.

If you actually look at any digitally shot movies in low-light...the noise is incredible...much worse than the grain that I've seen on 35mm film.

When the DIs get up to 4K and beyond, things will actually start to look better on film too. So long as 2K DIs are the rule, the images are going to suffer.

Same goes for 2K projection...on a small enough screen (under 20-feet), 2K isn't too bad but it most certainly falls apart above that...the detail is not in the image to fill the voids between the pixels...35mm film, on the other hand, can capably do well beyond that...30-35 feet wide though it is getting pretty rough too. 70mm looks fantastic on most any size screen and I've seen nothing in digital that is coming close to it...too bad the studios are not shooting with it.

4K...will be a vast improvement in digital though...I can see its potential though all of my viewings have had their share of color issues (Sony, ya know). The image though is certainly notably sharper and holds up better on larger screens (40' wide or so).

Steve
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-10-2009, 03:51 PM:
 
Steve:

So you can no longer say you haven't seen digital motion captured images in low light (underexposed) conditions that match (or surpass) film, here are a few dozen examples of such shots done with a $2300 digital camera by Canon.

MANY OF THE SHOTS are done at f1.8, f2.4 and even f4.0 by non-professionals. ALL THE SHOTS ARE DONE AT 30fps (even when they say 25p, they've been shot at 30p and then converted). Imagine what can be done at 24fps and with wider apertures. Also, realize these are compressed at least twice before they reach you and most compressors don't work too well with low light levels as they tend to make blocks of grey with little detail ... well, blocks of grey with no detail.

But, indeed, I was talking more from a theoretical point of view (which will likely become a practical reality in a year or two), rather than a comparison to movies shot last year (or before).

http://vimeo.com/5206854
http://vimeo.com/4244785
http://vimeo.com/5152602
http://vimeo.com/5241766
http://vimeo.com/5291026
http://vimeo.com/4434571
http://vimeo.com/5459652

Actually, just click here and choose any random 10 or 20 clips and see for yourself.

http://vimeo.com/videos/search:canon+mark++night/sort:likes/format:thumbnail

Now this is not an expensive uber-duber camera that is brand new. It's been in the market for some 9 months and it's under $2400. This camera has a rating in photo mode that can equate to over 20.000 ASA in a theoretical film stock.

And these are UNDEREXPOSED and extreme examples to show not-horrible low light performance. You usually don't see an underexposed movie shot on film because ... well, if you have the money to rent the equipment and make a film, you pbbly had some money for proper lighting and a DP who knew what he was doing.

When shooting video, it can be made to behave as a low-grain stock of several thousand ASA's

Now, please, people, stop saying that "you have never seen low light shadow detail from a digital camera that wasn't riddled with noise and looked butt-ugly", so we can put the end to one myth that digital MUST be inferior to film in low light (when the opposite is true as no film stock has a sensitivity of well over 3000 ASA with little noise-equivalent=grain at 30fps). If you must insist, I can spend a few hours looking around and selecting 10 or 20 clips for you to erase that notion for good.

Again, I'm not saying that bad digital low-light products don't exist or that good low-light performing film products don't exist. I'm saying it's wrong to say that film is always, necessarily, superior to digital in low-light performance and that no products that outperform film exist in the digital realm.

We'll have to resort to white papers and charts to debunk the other myths: that film MUST have a wider dynamic range and that film MUST have higher resolution than digital. Specially film when used for motion picture which most of the time is 1.85 cropped, academy or S35 aperture at best usually, and must be duplicated to a release print and mechanically projected to be seen.

Again, believe what you want, those two premises are NO LONGER true, although indeed they are USUALLY the case for the time being.

But, again, no point on arguing about this (once more) right now. Let's just wait for a year or two and see if any of the new digital adquisition products showing up ends up in the hands of a half-decent talent team and we can start seeing all-digital movies equal-or-better than film in most quality measurements on the (silver, 3d, of course) screen by ourselves and, thus, no need for theoretical arguments anymore.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-10-2009, 08:38 PM:
 
Julio,

This is nothing new... I've been touting the exact same thing here for at least three years now!!! The good news is that there is almost a digital camera ready to replace 65mm cameras... same rez as 65mm neg stock, and same aspect ratio and so on and so forth...

Mark
 

---

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 07-10-2009, 11:13 PM:
 
My turn.
To ad to Julio's points.
The camera he is talking about is the Canon 5DmkII.

Currently this camera is making a mess of the digital film camera industry. I know Sony, JVC etc are all running scared.
They are literately selling 5x what they expected on this product. It's sucess has changed the industry completely.
This camera makes all there 50-100K kit all seem obsolete. Tho , there is more to a camera then a sensor. (But strangely many people cannot see past that. Ie form factor, the package etc.)

Now, Nikon will likely bring out a competitor at the November show for Pro still cameras. And.. the Nikon has even BETTER low light performance then the canon.

In the Stills world, Film is totally been abandoned apart for the niche areas where some aspects of film still produce desired results that digital cannot. However, this is not common, and a very expensive way forward.

This will of course happen in the motion film area too. I am a little surprised it has taken longer then it has, however, as I have said, there is more to taking a shot then the camera, its the camera man too. This is a generation thing more then anything else.

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.

Film is simply out of date.
I like to compare it to DJing (For which I did for 10 years when I was a younger lad) evolved from vinyl records to CD's or other forms of digital playback..

At the end of the day, the punters on the dance floor didn't really care if it was vinyl or CD, the story that was the track was shared and they enjoyed it.

Tho the debate between DJ's was heated and went on for years. Today, the top DJ's basically never use vinyl any more.
WHY, well as I like to point out, what sounds better is not really the issue here. The main reason they don;t use vinyl is because vinyl has limitations. While digital has Blue sky. The DJ's, though the use of digital, have created new playing styles and performance possibilities. Impossible with vinyl.

