New HD Advances & Their Effect on The Bottom Line

[Guest J Jukuzami]

Digital cinema production volume is growing fast. What I am talking about are movies produced in 1080p format. Until very recently the camera that was used almost exclusively was Sony CineAlta F900. It has been used on both expensive studio productions, and on independent project. There is also Panasonic Varicam that lies at the other end of the HD spectrum, that is 720p, or half-way between CineAlta and SD, which is 480p. We'll skip that one. No major film productions were made with it. The ones who have the money to make movies and the technical expertise to evaluate cameras before a shoot, have shined away from the Varicam and choose CineAlta.

 

The F900 is too expensive. It costs $100K for the camera alone. The camera itself has an HD SDI output, which is uncompressed, 10 bit, 4:2:2, 1920x1080p. It also records on tape, 4.5:1 compressed, 8 bit, 3:1:1, 1440x1080p. The recording on tape is of sufficient quality as was demonstrated by Rodriguez in Spy Kids 2 and in Once Upon a Time in Mexico. The HD SDI output is of a superior quality, subjectively very close to film. The advantage od either output is lack of grain and a resulting subjective sharpness that is higher than on 35 mm productions.

 

So let's take look at the new and shortly upcoming alternatives to the standard expensive 1080p production.

 

Cameras:

 

Summix will have in 3 months a 1080p camera that will have HD SDI output and will use the highest quality 1080p CMOS. It is the same CMOS that the $40K Kinetta will be using, made by Rockwell Alta Sans. Alta Sans supplies basically the same CMOC, but without a filter, to Ikegami and JVC. The picture quality should be similar to the Kinetta. Summix is a high tech company with deep optical and electronic development experiece. The Kinetta is a garage type operation. The cost of the Summix? $4,000. The kinetta will be $40K. Catch? No picture recording device and no sound. You have to run coax to a computer to record. You need to feed microphones via a mixer to the same computer's sound card, or to a separate recorder, like a $100 Sony MiniDisc. You hook up a viewfinder and/or monitor to the computer. The camera will have Nikon or another 35 mm lens mount. That means very inexpensive SLR camera lenses.

 

Another choice is a Sony HDC-X300 camera with many bells and whistles but the setup will be similar as with the Summix. The camera costs $15K. Canon lens for it with manual/auto focus is $7K. Remote control that allows easy and extensive setup is $5K. Monitor/viewfinder output is on the camera.

 

Recording can be done inexpensively to a computer and you'll need to power it from car-type battery via 12/120V inverter and a filter.

 

Computer options:

 

PC with double Opteron processors with Asppect HD. It will work with 1440x1080p 8 bit, 4:2:2 uncompressed signal and will compress it in its high quality mode 6:1 (which is less than Varicam) real time. The recorded quality is similar to CineAlta taped signal. You need to convert the footage first to the acceptable signal, which is easy. Contact CineForm for details; some of the features of Aspect HD are not listed on their website costs $1200 and includes NLE software. You'll use the same computer for editing. The compressed storage is cheap. Contact Boxx Technologies and Promax.

 

Mac with FCP HD. You cam record full 10 bit real time, uncompressed, or compressed on the fly. Contact Apple, however most compression options will require you to record first, compress later.

 

Boxx Technologies RT is a PC based system that will do the same thing as the Mac, but has a brtter compression codec, Prospect HD. Again, contact CineForm. You cen record compressed or uncompressed 10 bit, 4:2:2, 1080p. Compression is real time from the camera output.

 

There will be also inexpensive through expensive HDV cameras. Skip these. They will be too compressed, low resolution, interlaced, low lattitude, etc. Their compression is a lot higher than that of Aspect HD and Prospect HD codeces.

 

How much would a least expensive system cost that would allow you to record, edit, etc.?

 

$4K Summix camera

$1K set of used 35 mm lenses, used incident light meter and a set of filters

$3K storage and back up storage of Aspect HD compressed material, good for a total of 30 hrs.

