Superman Returns

[K Borowski]

COLLATERAL!!!!

 

I usually don?t comment on other people?s taste, but because you are not the first to compliment Collateral?s photography, I must admit that perhaps I saw it in a bad theater, for the purple fringing on those street lamps, the strange dragging when Tom starts running down the stairs, or any other low light set, it all looks very bad to me!!!!

When it comes to digital, optimized film scanning is the only way for me? at least for now?

I assume Genesis is 4k in each color, right? Or did we come to the point when 4Gb/s transfer rate to disk is possible in such a little camera?

By the way, I think I might have found the cheapest place for film scan?

 

Cheers

Rodrigo

 

You misunderstand. I don't cite Collateral as having photographically stunning imagery, just that it is one of the few HD movies I've seen that actually sought to do something that film CANNOT do, which I find to be original and refreshing. At the same time, the story on Collateral wasn't as good as I hoped for, and it also is a PERFECT example of how digital handles fleshtones ;-)

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Chris Cooke]

I know Kodak will be biased but take alook @ this page. You might learn something.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/exp...=0.1.4.13&lc=en

[Guest David Higgs]

But I think you're overlooking COLLATERAL, elvworks, in which the digital cinematography was great and definitely supported the story! But i agree, the last Star Wars episodes didn't live up to my expectations.

 

I think you're also forgetting that it went through two different HD systems and two DP's. The one factor that those who advocate shooting on video forget is that it's practically impossible to light and operate which I've done on a number of jobs. Whatever you say about Video/HD you are bringing the telecine/grade to the shooting floor. For tough schedules that's a killer. With film you look through the camera, see the real image and that married with your knowledge of the filmstock enables you to shoot quickly and be confident in what you achieve.

[Michael Most]

I assume Genesis is 4k in each color, right?

 

Anyone have an opinions on the 4k vertical resolution Dalsa Origin?

 

Where do you people get such numbers, anyway? The Genesis is an HD video camera, its resolution is 1920x1080, same as any other HD video camera. The Dalsa claims to be a "4K" camera, but in reality is more like 3K. That is a rough measurement of horizontal resolution, not vertical. "True" 4K would be 4028x2266 if the sensor was 16:9. That is not what the Origin is. Besides, it's a single chip sensor with a Bayer pattern, so any exact measurement of pixel sites on the chip has to be tempered by the fact that be definition, there is not a 1:1 relationship between the sensor elements and the image pixels it yields.

 

The notion that digital images would look like film (or "better than film", whatever that means) and thus more "natural" if only there was more resolution is very questionable. Film, like the human eye, is an analog medium, in which randomly placed imaging elements are combined to make a "natural" image. In film, the placement of these imaging elements changes with every frame, in your eye the elements are so small and plentiful that they produce a slightly different output over time, thus "randomizing" the distribution of light and color in what you see. A digital imaging device is set up permanently in a fixed grid pattern, meaning that the values are not nearly as randomized as film (in which the structure of that imaging pattern is constantly changing). This leads to a more "static" image, as well as the fact that the output of those sensing elements is digitally sampled, leading to a loss of information compared to an analog medium in which there is no gap between sampled values. However you look at it, electronic imagers have certain characteristics that make their end result different than an analog imaging medium like film. For them to look and feel "the same," the output of an electonic sensor would have to be randomly scattered, which would require a much, much higher resolution than current technology allows, and a random sampling pattern that would approximate the effects of constantly changing film grain. That's not to say that either one is superior or inferior, just that they are different, and likely always will be.

[Matty Wakai]

I was fortunate enough to assist Hong Kong DOP, Arthur Wong HKSC (chosen because of his experiences whilst shooting Ultraviolet), doing some Genesis tests in colaboration with Salon Films HK (far east agent for panavision) last month.

 

I must say that the results were very pleasing, we did frame rate tests, mixed light tests, and gain tests, the results were screened at the Hong Kong Film Mart on a 2K projector, the end product was quite pleasing.