This holds true for Film as well. Film is dead to me as.. it simply cannot evolve anymore. But once we are digital, the sky is the limit. Night shots that are impossible using film. etc.

One of my favorite would be a new standard of 60fps for cinema. Can be easily converted down to any common distribution format in use today, and would make a film screen, using clean digital images, look like a window into the world that the film creates. Something film grain, scratches and gate movement can never do.. (60fps for film is possible, but like 70mm unrealistic anymore. too $$$$$$$)

So, to me. Film, please leave the building, its time to ignite the booster and leave orbit, and you don;t have a ticket.)

To finish of, I would like to also visit the definition of what make one better then the other.
If we want to talk about which can be better.
Many of you say, film looks better.... if your looking at an answer print compared to 2k. But then again, apple with apples, there are 8k digital systems out there. That would even arguably compare with 70mm.
If we talk about the typical image a widely distributed film presents on screen compared to 2K.
A typical 2K system will ALWAYS look better due to the massive lossy process the film has to go through.

So which is better. What is possible or what is typical??
Please take this into consideration.

James
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

A typical 2K system will ALWAYS look better due to the massive lossy process the film has to go through.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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."

---

quote:

---

A drawn-on-film animated short can be made for a budget of approximately $2 (cost of a couple of Sharpies). Try that with anything digital!

---

Are you serious? Where are you going to find so much free blank leader? And some pulse to draw the soundtrack and do 1000 copies

You can do a "hand drawn" "CGI" DCP (theoretically as well), or a slide-show type of thing, with a $100 used laptop (and some "borrowed" software, eventually freeware will surface) ....

Including cost of sound and internet-distributable 1000 copies ....

Sort of.

Again, I'm not saying that digital is 100% here TODAY and that film sucks TODAY. I'm saying that pbbly soon digital will match/surpass film and that pbbly soon digital will be cheaper than film for many/most uses.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-22-2009, 01:23 PM:
 
I was half-joking, but look at some of Norman Mclaren's work. More recently, look at Barbel Neubauer. People actually do this stuff (I've shown some of it).

Clear film can be made by bleaching old trailers and then rinsing in Photo-Flo solution.

High-volume distribution still requires contact printing by a lab, however, as would adding a soundtrack.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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".

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

---

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.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

You swap $1000 print/transportation/digital sound licence/disposal for a $10 hard drive rental.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-24-2009, 02:45 AM:
 
Well, we once again agree to disagree

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. 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 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.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-24-2009, 08:51 AM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

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.

---

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.


 

---

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 07-24-2009, 11:19 AM:
 
This seems relevant:

"[The transistor] is a toy. It will never beat the vacuum tube."

-- chief engineer for Hytron, RCA's manufacturer for vacuum tubes, quoted in the 1950s.

When RCA unloaded Hytron in 1961, it was an empty shell.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-24-2009, 12:14 PM:
 
Gotta agree mostly with Bobby, but the one place digital absoulutely makes things more "democratic" is documentary filmmaking. For better or worse, digital rules there and anyone who can get a camera thinks he/she is a documentarian.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-24-2009, 05:54 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

...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.

---

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

...anyone who can get a camera thinks he/she is a documentarian.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

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.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

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.)

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

A big part of the problem these days is that songs seem to be optimized for earbuds. Furthermore, they seem to be optimized for people who are listening to music while riding their bikes in heavy traffic.

---

quote:

---

e issue here is most rock/pop music is POORLY MASTERED.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

camera body, but I'm going to get one for its still photography capabilities. I'll probably have some fun messing around with its 1080p video recording. But it is a serious turn off not being able to manually set aperture and exposure. It really limits a lot of creative possibilities.

---

Canon added that possibility on the official firmware update about a month ago. So one less turn off All the cameras already come with it. Mine (about 3 weeks old) already came with manual (and automatic, of course) video exposure/aperture controls.

Also, aficionado firmware has added things like zebra stripes, auto audio gain off (or set gain manually, fixed or auto), etc, etc.

As I said, this camera is very artificially limited by the manufacturer as to not compete too much against their far more expensive "professional" cameras. Even then, it still surpasses a lot of them at a fraction of the price and it will do more so in the future with un-official firmware updates.

Honestly, I know a thing or two about the A/V market and, if manufacturers wanted (i.e. if they had the will and competition, like small brands like RED did), we could easily be shooting similarly to 4K-level quality with a home-camera and 4K-resolution 55" flat screen TV's in our houses for $5000 for both.

Of course, they'll make us buy several years of upgrades and won't add all the capabilities until another manufacturer forces them to or the market actually demands it. I.e., there is not point on offering a $3000 55" 4K LCD tv when there is no use for it yet and the market is happy buying $2500 2K 55" LED-LCD tv's today.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-25-2009, 11:23 AM:
 
The EOS 5D Mark II is still missing a few key things found on other dedicated video cameras. It can't shoot 24p frame rates and it doesn't look like Canon will ever offer it either. Canon is supposedly reserving variable frame rate recording for the next version of the EOS 1D. While the EOS 5D Mark II records 1080p at a fairly healthy bit rate around 40Mb/s it cannot output a raw, uncompressed HD stream. Not many HD cameras can do that. I think the camera would need HD-SDI connections and other internal capabilities to make that happen.

I think Canon goofed up a bit by not incorporating a flip out LCD monitor on the back of the camera (like what you could get on some of their PowerShot cameras). Most dedicated video cameras have a side swivel LCD monitor that allows for hand holding video at a lot of different shooting angles. At least one after-market video assist monitor is available for the EOS 5D Mark II, but it costs over $900. Hopefully some others will come available at different price points. And that might happen considering the demand for the camera body. Just about any retailer offering the EOS 5D Mark II has it listed as out of stock and back ordered.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-25-2009, 11:43 AM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

On a related note, it seems like movies are optimized for iPods. They may-or-may-not look great in a theatre but, let's face it, any given movie will have 99% of its screenings on flat LCD panels, most of which aren't very big. So, that's just one of the reasons I'm struggling to find the point of nursing film along.

