Superman Returns

[Keith Mottram]

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).

 

you are boringly ignorant.

[Mike Rivera]

I actually submitted music to Warner Bros. for Superman Returns. Of course I was passed over for John Ottman-the man is a genius and a resume the size of my two story townhouse. I did recieve alot of feedback though, and I was #1 on google search for Superman mp3's almost 2 months in a row. If you'd like to check it out here's the link. Let me know what you think. I took some of the old and mixed it with some of the new...oh yeah, I did it all with one keyboard and one guitar. I think you'll be surprised.

The song is called Triumph-Symphonic Score and should play as soon as you click on the site. Thanks!

 

http://www.soundclick.com/mikeriveraakamikeyrukus

[Kim Vickers]

you are boringly ignorant.

 

Yawn....

 

OK, I'll bite -- if you had a choice between a 35mm film camera and a tethered 4k digital camera, which would you choose? And don't give me this bunk that the video tap is the same thing as cabling out to the recording media. I can always lose the video tap when it's too much hassle. I can't just "lose" the cable to the media. (Talk about ignorant.)

 

Those of you who would PREFER to use a tethered camera, please hold up your hands. Apparently, Dalsa has a bargain for you!!!

Edited April 17, 2006 by Kim Vickers

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The reason people are suspicious when the world "algorithm" is thrown around is that it's usually shorthand for "a way we cover up our technical inadequacies." Not saying that's what's going on here, and I don't know anything about the Origin camera whatever, but if someone asks a pertinent technical question and you answer it with "mumble mumble algorithms which I won't tell you about because they're trade secrets", people will quite understandably say "bullshit", spin on their heels, and walk off.

 

Conversely. a good example of this sort of after-the-fact problem solving would be the orange dye on a 35mm negative, which exists to mask a technical inadequacy of the format.

 

If you're in Vegas next week I presume you're taking a system to the CML evening, which would be a superb opportunity to respond to some of these issues?

 

Phil

[Alan Lasky]

"The reason people are suspicious when the world "algorithm" is thrown around is that it's usually shorthand for "a way we cover up our technical inadequacies." Not saying that's what's going on here, and I don't know anything about the Origin camera whatever, but if someone asks a pertinent technical question and you answer it with "mumble mumble algorithms which I won't tell you about because they're trade secrets", people will quite understandably say "bullshit", spin on their heels, and walk off."

 

No, actually the reason people are suspicious of the word algortihm is they are often too lazy or unable to actually learn anything new. No one from DALSA has ever said "mumble mumble algorithms... which are trade secrets." As a matter of fact none of our algorithms are trade secrets and we answer by pointing people to our web site where there are actually white papers that go over in depth what our image processing algorithms are used for and how they work.

 

Considering that most camera people have little to no background in computer science, image processing, or programming (and why should they?) it is often difficult if not impossible to give the foundational information for high-level image processing in a sound byte. Or in truly special cases they come up with a definition of "algorithm" like: shorthand for "a way we cover up our technical inadequacies." That's when we, quite understandably, say "bullshit", spin on our heels, and walk off.

[K Borowski]

No, actually the reason people are suspicious of the word algortihm is they are often too lazy or unable to actually learn anything new. No one from DALSA has ever said "mumble mumble algorithms... which are trade secrets." As a matter of fact none of our algorithms are trade secrets and we answer by pointing people to our web site where there are actually white papers that go over in depth what our image processing algorithms are used for and how they work.

 

Considering that most camera people have little to no background in computer science, image processing, or programming (and why should they?) it is often difficult if not impossible to give the foundational information for high-level image processing in a sound byte. Or in truly special cases they come up with a definition of "algorithm" like: shorthand for "a way we cover up our technical inadequacies." That's when we, quite understandably, say "bullshit", spin on our heels, and walk off.

 

I have a background in computer programming, albeit a rather small one. It makes me even MORE apprehensive as to digital imaging. The fact that, instead of silver particles, you have a charged coupled device that uses human-designed algorythms to interpret an analog signal into digital information, is a scary one indeed. One need only look at history to see all of the blunders caused by human design assumptions. Not that a less-accurate capture medium is really Earth-shattering for people other than photographers and cinematographers, but the past has taught me to always be leery of new technologies until they mature. Further, judging by the changes that digital capture has had on still photography, I hope that cinematographers will be far more cautious.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Alan Lasky]

"The fact that, instead of silver particles, you have a charged coupled device that uses human-designed algorythms to interpret an analog signal into digital information, is a scary one indeed. "

Regards.

 

Karl, Karl, Karl. Who do you think designs the "silver particles" that go into film stocks? God? T-grain emulsions were not designed by humans? Film response curves and the chemistry that goes into them are what? Magic? I hear what you are saying but come on...have you been to Rochester and met the scientists who whip up film stocks? They are quite human, I assure you.

