ACTUAL Pixel resolution of "35mm" CCD sensors.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

I've been through a somewhat frustrating experience recently, trying to get hard technical data on the various "35mm-sized" CCD and CMOS single-chip sensors used in the current crop of "second generation" "Digital Cinematography" cameras.

 

Everybody is keen to tell us what they claim comes out of their products, usually "downsampled" 1980 x 1080, with various bit-resolutions etc, but that's what you get after the camera's "creative accountancy" software has finished massaging the data.

 

All I can get out of Panavision is that their Genesis uses a "12.4 megapixel chip", and it's supposed to be RGB filtered.

 

Well as it happens I know quite a lot about the operating principles of single chip sensors in both video and still cameras, and I can't see how the Genesis could even equal the CineAlta's resolution, nor can I see how it could produce true RGB like the CineAlta does. Not that Panavision make any specific claims anyway <_<

 

 

Dalsa meanwhile keep referring to their offering as the only "4K" equipped sensor on the market, which it couldn't possibly be, at least in the normally accepted sense of the term. Not with a 6 megapixel sensor anyway.

 

Is there anywhere anybody knows of where I could get the true lowdown? Most of the "authorities" I've been referred to thus far don't seem to be all that "authoritative".

 

Jim Murdoch

[Rob Belics]

I haven't looked into this but they either have avoided specifying whos chip they use because it is not necessary from a marketing view or it is a custom chip. In either case you may have to call or email them to find out.

 

This could be a case like embedded processors in, say, printers. What does HP use in theirs? Why should they advertise it?

 

Of course it might be listed "somewhere".

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I don't get this whole thing with 35mm CCD sensors. For a start, there is no one censor, is there? I was under the impression that light travelled through the prism, through the dichroic filters and each colour hiting 3 different CCD's. (A colour per CCD)

 

What is it exactly when there is only one censor? How does it work?

 

What exactly is the point in splitting colours 3 ways for three different censors? Technicolour split the light into 3 ways with 3 coloured filtered CCD's. What was wrong with that?

Edited December 13, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[David Mullen ASC]

Glass prism blocks splitting the light to three CCD's through filters is by nature bulky & heavy -- and the problem becomes even worse if the CCD's are 35mm-sized, hence the push for a single-chip 35mm-sized design to be more like a film frame in the camera with 35mm-type depth of field characteristics.

 

The single chip designs use a Bayer filter or an RGB striped filter so that some pixels record R, G, or B information. Hence why even though you may have 12MP, you aren't getting a true "4K" resolution since no single color (like green for example, the most important) is using all 12 mega-pixels. On the other hand, a lot of these cameras are not evenly splitting the colors either -- they may have a disproportionate amount of green-filtered pixels, for example.

 

An F900 CineAlta is a 2MP image but only records green with that much information, and not quite 1920 x 1080 either, not red or blue. I don't know the real numbers here, but I'm guessing it's something like 1440 x 1080 Green, 720 x 540 Red, and 720 x 540 Blue (I know, that's not an accurate way to describe the colors). So definitely the Genesis has more resolution than that. Even if you figured that each color got 4MP out of 12MP (I'm not sure about that), that leaves enough information to get full 1920 x 1080 pixels for red, green, and blue each. And 4:4:4 HD is better overall COLOR resolution than what you can get out of the CineAlta (which is 4:2:2 HD at best if you bypass the camera's HDCAM deck.)

 

The Dalsa has an 8MP (4000 x 2000 pixels) Bayer-filtered chip with more green-filtered than red or blue pixels I believe. But there's no sampling down to HD resolution for recording it (unless you wanted to). After recording, you can de-Bayer (?) the signal and write it as 4K for each color if you wanted to, although in theory you didn't get 4000 x 2000 pixels for each color when you shot it. But I don't think that really means you got 2.6MP per color either (which would still put it slightly ahead of 4:4:4 HD) since green is more heavily represented (I think.) I would think that the practical resolution is between 2K and 3K.

 

As for whether potentially the 12MP sensor in the Genesis could create a higher resolution image than the 8MP one in the Dalsa, no, not really -- Panavision/Sony designed the sensor to provide information for an HD recording. I think if you push it, you could someday get a 2K RGB image off of the camera. The Dalsa sensor was designed to get as much full-color resolution off of the single 8MP chip which is why I think it is more practically a 3K camera even though you can end up with a 4K RGB recording after de-bayer filtering the signal.