---

quote: Jarret Chessell

---

I forget what the actual aspect of ben-hur was, but it wasn't 2.35

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

If image quality was really important to studio executives they would be filming all their major projects in VistaVision (for flat ratio) and 5-perf 65mm (for super wide ratio).

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I've always maintained that one should record on the best medium of the day so that as technology improves, you have more to work with when you migrate it to the medium of tomorrow.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Don't base your sole opinion of digital=bad based on a few movies that have, probably on purpose, gone for a look that can be better described as "shitty".

Remember the Star Wars, Spy Kids, etc, etc, etc done digitally that looked fine.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Also, that it doesn't look like film does not equal to it looks bad. It may look bad to you, like maybe Cinematography Oscar and ASC prize winner Slumdog Millonaire, but that doesn't mean that is "inferior", just that you prefer the look of film.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

You CAN make digital look just about the same as film, almost EXACTLY like film even, but then it would be stupid to shoot digital when film is still available (for that look) and still price-competitive.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

There are digital cameras that FAR, FAR, FAR surpass Imax or medium format film resolution. Of course, they are not very fast and used by Nasa and the Air Force for aerial recognition.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

But the camera Mark is probably talking about, is scheduled to hit the market spring 2010, is the EPIC 617 PRO, which has a resolution of 28K (bayer) and shoots up to 30fps with more pixels (261,352,000) than ALL CONES AND RODS on the retina of BOTH eyes of the average human being added together (126,000,000 x 2 eyes = 252,000,000).

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Stupid (?) question for those who understand digital acquisition better than I do: a broadcast-quality color television (video) camera has three sensors (tubes or chips), one for each primary color (red/green/blue). Why, then, do digital still cameras and the "cinema-style" digital video cameras that are discussed here use a single image sensor? Which concept is better, and why don't all electronic color cameras use the same approach?

---

3 chip CCD cameras require a prism to reflect the video image onto each chip. The prism itself can degrade some of the image quality. If you can remove that element somehow you can get a more pure image. For a very long time that was impossible to do well at all.

Previous single chip video cameras had what amounted to a grayscale sensor. The CCD or CMOS chip used filters to artificially create a full color image. Colors were not as brilliant or true as what one would see from a 3 chip camera. This was especially true for older standard definition video cameras.

Recently, certain digital camera models like the Panavision Genesis, Arri D20 and others have basically put what amounts to 3 chip function onto a single chip die. The newest sensors can pack in so many pixels it's easier to just have some defined for red only, green only and blue only function. No more need for the prism in the optical chain.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-25-2009, 10:16 PM:
 
Cameras for aerial recognition and military applications are custom made.

Just check out publication by the society of optical engineering to find papers on them everynow and then, or scan optical news on the web to read the announcements every time some company lands a contract.

Don't recall now who landed a contract for one that was outrageous, based on a line array. I did say it was a CAMERA that had far more resolution than 35/70/Imax film, but slower (scan). I didn't say it was based on a 2D sensor array. Most of the highest resolution (density) aerial/satellite/space/military are based on 1, 2 or 3 line sensors.

But 2D sensors are also used, similar to cameras for the same purpose available commercially by people like Rolleimetric (60Mpx) or even Kodak (50+) or Dalsa (111 Mpx, shipped in 2006).

http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/19/dalsa-ships-111-megapixel-ccd/

Don't worry about storing/moving/editing 28K. It can, of course, be done and doesn't pose too much of a problem. Capture is to on-board flash media, after being compressed, of course. Data rate is 500Mb/s, so it's perfectly doable with a RAID of 4 Compact Flash cards.

You DON'T shoot a whole movie with a 28K camera, as that would be kind-of like shooting one with IMAX. It's unnecessary. You just use it for VFX plates and specialty uses.

But Bobby, we can just agree to disagree and continue the argument a year from now. For you, currently or in the very near future (coming months) there aren't/won't be any digital products that match (substantially) 35mm film for motion picture use and shooting film should continue to be the best option for quite some time.

For me, while shooting/editing/projecting 35mm film is a very valid option today, there are digital alternatives in the market, or there will be in the very near future (coming 6-12 months), that perfectly match or surpass film for motion picture use.

Time will tell

There are many reasons to use a single sensor in cameras over using 3. Mostly has to do with the available lenses being designed for projecting on a flat 2D surface at a relatively short distance, which gets tricky when you have to fit a prism and 3 sensors in the path. Not to mention potential light loss, etc.

Price is another reason.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-25-2009, 10:32 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Cameras for aerial recognition and military applications are custom made.

---

quote:

---

Don't expect to see one of these in a commercial DSLR anytime soon (especially now that Mamiya has left the game), but a division of DALSA Semiconductor has successfully manufactured and delivered a 111 megapixel image sensor that's only been topped on these pages by the 500 megapixel monster inside Fermilab's Dark Energy Camera. Putting even the highest-resolution bacteria-based cam to shame, the new 4-inch-square CCD features an array of 10,560 x 10,560 pixels, and was developed in conjunction with Semiconductor Technology Associates to aid the U.S. Naval Observatory's Astrometry Department in precisely determining the position and motion of celestial objects. While you probably can't afford to hire DALSA to build another one of these just for you, there's at least one option on the market that will give you the hundred-plus megapixel bragging rights you seek without breaking the bank: Better Light's 144 megapixel E-HS medium format backing, which, while technically only capturing 48 megapixels per color (and taking at least 66 seconds to do so), should still be enough to impress even your EOS 1Ds Mark II-sporting friends.

---

Buy in the open market the Better Light's SUPER 10K-HS 10,200 x 13,600 RGB pixels (416 Megapixel, $22.995), and you can claim higher resolution than 70mm (65mm) 5-perf film .