[Scott Fritzshall]

"The fact that, instead of silver particles, you have a charged coupled device that uses human-designed algorythms to interpret an analog signal into digital information, is a scary one indeed. "

Regards.

 

Karl, Karl, Karl. Who do you think designs the "silver particles" that go into film stocks? God? T-grain emulsions were not designed by humans? Film response curves and the chemistry that goes into them are what? Magic? I hear what you are saying but come on...have you been to Rochester and met the scientists who whip up film stocks? They are quite human, I assure you.

Alan,

 

I think you're making a mistake getting riled up on the internet over this. Just from a business standpoint, it doesn't reflect well on you to go around arguing with people- word gets around online and pretty soon your company and product end up with a negative reputation, regardless of whether it's actually deserved. I understand your frustration, but in my opinion, the best way to deal with it is to state your case, politely correct misconceptions, and let your product speak for itself.

 

That said, what you've posted about the Origin is pretty impressive, though you'll understand that I'll reserve judgement for seeing real-world results and hearing reviews from third parties. I'd love to come out to see it, though you'd have to pay for my plane ticket since I'm still in college. ;) On the other hand, if you made your way down to Chicago, I'm sure that my school would love to let you put on a presentation, and you'd get lots of local industry people in as well.

 

Your posts seem to imply that there is only one Origin camera at the moment, is that correct?

[Alan Lasky]

"Your posts seem to imply that there is only one Origin camera at the moment, is that correct?"

 

There are more than 20 at the moment, although not all of them have the newest electronics upgrades. They will soon though, perhaps by June.

 

 

I hear you about getting "riled up on the internet," but remember what Gilbert & Sullivan say: "Things are rarely as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream." There are reasons for everything, some more opaque than others.

[Kim Vickers]

"Your posts seem to imply that there is only one Origin camera at the moment, is that correct?"

 

There are more than 20 at the moment, although not all of them have the newest electronics upgrades. They will soon though, perhaps by June.

I hear you about getting "riled up on the internet," but remember what Gilbert & Sullivan say: "Things are rarely as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream." There are reasons for everything, some more opaque than others.

 

I take it back. You're not desperate. You're delusional.

[Scott Fritzshall]

I take it back. You're not desperate. You're delusional.

You're really not helping.

 

"Your posts seem to imply that there is only one Origin camera at the moment, is that correct?"

 

There are more than 20 at the moment, although not all of them have the newest electronics upgrades. They will soon though, perhaps by June.

Ah, I think it's just the way people tend to talk about cameras that had me confused. Everyone says things like "I'm shooting on the Varicam," or "The Origin," and since I don't know better about the Origin, it sounds like there's only one of them.

 

I hear you about getting "riled up on the internet," but remember what Gilbert & Sullivan say: "Things are rarely as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream." There are reasons for everything, some more opaque than others.

Hey, your company, your call. I'm just sayin'.

[Kim Vickers]

You're really not helping.

 

Sorry. Couldn't help it. Reflex.

 

BTW: did you read the bit about how the military/war in Iraq is preventing them from releasing their onboard recording system? Something about Apache attack helicopters and gun cameras.

 

Where is Tom Clancy when you need him?

Edited April 18, 2006 by Kim Vickers

[K Borowski]

Karl, Karl, Karl. Who do you think designs the "silver particles" that go into film stocks? God? T-grain emulsions were not designed by humans? Film response curves and the chemistry that goes into them are what? Magic? I hear what you are saying but come on...have you been to Rochester and met the scientists who whip up film stocks? They are quite human, I assure you.

 

I know emulsion engineers are human. I know one of them personally, and know another person whose father designs X-ray emulsions for the Eastman Kodak company. Over the summer, I myself taking a class on black & white film emulsion-making. Your point is well taken, but your analogy is lacking. Despite the fact that emulsions are designed by human beings, a native silver halide on its own can convert to black metallic silver by being struck by light. Take enough of these silver particles and put them together, and you can form a picture. Humans have been able to optimize these grains to be sensitive to all visible light and to further reduce the size of these grains and their sensitivity, but there remains the fundamental reaction of silver halide (silver chloride, silver bromide, or silver iodide) with light to become black metallic silver and corresponding halide ion. In essence, depending on your views of the creation of the universe, the silver particles in photography *are* designed by God ;-) We've simply concentrated and optimized them. Raw silicon does not, on its own, produce an image. Digital image capture is an entirely electrical process with a CCD or CMOS sensor. I do not understand the details of it entirely, but there is an analog electrical signal that has to be interpretted and compressed by man-made algorhytms. Whereas the essence of analog photography is a chemical reaction, the essence of digital photography is this interpretation and of course the construction of the actual chip itself. This makes digital photography more dependant on these said man-made design components. Being more dependant on interpretation and conversion makes digital imaging less "true to life", at least in my opinion.