[David Mullen ASC]

3-strip Technicolor split the light TWO ways through a prism block to three b&w negatives, one bi-packed behind another. No CCD's were involved back then!

 

The bipacked film was b&w blue-sensitive stock on top (to record blue information) in front of a panchromatic b&w stock that recorded the red information. The blue film was DYED red so that it filtered the light passing through the film trying to reach the panchromatic stock behind it. This is why the red information was always the grainiest and fuzziest.

 

The Technicolor prism block created a lot of compromises (loss of exposure, color alignment issues, size & weight, inability to use wide-angle lenses with deep flange depths, etc.) They didn't have digital technology back then to fix alignment problems between the three colors -- they had to do it mechanically.

[John Sprung]

Arriflex is the only competitor talking about the details of their chip. It's CMOS, 3018 x 2200 pixels, with a Bayer mask. In video mode, it uses a subset of 2880 x 1620 pixels.

 

A Bayer mask is a very specific pattern of color filters. You can think of the chip as being divided up into two by two groups of pixels, and each group has the pattern:

 

G R

B G

 

You could treat the data from a Bayer mask very simply by treating each two by two group as one pixel, averaging the greens, to make, for instance, 1440 x 810 from the Arri chip in video mode. But because you have data from separate areas within the two by two group, especially two different green samples, and green is the dominant component of luminance, and luminance is the dominant factor in human perception of resolution, it turns out that there are smarter ways to process the Bayer data and extract more resolution from it. You'll never get up to the full 2880 x 1620, but you can land somewhere between that and the simplistic 1440 x 810. Recording the raw Bayer output lets you do the processing slower than real time, and you can go back and do newer filtrations on old data as they get invented.

 

Panavision isn't saying much about their chip other than 12.4 Megapixels and RGB filters, but not a Bayer pattern. This is a custom chip from Sony. It could be that they have patents in the works, or things that they intend to keep as trade secrets rather than patents. I can only speculate that they might be doing things like a non-rectangular array or subpixels of different shapes and sizes. It could be that they looked at the sampling structure and the filtration together, improving each with knowledege gained from working on the other.

 

Laying a mask on a single big chip is a whole bunch easier to do than making a prism block with dichroics and sticking three little chips to it in precise alignment. A single big chip gets you away from the restrictions on f/stop and back lens element position caused by the optical block. It lets you use the huge investment in existing film lenses, and gets you the familiar depth of field you have with 35mm. The downside to big chips is, the bigger the chip, the lower the yield. Tiny dust particles in the manufacturing process can make a chip NG, and the bigger the chip, the more likely it is to get hit.

 

As for the actual resolution coming out of any of these systems, the right approach is to put the deep theory aside, and shoot tests.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Edited December 13, 2004 by John Sprung

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Laying a mask on a single big chip is a whole bunch easier to do than making a

> prism block with dichroics and sticking three little chips to it in precise

> alignment.

 

True, but to be fair this is done all the time. Even semipro cameras now have splitters and three chips, and the improvement is very clear. I wonder who's done the research to prove that it really is better to have a single chip and simpler lenses than it is to have full colour sampling over three sensors, and end up with lenses like Digiprimes. I fear this may be being done just to let people use lenses they're familiar with - this kind of pandering happens all the time in this industry.

 

Phil

[John Sprung]

I wonder who's done the research to prove that it really is better to have a single chip and simpler lenses than it is to have full colour sampling over three sensors, and end up with lenses like Digiprimes

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a matter of taste rather than of proof. How important is it to have depth of field available as a story telling tool? How much do we really need lenses faster than f/1.4? The same DP might well give you a different answer on a day exterior in the desert than shooting a chase thru a cave.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Mullen ASC]

On the other hand, would you rather use a digital still camera with a prism block and three CCD's?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> It's a matter of taste rather than of proof.

 

I'm not sure it is, though. I don't think anyone would argue it's not better to have fully-sampled 4:4:4 images if you can get them, and there's only two ways to do that - either massively supersample Bayer, or have a three chip block. You can quantatively measure the sharpness trade-off of doing Bayer, and you can equally measure the sharpness you lose by trying to make lenses to land the image on three chips.