 

From an assistants point of view, just take away the phsyical film aspects (loading, threading etc.) and you still have alot of work, depending on setups, if anything, it gives more time to make sure the other essential aspects of cinematography are correct (exposure, focus etc.). there is still need for a first assistant cameraman, as focus still needs to be pulled, and a second assistant still needs to record the timecodes (in place of footage counts) and help organise equipment to ensure smooth setups with the first assist.

 

Sure this still is a HUGE change in procedures, and people will need to adapt to survive, but just think where this new technology could take cinematography. Sure at the moment i love working film jobs, as i still have alot to learn in my job, but i think it is important to remain open minded.

 

I say, if it makes making pretty pictures easier, why not welcome it. I am looking forward to working with the genesis again in the future.

[timHealy]

I would love to see that test or anything similiar. Anychance that it would be traveling around? Perhpas at NAB?

 

Best

 

Tim

[Matty Wakai]

hmm, not sure about the test traveling. I will talk to the people at Salon Films and get back to you.

[Alan Lasky]

[. Anyone have an opinions on the 4k vertical resolution Dalsa Origin?]

 

I will not get involved in the "Film vs. Digital" discussion, it is boring and sort of irrelevant. However let me invite you out to DALSA to test the Origin. Please ignore the "serial internet posters" and all the discussions of "real 4K, Bayer Patterns, etc." I know EXACTLY who has shot with our camera and who is just spouting off to look intelligent on internet forums.

 

If you can not make it to our facility please tell me a test scene you would like me to shoot and I would happy to shoot it and send you the frames on a DVD-ROM or some other suitable media. If you can have someone local check our shooting procedure, all the better. We have absolutely nothing to hide and in fact we would much rather YOU decide for YOURSELF on the merits of the Origin, not have a decision made for you by people who have never shot a frame with it.

 

Indeed if you like the Origin, cool...come and shoot some stuff with it. If not shoot with film, or HD, or DV, or PixelVision, or whatever you want. I have seen great material come out of all those formats. Just remember to check the facts for yourself. Because I post something in an internet forum does not make it true, nor does a forum of self appointed "experts" speak for the technology itself.

 

Alan Lasky

DALSA Digital Cinema

alan.lasky@dalsa.com

[Michael Most]

Please ignore the "serial internet posters" and all the discussions of "real 4K, Bayer Patterns, etc." I know EXACTLY who has shot with our camera and who is just spouting off to look intelligent on internet forums.

 

Geez, Alan, if you're referring to me I hardly consider myself a "serial Internet poster," and more to the point, I HAVE been to Dalsa (shooting tests with Geoff Boyle, in case you don't recall - and apparently you don't) and I am not "spouting off to look intelligent." I am trying to be informative, as you know as well as I do - better, I hope - that the Dalsa is not a "4K vertical resolution" device.

 

My motivation in this particular reply, as well as a number of others here, is to stop rumor, innuendo, and misinformation - just like yours is. When numbers start getting thrown around here that are just nonsensical, I point it out. If you noticed, I also pointed out that the Genesis is not some whiz-bang, magical, amazing, super ultra high resolution device either. It's an HD camera. Yours is not, and I think I made that clear. In a world in which misinformation is accepted as absolute fact minutes after it's posted on an Internet forum, it takes the voice of a very select few who might actually know what they're talking about to refute the falsehoods. I certainly welcome your participation here, but I don't welcome your implication that I'm some kind of know-nothing, inexperienced, non-industry involved poser who thinks they know everything. You know better than that.

 

Maybe we should talk at the CML gathering at NAB....

[David Mullen ASC]

Alan, I don't think the "is a 4K sensor with a Bayer filter really 4K resolution?" controversy is ever going to go away, so it seems it would be best to just let people draw their own conclusions about the effective resolution, which even if someone wanted to say (on an internet forum) was more like a 3K scan of a low-grain 35mm neg, isn't something for Dalsa to be ashamed of by any means.

