Low Cost HD and Near HD Quality

[Guest Pete Wright]

HD starts at 1280x720 pixels. Let's look at the options, compared at 24/25p, 16:9, with lens(es) and recording; number of pixels are actual recorded pixels. I arranged the cameras according to estimated image quality. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

 

Kinetta with Altasens 2/3" CMOS, 1440x1080 pixels, 12 bit, 1:1 compression, up to 60p, $50,000

 

Summix or Silicon Imaging camera with Altasens 2/3" CMOS, 1440x1080 pixels, 12 bit, 1:1 compression, up to 60p, $15,000

 

Varicam, 960x720 pixels, 8 bit, 7:1 compression, up to 60p, $80,000

 

Future Juan's conversion of Canon XL2, 960x 576 pixels, 12 bit, 1:1 compression, with wide angle conversion lens, P+S Mini 35 mm adapter and 35 mm SLR lenses, $22,000

 

Future Juan's conversion of Canon XL2, 960x 576 pixels, 12 bit, 1:1 compression, with wide angle conversion lens, future Mini 35 mm adapter by a new small German company, and 35 mm SLR lenses, $16,000

 

Future JVC (3) 2/3" CCD HDV camcorder, 1280x720 pixels, 8 bit, 17:1 MPEG2 compression, some $35,000

 

Future Juan's conversion of Canon XL2, 960x 576 pixels, 12 bit, 1:1 compression, plus wide angle conversion lens $12,500

 

SDX900 PAL, 720x576 pixels, 8 bit, 3:1 compression, $35,000

 

Future JVC (3) 1/3" CCD HDV camcorder, 1280x720 pixels, 8 bit, 17:1 MPEG2 compression, will probably only have 30p, some $7,000

 

Juan's mod of DVX100A PAL, 773x446 pixels, 12 bit, 1:1 compression, $8.500

 

Canon XL2 PAL, 720x576 pixels, 8 bit, 5:1 compression $7,500 with wide angle conversion lens

 

 

The Altasens CMOS shipment is delayed again by two weeks, which is why probably the Kinetta is not available yet, and why Summix and Silicon Imaging cameras are getting delayed.

 

I'm back for the weekend and quite busy. I just jotted this down quickly.

 

All comments appreciated.

 

Pete

[Guest Pete Wright]

The non-HD cameras are PAL 25p. Some of the cameras are not available now but will be available in the next few months.

 

All this is just an overview of what is out there or what will be available in not too distant future. So if you're in a market to buy a camera, maybe this will help.

 

Pete

[Jason Rodriguez]

The Altasens is true 1920x1080/60p.

[adrianwhite]

Spoke to Steve Nordhauser of silicon imaging a few a days ago. He confirmed the altasens camera would be available in around 5-6 weeks time. Pricing for the camera alone will be $4000. Even with other necessary peripherals, ethernet or camerlink, framegrabber, price should still be way under $15,000.

[sfinx]

Hey pete,

 

 

thanx for the overview.... its needed in times where there is a new "solution" every week!

 

I'm a little bit confused though. The altasens could be the ultimate solution for indie filmmakers, but from altasens homepage i understand that the camera can deliver 1936 x 1086 at 60 progressive frames per second. But, that is not what i understand from JVC's page about the KH-F870U, who is using the exact same chip.

JVC says that is is actually 60 progressive frames/sec at 720 resolution...

 

Is there anybody who is certain about this point??? I truly hope its 60fps at full resolution, cause we will finally have those beautifull slowmotions!!!!

 

thanx

sfinx

[sfinx]

hey adrian white,

 

 

do you have a url to the silicon site where we can get some more information on there camera... i would like to compare it with the jvc!

 

thanx

[Guest Pete Wright]

Back on the net for a second.

 

The Altasens chip is 1920x1080, but in a 1 chip camera with Bayer filtering you lose 25% horizontal resolution, making the recorded resolution 1440 pixels. The quality should be equal to Kinetta. According to another site the German, and even some Japanese, high definition industrial primes are excellent, and very affordable. For telephoto you can use SLR lens adapter and 35 mm lenses. $55 per mount (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Yashica/Zeiss).

 

You need to add cost of a minicomputer to record, and a monitor. That's why the price is not $4,000 but under $15,000.

 

After I started this thread I went to the DVinfo site and found info from the guy from Lumier that met with the JVC's HDV guru. This guy is very knowlwgable, has inside information because he makes software for HDV and is very respectable. I started another thread where he talks about new HDV cameras on the way with image quality similar to Varicam. That's a good news. So the next generation $7,000 JVC I have in my list may be a superior performer.