 

> On the other hand, would you rather use a digital still camera with a prism block and three CCD's?

 

If it produced better images, why not?

 

Phil

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

js>Laying a mask on a single big chip is a whole bunch easier to do than making a >prism block with dichroics and sticking three little chips to it in precise alignment.

 

And thus we come back to the same old "same ol' same ol'" :(

There have been single-chip color cameras on the market for at least 20 years, and single-tube models for at least a decade before that. I've never seen a single one that could produce either color quality or resolution anything like that produced by even the cheapest 3 tube/chip model.

 

Why is it suddenly different now that Arri and Panavision et al are doing it? Comparisons with digital still cameras don't really hold up either; the vast majority of "professional" users of these are magazine and newspaper photographers whose work is only going to be reproduced by high-speed printing presses; not exactly renowned for color quality. As it is, I'm not all that impressed by the picture quality given by the average digital camera anyway.

 

The whole thing strikes me as pretty bizarre really. We're getting into "second generation" Digital Cinematography cameras before the "First Generation" ever got off the ground! It all sounds like a clever and innovative solution to a totallynon-existent problem. To quote the late, great, Ed DiGuilio: "What actual problem does all this solve?"

[David Mullen ASC]

The "problem" it solves is getting 35mm type depth of field using 35mm optics. It probably also solves the problem of designing or using lenses with deep flange depths.

 

Even a Zeiss Digi-Prime opened to f/1.6 is only going to get you the depth of field equivalent of shooting 35mm at f/2.8 to f/2.8-4.0 split. If you want the look of f/2.0 or wider, you'd have to use the P&S Pro Technik device. Plus there are a LOT more lenses out there made for the 35mm format. How many Zeiss Digi-Prime Macros are there? How big is the series of Zeiss Digi-Primes compared to all the various 35mm lenses out there?

 

Most single-chip video cameras are also rather cheap video cameras, so the engineering to get good color off of the chip is not particularly high and the chip is extremely small and you're already working with a low-rez format so you can't take the loss. If the end goal is an HD-resolution recording like the Genesis, then starting out with more-than-HD pixels on the chip that are filtered R,G, B is not really losing you color quality compared to three separate HD-resolution chips filtered R, G, B. But what you gain is a 35mm-sized target area allowing you to use 35mm optics for 35mm-type depth of field.

 

As for pro digital still cameras not producing sufficient color quality for anything but high-speed magazine printing, I'm sure some pro digital still photographers would disagree with you.

 

I'm not sure what your beef is anyway -- almost ALL pro video cameras big and small use prism blocks with 3 CCD's, so if that's really what you like to shoot instead of a single-chipper, what's stopping you??? It's a lot more problematic if what you want to shoot is a movie camera with a single 35mm-sized chip because your options are so limited right now. If you're happy with the current generation of 3-CCD HD cameras, then what's the problem?

[John Pytlak RIP]

"Bayer" color filtering of a CCD sensor was invented by Bryce Bayer of Kodak:

 

United States Patent  3,971,065 

Bayer  July 20, 1976 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Color imaging array

 

 

Abstract

A sensing array for color imaging includes individual luminance- and chrominance-sensitive elements that are so intermixed that each type of element (i.e., according to sensitivity characteristics) occurs in a repeated pattern with luminance elements dominating the array. Preferably, luminance elements occur at every other element position to provide a relatively high frequency sampling pattern which is uniform in two perpendicular directions (e.g., horizontal and vertical). The chrominance patterns are interlaid therewith and fill the remaining element positions to provide relatively lower frequencies of sampling. In a presently preferred implementation, a mosaic of selectively transmissive filters is superposed in registration with a solid state imaging array having a broad range of light sensitivity, the distribution of filter types in the mosaic being in accordance with the above-described patterns.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors:  Bayer; Bryce E. (Rochester, NY) 

Assignee:  Eastman Kodak Company (Rochester, NY) 

Appl. No.:  555477

Filed:  March 5, 1975

 

Kodak recently won an Emmy for the invention:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressRelea...011017-01.shtml

 

Kodak's pioneering work in the development of image sensor devices with integrated color filter arrays made it possible for a single image sensor to produce a color image. Previously, image sensors were monochrome and camera makers would use three monochrome sensors with a prism beam splitter, or a single sensor with a rotating color wheel in front of it, to separate the light into its color components. Kodak researchers developed a revolutionary color filter fabrication process and a mosaic color filter array pattern that made possible today's compact camcorders. Hitachi, JVC, Matsushita, and Sony are co-recipients of this award.

