Balazs Rozsa Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 By 'f ratio' do you mean f stop? 65mm has about half the depth of field that 35mm. The depth of field doubles with every 2 stops that you close down. So to get comaprable depth of field, you need to use four times as much light in 65mm as you would in 35mm Your proposed 100mm chip would require even more light. That is just not feasable from a budgetary point of view. I'm sorry, I meant f stop. You do not need four times as much light: If you use a 4K 35mm chip with a 35mm lens at f/3.5, and a 4K 65mm chip with a 65mm lens at f/6.5 you will get the same picture. The diameter of aperture will be 10 mm in both cases so the depth of field will be the same and so will be the amount of light getting onto one pixel on the CCDs. The only difference between the two situations will be that in the first case the lens will work at f/3.5 while in the second case at f/6.5. If you want extremely good sharpness, you should choose the lens working at f/6.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 The future of DI is in 4K resolution. And I do believe that the film was scanned in at 4K resolution. The only 4K projector right now is the Sony, and that's a prototype, so they'd have to downres anything digitally projected to 2K resolutions. Are you saying scan in at 4K, do DI, and then print back to film? And print the Genesis to film, so that instead of digita projection compared to digital projection, you have film projection compared to film projection? How does that help if film projectors due to the Geneva effect could never allow the eye to appreciate the full 4K resolution? That is of course, if we are saying that resolution is the most important factor-there are other attributes to film projection besides resolution that might be desireable compared to digital projection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 12, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 12, 2004 By 'f ratio' do you mean f stop? 65mm has about half the depth of field that 35mm. The depth of field doubles with every 2 stops that you close down. So to get comaprable depth of field, you need to use four times as much light in 65mm as you would in 35mm Your proposed 100mm chip would require even more light. That is just not feasable from a budgetary point of view. I'm sorry, I meant f stop. You do not need four times as much light: If you use a 4K 35mm chip with a 35mm lens at f/3.5, and a 4K 65mm chip with a 65mm lens at f/6.5 you will get the same picture. The diameter of aperture will be 10 mm in both cases so the depth of field will be the same and so will be the amount of light getting onto one pixel on the CCDs. The only difference between the two situations will be that in the first case the lens will work at f/3.5 while in the second case at f/6.5. If you want extremely good sharpness, you should choose the lens working at f/6.5. Completely independently of the size of your sensor, if you want to shoot a scene at f6.5 rather than f3.5 you need MORE LIGHT. Thta's just physics. You cannot just close your lens down 2 stops. If you are shooting outside in the sun, getting an f6.5 will not be a problem, but if you have to light a set to f6.5 rather than f3.5 that will be a big difference. You will need four times as much light to win 2 stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 For example, I'm sure indie people would like to see comparison of HD origination to Super-16-to-HD, both for film-outs, since that is becoming more of a common path for Super-16 post. I'd rather see 16 to HD SR. -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Jason I am saying that the important thig is to show both in the same format. Since film projection is the way any standard studio feature film will be projected for years to come, it is imperative to determine how digital cameras perform in film prints. And besides that, a film is great medium to show all the subtle color nuances that either film or HD camera might capture. That way you don't have to vorry about how succesfull your digital projection is (because it is not fully developed yet) and did it or did it not present all the qualitty of your source (here i'm not talking about resolution) And as for your comment on the lack of 4K projectors. We are talking about the reality of things in the next 10 years. Surely, the digital projection will slowly take over, but look around you. 35mm projectors are everywhere. It is a know fact that 2K DI is not good enough, meaning, the images could look better than they usually do when DI is involved. There is a need for 4K. That is why i think these digital cameras should be compared to a 4K DI processed film images output back to film, and not a DI at HD resolution. In other words, both formats should be compared in a simulated model of film projection that will exist in some years to come. And of course, there will be more and more digital cinemas. there will be new 4K projectors. And as you probably know, the DCI has decided that 4K shall be a standard of future digital cinema (along with 2K for smaller screens). Because of that, any new digital camera should be compared to film on a 4K digital projector. Right now this is nearly impossible, but i am only talking in theory. All of the above stands if your goul is to show the formats how they will typicaly be used in the future. But if you want to compare these formats from a more scientific or archival point of view and want to determine the actual resolution of the mediums and overall qualitty of the image then you can rull out any DI for film because any DI can only make film lose qualitty (or the qualitty can stay the same in the best scenario). A direct print is needed then for the film elements and a print from the HD footage. 