Phantom 65

[David Mullen ASC]

Just realized... we need a new forum or new title to this forum to cover the 2K/4K cameras...

 

I was wondering about the Phantom 65, from this press release:

 

As the world?s first 65mm digital cinema camera, the Phantom 65 is capable of taking stunning movies at up to 120 fps at resolutions up to 4096x2440. The sensor is equivalent in size to 65mm film, giving today?s cinematographers access to the coveted 65mm format in a digital camera.

 

OK, so it's 4K resolution, so similar to 35mm... but it has 65mm depth of field? Is that an advantage over the other 4K cameras with 35mm-sized sensors? Or is there some other advantage in terms of sensitivity or color resolution by making the sensor 65mm-wide? Because it sounds like all the problems of shooting in 35mm anamorphic and 65mm in terms of optics, but with no real advantages. If the camera were 8K horizontally, it would make sense to me to suggest it was similar to 65mm film.

[Kim Vickers]

In still photography, there's a general rule: doubling the MP count delivers 25% more resolution. In other words, a 12 MP DSLR is only 25% "better" than a 6 MP DSLR. You need to go to 22 or 24 MP to get to medium format resolution.

 

If this is the case, wouldn't a 65mm digital camera have to produce something like 12K resolution in order to truly qualify as "65mm digital"??? I've heard that anything above 8K is actually beyond the human eye's ability to resolve detail (unless you're sitting in the front row of the theater), and therefore quite pointless, but I'm sure there's more than one side to that story.

 

Maybe this just turns into semantics at a certain point, but I'd love to get some opinions on this.

 

Also, the specs on the Phantom 65 and HD seem quite impressive. They seem to suggest a 14-stop latitutde, which would be "best in show" for digital cameras, as far as I'm aware. On paper, this thing looks like the first serious match for film. At least the design looks "right." Has anyone put it through its paces? Results?

[David Mullen ASC]

You have to remember that 4K, 6K, etc. only refers to horizontal resolution, not total megapixels, so assuming you keep the aspect ratio the same, going from 4K to 8K isn't twice as many pixels, but four times as many pixels -- 4000 x 2000 (let's say), which is 8MP, becomes 8000 x 4000, aka 32MP.

 

So going from 4K to 8K would be about right for matching the increase of 35mm to 65mm, which is essentially twice as wide a piece of film (though generally 35mm is more square-shaped at 4-perf, whereas 65mm is usually only one perf taller, 5-perf versus 4-perf, for a more widescreen shape.)

 

The problem with an 8K digital cine camera is the fact that 5-perf 70mm prints have all be disappeared as a theatrical release option, and a 35mm print won't resolve that much information, and digital projection so far is 4K max... so that leaves a transfer to IMAX to show it off.

[Kevin Zanit]

One of my biggest problems when shooting high speed table top is getting enough depth of field to even keep the lip of an entire glass in focus (or something similar), and this is with 35mm depth of field. Having 65mm depth of field would kill me in terms of lighting for double the stop I normally would go for.

 

I haven't worked with this camera so I cant say much one way or the other beyond I hear it has some quirks of it's own, like every HD high speed camera I have seen.

 

Kevin Zanit

[Mitch Gross]

Abel represents the Phantom cameras to the production industry in the US so I guess I should be answering this.

 

The Phantom HD has a 2K sensor (modestly named, right?) which is a big square - 2048x2048. Generally people shoot with it in 2048 x whatever gets them their screen ratio for Digital Cinema use, or 1920x180 or even 1280x 720. The camera does not scale; you're just choosing a smaller window which will give you more memory and higher available frame rate. In 1920x1080, the sensor area is almost exactly the same as Super-35.

 

The Phantom 65 is a bigger sensor, slightly taller than the HD's and twice as wide. The pixels are the same size on both cameras, 12.5 microns (huge!). Simply put, the Phantom 65 is named such because the sensor is about the same size as a 65mm film frame. If one makes a 4K sensor at a smaller size, then the pixel size must therefore be smaller as well, which lowers sensitivity, signal-to-noise ratio, raises heat issues, complicates Bayer masking and other issues. I would never say it is better, just different. Every solution has its own challenges and benefits.