 

I recall a presentation at the ASC by Arri regarding the D20 and they just sort of said in passing that due to the Bayer filter, "of course" the effective resolution was a little lower than the horizontal pixel dimensions of the chip.

 

Simply to say that it has a 4K sensor and has more resolution than any other digital movie camera on the market is enough to impress without pushing the 4K resolution issue to heavily, since there will always be a lack of consensus on that aspect of Bayer-filtered images. I've seen the various tests of the Dalsa and my feeling is that it is truly competitive with typical real-world 35mm resolution, as opposed to an HD camera, regardless of whether it is truly 3K, 4K, whatever. What matters is that you aren't compromising on resolution in any practical sense when using the Dalsa, even if some tests show that 4-perf 35mm neg is closer to 6K.

[Alan Lasky]

Thanks for your response, David.

 

If I came off a bit harsh it is because this is getting very irritating. As I am sure you and Mike are aware, the "Bayer resolution issue" is FAR MORE COMPLICATED than can be solved using a "multiply by (X)" equation. I have spent enough time with DALSA's sensor design / fabrication team to understand that for me to make ANY comments about that would be ridiculous. I know enough to keep my mouth shut about issues that require specialized knowledge of CCD design, digital/analog signal processing, and high level optics.

 

This is why I want to distill these issues down to a more manageable level such as: please come and shoot some pictures. That may seem overly simplistic, and perhpas it is. However it is not possible (nor realistic) for me to ask potential Origin users to read Dr. Albert Theuwissen's book, "Solid-State Imaging with Charge-Coupled Devices" in order to understand the complexity of the 4K bayer issue. Yet, constantly I hear people off the street say: "The Origin is not 4K, bayer sensors throw away half the resolution...I read it on the internet." Inevitably that ends up as: "I want a discount for the missing 2K," or some such inane BS. So, you can understand why lately I am close to a shooting rampage. This tendancy to over-simplify very complex technical matters on forums like this one makes it difficult for individuals to make informed decisions.

 

I appreciate what you are suggesting in your post, and in fact we try not to "say" anything about resolution at all anymore. So many factors influence system MTF that it is silly to even start. Again, we just want people to come in and test for themselves without any preconceptions. I do not believe that is too much to ask of the professional community. By all means people should post all they want and whatever they want, but oversimplification tends to lead to increased complexity in the long run. I am sure Donald Rumsfled would attest to that right now. ;-)

 

Alan Lasky

DALSA Digital Cinema

[Mike Rizos]

I appreciate what you are suggesting in your post, and in fact we try not to "say" anything about resolution at all anymore.

 

Alan Lasky

DALSA Digital Cinema

 

Mr. Lasky,

I myself, would like to know Dalsa's true resolution. Why won't you say anything about it?

The Dalsa was explained nicely to us in layman's terms a while back in a post by Ted Johanson. Basically, it was proven to me that some of your claims were not true. Perhaps you could get one of your engnineers to enlighten us.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Mike Rizos

[David Mullen ASC]

Basically, it was proven to me that some of your claims were not true.

 

That's a somewhat hostile or "loaded" question -- you can understand why Alan gets annoyed...

 

As far as I understand it, it's a roughly 4000 x 2000 pixel Bayer-filtered sensor image from which 4K RGB data files are derived. So it's a 4K workflow from shooting through post; the only controversy is just the general one about Bayer-filtered images and the "true" resolution for the separate RGB information extracted. Dalsa has a power-point demonstration on this issue, I believe. Perhaps Alan can send you a link to whatever paper they have on the topic online.

 

Personally, from my layman's simplification, I tend to agree with Mike Most that it would probably be more like an "effective" 3K but it's also a bit apples and oranges if you are comparing this to a scan of 35mm film (which doesn't have any inherent pixel resolution to begin with.) I suppose the best thing would be do shoot some resolution charts on the Dalsa and compare with with a 4K scan of 35mm, but I'm not sure how you test that for each color (shoot through a filter?)

