Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: George Lucas' TV Camera is Now Obsolete

This is topic George Lucas' TV Camera is Now Obsolete in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001702

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-29-2003, 12:25 AM:

Check out this new camera designed for moviemakers. Better than HD. Who woulda thunk that cinema could ever be better than HD? [Smile]

Clicky Here

With a resolution of 4000 x 2000 and a 35mm image sensor, I'd definitely like to see the results of this. But part of me wants to wait and see what they develop next week that makes THIS obsolete. Filmmakers (moviemakers, actually) should wait for the 65mm image sensors. [Smile]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-29-2003, 09:47 AM:

Ho-Hum:

Kodak 16-Megapixel Sensor

Kodak 11-Megapixel CCD Sensor paper

Kodak Sensor Applications

Kodak Sensor R&D

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-29-2003, 09:56 AM:

DALSA claims that their camera is for filmmakers and NOT broadcasters ... but I'm sure that they'll have at least one on display at the upcoming NAB convention (National Association of Broadcasters).

I would really like to see that 4000x2000 resolution coming back out of a DLP projector.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-29-2003, 10:53 AM:

Hey John, I offer YOU this reply:

Ho hum.

The Kodak sensor is definitely better, but no cameras use it yet! [Smile]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-29-2003, 11:09 AM:

Joe Redifer wrote: "The Kodak sensor is definitely better, but no cameras use it yet!"

Lots of cameras use Kodak digital sensors. [Cool]

The Kodak 16-megapixel camera backs have been on the market for over two years. Kodak 22-megapixel sensor technology is already being commercialized:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20020924-24.shtml

The DALSA site says "Coming Soon" -- so we'll see if it's real or "vaporware" at NAB.
[Wink]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-29-2003, 11:50 AM:

Motion cameras? I'm not talking still cameras.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-29-2003, 12:33 PM:

Waiting with great anticipation. (heh-heh)
[Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-29-2003, 05:57 PM:

Ultimately, higher rez video cameras will produce moving images far greater than the capacity of HD broadcast to deliver. One might ask, "why bother and not just settle for 1920 X 1080?"

Why? Computer based video, for one thing. Viewsonic and a couple other manufacturers have 23" monitors displaying the new 3840 X 2400 pixel standard. Resolution specs will probably go way higher than that. Graphics card makers are doubling and quadrupling the performance of their adapters every year, which would lead to demand for high rez motion video for gaming and other forms of entertainment. New advancements like OLED displays may make for giant, wall sized TV screens one can simply roll up out of the way.

If the telcos can get out of their financial slump they might propel forward new, much higher bandwidth network connections.

Overall, I think over-the-air broadcast is ultimately doomed. Newer video storage, playback and transmission formats will see to that.

But you need very high rez video cameras to capture the footage (unless of course you simply want to get as good/better of a result by using film).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-29-2003, 09:25 PM:

For motion cameras, the best choice are those Kodak 12-megapixel sensors attached to 35mm rolls of clear durable plastic. [Cool]

We also sell them in higher resolution 65mm size, and more compact 16mm size. [Smile]

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 01-30-2003, 03:59 AM:

Sounds interesting, but I don't see anything on the site about how they handle the I/O requirements. That image sensor, if it really is outputting the kind of data they claim, is going to need some very high speed, high capacity storage. What does their camera record to? Tape? A hard drive array? Is the output compressed? If so, in what format?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-30-2003, 09:21 AM:

Aaron Haney wrote: "Sounds interesting, but I don't see anything on the site about how they handle the I/O requirements"

Correct. The devil is in the details. [evil]

Digital cinematography requires a SYSTEM, not just a chip or just a camera. And any practical recorder today will involve quantization and compression, with their associated artifacts.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-30-2003, 10:06 AM:

Bobby Henderson wrote: "New advancements like OLED displays may make for giant, wall sized TV screens one can simply roll up out of the way."

Kodak has led the way in developing OLED technology: [Cool]

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/index.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/kodakAndOEL.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/overview.jhtml

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 01-30-2003, 11:47 AM:

--------------------
any practical recorder today will involve quantization and compression, with their associated artifacts.
--------------------

Not quite. Many of these new cameras involve transfer of non gamma corrected RGB data direct to hard disk recorders with dual HD-SDI links, at rates of 2.978 Gb/s. (the theory being that the gamma elements will be reconstructed by post production colorists). This allows 1920/1080 to be recorded with absolutly no compression or quantization whatsoever. One of these cameras, the 9 megapixel native 2:35 CCD Thomson Viper, has been on the market for over a year.

http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/cameras/viper/

The most interesting camera that is currently in the rumor stage isn't the Dalsa, but a joint effort planned by Ikegami and Arriflex. They are said to be bringing out a HD back for the Arri 35mm camera, that is, instead of loading a film magazine on the back, you'll be able to snap on an HD optic block with a megapixel imaging system and asscoiated processing.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 01-30-2003, 12:24 PM:

The HD back for the Arriflex 16SR is reportably to be shown at NAB
Richard Fowler
Kinoton America

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-30-2003, 12:40 PM:

Mark Ogden wrote: "One of these cameras, the 9 megapixel native 2:35 CCD Thomson Viper, has been on the market for over a year."

What movies or HD television shows have been shot with that new camera during the last year? [Confused]

(AFAIK, the camera was introduced at NAB in April 2002.)

I did say "any PRACTICAL recorder today will involve quantization and compression, with their associated artifacts."

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 01-30-2003, 01:43 PM:

Well, John, I'll tell you the truth: I don't know if any movies or HDTV shows have been shot with the Viper. From what I've been able to glean from various industry publications, it has some short film and music video shoots to its credit. I'm not sure what diference it makes what it's shot, the camera exists, the camera system exists, and it's specifications are as I quoted. You could ask the folks over at CML/HD for production titles.

There is nothing at all that is impractical about hard disk recording of video-data, a very good hard drive that would accept the output of the camera is less than the size of a desktop computer frame. Here is one of them:

http://www.dvformat.com/2002/08_aug/features/cw_viper5.htm

It dosn't have to be a hard disk, either, any data-tape system that will accept that much output will do nicely.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-30-2003, 03:55 PM:

Remember, any viable production SYSTEM has to have the necessary infrastructure in place. That takes time and lots of money, and a demonstrated advantage over existing systems. New technology is great, but it needs a good business case to thrive.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-30-2003, 11:41 PM:

500GB of storage doesn't seem like very much when it comes to a fully uncompressed HD video stream at 1920 X 1080 pixels. If each frame is fully progressive, I suppose we're talking 5.94MB per frame, or 142.56MB for 24 frames and 178.2MB for 30 frames. Doing the math in my head, I guess that comes out to just under 50 minutes of capacity for 30p HD video. Probably good enough for a camera. But not the capacity one would need if they wanted to store HD video movies on their computer. I guess that's why there's not much copy protection on those "D-Theater" D-VHS tapes.

I don't like the film like terms being used to describe that camera and 500GB disc system. But then I don't think 1920 X 1080 is appropriate for commercial film production and projection. You gotta have a lot more pixels.

Hard disc I/O is a major problem. My opinion is it is the biggest thing holding back incredible advances in computer technology. We have tons of emerging processing and graphics display power that is improving at a fantastic rate. Memory is getting less expensive. But hard discs are very primitive by comparison. What's the best standard now? Ultra320 SCSI RAID? Sounds cool, but is terribly slow compared to old standard RAM.

Something has to happen with mass data storage. Some are championing "solid state" hard discs (just a big chunk of RAM). I forget what other concepts are being promoted. For video streams of significantly higher rez than HD to be practical, we've gotta get data I/O improved.