70mm blow-up prints would be adequate for that purpuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 The Genesis has an electronic shutter. I asked about an optical viewfinder and mechanical shutter. They said they will wait and hear what DP's want as far as the viewfinder, but don't have plans for a mechanical shutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 A wild guess on the contrast range I saw was probably 11 stops or so. But in the test 5218 still had better contrast. I don't know if they'd exposed for the shadows more the highlights would have held. A part of the test was to shoot at the exact same T stop. So we were looking at the Genesis and 5218 with the same lighting, same T stop, and seeing the latitude of both. I guess you could've gone into the camera controls and adjusted the gamma, but the Panavision guy said thier ideal was not to be bothered with any of that, just shoot and post like film. I heard another Panavision guy say that the Genesis didn't have a knee control. I over heard that and didn't get to ask any questions to elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 I think you guys are going to have to give in on the film projection argument. Digital projection is getting really good, while film projection is pretty mediocre. Mostly due to the poor upkeep of the projector and print. There are a lot of issues with digital projection to be worked out, but I don't think those problems are with the technology itself. I was totally impressed with the 2K projection I saw of Troy. Before I saw that I thought digital projection was blah. To improve the viewing experience for the audience and really show the majic hiding in those little silver crystals, it doesn't look as though film print will be able to carry us on. A print can't really show much more resolution past 3K, the MTF begins to equal out with 2K. But a 4K projector will display the full 4K file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 I would argue that Panavision's test pretty much did show example of what a typical film print would look like in theater's today. But they certainly did not present 5218 at it's most optimum even if had gone through a DI. They scanned the film at 4K but then down rezzed to 1080 so that the exact same color corrections could be applied to the film and Genesis. If we could've seen 2K or 4k scans on the screen would the test still come so close? I imagine as more nonPanavision tests are done we will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Poor and unkept projector you say? Well that isn't a fault of the technology, it is a human error. It is not really an argument against film projection. Digital projectors can be miscalibrated and the lenses can be dirty or out of focus as well. We should be talking about film done right vs. digital done right, not neglected film vs. digital installed last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 I agree it is unfair to compare poorly projected film with digital projection, but it looks like the hype machine is going to roll right over logic. I think this is a place where hype and the drum beat of the future will roll right over the truth. Kodak has used this method to their advantage in the past and it seems to continue in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Probably the reason the Genesis doesn't have knee controls is it's using something like the Sony CvpFileEditor, where applying some of those custom gamma curves takes away the ability to adjust either the knee or to apply DCC. Which does make me wonder, I wonder if they'll give access to those gamma curves in the same way that they have for the F900 and the F950 using the CvpFileEditor. Gotta admit, it's a pretty nice app, especially their film lookup tables-I definitely find them more aesthetically appealing than the stock gamma curves and DCC, especially in the highlights. They do look very "film-like", and give you around 8 stops of effective range, with 3 stops over middle grey till the knee smoothly slopes in to compress in another two stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 13, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 13, 2004 They scanned the film at 4K but then down rezzed to 1080 so that the exact same color corrections could be applied to the film and Genesis. If they did that then I'm sorry to say that this test is quite worthless. They should make film look as good as possible, not dumb it down to the level of their camera. Also I'm with Felipe on the projection issue. You cannot use digital projection to do a fair comparison, because is that case you have two unknown variables in the test: the digital camera and the digital projection. They should use film projection (with the film contact printed from the neg) to get rid of one variable, so a fair test is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balazs Rozsa Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 By 'f ratio' do you mean f stop? 65mm has about half the depth of field that 35mm. The depth of field doubles with every 2 stops that you close down. So to get comaprable depth of field, you need to use four times as much light in 65mm as you would in 35mm Your proposed 100mm chip would require even more light. That is just not feasable from a budgetary point of view. I'm sorry, I meant f stop. You do not need four times as much light: If you use a 4K 35mm chip with a 35mm lens at f/3.5, and a 4K 65mm chip with a 65mm lens at f/6.5 you will get the same picture. The diameter of aperture will be 10 mm in both cases so the depth of field will be the same and so will be the amount of light getting onto one pixel on the CCDs. The only difference between the two situations will be that in the first case the lens will work at f/3.5 while in the second case at f/6.5. If you want extremely good sharpness, you should choose the lens working at f/6.5. Completely independently of the size of your sensor, if you want to shoot a scene at f6.5 rather than f3.5 you need MORE LIGHT. Thta's just physics. You cannot just close your lens down 2 stops. If you are shooting outside in the sun, getting an f6.5 will not be a problem, but if you have to light a set to f6.5 rather than f3.5 that will be a big difference. You will need four times as much light to win 2 stops. If you are talking about film this is true. You need to get a certain amount of light per a given area on the film for proper exposure. For digital this is not the case. If you have a pixel that has an area that is four times as big as the area of another pixel, the bigger pixel will be able to give