 

We have this huge thread about the Kinetta having superior image about equal to F900, which is supposed to have color fringing due to the prism system.

 

Conclusion:

 

If the Lumier guy is right, and he probably is, we will soon have some $7,000 HDV camera that will rival the picture quality of $90,000 (with lens) Varicam. This may sognal that Panasonic may be introducing some better high definition cameras to compete with Sony. JVC and Panasonic are Matsushita brands.

 

If Silicon Imaging and Summix succed in producing good Altasens chip cameras, we will have $15,000 solutions that will rival F900 that costs $130,000 with a lens. I see no reason why these high tech companies should fail. Summix alone has about a dosen engineers working on the Project. Kinetta has one.

 

 

As to the JVC camera being 720p, with the same sensor, it is because the sensor is unique in having both 720p and 1080p modes.

 

Sfinx, yes we do live in times where there are a lot of new revolutionary products on the horizon. It makes some people and companies very nervous and overeacting by protecting something that is in its dying cycle. With Fuji and Kodak putting so much money into HD R&D, one can see the writing on the wall.

 

The 30p on the JVC? It's fine for digital projection and there may hopefully be also a 25p version soon.

 

Pete

[John Pytlak RIP]

It makes some people and companies very nervous and overeacting by protecting something that is in its dying cycle. With Fuji and Kodak putting so much money into HD R&D, one can see the writing on the wall.

 

 

Kodak has been investing millions of dollars in new film R&D as well. Or haven't you noticed the new VISION2 films? Four new camera films within a year and more on the way. :)

 

Or the new B&W reversal films?

 

Or the Academy Sci-Tech awards for new technologies used for intermediate films, sound negatives, and release prints? (An investment of over $200 Million)

 

Or the Emmy for developing the scanner technology of the Spirit telecines?

[Max Jacoby]

I arranged the cameras according to estimated image quality.

Seems to me like you are all about 'estimation'. The fact that most of the time you are either merely repeating rumors or offering another ludicrous attempt to compare cameras solely based on manufacturer's specs makes your post pretty useless to me.

 

I seriously doubt that you have ever used the Varicam or any other professional camera.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's one thing to honestly believe that film is dying -- but it's quite another to repeatedly walk into the hospital where the patient is dying and say this to the immediate family and gathering well-wishers. Especially if it turns out that you're in the wrong room and the patient is healthy...

[Jeff Tanner]

Especially if it turns out that you're in the wrong room and the patient is healthy...

:lol:

 

 

Jeff

[sfinx]

i just wanted to know whether the altasens really can deliver 60 progressive frames a second at full resolution or not.... anybody an idea?

[Mark Allen]

The fact that most of the time you are either merely repeating rumors or offering another ludicrous attempt to compare cameras solely based on manufacturer's specs makes your post pretty useless to me.

 

I seriously doubt that you have ever used the Varicam or any other professional camera.

I personally appreciate the post and time and effort that went into assembling all the information (and rumors). I don't think Pete is rebel rousing a "film is dead" cry as much as simply trying to figure out what all the new options will be as am I and many other filmmakers.

 

It's important for filmmakers (directors, cinematographers, producers) to know what might be coming down the way. Sure, if you're doing exclusively studio pictures, then you're probably going to be shooting film for a while - but if you're an indie filmmaker, the options that are going to be available in the next six months are very important as it has a much greater budgetar impact. I think the best way to determine rumor verses fact is to put everything on the table and see what it looks like.

 

So, thanks Pete - keep us (or me if I'm the only one whose interested) updated. :)

[Ryan Puckett]

I fail to see how compiling lists of mis-information, and rumors, then presenting them as facts facilitates filmakers in learning about the future technologies of film production.

This forum is a wealth of knowledge, and the individuals who participate have experience in all levels of production. No one is exclusively a "studio filmmaker" The people here with the most experience in larger 35mm productions, are also the same individuals who will openly discuss and share the advantages of HD, and consumer video. And the information, they provide here is from extensive experience and testing. Not from the manufacturers sales literature, or second hand 'advice". Anybody who is serious about their job, understands the importance of educating themselves about the new developments within their field. Whether it's for large budgets, or no-budgets.

Filling pages with unverified information, and selling it as a low budget panacea by unfairly comparing it to other equipment is a serious disservice to the individuals reading this that might not be able to discern this fact from fiction.

And when an individual goes out of their way to tell another member of this forum that their chosen format of filmmaking is dead, that is a clear indication that they are pushing some sort of agenda.