If you are heavy into astronomical/scientific/aerial recognition, you can ask them to make a better one just for you for $2 million instead of $22.000. I'm sure they'll come up with something a bit better .
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-26-2009, 01:36 AM:
 

quote:

---

Buy in the open market the Better Light's SUPER 10K-HS 10,200 x 13,600 RGB pixels (416 Megapixel, $22.995), and you can claim higher resolution than 70mm (65mm) 5-perf film :Wink:.

---

quote:

---

even Stanley Kubrik photograhped a film which image quality SUCKED.... (it's not a bad transfer, it's the original photography that was awful, badly exposed left and right)

---

the bootleg video of fear and desire is a notoriously bad transfer. true, the original film imagery isn't up to his usual standards and does appear to have exposure issues, but let's not judge it by what's on youtube.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-26-2009, 10:39 AM:
 
To get more of a film look from new digital cameras why don't they use CMY sensors instead of RGB. Wouldn't this help to capture more film-like images?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-26-2009, 11:29 AM:
 
It's not that easy. A simple in-camera conversion from RGB to CMY would result in imagery that just doesn't look very good.

All electronic cameras record light, which means they're stuck recording what they "see" in additive synthesis RGB mode. Film cameras record in subtractive synthesis because they're recording the imagery onto a physical object. The two color models are different like apples to oranges.

In full color printing the change from RGB to CMYK must be handled carefully and the output device (the printer) has to be involved in the equation. Otherwise the output will end up looking crappy.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-26-2009, 11:30 AM:
 
Bobby,

I DID say in my original post, the digital sensors that far surpass resolution of film were slow. I was making a point that every single aspect of adquisition with 35mm film (resolution, dynamic range, gamut, sensibility, noise) CAN be surpassed with digital, albeit with specialized cameras in each parameter, but nothing really preventing from a camera combining most of those benefits from appearing "soon" in the market.

There are digital CAMERAS that surpass film in every aspect. Just not ONE single camera that has all the virtues together.

Yet.

If your main point is that "there is currently no digital camera that can clearly surpass 35mm film for motion picture adqusition in most quality aspects", I concur.

If your main point is that "there aren't any digital cameras that surpass 35mm film in just about any aspect", I disagree.

If your point is "film is not only MUCH better than digital for motion picture adquisition but will continue to be so for a significant period of time (several years) and it can always beat digital in most aspects relating to quality", I once again disagree.

Not to repeat myself, but film is fine, but not the "absolute unchallenged king of the game by far in the motion picture world" that you seem to believe. And soon, it will be left behind. It's my opinion we can count on it. Nothing more. I could be wrong. I have been wrong before.

I'm not going to debate the resolution of (each color layer) of 65mm negative film exposed under motion on a (pin registered) gate, or the optimal (fixed grid spatial) scanning resolution to capture the detail it may (or may not, depending on manufacturing defect and random chemical particle clustering) have embedded on it. But even if we obviate the generation resolution loss, etc, I have the feeling you are OVERstimating film resolution by between a factor of 2 and a factor of 8.

Just my opinion. The debate is not worth it of my interest at this point, since 65mm film is hardly used today and expectation of it being (significanly) used in the future is small.

To match or surpass the (true) resolution of 35mm film can be a subject of interest, as that's a technology I currently use and which is being replaced by something new.

The wonderful and always perfect miracle of "digital"
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-26-2009, 02:26 PM:
 
And when I see it in the theatre...I'll be right there with you.
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-26-2009, 07:40 PM:
 

quote:

---

3 chip CCD cameras require a prism to reflect the video image onto each chip. The prism itself can degrade some of the image quality. If you can remove that element somehow you can get a more pure image. For a very long time that was impossible to do well at all.

Recently, certain digital camera models like the Panavision Genesis, Arri D20 and others have basically put what amounts to 3 chip function onto a single chip die. The newest sensors can pack in so many pixels it's easier to just have some defined for red only, green only and blue only function. No more need for the prism in the optical chain.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

It's not that easy. A simple in-camera conversion from RGB to CMY would result in imagery that just doesn't look very good.

---

Actually I disagree with that assumption. Using powerful DSPs it wold actually be quite easy to shift RGB to CMY. It could also be done very acccurately as well. DSP's uses are limitless and the result wold be nothing ore than a small plun in encoder board to get the resuly... This has been done in the fom of an NTSC encoder that takes in seperate RGB signals in just about every TV camera analog and digital since the very first days of color TV. Acomplishing this in camera would be very similar.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-26-2009, 08:03 PM:
 
Thanks, Mark. That explanation for the single-chip design makes perfect sense.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-27-2009, 02:09 AM:
 
Yeap. Quoting myself from the middle of the previous page:

quote: Julio Roberto

---

There are many reasons to use a single sensor in cameras over using 3. Mostly has to do with the available lenses being designed for projecting on a flat 2D surface at a relatively short distance, which gets tricky when you have to fit a prism and 3 sensors in the path. Not to mention potential light loss, etc.

Price is another reason.

---

Available lenses and lens designs don't quite fit a 3 large-size sensor+prism design in the optical path. Idially, brand new lenses should be design to take full advantage of 3 chips designs, which opens a whole new can of worms.

Better stick with what works and is available and try to mimic it with digital (i.e. a aprox. 35mm sized sensor design on a flat 2D surface mimicking 35mm film cameras).

3-Chips are a good way to produce great imaging blocks. They i.e. potentially triple the resolution, potentially triple the light gathering surface, which can improve sensitibity as they can also be optimized for low noise at working wavelength, altough the prims loses a tiny bit of it along the way, they also allow for more flexible and better filter/microlens designs (no more Bayer), etc, etc.