 

The performance of the Phantom cameras is as advertised. I think the functional Dynamic Range is a little smaller than 14 stops, probably more like 11 or 12 once a proper gamma curve is applied. Remember that these are uncompressed raw camera systems. We're developing various products with the manufacturer and the new camera housings with some additional on-camera controls will be debuting at NAB. Right now people post the material in one of two ways, either simply running the camera's HD-DSI feed (single wire 4:2:2) straight to a deck or converting the files to a stack of .TIFFs.

 

So far there have only been a handful of Phantom HD & 65 camera built. That's because the manufacturer wanted to get input from the production community as to changes & improvements. The current units had a few quirks, mostly as people were getting used to the way in which they functioned. But most of that has been ironed out and improvements are happening on a weekly if not daily basis.

 

There's more information about the Phantom HD & 65 on the Abel Cine Tech website and we'll have them in our booth at NAB. Come on by for a demo.

[David Mullen ASC]

The Phantom HD has a 2K sensor (modestly named, right?) which is a big square - 2048x2048. Generally people shoot with it in 2048 x whatever gets them their screen ratio for Digital Cinema use, or 1920x180 or even 1280x 720. The camera does not scale; you're just choosing a smaller window which will give you more memory and higher available frame rate. In 1920x1080, the sensor area is almost exactly the same as Super-35.

 

The Phantom 65 is a bigger sensor, slightly taller than the HD's and twice as wide.

 

So in theory, one could use anamorphic lenses on the Phantom HD to get a 2K scope image without cropping, which puts it in the same league as the Arri-D20 in terms of this possibility, having 4x3 sensors. Does it have 4:4:4 output? You mentioned only a single-link HDSDI 4:2:2 output.

 

As for the Phantom 65, the sensor is 1.68 : 1 by my calculation. Does it do 4:4:4?

[Scott Cohen]

Just realized... we need a new forum or new title to this forum to cover the 2K/4K cameras...

 

I was wondering about the Phantom 65, from this press release:

 

As the world?s first 65mm digital cinema camera, the Phantom 65 is capable of taking stunning movies at up to 120 fps at resolutions up to 4096x2440. The sensor is equivalent in size to 65mm film, giving today?s cinematographers access to the coveted 65mm format in a digital camera.

 

This marks the end of film. Walter Murch was right when he said within ten years film will go away.

 

I am very upset to hear of this Phantom 65.

 

Soon the "black box" will come.

 

I'm not sticking around.

 

Good Bye.

 

S.C.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Scott Cohen

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't get it -- if someday a high-quality digital camera comes along that matches the quality of film (and I'm not saying that it has arrived), then what difference does it make whether you shoot film or digital? Isn't it supposed to be about making artistic images and visual storytelling, not the technology?

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hi

abelcinetech talks about 4:2:2 as well :

http://www.abelcine.com/store/product.php?...amp;page=1#tabs

so i wonder as well

[Troy Warr]

I don't get it -- if someday a high-quality digital camera comes along that matches the quality of film (and I'm not saying that it has arrived), then what difference does it make whether you shoot film or digital? Isn't it supposed to be about making artistic images and visual storytelling, not the technology?

It is about making artistic images and visual storytelling, but the less that your tools inhibit you (or conversely, the more freedom that they grant you), the better. Whether for you that means shooting film or digital is a personal preference, but I think that for the vast majority of people, the advantages of digital (instant feedback and results, cheaper footage, ease of post, etc.) would easily win out if (hypothetically) digital and film were eventually of equal quality.

[Ken Cangi]

This was the same pointless argument that took place when digital became a viable threat to film in the still industry. The case for digital became clear when art directors gained the ability to instantly preview images - as they would look in the final files - on full-size monitors instead of tiny, expensive b&w polaroids. Moreover, files could be immediately emailed to the clients for final approval. The photographer still had to know how to compose, light, color balance, and orchestrate the shoot, although the tools had become more accommodating to him/her and the client.

 

If society eventually tires of film, then so be it. Time moves forward, and the dinosaurs get left behind. A tool is a tool is a tool. What you do with it is all that matters in the end.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[Sam Wells]

This was the same pointless argument that took place when digital became a viable threat to film in the still industry. The case for digital became clear when art directors gained the ability to instantly preview images - as they would look in the final files - on full-size monitors instead of tiny, expensive b&w polaroids. Moreover, files could be immediately emailed to the clients for final approval. The photographer still had to know how to compose, light, color balance, and orchestrate the shoot, although the tools had become more accommodating to him/her and the client.