you a better signal if they get the same amount of light apiece. In the digital still photography world you can see how using a bigger imaging device is better for your picture. The digital SLRs have much better light sensitivity and noise than the compact digital cameras with smaller sensors. You can close your lens down several stops more on your SLR camera to get the same amount of noise in the picture that you get from your compact camera. As pixel counts will increase, so will the sizes of the imaging sensors. There is no point to make a 10 MPixel sensor that is the size of the sensor of your current 2MPixel camera. No lens can give you a sharp picture onto such a small area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Depending the size of the screen, I'm not sure if 4K would have made such a big difference from a 2K image. I wasn't there, so this might just be shooting in the dark. But if anything, I would think that going from 4K to 2K would improve the quality of the image because you're sampling out any problems that could be occuring in the full-res image. Grain, etc. would be reduced without having to do grain reduction or other filters that could damage the image. So I'm not too sure that downresing the image nullifies the whole testing process. They're probabaly just doing what Panavision is doing inside their camera, which is also downsampling a 4K image to 2K, hence they did the same for film. Really, I think this is going to be a beautiful camera, and will probably usher in a new wave of digital filmmaking among the higher-class hollywood films. When experienced people on this list and other can't tell the difference between the two formats under controlled and practically ideal viewing circumstances, then material from the Genesis will look just as fabulous as film at your local cineplex, on TV, DVD, the special effects compositor's workstation, colorists suite, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 13, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 13, 2004 If you are talking about film this is true. You need to get a certain amount of light per a given area on the film for proper exposure. For digital this is not the case. If you have a pixel that has an area that is four times as big as the area of another pixel, the bigger pixel will be able to give you a better signal if they get the same amount of light apiece. Okay, now I finally understand what you are trying to say! Obviously increasing the size of each pixel will increase it's sensitivity. What are however the advantages of building bigger sensors? Because any increase in speed will be offset by the need to shoot at a smaller stop, so these two essentially cancel each other out. The one advantage I can think of is that with bigger pixels the space between each pixel will be proportionally reduced, thereby increasing the effiency of the sensor. Any others advantages/drawbacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Jason. If 2K is good enough for a certain screen (from a certain seat), then that means that 4K and 2K projections would look identical to your eyes. By admiting that 2K projection will hide something that 4K would show, you are admiting that there is a difference between 2K and 4K on that screen, and that means that this screen should get a 4K projection in the first place. Allso, by saying that 2K image would hide grain from the film you are actually stating that 2K is not good enough. A digital scan should not hide anything, it is suposed to be a digital copy, a virtual clone of the film frame. If it is hiding something, then it is just like another video transfer. If the grain is big enough to be seen on a screen, and if it is not visible because the scan softened the image and masked it, than this is a proof that the screen is too big for that digital resolution in the first place. On the other hand, if the screen size is perfect for a given digital resolution, and the digital projector does not show grain. than that means that the grain would not be visible no matter how hi-res your scan might be. Anyway, the important thing here is that if a certain resolution is good enough for a certain screen size, then there should absolutley no difference no matter how bigger resolution projector you put in the booth. Of course looking from a certain seat. (the difference would always be visible if you are standing a meter from the screen) I hope you see what i mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 13, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 13, 2004 While all of us are curious to know how close we're getting digital to the 35mm mark, ultimately what really matters with any format, film stock, process, etc. is if we like the results and it does what we need it to do, and if it works for us financially. So my question would be (1) do I like the Genesis images?; and (2) is it any cheaper to shoot and post than 35mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balazs Rozsa Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Okay, now I finally understand what you are trying to say! Obviously increasing the size of each pixel will increase it's sensitivity. What are however the advantages of building bigger sensors? Because any increase in speed will be offset by the need to shoot at a smaller stop, so these two essentially cancel each other out. The one advantage I can think of is that with bigger pixels the space between each pixel will be proportionally reduced, thereby increasing the effiency of the sensor. Any others advantages/drawbacks? What I tried to say really in the beginning is that with a bigger sensor you can shoot sharper images. Not because the sensor can have more pixels, but because it is easier to construct a sharp lens for a bigger sensor. When you have an 8K sensor for example, you need extremely sharp lenses. Let's say you have a 35mm sensor and you want to shot with a 35mm lens. Because the 8K sensor requires extremely high resolution, you need at least 10mm diameter of aperture to prevent diffraction soften the image (I didn't exacly calculated this 10mm). Then you need to use your lens at f/3.5. But it is very hard if at all possible to construct a wide