Report from NAB

[Brent J. Craig]

...I don't see anything inappropriate with a $1000 price tag for well-thought-out proprietary software that costs exactly as much as Final Cut for example...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How many cameramen do you know whose lightmeter is held together by tape, or who drive a beat up car?

 

If they won't drop the cash for those basic tools, why will they drop $1000 for a new, proprietary, unproven tool that does the same thing as Photoshop, which everyone already owns?

 

As I understand it, even the $1000 version of Look Manager has some features disabled. If I listened to my Kodak rep right (it was one of those on-and-off converstaions between shots on a busy set) the $1k version doesn't let you email or print or something.

[Sam Wells]

It was just quite a contrast to see the hordes of people surrounding the giant HD screens, clamoring for the latest HD hyperbole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sounds just like Saturday at Circuit City :D

 

You're absolutely right, and I have thought EK needed to be more assertive in the Indie (whatever THAT melange means anymore) realm especially; I still think film needs to be marketed and the "workflow" sold as transparent / user friendly - why I previously made the argument for "open system" re KLMS.

 

But, you know, at the same time I'm not sure they can persuade ALL 37,000 users of HDV to switch to film :o

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

Angenieux had their 'V3' Digital Parallax Scanner lens attachment on display. The device has a automated iris mechanism that replaces the 2X extender housing on (currently) two Angenieux zoom lenses. It uses "novel optical techniques to inject vivid impressions of depth." It was wacky.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Any more comments or observations on this ?

 

-Sam

[Tenolian Bell]

a new, proprietary, unproven tool that does the same thing as Photoshop, which everyone already owns?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would say the Kodak Look Management system is not the same as Photoshop at all.

 

Photoshop is more a graphics tool than a photography or film tool. Photoshop in of itself does not speak in the language of film or photography really at all. You can add plug ins that add this functionality. But its still an add on and not integral to the core of Photoshop. KLMS is built from the ground up speaking in the language of film and photography.

 

With KLMS you can shoot a flat gamma free film stock, 7299. You can input all of you photographic parameters into the software, film stock, shooting ISO, T stop, color temperature, shutter angle , filters, etc. And get back a realistic picture of what the DP has in his/her minds eye. That information can be taken to the telecine room input and the colorist see what the DP intended.

 

The really cool potential of 7299 is the ability to reproduce any film stock from the input of Kodak LUT's.

 

To my knowledge their is no way in Photoshop of predictably and repeatably doing this.

 

The KLMS software is mostly set up to go through to film print. I strongly suggested they also include 601 and 709 color space, as most film I shoot lives on television and never goes to print.

 

However its true I do own Photoshp, and buying KLMS is not right now at the top of my list of what to do with $1000 USD. I may try to get a production to pay for it. Maybe......

[Mike Panczenko]

I worked on the V3 NAB demonstration shoot last month. It's a cool idea, and they can explain it better than I can at the site www.v3imaging.com . But, basically, they're not exactly sure how the brain processes the picture information to give it a 3d effect, but by having a moving iris, where you can adjust the frequency and amplitude of the movement, you get different images, because of parallax. When you view the images, the brain gives it a 3d effect, with perceived greater depth. The DP on the shoot was Richard Rutkowski, and we shot with the F900 and the Varicam. The only thing about the system is that you need to keep a constantly moving camera, because the moving iris will change the field of view. Still, a cool idea!

[Frank DiBugnara]

Tenolian,

 

I think you are confusing the Look Manager System which allows you to preview the look of your film in pre-production with the 7299 HD system which is completely different.

 

The big difference between the Look Manager System and Photoshop, of course, is that while Photoshop can technically achieve all of the looks that are output from the Look Manager System, Photoshop has no "understanding" of all the Kodak stocks and optical and digital post processes.

 

Also, I would hope that the DP would not be asked to pay for the Look Manager System. That is a cost that should be absorbed by the production--or whoever is paying for the stock, processing, etc. A one-time cost of $1000 amortized over even just a few years worth of production ends up being something like $100 per production?

 

I think my passion for this topic has less to do with the Look Manager System itself and more to do with the mistaken notion that MP film is quickly dying and that Kodak needs to apologetically beg us to help keep them going. Didn't David Mullen just post that "motion picture film manufacturing business is growing, not shrinking, at something like 10% a year" ?

 

I just got done watching most of the online documentaries on the production of SW Episode III. I had to listen to one of the crew members talk about how, when shooting HD, you can watch the takes on big HD monitors on the set and not from a video tap which "tends to be black and white and on very small screens. The entire crew would have to be cuddled around one small black and white monitor if we were shooting film". Then Tattersall tells us that with HD you can take a lot more chances than when shooting film. He said that with film you have to be safe, and not play with the over-exposure latitude, for example, because you don't know what you are going to get. With HD you can be more risky because you see what you get." I could just picture a first-year film student watching that and saying, "gosh, I'd never want to shoot with that old film."

 

Don't get me wrong, I shoot a lot of HD and love it for some projects...but let's be honest about the respective formats and the industry implications of new developing technologies.

[Tenolian Bell]

I think you are confusing the Look Manager System which allows you to preview the look of your film in pre-production with the 7299 HD system which is completely different. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To my understanding KLMS will support 7299. I find it difficult to see Kodak making a film stock that gains its look from LUT's and not support that stock in thier preview software.