[John Sprung]

Why is it suddenly different now that Arri and Panavision et al are doing it? 

 

We're getting into "second generation" Digital Cinematography cameras before the "First Generation" ever got off the ground

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The big difference is the big chips. They have more than six times the area of a 2/3" CCD. That substantially reduces the proportion of dead area between pixels. It increases the area of the individual pixels, and therefore the number of photons hitting each pixel at a given light level, which reduces noise in the toe. Individual pixels are now so much bigger than the minimum feature size you can produce on a chip that it might even be that they're using some shape more clever than little squares as pixels. There's a world of possibilities beyond little squares and Bayer masking. If it's not happening now, surely it will in the future.

 

Look at the Daviau Genesis tests. I saw them projected on film on a big screen. This thing looks so close to film that it's very hard to see a difference, and truly impossible to claim that there's a difference that's worth spending money to get. Genesis absolutely blows away every three chip camera I've ever seen.

 

The "First Generation" were repurposed HD TV news cameras. They were pretty obviously the quickest solution to market, not the best. As for getting off the ground, remember that their film analog, separation Technicolor, only had about a dozen cameras.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Edited December 14, 2004 by John Sprung

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

DM>The "problem" it solves is getting 35mm type depth of field using 35mm optics. It probably also solves the problem of designing or using lenses with deep flange depths.

---------------

No the "problem" it solves is more allowing you to use 35mm cine lenses with a television camera. In other words,it allows Panavision etc to expand their rental fleet without having to spend money on new lenses. My problem is that I suspect that the true resolution of these new cameras is going to be so poor that the improved depth of field isn't going to be apparent on the final image, once the detail correction circuitry is finished with it! In other words, it isn't going to look a whole heap different from a Cine Alta and the color won't be as good. Why do I have a problem with this? Because arrant B.S. annoys me <_<

 

DM> Most single-chip video cameras are also rather cheap video cameras, so the engineering to get good color off of the chip is not particularly high and the chip is extremely small and you're already working with a low-rez format so you can't take the loss.

------------------

Alas, that is simply not true. There are five principal methods of making a single-sensor color pickup, including the Bayer Array as used by Arri and the RGB array used by the Genesis. These have all be used in single-chip TV cameras before and they all produce similar second-rate color pictures. That's the trouble: as far as I can see, there isn't anything different about these new sensors apart from the size. Why do TV camera camera manufacturers still keep using fragile and expensive dichroic prisms if a simple dye filter mask will do the job? It doesn't make sense.

 

I have yet to see an actual demonstration of the Gensis, but they were saying similar things about the CineAltas five years ago and I thought the pictures on Star Wars II were rubbish. There have been laughably few follow-ups and I didn't think the picture quality on any of them was anything to write home about either; the paucity of movies shot "digitally" tends to suggest I'm not the only one to think this.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

JS> As for getting off the ground, remember that their film analog, separation Technicolor, only had about a dozen cameras.

-- J.S.

 

 

Yes, but they weren't competing with anything else. If you wanted "serious" color, Separation Technicolor was all there was. As it is now, you have to admit current 35mm color film stocks are a pretty hard act to folllow. So far the reasons put forward for using alternatives obviously haven't been too convincing.

 

Can I let you in on a little secret: I've been a broadcast video technician for over 25 years and it's funny but the people who are the most vehemently skeptical about the "film is dead/dying" line are people like me and my colleagues. Perhaps it's got something to do with the number of times we've heard this!

 

Well, as they say,"The cynic is usually better informed!" :P

[John Sprung]

> No the "problem" it solves is more allowing you to use 35mm cine lenses with a television camera. In other words,it allows Panavision etc to expand their rental fleet without having to spend money on new lenses.

 

You say that as if it were a bad thing. Why would anyone want to discard the worldwide investment in excellent lenses, only to spend millions more trying to probe the ultimate limits of mechanical precision to make lenses for chips that are just too damn small? If it's resolution you really want, bigger formats make it easier to get. Look at glass plate 8x10 view cameras, or even an old beat-up 4x5 Speed Graphic. Simple, cheap lenses and a big format yield higher resolution than you'll ever see from tiny 2/3" chips.