So they can be absolutely great, but pbbly quite more expensive, harder to manufacture and "inconvinient" (i.e. they are larger/heavier, more prone to alignment potential issues, to some optical distortions/reflections/polarization artifacts, would likely require totally new lens designs optimized for them to optimize their performance, etc)

2D sensors have been manufactured (and you can buy cameras with them) very similar to the way film works, like overlapping layers that are sensitive to different light wavelenths, a lá direct imaging chips like the Foveon:

http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=67

quote:

---

Finally, Foveon has combined the best of what both film and digital have to offer. This is accomplished by the innovative design of the three layer Foveon X3 direct image sensor. Similar to the layers of chemical emulsion used in color film, Foveon X3 image sensors have three layers of pixels. The layers of pixels are embedded in silicon to take advantage of the fact that red, green, and blue light penetrate silicon to different depths – forming the first and only image sensor that captures full color at every point in the captured image.

---

As I said, there is no reason whatsoever why a digital, with some small restrictions, can not be CURRENTLY made to look almost exactly like a 35mm film the kind we've been seen on theatre screens for the past +5 years. And soon, even those small restrictions will dissapear. Damm, we see it with still photo cameras where I don't think anybody questions digital can produce results almost indistinguishable from 35mm cameras. What makes it so hard to believe that the same thing could be done but at 24 frames per second instead of 4fps?

But, once again, if your goal is to make a movie that looks exactly like it has been shot in Kodak's Vision3 stock ... well, it would be wise to shoot it on Kodak's Vision3, as it would pbbly end up being around the same price for the time being and pbbly getting better results.

A large part of my whole point on these posts is to combat the notion the digital MUST be inferior to film and that it CAN NOT EVER be made better than film. That is not so. Digital COULD be made, if a manufacturer wanted, to surpass film for motion picture adquisition, not only to barely match it like we are seeing TODAY.

A different story is if currently it's harder or easier or more expensive or even feasible under a budget of many million dollars to get custom-made equipment to do so or how long it will take the market to make such products affordably available. Some, like me, think this won't take long at all. Others, that it won't happen for a long time (say >15 years).
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-27-2009, 06:26 AM:
 
I don't think anyone is saying digital CAN'T exceed film...just that it currently doesn't when looking at the end-product. Going beyond the capture format...one has to get it all of the way through to exhibition where the projectors themselves don't have the color/contrast or, in most cases, the resolution of 35mm, let alone 70mm film.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-27-2009, 07:56 AM:
 
While cameras will quickly surpass films capabilities we may not see the end results for decades because of the stagnant development in the projction end of things. D-Cinema projection of what ever sort is going to be very slow to upgrade and the exhibitors will be even slower to install any newer equipment as it does become available because it costs money. As I mentioned the only changes you may see in the near future is that DPs and film production companiess will simply own their own gear and the rental giants like Panavision and Arri will very likely disappear. This has already quietly started with the Red Cam and several others.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-27-2009, 08:49 AM:
 
While I agree, let's not forget that TODAY, when there is virutally no "market demand" for it, you could buy not one but TWO commercial projectors that put 8K resolution on the screen with contrast and gamut and brightness (for small/medium sized standard cinema screens) to compete with film: the laser-based Evans and Sutherland and the Lcos based JVC 8K.

That is TODAY, available off-the-shelf. There are also the "experimental" ones by NHK used for demostrantions for the last so-many years.

If a manufacturer had customers willing to pay for it, I'm sure a say 16K projector could be CURRENTLY manufactured with available technology (i.e. basically just stack up a bunch of chips).

So the point is: if you want very high resolution TODAY and "sensible" prices, buy an Imax. But don't say that "Imax" is irrevocally superior to digital because a digital product could be "easily" made to leave Imax in the dust if it was ever necessary (Imax is a resolution-wasting format in my opinion, BTW, and it was only made that way because of availability of off-the-self 70mm format and the necessary space to provide a reasonable aspect ratio, but the same practical end result can be done with 70/8pef).

Again, I have the feeling that some people are grossly overestimating the (true, noise free) resolution of film, but let's not enter into that pointless discussion just yet, at least until 8K adquisition and 8K projection becomes the norm at some point in the future. Meanwhile, we can all agree that a 70mm carefully made answer print can certainly compare (or surpass) 4K projection. An 8K projector, though, it's another matter open to discussion, but quite pointless right now, altough 8K digital products exist today, and even a 28K (bayer) off-the-shelf adquisition product is expected in less than a year under $60k.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-27-2009, 06:53 PM:
 
Does anyone happen to know (Mark Gulbrandsen) if the digital projectors currently running in my local cinema could handle higher frame rates without expensive overhauls? While I can appreciate all of these arguments about how many K of resolution is required to surpass film, I'm reminded that increased frame rates can make a huge difference too. It seems that only digital can increase the frame rates in a practical manner. Can we please, please, please get beyond the 24 frames per second bottleneck?

Then again, I wonder if all of this increased resolution and frame rate will be regarded as "hyper-realism" and how many filmmakers will cling to stylized 24-frame shooting because they think of it as art. If we really did have a Showscan-style format (with high frame rates and 65mm resolution) would actors be bothered that you could see every last flaw in their beautiful faces? Would art directors rebel because they couldn't get away with cheaply-made sets and props that didn't hold up under scrutiny?

I just want to make one other point. Most of the anti-digital attitudes on these forums are a reaction to too much hype or to people who just use the technology badly. I don't like blaming a certain kind of technology for the way some people use it. The technology itself is fine. Why do people have so much passion about digital vs. analog when it comes to motion pictures but not still photography?
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-27-2009, 07:00 PM:
 
All current DCI certified projectors MUST include support for a 48fps frame rate.

After all, that's exactly what they do with 3D films, although in that case, they swap each one of those frames three times with the one after it to help illusion of simultaneous images in 3D.

But, of course, they wouldn't need to triple swap-flash and still take the 48fps "as is". It's actually "much harder" to triple flash than not.

So, I guess, the short answer is: All DCI projectors and servers are already capable of 48fps off the shelf (from a hardware point of view although some very minor firmware tweak may be needed for proper, non-3D support)

Current Sony Lcos projectors have a limit (for non DCI content) of 60fps.