 

If society eventually tires of film, then so be it. Time moves forward, and the dinosaurs get left behind. A tool is a tool is a tool. What you do with it is all that matters in the end.

 

If you consider art directors to be the final arbiters of taste, I don't. (or society for that matter).

 

This isn't an anti-digital post; it is definitely one in favor of choice.

 

-Sam

[Ken Cangi]

If you consider art directors to be the final arbiters of taste, I don't. (or society for that matter).

 

This isn't an anti-digital post; it is definitely one in favor of choice.

 

-Sam

 

What do art directors, as the final arbiters of taste, have to do with what I said? I was referring to the tools, in their capacity, or lack thereof, to better accommodate us and the clients, from whom we collect our paychecks. My post wasn't based on whether or not this was an anti-digital forum. It was meant to address particular comments in opposition to what I believe will be the inevitable demise of film as the industry standard.

 

As for choice, it isn't always ours to make. Technological advancements ultimately play a more influential role in deciding which types of tools will become industry standards. As I said before, you develop with the times, or you get left behind.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[Mitch Gross]

So in theory, one could use anamorphic lenses on the Phantom HD to get a 2K scope image without cropping, which puts it in the same league as the Arri-D20 in terms of this possibility, having 4x3 sensors. Does it have 4:4:4 output? You mentioned only a single-link HDSDI 4:2:2 output.

 

As for the Phantom 65, the sensor is 1.68 : 1 by my calculation. Does it do 4:4:4?

One could absolutely use anamorphic lenses on the Phantom HD, although the camera does not use an optical viewfinder so we'd have to figure out a hardware solution to unsqueezing the image on a monitor. The sensor actually is a square, although I haven't done the math to figure out the proper line count for the needed frame ratio.

 

The single-link HD-SDI output is 4:2:2. That's the lower-quality output. Dumping the files to a hard drive gives raw uncompressed images, so you're beyond the realm of 4:4:4. 4:4:4 is something in a video signal. Without going into the differences of video v. files, for layman's terms the answer is yes it does 4:4:4 if not actually much better than 4:4:4.

[Lance Flores]

This marks the end of film. Walter Murch was right when he said within ten years film will go away.

 

I am very upset to hear of this Phantom 65.

Soon the "black box" will come.

I'm not sticking around.

 

Good Bye.

 

S.C.

 

Yikes! You’d you have stuck around when the nickelodeon flashing cards movies were replaced with fancy technology like Vitascope or worse the Kinetoscope. How about when they made talkies or introduced color. I’m sure there’s something romantic about the out-house compared to indoor plumbing, but I appreciate the technology nonetheless – the present technology is not going to kill film. Digital technology will have to make another leap. When it does, the industry will simply evolve again. Dinosaurs will become extinct and those unable to cope, will don orange pajamas and sing mantras with the Hare Krishna folks. That’s just the way the world is ...

 

That day hasn’t arrived, its just the guys with the “end of the world is upon us” sign carrying people you're hearing on the street corners.

 

Since I’ve had my hands on the Phantom and Mitch has some at his place, I’ll give my take on it, including the my concerns about the 65 I’ve given to Phil Jantzen and the marketing guys there.

First, to answer David’s question, yes it is 4:4:4, probably better. Detail and color is excellent.

 

The most differentiating feature is that the cell is large. Two advantages are that the proportional control circuitry and sense amp ratio is greater compared to CMOS devices with smaller sense area. Because the sense amp circuit doesn’t need to be scaled proportionally to the sense cell area, the signal efficiency as well as the cell charge/sensitively and the corresponding die efficiency are dramatically improved. What this all reduces to, is that the dynamic range easily reaches 11 stops. Our first cursory test said 10+, but after re-calibrating the monitor I was looking at and a hi-res die printer we could see that it was easily 11 stops of range. The 12 bit linear output is quite stable and we didn’t detect any noise . . . if there was noise it was negligible. The signal is internally originated as a 14 bit linear, so I’m sure the lower bits are unable. So as you probably roughly computed in your head, there is more image information than a 4:4:4 characterization would imply. The camera has an ASA 600 and a lot of control over shutter and gain, so you can stop it down to get a greater DoF. I wish it had more horizontal resolution though.