 

> My problem is that I suspect that the true resolution of these new cameras is going to be so poor ....

 

You suspect incorrectly. Look at the Daviau Genesis tests. Look at what Arri showed last February at HPA from the D-20 test unit.

 

> Why do TV camera camera manufacturers still keep using fragile and expensive dichroic prisms if a simple dye filter mask will do the job?

 

Because they want to keep on making money from their existing manufacturing investment in the interim before this obsolete technology is replaced by the big single chip generation. Remember, separation Technicolor photography hung on for a decade after multi-layer color negative was introduced. And the first big chip cameras aren't even available yet. Jan-Feb '05 for Genesis, D-20 mid year are the projections. BTW, the big chips are not going to be cheap compared with separation video because of the yield problem in making such big hunks of silicon.

 

> I have yet to see an actual demonstration of the Gensis, ....

 

I have seen the tests. They blow all the old three chip stuff away.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Edited December 15, 2004 by John Sprung

[John Sprung]

Yes, but they weren't competing with anything else. If you wanted "serious" color, Separation Technicolor was all there was. As it is now, you have to admit current 35mm color film stocks are a pretty hard act to folllow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They were competing with some two color processes, such as CineColor. My point was that early generations of any technology tend not to generate large installed bases, the market somehow figures out to wait for something better. Three chip cameras have a larger installed base than three strip Technicolor did.

 

Look at the Daviau Genesis tests. They compare Genesis directly with current 35mm film stocks. I tried to guess, and got it wrong. I don't feel so bad about that any more, Steve Poster said he couldn't tell the difference, either.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

To Al who have responded thus far:

 

Thanks for your input, but the answer to my question: "Does anybody really know?" appears to be : "No!" ;)

 

I've gotten one value for the Genesis which is merely a quote from Panavision that doesn't quite add up, but it's closer than anything I've had previously!

 

Rebadging video cameras as "Digital Cinematography" cameras unfortunately does not negate the deficiencies of silicon photosensors, any more than changing my name to Bill Gates alleviates my financial problems :)

 

This is far from the first time I've had this discussion online, and I fear it won't be the last, sigh...

[David Mullen ASC]

It sounds like you already made up your mind before you asked the question, so we basically wasted our time discussing this with you. Gee, thanks.

 

The basic fact you seem to want to ignore is that if you start out with a single chip with enough pixels, you can afford the loss of resolution from pulling all three colors from one chip because the recording format is much lower in resolution. So Panavision starts out with a 12MP chip -- they never claimed that they there are ending up with a 12MP recording. They only have to end up with a 1920 x 1080 pixel recording. This is different than with regular video cameras where the single-chip consumer cameras do not start out with a super-high mega-pixel chip and therefore there IS a loss of resolution pulling color from one chip, or a lack of color information.

 

I don't see if it matters so much if you have three CCD's for each color versus one CCD with three times the pixels to record the three colors on one surface (I know Bayer filtering is not exactly like that, but you get my drift.)

 

The issue is whether the Genesis camera puts out a decent HD recording with good color, and so far, the response based on tests has been good. I repeat: the Genesis is an HD camera. Panavision is not making claims that it is a 4K camera or records a 12MP image.

 

We've all listed the problems of designing decent lenses for prism-block cameras with small CCD's and the advantages of using 35mm cine lenses on a 35mm-sized chip IF (and this is the key) the goal is a 35mm-like image in terms of optical texture and depth of field characteristics -- but you've basically blown-off all these comments as if they were meaningless because you are working from some preconceived notions about how a video camera should be built and don't like this trend away from the classic 3-CCD prism block design.

 

Since you don't feel there are problems with the current 2/3" 3-CCD approach, then I'm not sure what you're complaining about because there are a LOT of cameras out there that use it! You should be happy. No one is going to force you to use a Genesis or D20 or Dalsa -- you can use the Viper or F950 or F900 if you want.

 

But you are in the minority because most filmmakers would like to see digital movie cameras move away from their ENG origins. If these new 35mm-sized single-chip cameras make it possible to stop having to do back-focus checks when you change lenses as you currently have to on current HD shoots, that alone would be a great thing...