Current DLP based projectors have a limit of 144fps.

Several of current digital cameras close to 4K-level resolution can do over 60fps. Many can do up to 200fps at 2K-level resolutions.
 

---

Posted by Knut Erik Evensen (Member # 4379) on 07-27-2009, 07:08 PM:
 
On the subject of what guys at Arri says about the future of film:

"“What do we really mean when we say 2K and 4K resolution?” asks Dr. Hans Kiening, head of the Image Analysis Department at ARRI, Inc. He asked that question both in a written report and during a recent presentation for members of the American Society of Cinematographers."

Excerpt

The written report
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-27-2009, 07:32 PM:
 
No matter how many reports by people that have actually tested it and are even BIG PLAYERS on the film market like Arri or Panavision, some people would still just not believe that a 1.85 native film, shot and processed in film only, when projected on the screen, has AT BEST a resolution of a little over 2K (say 2.2K).

They just don't "buy it".

A lot of people just confuse the optimal scanning resolution to (try to) obtain that "2.2K-at-best detail", which may very well be 4.4K, with the true resolution of film, without realizing that half the information in there is noise and it's only there to minimize the chance of aliasing by OVERsampling.

Fixed grids digital vs random order analog don't compare like apple-to-apples, so we can't confuse TRUE resolution of analog film expressed in "points" with digital difficulty to capture THE SAME resolution directly in "pixels" (i.e. on a CGI generated digital movie) from said film.

But a few people would just not ever give in the notion that, generally speaking, a well made 4K image (captured by say a 6K bayer camera like RED's $9750 scarlet), can easily contain significantly more true-resolution than a 1.85 35mm release print. They will NEVER believe it, so no point on showing proof after proof, measurement after measurement, test after test, and white paper after white paper.

So no point on even trying to convince them that 8K-digital (captured i.e. on a 20k bayer) can have more resolution than a 70mm (1.912" x 0.87") release print either ...

Even for cinema applications, anything above 4K would only produce any noticeable advantage to the public sitting in the first 3 rows or so of most theatres, so there is not even a need for 8K at all which, nonetheless, I'm sure will happen at some point in the not-too-distant (but not too close either ) future.

We'll leave the Imax discussion for later. Unless Imax dissapears, in which case, there won't be any need to talk about it anymore, except to feel nostalgic about the glory days of film's peak achivements ...
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-27-2009, 08:28 PM:
 
Frame rate for film....wasn't that more to do with Shutter flicker....By increasing the frame rate you got rid of the flicker? With digital you have no shutter. I can watch a 2-D projected image at 24fps and I do not see any flicker on digital since there is no shutter to cause it. If you filmed something at 60 frames instead of 24 wouldn't you need more storage space on what you are playing back on since there is more frames of information?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-27-2009, 10:11 PM:
 
Darryl,

The frame rate increase captures motion better. Certainly you have seen the strobe of a pan that went just a little too fast. The camera does not have your brain to make sense of it all...it is just a sequecne of exposures for the camera. At the frame rate increases, things like rain starts to look like actual drops falling rather than just streaks.

I would LOVE it if 24 can go away...at least to 30fps and I'm all for going to higher. Mike Todd on got that right (With 70mm) over half a Century ago...it would be nice if we could catch up.

As for the 1.85 frame being only 2.2K or there abouts...it all depends on the the processing/printing and source material. It certainly can far exceed that.

Also, Arri is claiming the OCN has a limit of about 100 l/mm...yet you can buy and project NTAV target that has 100 l/mm targets and see the lines very distinctly (at least with a Kinoton FP38E using ISCO lenses). The upper limit of the negative must be somewhere above 100 l/mm.

I can certainly attest that an EK print (printed off OCN) pretty well slams ANYTHING printed off of a 2K DI...including a Digital show...it isn't even close, really. Super35 scope images being the worst having the least amount of information to start with (in height).

It should also be noted that there isn't any real reason that the current release print NEEDS to be as bad as some of them are...it isn't even the speed at which they are made that really kills them...it often is in the creation of the INs themselves where the degredation comes in.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-27-2009, 10:55 PM:
 
Darryl,
One of the best examples of variable shutter applications is to CCD TV cameras... both SD and HD. They use a form of electronic shutter that approximates a mechanical shutter and most cameras have numerous "shutter speed" settings. It works by clocking out the data from the CCD shift registers at different frequencies effectively making the camera capable of eliminating at least some blur akin to how higher shutter speeds on a camera can freeze motion.

This can if used properly effectively elmininate image strobing like Steve's picket fence even when filming at 24fps.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-27-2009, 11:41 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Using powerful DSPs it wold actually be quite easy to shift RGB to CMY.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

As I mentioned the only changes you may see in the near future is that DPs and film production companiess will simply own their own gear and the rental giants like Panavision and Arri will very likely disappear. This has already quietly started with the Red Cam and several others.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Darryl,

The frame rate increase captures motion better. Certainly you have seen the strobe of a pan that went just a little too fast. The camera does not have your brain to make sense of it all...it is just a sequecne of exposures for the camera. At the frame rate increases, things like rain starts to look like actual drops falling rather than just streaks.

I would LOVE it if 24 can go away...at least to 30fps and I'm all for going to higher. Mike Todd on got that right (With 70mm) over half a Century ago...it would be nice if we could catch up.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Darryl,
One of the best examples of variable shutter applications is to CCD TV cameras... both SD and HD. They use a form of electronic shutter that approximates a mechanical shutter and most cameras have numerous "shutter speed" settings. It works by clocking out the data from the CCD shift registers at different frequencies effectively making the camera capable of eliminating at least some blur akin to how higher shutter speeds on a camera can freeze motion.

This can if used properly effectively elmininate image strobing like Steve's picket fence even when filming at 24fps.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Just about any retailer offering the EOS 5D Mark II has it listed as out of stock and back ordered.