[Michael Most]

the "Bayer resolution issue" is FAR MORE COMPLICATED than can be solved using a "multiply by (X)" equation.....I appreciate what you are suggesting in your post, and in fact we try not to "say" anything about resolution at all anymore.

 

I think that's a good approach.

 

As I said, my point in my original post was not to knock Dalsa in any way, and as David pointed out, the Dalsa is still quite unique in that it is really the only digital motion picture currently in existence as an actual product that is not an HD camera. It is indeed quite more than that. However, the general level of technical expertise in Internet forums is suspect enough that when numbers start getting thrown around, they quickly get abused and misinterpreted. "4k vertical resolution" quickly becomes "4000 lines of resolution," or something totally unrelated to what's being proposed. Not to mention that most people here (not necessarily David, you, me, or some others) would likely interpret "4k vertical resolution" as "4000 pixels in the vertical direction," and that leads to even more misinformation. So I think it's useful to nip those things in the bud, while still advancing the true reasons for a product's existence and/or superiority to other solutions on the market. Dalsa currently produces a significantly higher resolution image than any other camera on the market, and records it in a way that doesn't limit it to a specific format, thus retaining that resolution in a useful manner. That's clearly its biggest advantage. As with many other electronic products, though, the general perception of what it is and isn't becomes a bit muddled when one tries to describe it in film terms, because as David pointed out, film has no inherent specific resolution that can be measured in terms of pixels - even though people who read things like "4K digital camera" want to think it does.

 

Basically, the proof is in the images, and that's really all that matters in the end. And, as we all know, there's more to the final image than just the pixel resolution it was captured with - although that in itself is not inconsequential.

[Dan Goulder]

Is there an upcoming theatrical release made with the Dalsa?

[Alan Lasky]

[i myself, would like to know Dalsa's true resolution. Why won't you say anything about it?]

 

Exactly what is "true resolution?" System MTF? The number of pixels on the sensor? The resolution of a chart shot through a 1960's Angenieux zoom or the same chart shot with an Arri Master Prime? The 'resolving power' of the entire imaging system? I can give you an answer for all of those variables, and still it will tell you nothing about "true resolution."

 

Why won't I say anything about it? Because this is a complex question, and indeed as David pointed out in this case, a loaded one. I can however give you the following facts coupled with some personal observations:

 

1. The Origin sensor has 4096x2048 pixels in a Bayer pattern on the CCD. Of those 4096 pixels 50 (on the far left side) are 'dark' and used as a black reference so the actual captured imaging pixel count in the horizontal direction is 4046.

 

2. The sensor is larger than a 35mm Academy frame. In fact the Origin sensor is the same size as an entire 35mm frame from side to side. The aspect ratio is actually 2:1 (1.9755859375:1 if you take into account the 50 dark). Now, we disclosed this on our web-site from the start and yet people still cried: "There, you see...it's not 4K!" or, my favorite: "Your mileage may vary." Right-e-oh. We were accused of hiding the fact of lens coverage and its relationship to 'resolution.' Let me state this as plainly as possible due to the fact that our picture on the web site of a 35mm motion picture frame laid over a picture of our sensor did not seem to get the point across. When using some standard 35mm lenses with the Origin the lenses will not cover the entire sensor, so one must extract the useable area (full Academy) from the captured pixels. Now, we have purchased a number of different lenses for rental (you can use any PL mount lens you want on the Origin) and based on the lens coverage we have a different ground glass for each format (1.85, 2.35, 16x9, etc). For example if you are using the Cooke s4 series, or the Arri Ultra Primes they were designed to cover only the Academy aperture, so you tell us: "I want to shoot with the Cooke s4 lenses at 1.85." We then put in the ground glass that has 1.85:1 markings imaged *inside* the Academy frame and you shoot some test material. We then extract the Academy area from the 4046 pixels and give you the frame (I believe the extraction becomes 3858, but I am not at work right now and don't remember the exact number off the top of my head) or we give you the entire frame and let your post people crop as they may. If you like what you see you shoot with those lenses and that ground glass for your show. However, we also have purchased a number of re-barreled and PL mounted still camera lenses (Leica, Zeiss, etc) like we use in Vista-Vision VFX photography that DO cover the entire range of the sensor. Then you get a ground glass that matches your chosen aspect ratio, but covers the full 2:1 sensor size and you shoot with that. Honestly, I never expected this to create this much controversy. Again, it is really up to personal taste: the Cooke s4 series have the smallest coverage (indeed they fall off RIGHT at Academy) but they are such beautiful lenses with such a 'warm' and wonderful look that many people (including my team) really like to shoot with them. On the other side the Leica's are incredible lenses as well; they cover the entire sensor, they are very sharp and they have a unique look that is hard to beat. We tested the Arri Master Primes and we really liked them too, so we also ordered some sets of those and they seem to voer the entire sensor as well. Indeed it really isn't a question of 'resolution' but one of how an entire imaging system combines to create a look that works (or does not work) for your project.