[Mark Allen]

I fail to see how compiling lists of mis-information, and rumors, then presenting them as facts facilitates filmakers in learning about the future technologies of film production. .....

 

And when an individual goes out of their way to tell another member of this forum that their chosen format of filmmaking is dead, that is a clear indication that they are pushing some sort of agenda.

Okay - first of all - I cannot find anywhere in this thread anyone other than myself saying "film is dead" and I was saying it in the context of saying that I didn't see Pete saying that here and wasn't sure why people started getting on his case for making a summation list. If this member has said something like this in another thread, I'm unaware of it. I don't see that here. Personally I have been shooting film despite being asked to shoot HD - but I'm very curious as to what the next developments are.

 

As to your other point, I guess everyone looks at information differently. I see this list and the rumor factor goes without saying. I see how many times some fellow names Juan is on the list and I know immediately - that those proejects will never happen - unless Juan is the name of a company - there's no way someone can modify all these things unless he picks one. It is interesting to see there are two cameras with the same CMOS coming out and their two different approaches to using it. It's interesting to know that there is chatter about some larger companies and their plans - but I (and I would assume everyone) looks at that information knowing that chatter doesn't equate always to reality.

 

So - for me, the benefit is to see all the information laid out so I could evaluate the information (including rumors) against eachother.

 

And now I feel like I've killed the thread by turning it into conversation and for that I'm sorry - but I must say that it seemed like the attacks on the poster were unmotivated and I'm just the type of person that stands up when I see something like that.

 

:ph34r:

[David Mullen ASC]

You have to consider the total volume of this guy's posts (under this name and others) to understand our frustration with him... This one was just the tip of the iceberg.

 

And I've been reading this guy's posts in various other groups for four years now -- they are all the same. And at some point, he manages to get himself kicked out of every forum he visits because he can't help himself. A few innocent posts on HD start turning into a rant against all that don't think like he does. He's obsessed over this idea of low-cost HD and has said in the past (in other forums) that there is a conspiracy among film people and video manufacturers to deny him it. He's been talking about these screenplays he wants to shoot on HD for four years now.

 

He simply wants an op-ed column but no one will give him one.

 

I could show you his nastier posts to people (usually around the time he gets kicked out) but most forums end up deleting them. I think he's up to almost twenty pseudonyms by now. That should tell you something. And the irony is that the first groups he tends to alienate is not the film people but the professional HD shooters who actually know something about this stuff.

 

His latest incarnation as Pete Wright was more benign than the others -- and he might have been allowed to stay -- had he not started abusing the system again by increasing his daily posts with variations on the "x versus the Varicam" arguments. Plus going into the Super-8 users forum and responding to someone's enthusiastic post "how do we celebrate Super-8's anniversary?" with a comment that the format is dying.

 

I remember when JVC was going to release their HDV (Mini-DV) camera and he thought it was going to be his salvation and wouldn't believe that there was going to be any problems with its tiny single CCD or the high compression of HDV, and then of course when it turned out to not be that good, he was quick to start insulting that camera and start proclaiming some other camera as his salvation -- when he first appeared here, it was the XL2. Then he was quick to dump all over the XL2 when it didn't live up to his expectations. Of course, he never tried the XL2 or JVC camera or Varicam -- this is all conjecture on his part based on reading press releases. He feels he can somehow come to hard conclusions on technology simply from his chair in front of the computer.

 

And the endless "film is dead" arguments from him over the years... oh my god. How many times can he write "the writing is on the wall" etc.?

 

I remember a time when he was promoting HD just before NAB three years ago and said that standard def was dead and anyone who bought a standard def camera was an idiot because HDTV was going to be the norm within a year. That was in 2001. So the irony of him now asking about the XL2 or the SDX900 when three years ago he was berating anyone for suggesting that there was still a place for standard defintion video.

 

The guy is obsessed with coming to some definite conclusion on how things will be in the future. He somehow thinks he's living on the cutting edge (even though he has no contact with this equipment, past, present, or future) but he's actually living in a future that doesn't exist yet, not even the future of next year. He's living five years in the future maybe. So he thinks that solutions, film and HD, that are here and now, or will still be used in the years to come, are yesterday's news. And then he ends up insulting people who actually work with this technology RIGHT NOW because somehow they are dinosaurs in his mind.

 

That's no brownie points, no reward, for coming up with the "right" answer here. You don't calculate on paper the best (but somehow cheapest) HD options and then write off everything else because you've somehow determined that "this is it." He wants hard answers when there are none and there's no reason to come up with any. All technology, new and old, has its strengths and weaknesses, and it's always changing (even film). Sure we can evaluate it, weigh pros and cons, but it is futile to then come to a conclusion that THIS is the way things should be done now and all else is worthless. Its even futile to try and rank these things too specifically.