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

DM>It sounds like you already made up your mind before you asked the question, so we basically wasted our time discussing this with you. Gee, thanks.

 

JM:Well I did actually ask if anybody had a specific answer to a specific question; nobody did.

 

I specifically want to know this because part of my conditions of employment are that I keep my employers abreast of latest technological developments, and offer my opinion of the validity or otherwise of said developments. If I can find no technological or scientific basis for a competitor's claims that they are about to somehow race ahead of the competition (ie us), my employers appreciate my telling them when they needn't waste time and resources "keeping up with the Jonses" as it were.

 

On my advice they stayed right out of the "Digital Cinematography" arena five years ago, and my claims were vindicated. I'm now trying to establish whether there is anything really new to this current crop of "Digital Cinematography MkII" offerings. If there is, I'm damned if I can find it. All I get is "come the revolution" responses like yours.

 

DM>The basic fact you seem to want to ignore is that if you start out with a single chip with enough pixels, you can afford the loss of resolution from pulling all three colors from one chip because the recording format is much lower in resolution.

 

JM: You just don't understand how those things work. There are enormous and well-understood drawbacks to using a single-chip sensor; 12 megapixels on a single chip give nowhere near the performance three separate 2 megapixel chips; you'd need something like 36 megapixels to get that. Unless Panavision have rewritten the laws of physics.

 

DM>But you are in the minority because most filmmakers would like to see digital movie cameras move away from their ENG origins. If these new 35mm-sized single-chip cameras make it possible to stop having to do back-focus checks when you change lenses as you currently have to on current HD shoots, that alone would be a great thing...

 

JM>Well I don't know what the answer is, but I can assure you, this ain't it! I rather think "Most Filmmakers" are as skeptical as I am; that's certainly been my experience anyway. But don't let me stop you, I'll be watching with keen interest. But tell me, are you actually planning to buy a 35mm digital camera, or like everybody else, do you want some poor rental house to do the viability experimentation for you?

[Mike Brennan]

Jim,

Sony have stated that the Genesis is rgb rgb rgb striped array of 12.1 million pixels.

So there is no bayer type processing or in camera interpolation

Whatever that active number of pixels (anybody know?) they are sampled to 1920x1080.

Production model is 14 bit AD.

 

 

So the combination of

Single chip sensor

No bayer filtering

True RGB output at the sensor

Relatively High number of pixels (then scaled to 1920x1080)

14 bit processing

 

This makes the Genesis on paper the leading 1920x1080 output HD camera for those wanting a to emulate those elements of 35mm film production, born out of using 35mm lenses.

 

Having seen its output on film in both the USA and the UK it is the best digital motion picture capture I have seen transferred to film.

 

Has the sensor greater dynamic range than existing HD cameras? Hard to tell.

However 14 bit processing and subsampling should have a positive effect on putting more highlight detail to tape.

 

So although the above tech specs have existed for some time they have not been rolled into one camera.

 

The next question is just how far will Panavision go in promoting it at the risk of drawing clients away from using their film cameras.

 

Arri have already stated that the D20 is not a replacement to film.

Maybe Panavision will follow suite, with the Genesis being a competitor to f900 rather than 35mm film?

 

Summed up as "having your cake and eating it too".

 

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Phil Rhodes]

hi,

 

There's so much political crap tied up with this:

 

> Rebadging video cameras as "Digital Cinematography" cameras unfortunately

> does not negate the deficiencies of silicon photosensors, any more than

> changing my name to Bill Gates alleviates my financial problems.

 

I couldn't agree more. Something else Dalsa didn't like was when I referred to their camera as a video camera. It's an electronic motion picture camera; it's a video camera. I mean nothing by this other than to describe the device correctly, but politically it seems to be poison. It might be politically inconvenient to call it a video camera, you might not like calling it a video camera, but that's what it is, and denying it only makes the user less well-prepared to use the device to its fullest potential.

 

Consider also:

 

> most filmmakers would like to see digital movie cameras move away from their

> ENG origins

 

Why? ENG cameras work fine on a dolly; studio cameras work poorly on your shoulder. The only reason more film people don't twig this is that they've only ever shouldered up a 435 and aren't aware of how comparatively bad it is. The ENG camera shape is clearly the best all-rounder.