 

The biggest problem for an 8K format is the data transfer rate and storage. But hold that thought David - Apple called a couple of weeks ago increasing our SAN by 50% with a negligible cost increase. Eventually, technology will solve the data rate and local storage problem – just not today. If you hold the aspect ration constant, that would be a hell of a lot more data, requiring 4-6 channels to get the it out unless you used even more exotic fiber optic transfer methods. Your 1000+ foot film equivalent 512MB flash module would drop to about 7min instead of 25min. (For our application 2.35:1 using less vertical space on the sensor and holding the horizontal 4096 pixel with). This was one of my gripes, well, maybe not a gripe, but input to Phil. My thinking is that the sensor aspect should be more optimized toward cinema 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 formats and move the vertical pixels to the horizontal end (smaller cells). I think you could probably get to 5.2K, 5.8K, and hold the circuit parametrics well enough to maintain the performance maybe 6K. A lot of circuitry changes; like address decoders, length of data lines, and the number of connections to the data lines which changes capacitive and inductive reactance.

 

Lenses are a problem. I think the investment is worth it for a production company. Eventually there will be more moving to the 65/70mm format and resolution will move to 6K-8K.

 

The film and digital technologies are different and film is not dead. After the next major technology shift, film as well as the present semiconductor sensors, will probably go the way of vinyl records which, as I was told as a kid, would never be replaced because their recording purity could never be duplicated.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Lance Flores

[David Mullen ASC]

So as I understand it, the Phantom HD camera only has a single-link HDSDI, so your choices are either recording 4:2:2 HD... or uncompressed HD to a hard drive... but you can't record 4:4:4 HD to an SRW1 deck?

 

I don't understand why they didn't build it with a dual-link HDSDI-out since the SRW1 deck has become a common method of recording 4:4:4 HD. Why limit the ways in which you can record HD out of the camera?

 

What type of connector/output does it use for uncompressed HD? Or does it store all of that footage internally?

 

I guess if you wanted to use the full sensor for anamorphic 2.35, you'd have to use it in data mode anyway.

[Lance Flores]

So as I understand it, the Phantom HD camera only has a single-link HDSDI, so your choices are either recording 4:2:2 HD... or uncompressed HD to a hard drive... but you can't record 4:4:4 HD to an SRW1 deck?

 

The camera isn't ready for prime time. This is one of the things I went round and round with them about ... They're working on their storage packs which are 128-256-512MB flash packs which could be unloaded from the camera. I convinced them this was not good enough and that they needed the flash-pack docking station so that it would work like the same as a film work flow. The 512 would be about equivalent to 1000' of film and would go to a docking station and a new flash pack in the camera. The data would be unloaded into a Digital-Codex on location or set and the removal drive taken to the SAN and made ready for viewing of the dailies.

 

 

I don't understand why they didn't build it with a dual-link HDSDI-out since the SRW1 deck has become a common method of recording 4:4:4 HD. Why limit the ways in which you can record HD out of the camera?

 

Yeah, well, that's what I asked them too. I just expected to see a dual-link and was surprised that they hadn't begin working on it. The data would be a little more than 4:4:4 but could be squeezed into the dual channel bandwidth. They were working on the flash pack first, because we decided that is the way we were going to capture, and use the single HDSDI 4:2:2 2K output for the monitor. Later when the finished the dual or quad link we might use the glass lines to record. We've been talking to the Digital-Codex guys about this for a while.

 

 

What type of connector/output does it use for uncompressed HD? Or does it store all of that footage internally?

 

There is 16/32MB internal RAM that stores the data in kind of a barrel shifter type arrangement that allows the data to be dumped into a recorder or flash intermediate storage. Remember I mentioned a quad glass .. fiber? That's why I opted for the flash pack workflow.

 

I guess if you wanted to use the full sensor for anamorphic 2.35, you'd have to use it in data mode anyway.

 

When I talked to Phil about using anamorphic for using the entire array, he was surprised, and wondered why I wouldn't just shoot it flat. That's when I got into the reasoning of optimizing the sensor for the more cinema oriented aspect ratios, which would allow higher resolution, allowing you to shoot it flat with primes.

 

If we shoot on schedule we'll go with the Dalsa Origin.