---

quote:

---

Canon, Inc. is one of the world's leading manufacturers of advanced step-and-repeat and step-and-scan photolithography systems used to manufacture semiconductor devices, flat panel displays and thin film heads.

Investing for your future

For several decades Canon has been in the forefront of optical technology development. Overall, Canon invests more than $1B in R&D annually. In 2001 alone, Canon registered 1,877 patents. And for each of the past seven years, Canon has placed within the top three US companies in total patents registered.

---

quote:

---

Canon is a manufacturer of business and consumer imaging products which includes printers, scanners, binoculars, compact digital cameras, film and digital SLR cameras, and lenses.

The Business Solutions division offers print and document solutions for small and medium businesses, large corporations and governments. These include multi-functional printers, black and white and color office printers, large format printers, scanners, black and white and color production printers, as well as software to support these products.

Lesser known Canon products include medical, optical and broadcast products, including ophthalmic and x-ray devices, broadcast lenses, semiconductors, digital microfilm scanners, and Handy Terminal Solutions.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Nikon, on the other side, it's a much smaller player with a focus on their customers, in spite of being at times number 2 in steppers for the semiconductor industry, over Canon, and although technologically they are worlds behind (sort of like Panavision and Arri in a digital world), their optics are renowned and their will to achieve top notch products is undeniable.

---

I don't quite agree with that. The camera bodies Nikon produces are more or less indestructable. There are still alot more old F series Nikon bodies around than there are Canon F1 series. Canon produced more of it's automatic A series cameras then did Nikon produce automatic cameras. To me that says alot and alot as to what market each company was targeting at the time. Even today at any major sporting event you'll find alot more news photographers toting the heavier Nikon cameras around than you'll find them toting Canon cameras. Canon used to have the best telephotos you could buy... the 300mm f2.8 flourite and so on but today Nikon and others, even the smaller Asian lens manufacturers such as Tamron and several others have had the flourite advantage now for well over a decade. The other interesting fact is the lack of Canon lenses in use in Hollywood while Nikor lens sets can be found with almost every special effects camera.

As for sensors that is a very debatable point as to who makes the best. Sony has been making CCD sensors far longer then all the others combined and they have eliminated many of the side effects that early CCD sensors suffed such as the smearing problem when shooting into bright light. Then there is Kodak who is also a world leader in CCD sensor design and manufacturing. And then Canon who probably produces far less sensors then either of the other two. So who's are best? That I can't answer for sure and in reality no one may know. One thing I am sure is that each manufacturers sensors probably has it's own set of advantages.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-04-2009, 08:08 PM:
 
Hey, I own a Nikon F2a (25th Anniversary Edition) and a Canon AE-1
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-04-2009, 09:12 PM:
 
Me, my wife, three of my sisters and my mom all have Canon cameras and they are excellent! But, never had to deal with the service dept. For these inexpensive-ish consumer cameras, would be better off just getting a new one if (when) one of these breaks.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-04-2009, 11:16 PM:
 
I agree Mike... I have a box full of old pocket digital cameras on a closet shelf... five or six in the box so far but then my cameras do take a beating and get VERY dusty.

The thing that irks me about Canon is the service fee. My EOS Rebel has a tiny pin that pops up when the flash releases to activate the flash mode.Many digital and film EOS cameras have this pin. This pin is underneath the flash itself and you don't normally see it. Many cameras have had this pin stick and then when the flash pops up you get an error on the camera's display and the camera essentially locks up. I was lucky enough to find a good camera repair shop in Bozeman, MT that knew what my problem was. He told me to put a few drops of alcohol on the pin and try to work it free. Well, it did free up and has been working fine ever since. Fact is that Canon factory service would have charged me 300 bucks just to free the pin!!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-08-2009, 02:05 AM:
 
I haven't had to deal with Canon's service dept. (knock on wood). The big, legit bitch-fest I heard about Canon in recent years was how it handled its rebate program. A true nightmare. I was thankful I got an instant $50 rebate when I purchased a new Speedlight a few weeks ago.

With the usual Nikon versus Canon contest set aside this one thing is certain: The Canon EOS-5D Mark II has received excellent reviews overall from sites like dpreview, macworld, dv.com and more. The camera is not any piece of junk despite what any die-hard Nikon fan with the zero sum "Canon must die" game in mind can say.

I received mine a couple days ago and am pretty impressed and very happy with it. It puts my Rebel XTi to shame, and I liked that camera. Although the EOS-5D Mark II isn't as big as a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III or Nikon D3x it still makes the Rebel XTi look pretty small by comparison.



The EOS-5D Mark II feels almost twice as heavy as the Rebel XTi too. It took a little getting used to the new controls on the camera, but I got used to them and spoiled by them pretty quick (after reading the instruction manual). The menu functions are pretty slick.

The EOS-5D Mark II has been criticized for not having as fast a frame rate of the EOS-50D or one of the top of the line EOS-1D bodies. It's fast enough for my needs (landscape photography, product photography, portraits, etc.). But I'm not getting paid to stand on the sidelines of an NFL game either. The 5D Mark II has a 9-point autofocus system, which seems grossly inferior to what you get in an EOS 1D body or certain Nikon bodies. However, it is not the same 9-point system I had in my Rebel XTi either. Six invisible assist points are added. Certain points, particularly the center point, have greater sensitivity when a lens featuring a f/2.8 or larger aperture is used. Truth be told, much of the time I focus off the center point and then simply recompose for the shot I want, 999,087,007 focus points lacking be damned. I'll bet a lot of other shooters do the same thing whether they want to admit to it or not.