$2.5K imexpensive viewfinder and monitor

$.5K battery, charger, inverter and filter

$4K cheap mixer, mic(s), lighting set and chaep additional Home Depo quartz lights

$1 Tripod with fluid action and a Glidecam

$8K computer for shooting and editing

1k misc.

______________________

Total is $25K

 

Naturally for better results you could do the following:

use better monitor/viewfinder

get 35 mm adapter, similar to P+S, but for a fraction of the cost; it should be available this year, at a very low cost

better tripod, lights, sound system

use the Sony camera

use Boxx RT for 10 bit compressed recording

use Mac with FCP HD for uncompressd HD recording

 

Don't let anyone tell you that the above is not possible or that the quality would be lower than when taped on the Sony $100K camera. There are too many people who are either dumb, don't have the knowledge, hate HD, have silent film era mentality in the time of sound, color, and HD. They don't have the understanding of HD, so they make general statements but can't talk specifics. They love the smell of the film lab chemical solutions, get high on the name Kodak and believe that Super 8 has its place in the pro world. If the manufacturer does not tell them that this is for this and that is for that, they will not accept it; they are low on abstract, non-linear thinking. They shoot mainly DV although they hate anything that does not say Kodak or Fuji on it. These DV shooters then make grandiose statements about 70 mm and love the motion artifacts of film and its grain, and some of them still miss the silent era. They have not noticed yet that this is the 21st century. They crave Fatburgers and love to choke on Wienerschnizels. Amen.

 

So you'll spend $25K and will be able to use your equipment for many films, to be made by you, your friends. Or you could go the route that the DPs in this forum prefer, and spend over $90K eacv time you make a movie:

 

GeorgeSelinsky

Posted: Jun 1 2004, 07:45 PM

Just to have a comparison here is how low you make a film in 35mm.

 

Buy a Russian Konvas for $2000, comes with a complement of lenses that are pretty good (can even go anamorphic if you want).

 

Get a used tripod for about $1000

 

Get about $1000 worth of lights and practical lamps.

 

Get a cheap DV camera for reference recording and dailies, for $600.

 

Go to a raw stock company and buy 100,000 feet of Kodak 500 asa color negative film for about $11,000. That's a healthy 18 and a half hours of film.

 

Go to the lab and tell them you're bringing in 100,000 feet of 35mm film for negative and transfer for your low budget feature. That will cost you about $17,000.

 

Shoot your movie. Incur other expenses.

 

Go to the video transfer suite after your final cut and about $8,000 later you have a finished master on tape for distribution (SDTV, which most people still watch).

 

Gear, materials, and lab thusfar are $40,600. If you want to shoot sync it would be about $51,000 if you wanted to buy all of your own equipment, which would still be good ten years from now.

 

For negative conform and a print, add about $30,000 (if you want an internegative, add $26,000).

 

You could do all of this for less if you wanted to.

 

- G.

 

The system I recommend would produce digital prints that could be shown at Landmark Theaters with digital projection.

[Nate Downes]

So, where's the HD system to compete with my $300 Film shoot, including purchase of 2 cameras.

[Floyd Diebel]

Digital cinema production volume is growing fast.

wow! that's great!

[Luke Prendergast]

Fantastic!!!!! Can't wait!! Thanks for the enlightenment UD!!! What is CMOC? How do I attach the viewfinder to my computer? Unfortunately I'm a 'garage type operation' so maybe Summix isn't for me? $1 for a tripod and glidecam!! Who do I send the cheque to? Oh, there are no Landmark Theatres near me...darn. Oh well.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Claiming you can do a decent film shoot for $300 is as bad as this guy's ranting.

 

Phil

[Rob Belics]

Yeah, but it still wouldn't look like video.

[Nate Downes]

Hi,

 

Claiming you can do a decent film shoot for $300 is as bad as this guy's ranting.

 

Phil

I didn't say it was a full-length movie. I pointed out my costs for a music video I shot on Super8, so as to point out that not everyone is making movies.