lens that gives you 8K resolution from edge to edge, no chromatic and other abberation, etc. But if you increase the size of the 8K sensor to 100mm for example, you can use a 100mm lens at f/10 to get 10mm diameter of aperture. A lens that can give you a sharp 8K picture at f/10 is easier to construct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 With out a doubt the Genesis produces a nice image. I think it will erode if not eliminate shooting 35mm for television. I wish the same DP's who were sitting at the Vision 2 demonstration were sitting at the Genesis test. They nit picked and were really critical of every little nuance of the film and the way it performed. I would've been curious to hear their reaction to the Genesis test. As far as cost no one really seemed to know. I'm sure it won't be a cheap camera to rent. The tapes at uncompressed 4:4:4 are 23 minutes (less at high speed) but I didn't hear how much they would cost. And certainly uncompressed HD SR editing and film out won't be cheap. We haven't seen Genesis under 2K or 4K digital projection, and since the sensor is square what will they do about scope. Will we only use the pixels that cover the aspect ratio? My concern would be delivering the movie going audience the highest quality we can produce. They need a reason to leave home, pay $10, sit in a dark room with a crowd of strangers. We need to deliver picture fidelity far and beyond what can be seen at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 13, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 13, 2004 We haven't seen Genesis under 2K or 4K digital projection, and since the sensor is square what will they do about scope. Will we only use the pixels that cover the aspect ratio? Use Anamorphic Lenses of course! I would hate to see all those anamorphic artifacts like horizontal flares disappear. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted June 13, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 13, 2004 Hi, It's amazing how it takes the Panavision logo to suddenly make cameras acceptable to people. I wonder what this whole argument has really been about. You don't like the fact that the F900 looks like a camcorder? Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Shooting 2.35:1 shouldn't make too big a difference quality-wise, I mean you're still shooting the full horizontal resolution, you're just cropping on the verticle. Isn't the same cropping technique used for Super35-shot scope pictures? With Panavision equipment I guess you could always opt for Anamorphic, but I woudl think that would make an already expensive package even more expensive. (2) is it any cheaper to shoot and post than 35mm? I would say almost any electronic medium is cheaper than 35mm with a good telecine transfer or DI. For instance, shooting an hours worth of 35mm is going to cost you $3,750 in raw stock, $840-$1000 for processing, and Telecine for at least $1200/hr. (put in at least 3-4 hours for a good supervised session). That gives you $9,550 for one hour of shot 35mm stock (not including the camera package which can run at least another $1,500 or more depending on what you get). If the Genesis package rents for $3,500 to $4,000 per day (I'm sure you can trick it out to cost more than this, but I'm thinking the essentials: camera, sticks, mattebox/follow-focus, lens, monitor), and each 23-minute HDCAM SR tape runs $74, then you're spending a total of $4,200 for one day with a complete package shooting one hour of tape. For digitizing your tape at the end of the shoot, I'm assuming you can either use the SRW-1 off the camera (no cost), or rent another SRW-5000 for $1,800 per day. So that would raise the total to $6,000, which is quite a bit cheaper than 35mm for one hour of shot footage. Of course if you shoot less, then you're probably going to get cheaper with 35mm. But I figure an hour of shot footage is a good ball-park figure for a feature film for one good shooting day. BTW, the $3,500-$4,000 is based off the assumption that Panvision is going to bring their camera in some ball-park figure close to the Dalsa, which is going to rent for $3,000 with camera and recorder. Another thing you might want to consider in the $6,000 price quote is that suppose you telecine your film to HDCAM SR?? Well, then you're going to have to tack on the price of deck rentals for you edit suite, or the price of a suite with an HDCAM SR deck ($$$$$!!!). So I'm not sure if that is actually fair to include the price of a digitizing deck, since after the telecine session you're also going to be stuck with some expensive tape format such as HDCAM SR or D-5. So in actuality, you're spending $9,550 to get to the point where you have an editable HDCAM-SR tape with 35mm (assuming that's the format you'll use for DI), and $4,200 (approx.) to get to an editable HDCAM-SR tape from the Genesis (assuming an hour of shot footage). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Jason. If 2K is good enough for a certain screen (from a certain seat), then that means that 4K and 2K projections would look identical to your eyes. I totally understand the point you're making, but I think the crux of the argument likes in your first statment-where you are sitting and the size of the screen. At a certain point (and I don't claim to know exactly where that is), a 4K and a 2K image are going to look virtually identical because you're eyes can't tell the two apart. Once you go beyond the resolving power of the eyes, this all becomes a moot argument. Now the theatre where they showed the images from the Genesis might or might not have exhibited this behavior. And I think that for now, that's where we'll leave it, because I don't know if this was or wasn't the case since I wasn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeSelinsky Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 and Telecine for at least $1200/hr. Woah, you mean telecine at $120 an hour! I get mine for $150 an hour unsupervised. That's pretty good for NY tristate area. I pay about $26-27 per minute of 35mm for short ends film, process, and transfer to tape one lite. That's about $1620 per hour. - G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now