The camera body I received must have been manufactured perhaps only a month before I received it. It already had the latest 1.1.0 firmware installed. Out of the box it could do the 1080p/30 HD thing in full manual mode. You can even change the aperture, shutter speed, etc. while you're shooting a video clip (although the changes will be abrupt and noticeable). An image stabilized lens is definitely recommended for any handheld HD video shooting. However, I didn't do too bad with a handheld test shot using a non-stabilized 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. I think the weight of the camera body, lens and a 580EX II Speedlight helped damp out some of the camera shake. Still, get a tripod for that sort of thing.

One thing that arrived in the package that wasn't up to date: the software. The EOS Utility, Digital Photo Professional application and Canon RAW codec plug-in had newer versions available at the Canon web site. I really do not understand why Canon insists on installing Microsoft NET framework 2.0 to run its software when the NET crap is up to version 3.5. Why does it need any MS NET crap at all? I'm just pulling photos off the camera and editing RAW imagery (as an alternative to editing RAW images using Photoshop). Why does MS need to be involved in that?

Anyway, I have no ill will toward Canon gear. I got a lot of good use out of an old Canon F-1 body when I was in art school. That body was originally owned by Pulitzer prize winning photojournalist Bill Foley -a friend of my father's from days in Beirut. Foley sold that one to my dad after my father's own F-1 got stolen during a move from Virginia to New York City.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-09-2009, 08:20 PM:
 
Bobby,

Welcome to the club of happy 5d MKII owners

I got mine with the 24-105 estabilized lens about 1 1/2 month ago. It also came already with the new firmware from the factory.

Of course, no camera is perfect and there is always better ones coming out all the time.

But for around $2.3K for the body, this camera is a good buy.

In Europe it carries a 2 year warranty by law (like all electronic products), although I purchased mine from the USA (cheaper, only place I got availability, as the sucker is sold out everywhere more often than not since it came to market almost a year ago).

Anyway, can't wait for what the 6D Mark III will bring in the future
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 09-02-2009, 08:38 AM:
 
In case anyone's interested, this is a list that's been going around the industry of what episodic television shows are shooting what for the 2009 - 2010 season. This was compiled over a few months, some of these shows are closed/dark/between cycles already.

35mm Film (3-perf except where noted):

“24”
30 Rock
Beastly
Big Love
Boardwalk Empire
Breaking Bad
Brothers and Sisters (Started on HD, now 35mm)
Castle
The Closer
Cold Case
Copper
Criminal Minds
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
Desperate Housewives
Entourage
Flashpoint
Fringe
Ghost Whisperer (said to be shooting 2-perf)
Glee
Grey's Anatomy
Heroes
House
Hung
Kings
Lost
Mad Men
The Mentalist
Nip/Tuck
Private Practice
True Blood
Two and a Half Men

16mm Film:

The Border
Burn Notice
Chuck
Crash
Degrassi
Eastbound and Down
Eastwick
Friday Night Lights
Greek
Heartland
In Plain Sight
Lincoln Heights
Men of a Certain Age
The Middle
Monk
One Tree Hill
Psych
Saving Grace
Scrubs

Digital Acquisition (cameras where known):

Accidentally On Purpose
The Beautiful Life
Brotherhood
Brothers
Bones - Sony F35
Bored To Death
Californication - F23
Caprica – F950
Cold Case – present day scenes on F35, some flashback scenes 35mm
Community - D21
Cougar Town
Criminal Minds
CSI: NY - F35
CSI: Miami
Damages - F23
Day One
Defying Gravity - F35
Dexter - F23
Dollhouse- now being shot on Panasonic 3700
Flash Forward
The Forgotten
The Good Wife
Gossip Girl - F23
Hank
Human Target
In Treatment - Sony 950s
Law & Order - Genesis
Law & Order: Criminal Intent
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
Leverage - Red One & Sony EX1
Medium - Genesis
Melrose Place
Mercy
Modern Family
Murderland - F35
NCIS
NCIS: Los Angeles
Numbers - Genesis
Nurse Jackie - D21
The Office – Sony ?
Parenthood
Past Life
Royal Pains - F23
The Sarah Silverman Program - Red One
Sherri
Sons Of Anarchy
Southland – Red 1, Iconix
Supernatural - D21
Three Rivers
Trauma
The Tudors
Ugly Betty - switched to digital from 35mm
V - D21
Vampire Diaries
Weeds – F950
White Collar
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-02-2009, 09:41 AM:
 
Film still has, at least, 1 or 2 years of very good health. Nobody is denying that.

What will happen after that period of time, when the new crop of electronic 4K cameras at much lower prices show up, doesn't take too much to imagine.

Most people agree that film will NOT "mostly dissapear" for some 5 years, if not longer, and will remain a strong contender.

But the writing is on the wall. Film is NOT a thriving industry with good outlook. Certainly not in the long run and it's even bleak and uncertain in the short term.

Also, several episodes of some of the shows listed in that list as "film" have actually been done on digital cameras, such as the show "24" ...

Also, it's normal for some shows that started many seasons back on film to remain with the same look, equipment and crew, since, as they say in spanish, ... better "bad-but-trusted" than "good-and-uncertain"...
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-02-2009, 09:52 AM:
 
Interesting that a "dead" format, like 16mm is still in active use, on what appear to be mostly basic cable shows. How about in the rest of the world?
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 09-02-2009, 09:57 AM:
 
TV shows in Spain are almost exclusively shot on video.

Standard definition at that, mind you.

S-16mm has always been "big" in TV production in the US, and remains very much an option there.

US shows often enjoy much larger budgets and world-wide distribution than, say, french/german/norwegian TV comedies/soaps/shows, so they can afford stuff like 35mm instead of plain old betacam ...
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 09-02-2009, 11:17 AM:
 
Super-16 is still in use in the UK TV market.

Film remains the right choice for quality (note: ) television production.

Even Super-16 shows look richer and have more depth to their images.

You could readily see the difference when ER employed RED for its last season - the image was certainly a lot flatter. It was good - but not up to the standard of 35mm.

Also, with film you have an archivable negative...
 

---