 

It is a matter of extreme vexation to me that the video world, on the cusp of catching up technically to the film world, is being expected to massively change the way it works. Outfits like Panavision, Arri, Dalsa and Kinetta are having to spend serious development money - which could be spent actually making them better cameras - making video cameras which happen to cosmetically resemble film cameras, just so some swaggering DP (present company excepted) can still feel he's special. It's preposterous and ridiculous and it's holding back progress. It's a stupid as insisting that all cameras be as big and heavy as three-strip technicolor or you'll refuse to shoot colour neg in them. What's more, if I want to go and work with these people, I'm very abruptly told "go learn film." My tendency, when I come across people who insist on an HD technician and a camera which looks pleasingly like an SR2, is "go learn video."

 

It's all politics and drivel, and I find it very annoying.

 

Phil

[Mike Brennan]

Good points Phil,

look at the design of the Arri 235, where have we seen that shoulder shape before!?

 

The rounded shape has always been a better design for hand held than a flat bottom, but the film industry apparently hasn't been ready to accept design elements from video?

 

Until now it seems!

 

Call the 235 the "Handy looky Arri':)

 

 

Mike Brennan

[David Mullen ASC]

The problem with the ENG design is that it get so LONG; I can fit into a smaller space with the camera backed against a wall with a Panaflex in top-mouned mag mode than an F900. This is why the Genesis excites me because you can back or top mount the deck. Sure, the ENG design is good for hand-holding; it's studio mode where it's a bit awkward but not horribly so. I'll admit that this is not a disaster by any means.

 

But look at something like the design of ENG lenses, which definitely have some weak areas compared to cine lenses. The distance marks are too close together because the rotation is designed so a handheld shooter can grab the front and rotate from minimum focus to infinity with one twist of the lens. Plus you have all of these 20X or 18X zooms with horrible breathing because it was more important to make them light enough for handheld shooting. So here is a case where moving towards a 35mm style lens design made more sense for the way narrative movies are shot in terms of focus-pulling, rather than for covering news.

 

Viewfinders are a whole nuther issue where the 1" b&w viewfinder is fine for ENG work but problematic sometimes for narrative work, hence the move towards mounting 6" LCD color monitors to HD cameras.

 

But ultimately this isn't all about right or wrong, it's about designing cameras that work with an established system for making movies versus forcing the way movies are made to suit a camera not designed for it. Some people think that's the cart leading the horse, that's all. The truth, as always, is somewhere in-between, a halfway meeting place.

 

As for avoiding the word "video", yes, this is partly a marketing trick I agree but I also think it tells everyone that they are making a fundamental shift away from designing cameras primarily for ENG and instead making them primarily for narrative work.

 

And some engineers believe that "video" and "digital data" cameras are different things, although of course digital video is digital data. But what they mean is a camera that does not convert the data into some standard YUV broadcast video format for recording. So it's not just marketers making the distinction between video and data, it's technical people too (for example, the Spirit Datacine can be set to video output or "data mode".)

 

There is an element of truth in what you are saying Phil -- that some decisions are cosmetic, not practical, to make video cameras more palatable to film snobs -- but there are also some real basic issues being addressed as to the nature of how a movie gets shot and whether it's time to rethink the whole system rather than perpetuate film or classic video modes of shooting. The ultra pro-film people aren't going to be happy with the Genesis or D20 or Dalsa either because they aren't film cameras, and the video people aren't happy that these cameras seem marketed towards film shooters.

 

Anyway, I for one am happy to see some new ideas being thrown out there rather than see one more generation of a 2/3" 3-CCD camera hit the market. Ultimately to match 35mm quality, the goal has to be a 4K camera and I doubt that the prism-block 3-CCD concept will be the most practical and cost-effective way to make that (although that's exactly how the Olympus Super-HD camera works.) But three 1" CCD's on a prism block are probably inherently limiting in terms of size and weight of the unit and possibly flange-depth issues.

 

For example, don't you think it's a clever idea to design a camcorder where you can mount the deck on top or the back of the camera easily? I think it's cool -- do you know how many times I've wanted to take a chainsaw to the back of the F900? I mean, what's up with not building in an HDSI-out on the body like the Varicam has, requiring a rear-mounted block attachment to do so?