 

I disagree with Scott. It is nice that you are making your presence known here on the 'net. Granted I disagree with your purpose here (our two respective forum monikers are akin to my being "oil" and your being "water" or vice versa), but having a personal involvement with what you do is much better than the harsh, corporate facades of some of the other industry representatives here on this forum.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Kim Vickers]

I know emulsion engineers are human. I know one of them personally, and know another person whose father designs X-ray emulsions for the Eastman Kodak company. Over the summer, I myself taking a class on black & white film emulsion-making. Your point is well taken, but your analogy is lacking. Despite the fact that emulsions are designed by human beings, a native silver halide on its own can convert to black metallic silver by being struck by light. Take enough of these silver particles and put them together, and you can form a picture. Humans have been able to optimize these grains to be sensitive to all visible light and to further reduce the size of these grains and their sensitivity, but there remains the fundamental reaction of silver halide (silver chloride, silver bromide, or silver iodide) with light to become black metallic silver and corresponding halide ion. In essence, depending on your views of the creation of the universe, the silver particles in photography *are* designed by God ;-) We've simply concentrated and optimized them. Raw silicon does not, on its own, produce an image. Digital image capture is an entirely electrical process with a CCD or CMOS sensor. I do not understand the details of it entirely, but there is an analog electrical signal that has to be interpretted and compressed by man-made algorhytms. Whereas the essence of analog photography is a chemical reaction, the essence of digital photography is this interpretation and of course the construction of the actual chip itself. This makes digital photography more dependant on these said man-made design components. Being more dependant on interpretation and conversion makes digital imaging less "true to life", at least in my opinion.

 

~Karl Borowski

 

I had originally posted a sarcastic response, but you made a thoughtful argument so I figured you deserve an honest reply.

 

I have a question for you: If our mathematics is precise enough to land a man on the moon and split atoms, isn't it precise enough to interpret movement? (I think it is.)

 

My feeling is that too much compression definitely does suck, but RAW HD is pretty impressive. RAW 4K should be that much better.

 

Your argument seems to be based on the idea that there are certain things that are natural (like photochemical photography) while other things are not (like digital photography). One is a photochemical IMPRESSION of light, while the other is a mathematical INTERPRETATION of light. I fail to see how one is inherently more natural or Godlike.

 

It's a bit like light itself: you can measure it as a particle or as a wave, but not both at the same time. One is not inherently better than the other, merely different. No?

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I love this discussion! :) You all seem like very intelligent folk! Wait, that may come off as sarcastic but I mean it!

 

Myself, I like film. 4k, however, is something that I must, must, must see!

 

To me it all comes down to alchemy versus science. Alchemy is science but kind of backwoods, you know? When you process film you never really know what your going to get. Chemical reaction versus electronical process!

 

The battle wages on and will only get bloodier!!! :lol:

[james smyth]

I can understand the position of holding film in some holy place in one's mind. It's fun and easy to work with. I like the hands-on feeling I get when working with it. But I don't want to dictate that a production use film just because I like to handle it.

 

Anyway, people can argue about the minor details of these digital systems to no end. The only thing to really do is try it for yourself and keep it capabilities in mind when putting together a project. For some people 1080p meets all their requirements. There is no set way to decide on one system for all your work. People say they understand this, but then go on rampages about the specific definition of '4k resolution' as if the minor differences in interpretation would make all the world of difference.

 

I certainly would love to head over and try out the Origin, but also being a student, it'll be a while before I can save up the money to fly over from Baltimore. At $38 to develop and process 100' rolls of B&W 16mm on a budget of Visa, it'll be a while.

Edited April 18, 2006 by james smyth

[David Mullen ASC]

One could argue that the conversion of light into electrical current to be reconstructed by a smart processor is closer to how the human eye-brain system works than photochemical photography, if you're going to argue about which process is truer to reality, whatever that means.

 

Besides, a photochemical process in most cases produces a negative image which has to be intrepreted and converted into a pleasing positive image, whether using a print stock or a telecine, so it is hardly free from the need for human intervention. And what is really the fundamental difference between a chemical engineer designing a chemical process to convert photons received by a light-sensitive emulsion, further modified through chemical development, into a "correct" image on film... versus an electronics engineer designing a processor to convert photons received by a light-sensitive sensor into a "correct" image?

 

These are romantic arguments that don't really hold up. It's completely arbitrary to say that chemical reactions are somehow more "honest" than electrical processes, or that one is less designed by man than the other. Color film emulsions and print stocks are more complicated than simply being silver reacting to light.

