Jump to content

IBC footage...


Jim Jannard

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
I'll never forget the time I was shooting 35mm at the Whitehouse, I was flooded by news camera guys who all crowded around to see the camera. They where just amazed that some one was actually shooting film, I kept hearing them say things like, "Man I wish I could shoot film."

 

Richard,

 

And the big joke is your Konvas cost about 5% of the cameras the news camera guys were using! After using it for 5 years you got your money back!

 

Stephen :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Richard,

 

And the big joke is your Konvas cost about 5% of the cameras the news camera guys were using! After using it for 5 years you got your money back!

 

Stephen :D

 

Yes good point, but I never told them that, they assumed it was an "expensive" piece of gear. Luckily it had the 400ft mag on it and the new lenses, so it looked more impressive.

 

Then combine it with some .15 ft short ends, and off hours transfering, you've got a great image on 35mm for dirt cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Phil,

 

It's generally the B+H 2709's from about 10 years later and Mitchell standards from the 1920's that still have their uses today in Stop Motion, Time Lapse etc. Not sure how much longer with DSLR's :D !

 

Best wishes

 

Stephen

 

 

I hope, soon, all of the 2709's will be up for grabs cheap. I'd love to pick up one that hasn't been modified too much (yeah right!).

 

I lust after the ones on Sam Dodge's site

 

*shrugs* Call it a fetish...

 

- nate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

 

One thing I've always wondered is what drives some one like you?

 

I mean you already have a successful business, and your Wikipedia entry says you have two Bombardier Global Express Jets, which I safely assume means you have more money than you can ever spend.

 

If the online stock tracking graphs are accurate Jims company increased in value well over US $100 M in the week of NAB! Looks like US $200M!

 

And here he is finding time to communicate on cinematography.com... bravo!!

 

 

I suggest that based on the share price rise during NAB, there could more to come from Oakely in the digital department than selling a thousand or so movie cameras.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest that based on the share price rise during NAB, there could more to come from Oakely in the digital department than selling a thousand or so movie cameras.

Mike Brennan

 

Yes and a lot more to come from Sony, JVC, & Panasonic, when they rip off Jim's idea and come out with their own 4K camera at half the cost of Jim's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film stock slowly degrades with time.

 

Digital content remains pristine.

 

The argument of digital archiving being "un-safe" is ridiculous.

 

All that needs to be done to maintain a "safe" copy of their digital content is to continuosly cycle copies of their content onto new drives every 6 months to a year. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all recognize that "drives" are a stop-gap to a better solution (holographic?). Both film and data have storage issues. My bet is that the data issue will be solved more quickly than the film issue. Truth is, not many of us will have film or data that is important 100 years from now. But it is worth thinking about.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Film stock slowly degrades with time.

Digital content remains pristine.

 

Today, the vast majority of film is already converted to digital. With DI's getting more and more common, the percent of film converted to digital will only increase.

 

The nice thing about film is, it can always be re-scanned to a higher resolution as scanners are improved. Once you shoot on digital, you are stuck with that resolution.

 

Look at the Zapruder film. What if that was shot on some beginning super low resolution video format - where would it be now? Today, it can re-scanned to look much better than if it were originally shot on video.

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
And the only way that digital can maintain that metaphor is if footage is shot RAW.

 

Jim

RAW if great to extract color and contrast information but not so great for extracting increased resolution. If something is shot at 1K RAW it will never equal something shot at 4K RAW.

 

8mm scans from today look much better than transfers from 1963.

 

I think this is a great time for us, having great film and vastly improved digital cinematography. It is far better to have both and use their strengths than to try to make a war out of which is better.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Film stock slowly degrades with time.

 

Digital content remains pristine.

 

The argument of digital archiving being "un-safe" is ridiculous.

 

All that needs to be done to maintain a "safe" copy of their digital content is to continuosly cycle copies of their content onto new drives every 6 months to a year. Problem solved.

 

You're speaking of an ideal scenario where all digital archives and private collections will be cloned every six months religiously. Even every five years would probably suffice actually. But any archiving medium has to also plan on the eventuality that material will be forgetten and rediscovered in 50 years, let's say, untouched until that time.

 

In those scenarios, film is a much more stable, safe, and PROVEN method of long-term storage. Don't ask me, just talk to archivists, the members of AMIA.

 

It's all moot anyway since studio movies shot of film are stored both digitally and on film, so you're covered both ways. And considering a properly stored color intermediate, for example, should last at least 100 years, and the b&w seps even longer, odds are higher that future generations will simply rescan those elements rather than deal with ancient data files on obsolete storage formats.

 

Most of this talk about films decaying quickly over time only apply to improperly stored films, or films made before the 1980's using less stable dyes, or even older films on less stable bases that the current film media used for long-term archiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RAW if great to extract color and contrast information but not so great for extracting increased resolution. If something is shot at 1K RAW it will never equal something shot at 4K RAW.

 

:)

 

That's why you need to start with almost 5k. :-)

 

Jim

 

I had a meeting with a smart Hollywood exec. that said they had done several tests of 3 perf S35 film and the resolution was about 3.2K.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
That's why you need to start with almost 5k. :-)

 

Jim

 

I had a meeting with a smart Hollywood exec. that said they had done several tests of 3 perf S35 film and the resolution was about 3.2K.