 

Just look at the Varicam versus the F900 -- is there "definite" proof that the F900 is be "better" camera? If you only care about resolution, sure, the F900 has more of it. But color space and contrast? Maybe the Varicam is better, maybe not. Size and weight? The Varicam is better. Cost? Again, the Varicam. But after all of this, can you then declare one the "winner"? No, because you've just shown that it all depends on your priorities.

 

Somehow Pete (Juzo, Ultra, etc.) not only wants to find that perfect camera but then believe that there are NO compromises in his choice. It's not good enough to say that "this is pretty good for the price but it has some weaknesses". If he's not able to say that x is definitely better than y, then he's somehow not satisfied.

 

The crazy thing is that after all these years, if he ever actually does finally plop down the money for a camera, you know that within a year something better will come along. But by then, I guess he'll be arguing why what he bought is "good enough" for the majority of theater screens so it's pointless to go for any more quality.

 

Anyway, you haven't seen this guy at his worst behavior so you don't know why he pisses so many people off.

[Max Jacoby]

Personally I find it very annoying when you have someone posting here who rather than trying to improve his own abilty so that he will gain access to better equipment (and budgets) instead is expecting the equipment to improve so he can afford it at his current position. Something tells me that is not the way to go.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

On the other hand, few of us are ever going to get to work at the level you do, Mr. Jacoby! I would confidently predict that there are not fifty camera assistants in the entire UK who do. For these reasons and more I am a chronic homebuilder of equipment, although admittedly I'd hesitate to try and build a hi-def camera system without sound financial R&D backing!

 

Phil

[DanStewart]

Hey Max,

 

Just saw the details on 'Babysitting'. Diego and Jamie are friends of mine - what term number were you at LFS?

[David Mullen ASC]

I just think there's a limit to all of this technical number-crunching before you just have to go out and starting look at how these cameras perform in the real world. And it's particularly pointless to rank the performances of cameras that are still in development, practically vaporware.

 

It might all come down to the fact that while someone might actually build a cheap HD camera with high resolution, no compression artifacts, etc. you might not be able to afford the lenses necessary to show-off that level of resolution.

 

I have more respect for someone who actually manages to make movies in whatever format, even some gerry-rigged HD set-up running to his laptop, even if the technical quality is so-so, than someone who spends years talking and talking about what's the best way to shoot a movie on a budget yet never managing to shoot anything at all, yet still lectures those who do it regularly.

 

If Pete, Juzo, Ultra, etc. actually went out and tried out some of these home-built solutions to HD moviemaking, I'd love to read his reports on the experience. But you can only take some many "in depth" analysis of equipment from someone who doesn't use any equipment! It's like reading reviews of automobile performances from someone who doesn't know how to drive and has never owned a car.

[Mark Allen]

Well, I guess I don't spend enough time on the forums - I didn't realize there was a history with this character. Sorry about defending a troll.

 

I want to agree with David Mullen. My hat goes off to the filmmaker who gets something finished and knows how to create drama.

 

My personal interest in the new technology is that it opens up new options. When 16mm cameras were introduced, a whole new genre of filmmaking came with it. I find that phenomenon interesting. We've seen that happen with DV and we'll see it happen again with the new cameras. It's not bad to be curious about what is coming down the way - it is bad to not create things in the mean time.

[Max Jacoby]

what term number were you at LFS?

137

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Once again, Dan: is there nobody you do not know?!

 

Phil

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I have more respect for someone who actually manages to make movies in whatever format, even some gerry-rigged HD set-up running to his laptop, even if the technical quality is so-so, than someone who spends years talking and talking about what's the best way to shoot a movie on a budget yet never managing to shoot anything at all, yet still lectures those who do it regularly.

Exactly. This anonymous character is not very well. I can't imagine who'd get into such an obsession about HD imaging to such a degree - not having even used the format. I mean, I would love to know what some of this person's other obsessions are. Does he show up on cooking forums and insist that teflon is going to preclude the use of cooking oil forever?

 

At one point in his life he might just take a look at what he's been doing, and realize he's doing what Jack Torrance was doing in the Shining, typing for days and days and coming up with pages and pages of "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"

 

- G.

[John Sprung]

This anonymous character is not very well. I can't imagine who'd get into such an obsession about HD imaging

Ah, but look on the bright side. If he actually had done any filmmaking, it would mean that some poor crew would have had to endure that personality in person for many long days. ;-)

 

 

-- J.S.