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

"The sensor actually is a square" (size?)

could you tell us more about this square format.

i'm looking for this kind of format just now

 

thank you

[Lance Flores]

"The sensor actually is a square" (size?)

could you tell us more about this square format.

i'm looking for this kind of format just now

 

thank you

The format is 4096 x 2440 (1.68:1). So its not square. The electronics will allow you to address the pixels you wish. I can't remember because we did a lot during for the short time with the camera, but if my recollection is correct, you could probably access a 2440x2440 area.

 

Lance

[David Mullen ASC]

The format is 4096 x 2440 (1.68:1). So its not square. The electronics will allow you to address the pixels you wish. I can't remember because we did a lot during for the short time with the camera, but if my recollection is correct, you could probably access a 2440x2440 area.

 

Lance

 

I think he's asking about the Phantom HD, not the Phantom 65, which Mitch says has nearly a square sensor. Obviously you couldn't record the whole sensor image to HD since that's 16x9 native, but would probably have to record it as data.

[Mitch Gross]

The Phantom HD is a square sensor; the Phantom 65 is about 1.66 in shape. Remember that these cameras have their origins in the scientific/industrial world, so a 16x9 frame is nothing special to them.

 

We've gone back and forth with them a bit about a dual link HD-SDI for 4:4:4. Vision Research was initially surprised anyone would want it because uncompressed raw files are so great. Remember they don't come from our community - I had to teach them what the different job titles on a production crew signified. Anyway, 4:4:4 is not in the immediate future, but the CineMags will be debuting at NAB. With a 512G CineMag on a Phantom 65, about 17 minutes worth of material (asuming 24p playback) can be recorded. That same 512G CineMag on a Phantom HD shooting 1920x1080 will yield more than 80 minutes of 24p playback. Until the CineMags are available, the only way to capture with the camera is direct to an internal RAM, typically 16G. All my hard numbers are back at the office, but on the Phantom HD shooting 1920x1080 in 14-bit, that yields 4437 frames, which is about three minutes of playback. And the camera can record that at 1000fps, which would be a burst of 4.44 seconds. Try to get any other memory system to capture this in uncompressed raw and you can quickly understand why they try to do as much as possible internally in the camera. But yes, until the CineMags are ready the Phantom 65 has extremely limited functionality.

 

Btw, for anyone curious as to the framerate capabilities of the Phantom cameras there is an online calculator on the Vision Research website. I believe it's under the "support" pulldown menu in "Calculators." I'll post a link on Monday.

[David Mullen ASC]

Until the CineMags are available, the only way to capture with the camera is direct to an internal RAM, typically 16G. All my hard numbers are back at the office, but on the Phantom HD shooting 1920x1080 in 14-bit, that yields 4437 frames, which is about three minutes of playback.

 

You can only record 3 minutes with the camera before you have to dump the data to something else? That's not very practical. As you know, if they had a dual-link HDSDI output, you could record 50 minutes of 4:4:4 HD with only mild compression to an SRW1 deck. The 80 minute mags sound great, assuming you have enough of them, but you still have to decide what you're going to dump all that data too every day.

[Lance Flores]

I think he's asking about the Phantom HD, not the Phantom 65, which Mitch says has nearly a square sensor. Obviously you couldn't record the whole sensor image to HD since that's 16x9 native, but would probably have to record it as data.

 

Sorry - David's right. I was relating the '65 not the HD. It is almost square. I remember asking our sale engineer why it was square. The response was to just use what you want, because they give you virtually complete control of the addressing scheme of the data. The 65's sensor seems to be an extended mask which we often do by step & repeat mechanisms in making the mask sets for the lithography process. The VR focus was always on the data integrity and accuracy, hence the 42bit color, high S/N ratio, etc. The software reflected their scientific orientation. Everything appeared measured in a temporal absolutes, like shutter timing reading out in microseconds rather than relative angular measurements in degrees. (Their fixing all that now) All these small engineering issues, but important for the end result. The image technology is spectacular. I dislike discarding the resolution because of the square-ish aspect ratio. Too many times in edit when you wish you had more resolution, what you would do for a fist full of pixels.

[Mitch Gross]

You can only record 3 minutes with the camera before you have to dump the data to something else? That's not very practical. As you know, if they had a dual-link HDSDI output, you could record 50 minutes of 4:4:4 HD with only mild compression to an SRW1 deck. The 80 minute mags sound great, assuming you have enough of them, but you still have to decide what you're going to dump all that data too every day.