[Alan Lasky]

Sorry. Couldn't help it. Reflex.

 

BTW: did you read the bit about how the military/war in Iraq is preventing them from releasing their onboard recording system? Something about Apache attack helicopters and gun cameras.

 

Where is Tom Clancy when you need him?

 

 

Kim,

You are not going to get away with saying ignorant stuff like that to me to make yourself look "smart." Have you ever gone through the procurement process with a large scale contractor of defense components? DALSA has several defense and aerospace contracts and we deal with suppliers of components used in many defense imaging systems. The "flash-mag" recorder in development uses solid-state components that are designed to go into tanks, uavs and helicopters. Since you seem to be a fan of Tom Clancy's fiction, and you clearly live in that world, let me give you some facts: the US is involved in 2 wars at the moment, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. Perhaps you have heard? We have to put in orders for components very far in advance in order to get into the 'cue' and we are very, very far down in priority. This effects R&D and scheduling for a large number of companies, not just ours. Solid state 'Flash-Memory' components, especially mil-spec components rugged enough to go into an Apache or to be dropped by a 2nd assistant camera man are in high demand right now.

 

So you need to actually know what you are talking about before you post. Clearly you do not, so in order to dispel your entirely stupid Tom Clancy reference and perhaps educate you in the business of actually creating real world products, lets look at some real world facts, shall we?

 

Yes, Virginia, Solid State video recording for military vehicles does exist:

 

http://www.teac-aerospace.com/DataRecorders/

http://www.spec.com/onboard/products_hd-q&a.html

 

Here is a great article about the current state of procurement and why components are scarce:

 

http://mae.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Di...TICLE_ID=163721

 

Now, as a final way to show you what we are up against how about some actual footage from a solid state recorder mounted in an Apache attack helicopter from Tal-Alfar, Iraq? Will that clear your little fantasy up?

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/apachehit.mpg

 

As you can see, Tom Clancy is no where in sight. Just real people getting blown apart by a 30mm chain gun, all of it recorded to solid state memory components that we are also going to use. No fantasy, no 'camera-guy' posturing.

 

Hmmmm, perhaps we should keep our mouths closed when we haven't the faintest idea what we are talking about?

[Dan Goulder]

So, WHEN can we see some material shot with this camera in a commercial release? (Otherwise, these speculative arguments will go on forever.) Let the camera do the talking.

[Kim Vickers]

Hmmmm, perhaps we should keep our mouths closed when we haven't the faintest idea what we are talking about?

 

I can't believe a company that needs good PR to get its gear in circulation has hired you to do it. If you and your superiors at Dalsa actually think arguing with filmmakers online is a good idea, you're in deeper trouble than you know.

 

I'm lampooning your military excuse because it's just so desperate. Do you really think any of your customers actually CARE about where you sit on the defense contractor priority list? I'm the customer -- I don't want fancy excuses, I want what I want. Either you're going to get me what I want or you're not. If you're not, if you're so new to this business that you think you're going to impress me with your version of "the dog ate my homework" excuse, well, frankly, I suspect you're not going to be in business much longer.

[Keith Mottram]

I can't believe a company that needs good PR to get its gear in circulation has hired you to do it. If you and your superiors at Dalsa actually think arguing with filmmakers online is a good idea, you're in deeper trouble than you know.

 

I'm lampooning your military excuse because it's just so desperate. Do you really think any of your customers actually CARE about where you sit on the defense contractor priority list? I'm the customer -- I don't want fancy excuses, I want what I want. Either you're going to get me what I want or you're not. If you're not, if you're so new to this business that you think you're going to impress me with your version of "the dog ate my homework" excuse, well, frankly, I suspect you're not going to be in business much longer.

 

are there any dummies left in your pram?

[james smyth]

Can we forget the bickering and go back to actual discussion?

[David Mullen ASC]

If we don't start treating manufacturers' reps better here on this site, none of them will think it's worth visiting. You are blowing a great opportunity for making this site more useful to filmmakers.

[Tim Tyler]

I'm the customer

 

...your version of "the dog ate my homework" excuse

 

Kim,

 

Are you a customer? Your profile lists your job description as 'other'.

 

I hardly think it's an excuse. More like a detailed description of a real-world business predicament.

[Kim Vickers]

Kim,

 

Are you a customer? Your profile lists your job description as 'other'.

 

I hardly think it's an excuse. More like a detailed description of a real-world business predicament.

 

I'm an independent producer and editor. I've rented the Varicam and F900 for several projects. No onboard is a deal-breaker for me and nothing I've heard here has changed my view on that. If you're not bothered by the tethering, I guess the camera could be for you.

 

Apologies if I was out of line.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Kim Vickers