 

3. We have a number of very high level image processing algorithms for color reconstruction working on the Bayer data. However the last time I even uttered the word 'algorithm' in public I was misquoted on the internet and for a year I had to deal with fall-out and totally ignorant BS. So I am going to leave it at this: if you want to know about our image processing software please go to the DALSA website and read some of the white papers about our imaging kernel and how the algorithms reconstruct color from a Bayer pattern. If you wish to know more contact me privately.

 

4. Coupled with the issue of 'resolution' is that of 'color depth.' The Origin captures data in 16 bit linear space. We claim 11+ stops of dynamic range, but again please come in and test it for yourself. I know what I have seen come out of the Origin, but you should test for yourself. One point I do wish to make is this: once rendered the 'native' space we like to deliver the imagery in is a 16 bit High Dynamic Range SMPTE DPX file in un-mapped color space. With that format you have the entire 65,536 DN value range with no gamma applied as a starting point. This gives the colorist and VFX people the most 'meat' to work with in post. However, we learned the hard way that 95% of the people we give Origin data to simply flip out when they see unmapped HDRI imagery. Visual effects people who have been dealing with HDRI and film scans get it immediately, but most people start to have tantrums: "I can't see anything, its all dark!" I think you may be starting to see why we are so careful about what we 'say' about resolution.

 

More to the point, you say the following:

 

"Basically, it was proven to me that some of your claims were not true."

 

Ok, here we go, sure I'll take the bait: what 'claims' were proven not to be true and who 'basically' proved that "some of our claims were not true?" Please be more specific, this is just more internet posturing if we leave it as it stands. We can start a useless flame war or we can get to the bottom of it now. You choose.

 

Let me ask this another way. What do you think the technical people at Arriflex and Panavision claim the 'resolution' of the D-20 and Genesis are? I have seen both of those tools up close and I will say without question that they are both excellent cameras; truly remarkable pieces of engineering. I have the utmost respect for both of their tech teams as well. Now, do you think they would say that the 'resolution' of their respective cameras was 1920x1080 just because they are currently recording out to HDCAM-SR, or indeed must we look deeper at the underlying sensor technology? Soon both of those cameras will also support recording DATA directly out of the pipe (as we do at DALSA), and we will see 'resolution' based more on the native 'resolution' of their sensors. Let's put this another way: what do you think PIXAR considers the 'resolution' of MONSTERS, INC? We all know that PIXAR renders their material at a bit less than HD, but because they have no "imaging system" to go through (no lenses, film-stocks, printing, etc) they end up with imagery so sharp that in many cases they have to soften it before film-out. What would the 'resolution' of imagery coming out of RENDERMAN at 1600x900 be?

 

Alan Lasky

DALSA Digital Cinema

[Kim Vickers]

...but again please come in and test it for yourself.

 

..but you should test for yourself.

 

Alan Lasky

DALSA Digital Cinema

 

You're sounding a little desperate.