The Phantom HD & Phantom 65 cameras are first and foremost high speed camera systems. This is their origins and this is what they are engineered to perform best for. To shoot 1000fps at 1920x1080 14-bit can only be accomplished using internal RAM, so that is why the camera is designed as such. But the technology is evolving so that the functionality can be expanded to include general cinematography applications. That's why the CineMags are soon to be released. They will connect to a small docking station which can unload their memory into hard drives or other storage device, just like downloading a film mag. With the CineMag the top speed will not be as high as the information can not b etransported so incredibly fast, but the camera will still be able to achieve exceptionally high speeds and continuously record. The CineMags clip to the ctop of the camera, making it a tether-free device. Soon one will be able to comfortably handhold the camera,look through acolor viewfinder and shoot continuously for about an hour and a half. And the footage will be recorded in uncompressed raw. Not too shabby.

 

David, I'm surprised you would argue for a lesser system just to bring ease to the on-set operation. Better to improve the technology and accessories to give great on-set operation without sacrificing the performance.

[David Mullen ASC]

David, I'm surprised you would argue for a lesser system just to bring ease to the on-set operation. Better to improve the technology and accessories to give great on-set operation without sacrificing the performance.

 

If you're talking about the quality difference between 4:4:4 HDCAM-SR recording with mild compression versus uncompressed hard drive recording of RAW 2K data, the same arguments one way or the other have come up regarding the Viper and the Arri-D20, which both have a data mode option.

 

I'm not sure if the quality improvement of RAW 2K outweighs the convenience of 4:4:4 HDCAM-SR tape recording, since I have yet to deal with either on a set. Maybe data recording is not that inconvenient, but then, maybe the quality loss of 4:4:4 HDCAM-SR recording is not that significant.

 

Time management on set is a major consideration, actually. I don't want to recommend to producers a method of recording on the set that ends up costing the production time and efficiency for insignificant improvement in quality, so it just depends. If it were to get 4K quality, I might be willing to sell the producers that it was worth any hassles of data recording, but for RAW 2K versus 4:4:4 HD, it starts to get harder to say that the improvement is so significant that we shouldn't even consider the HDCAM-SR option.

 

Last time I tried to deal with any of this was on "When Do We Eat?" when we explored using the Viper and going to S-Two hard drives (this was before the HDCAM-SR format was introduced.) It just become too unwieldly to consider, especially when the post house and S-Two were pressuring us to tell them exactly how much data we thought we'd be shooting every day, plus they asked me what we were planning on doing with the unused data after the final cut was made, because they were going to charge us, of course, to copy it off of their SAN back onto LTO tapes.

 

Then with the time issue of getting the digital mags to the post house every night and getting the empty ones back to set (and Thomson wanted to send the d-mags to two facilites every night, one to Technique for backing-up to LTO's and then to Complete Post for transfer to Digital Betacam for color-correction for dailies) I realized to be safe I really needed to have two-days worth of digital mags on set in case the mags from the day before weren't returned in time.

 

At this point the producer threw up his hands and we shot with the F900. Of course, that was a couple of years ago and since then, there is the SRW1 option for the Viper, and data recording has gotten better, and post houses have gotten better at handling data.

 

Anyway, I just think the camera should have a dual-link HDSDI option for recording to the SRW1 deck, whether or not I think RAW data recording would be better or not. It's always better to have options!

 

It all probably comes down to the final cost numbers. The problem I keep running into is that the "better" digital cameras & formats tend to cost so much more than using the F900 that producers always end up running back to 35mm (which is great) or down to the F900 (not so great.) It's hard to justify shooting digitally to producers if there is no significant cost savings compared to 35mm.

 

So let's say that I need to rend two Phantom HD's and enough digital mags to hold two days worth of two-camera shooting (let's say that that's eight hours worth of 2K RAW data recording, excessive, I know, but it happens.) How many digital mags are that (I guess six)? What would be the combined cost of renting two cameras and that many digital mags and recorders? How much would it cost to back that up to LTO's? And does all of this work out to be cheaper than 35mm?

 

It's no wonder that after shooting 8 features in HDCAM that an opportunity for me to shoot a feature in data mode to digital field recorders hasn't come up. You have to make a real effort to push a process like that onto a wary producer or studio. You'd have to find a director and producer who really wanted it to happen.