 

Jim

 

Jim,

 

If your camera looks better than 35mm to independent cinematographer reviews, believe me, I will get in line.

As I said before, good luck, I really hope you can do it, but I'll probably keep my S16mm camera because I just really like it.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You can find all sorts of reliable experts who will tell you that 35mm negative is 3K, 4K, 6K, or even 8K, or at least, there is some advantage to scanning at those higher levels.

 

Whether or not an image from a 4K Bayer-filtered sensor equals 35mm resolution exactly, or is just below it, I think it's reasonable to say that it is within the same "realm" of resolution as 35mm, i.e. a viewer's perception of the image will be that it is similar to 35mm in terms of sharpness and fine detail, assuming both are posted and displayed using the same technology (for example, both transferred at 4K to 35mm for print projection, or both projected digitally at 4K, etc.)

 

But one can debate endlessly over whether a 4K Bayer-filterd image is exactly the same resolution as 35mm, and you probably won't get anywhere because at some point, you run into the fundamental differences between how the two technologies see reality, one with a random grain pattern that changes for every frame, and the other with a fixed grid pattern of light-sensitive receptors that needs some degree of anti-aliasing filtering to reduce high-frequency detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

I agree on all points. Digital is NOT film. When it gets to the point where it is as sharp, the color is as good and it "feels" right, then, and only then, will it be a reasonable consideration to replace film as a primary capture medium. Until now, it has fallen short somewhere. But the day will come when it won't fall short and all its cost and time advantages kick in.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

I agree on all points. Digital is NOT film. When it gets to the point where it is as sharp, the color is as good and it "feels" right, then, and only then, will it be a reasonable consideration to replace film as a primary capture medium. Until now, it has fallen short somewhere. But the day will come when it won't fall short and all its cost and time advantages kick in.

 

Jim

 

But this is where you seem unable to see the point many of us make on this board. Even once all of the above conditions are met, and I think they are right now with the new generation of top end HD cameras, people will still choose film over video. For me it's not about cost at all, like I said I won't use one of your cameras if they are free and generate an image that is "amazing."

 

I want to use an image capture medium that is a chemical reaction, not an electronic one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is where you seem unable to see the point many of us make on this board. Even once all of the above conditions are met, and I think they are right now with the new generation of top end HD cameras, people will still choose film over video. For me it's not about cost at all, like I said I won't use one of your cameras if they are free and generate an image that is "amazing."

 

I want to use an image capture medium that is a chemical reaction, not an electronic one.

 

You absolutely have the right to shoot film. So does everyone else. But my bet is that there are many more who will not shoot film given a real alternative. I heard your exact statement in the still world five years ago. Purists. Now, it is difficult, make that nearly impossible, to find a top still pro who shoots only film.

 

I disagree on one point. As of now, we don't see an acceptable alternative to film in the motion picture market. That's what we are trying to do. Nothing more.

 

Jim

Edited by jim jannard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is where you seem unable to see the point many of us make on this board. Even once all of the above conditions are met, and I think they are right now with the new generation of top end HD cameras, people will still choose film over video. For me it's not about cost at all, like I said I won't use one of your cameras if they are free and generate an image that is "amazing."

 

I want to use an image capture medium that is a chemical reaction, not an electronic one.

 

Richard... I am curious. You are saying that no matter what you will shoot film. Why are you spending time on an HD forum?

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard... I am curious. You are saying that no matter what you will shoot film. Why are you spending time on an HD forum?

 

Jim

 

You'll notice Jim the name of this forum is cinematography.com. Why are you here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gang,

 

Sorry but I have to chime in with Jim here. I am a stills photographer of 20+ years, film, chemistry, beautiful 10"x8" trans, grain, art, blah blah blah......

 

I have shot dig for the last 8 years, and whatever anyone says, my shiny new 33MP digi back looks the business, the image is incredible, it's happened to stills, it will happen to the moving image.

 

Before I get flamed too much, film, both stills and moving will be around for a long time yet, after all it's down to personal choice etc, but don't knock digital, if it's development is on the same curve as pro stills a lot of people will be eating their words sooner rather than later.

 

Bottom line is though, get over it people, they are all just tools!! my camera is bigger than yours, is all a bit sad at the end of the day.

 

Use what's out there, embrace it, enjoy it, create!, don't get hung up on, film, dig, neg, pos, glass plates etc etc

 

Just my Tuppence worth, but hey what do I know. Looking forward to another 20 years using whatever suits my needs.

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
So whe happens if Red gets a bunch of bad camcorder reviews from people who work for Red's competitors?

 

Hi,

 

The competitor shoots themselves in the foot if it's unjustified?

Does Red have any competitors in the 4K camera sub $20000 segment?

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll notice Jim the name of this forum is cinematography.com. Why are you here?

 

Richard, I re-read my post (after reading yours) and can see that it might be taken differently than I meant. What I meant was why post in the HD Only section of this board, not this site in general. I was genuinely curious. As to why I am posting on the HD Only section of Cinematography.com... it seemed better than posting on the 35mm section. :-)

 

I mean no disrespect. If it sounds like it, I apologize.

 

My best,

 

Jim

Edited by jim jannard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...