 

Do you have an onboard recording system yet? If not, the resolution issue is a red-herring. A few more pixels here and there ain't no big thrill. Nobody's going to CHOOSE to use a tethered system when there are cable-free systems available (like film).

[Michael Most]

Nobody's going to CHOOSE to use a tethered system when there are cable-free systems available (like film).

 

I would refer you to Robert Rodriguez, George Lucas, Michael Mann, David Fincher, and numerous others - all of whom have shot or are currently shooting major productions using tethered systems.

[Kim Vickers]

I would refer you to Robert Rodriguez, George Lucas, Michael Mann, David Fincher, and numerous others - all of whom have shot or are currently shooting major productions using tethered systems.

 

You name four people out of the literally thousands of feature films shot on 35mm film every year.

 

I stand by "nobody."

 

And I repeat my question: Does Dalsa have an onboard recording system or not?

Edited April 17, 2006 by Kim Vickers

[Guest 808_Bass]

And I repeat my question: Does Dalsa have an onboard recording system or not?

 

 

maybe go read the faq's on the dalsa website. just might might answer that, and any future questions you may have, as well as saving some wear and tear on your keyboard, and our eyes.

[Alan Lasky]

You're sounding a little desperate.

 

Excuse me? I ask people to come in and test the camera for themselves and now I am "desperate?" Typical.

 

No problem, forget it, on second thought please do not ever come in and test the camera. Learn everything you need to know about any new system from blogs. That'll be a closed loop which in this case might be best.

 

However to those who don't find my offer 'desperate' you are welcome to test the Origin anytime.

 

Our on board Flash Mag solution is in development currently. However since it uses some military components we are not the first in line due to some pesky problems overseas. Apparently Apache attack helicopters need solid state gun-camera recording more than the entertainment industry. Who'd a thought it?

 

BTW, have you ever shot with a 'tethered system?' Do you know how our system is 'tethered?' Do you consider the use of a BNC cable for Video-Assist on a film camera a 'tethered' system? Or is this just more: I have held a rifle, I have looked through a scope, so therefore I am a sniper?

 

Alan Lasky

[timHealy]

I for one appreciate the offer to come in and fool around with your equipment Allen. Thanks for the offer. I am based in the film world and feel that I am always strggling with keeping up with the technology I am not using on a daily basis.

 

If one would want to come, where is the place for that? One of your sales offices on the web page or somewhere else?

 

Best

 

Tim

[Alan Lasky]

"If one would want to come, where is the place for that? One of your sales offices on the web page or somewhere else?"

 

Right now we have offices in Woodland Hills, California {oddly, right across the street from Panavision ;-)} and in Waterloo, Canada. However we are often out on the road with the camera. We have done 'roadshow' demo/training in New York, Montreal, Toronto, etc. Soon we will be in London, and Sydney, and we hope Asia for demos and training. I hope we can get somewhere soon that is near to you. If not, let's try and set something up.

 

I think we are bringing a rig to NAB, although I have to check on availability. We do not have a booth so we'll have to trudge it around in the van. It might make a good bet at the Craps table...the Origin on the hard eight! Although I don't think my boss would be pleased.

[Max Jacoby]

Alan

 

When will you be in London with the camera? All the technical talk about pixels etc... is quite informative, but in the end it always comes down to what the image looks like. And the only way to judge that is to look at the big screen.

[timHealy]

Hey Allen,

 

I'm in NY and don't have any plans to make it to LA anytime soon or make the 8 or 9 hour drive up to Waterloo, but as my schedule changes, perhaps LA during the summer, I'll keep a visit in mind.

 

Do you keep tour updates on your website? Or could you keep us informed via this site?

 

Actually if you make it to NY, I could probably help organize something with local 600 (camera) and local 52 (lighting, grip, video assist, video playback) and some other interested parties if you would be interested. Bring all your tethered and non tethered equipment!

 

Best

 

Tim

Edited April 17, 2006 by heel_e