 

 

The big difference between the Look Manager System and Photoshop, of course, is that while Photoshop can technically achieve all of the looks that are output from the Look Manager System, Photoshop has no "understanding" of all the Kodak stocks and optical and digital post processes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, Photoshop is designed to work in either the sRGB or AdobeRGB color space which has nothing to do with film LUTs, print LUT's, 601, or 709 color space.

Edited April 24, 2005 by tenobell

[John Pytlak RIP]

I stopped by the Kodak booth but it was kind of pathetic and they weren?t really saying anything new. I already knew about the Preview System and 52/7299. What Kodak doesn?t do and should do is show why film is still the best. All of the HD presentation had a big 15 to 20 foot screen showing a big HD picture displaying HD in all its full color and glory. Kodak should show what a 4K 16 bit 35mm scan looks like and should show what a 2K 16 bit 16mm scan looks like. Kodak should have a color correction station like a Lustre or Da Vinci 2k set up at their booth showing what can be done with a film negative. If I didn?t know any better I would leave NAB with the impression that film didn?t have much to offer.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I forwarded some of the comments in this thread to the Kodak people responsible for the Kodak exhibit at NAB2005, and some of those who staffed the exhibit. They noted the following:

 

1. Kodak had two 4:4:4 color correctors handling the images displayed during the exhibit, a daVinci and a Pogel.

 

2. Two experienced colorists were manning the controls for the interactive demos, Kyle Alvut and Clark Bierbaum. They were also on the floor to answer questions.

 

3. Since NAB is primarily a show for broadcasters and television production, it seemed most appropriate to show the demos on HD monitors, and not a 15-20 foot screen. As was mentioned for another exhibit, even a big movie screen doesn't guarantee good images.

 

4. I think you meant "KODAK Look Manager System" and not the old "Preview System", which had far fewer capabilities.

 

I'm sorry if Kodak does not live up to the "hype" and "eye candy" and "vapor ware" expected of other exhibitors. Film is a medium of evolution, not revolution, even though the world of "hybrid" imaging can be revolutionary. It's a matter of adding to the toolset of creative filmmakers, not demanding that they change their tools after every trade show. NAB can be the epitomy of "planned obsolescence".

 

We find the people who visit the Kodak exhibit are the ones who really care about making great images, and not just showing off the latest gadgets or "window shopping" for gear they can't afford.

[David Mullen ASC]

I didn't have any complaints about the 7299 presentation going on -- it was about all you can do in that environment (floor of a convention hall).

 

My only complaint was that whoever was showing off the Kodak Look Management System to me had no real experience or understandaing about cinematography.

 

I had him select the heaviest diffusion filters in the program (Fog 5, etc.) and almost nothing happened when we rendered the frames -- a mild lightening of the blacks. The guy tried to insist to me that this was correct, when we all know that a Fog 5 filter would produce a rather, well, FOGGY image, halated, misty, etc.

 

So if that's the software's impersonation of putting a Fog 5 on the camera, it's completely off-base, but I suspect that more likely the Kodak guy working the demo had no clue -- he certainly had no idea what I was talking about when I said to him that a Fog 5, ProMist 5, etc. all produce a much stronger effect than what he was showing me, which for one thing, did not produce ANY halation effect. Maybe that part of the software package was not finished, but if so, the guy shouldn't have been insisting that the frame WAS correctly rendered with a heavy diffusion effect if he has no background in photography to even know what I was talking about.

 

I've missed all the presentations on KLMS and I'll probably have to arrange one someday...

[John Pytlak RIP]

David: If you send me the name of the individual off-line, I'll follow-up with them. Having been assigned to staff the show floor in the past, I know sometimes I had to answer questions that were out of my area of expertise.

 

You can certainly ask to "get behind the wheel" of the KLMS at our Hollywood office, where there is more time to develop an understanding of its capabilities. A few of the key technical people who worked on KLMS are based in Hollywood, and they are always in direct contact with the Rochester development team.

[Tim Tyler]

I had him select the heaviest diffusion filters in the program (Fog 5, etc.) and almost nothing happened when we rendered the frames -- a mild lightening of the blacks.

 

Any chance he selected the 'Fog .5' by mistake?

[Tim Tyler]

Free trial versions of the Kodak Look Manager System (V1.0.1) are available from your local Kodak sales office or on-line:

 

John - I couldn't find a download link anywhere after I followed your link.

 

I filled out the 'Request Trial Licence Key for the United States' form, and just put "n/a" in the '* Lock Number (or previous key):' field.

[Tenolian Bell]

Calling the Kodak booth pathetic was unnecessarily harsh, I apologize. A more constructive criticism is that is felt too conservative and corporate.

 

I?m not saying the Kodak booth should have been a three ring circus which is what the Sony booth felt like.

 

But I do feel the Kodak booth did not really show the full potential and magic of an image originated on film. The Discreet booth presented this much more effectively. As most of Discreet?s presentations were shot on film, but Discreet is trying to sell software not film.

 

Discreet was more about what our customers and their imaginations have done with our products. They presented real commercials, music videos, and films. With the colorist or visual effects artist showing us how they used a Discreet product to achieve visually stunning effects.

 

While Kodak feels more like a sales rep in a business suit with a power point presentation showing you what their scientists have come up with.

 

But its just my opinion.

[Elhanan Matos]

I was wondering if anyone here went down to Telecasts booth and checked out Vince Paces new modified T-adapter for the F950?

 

If you haven't seen it, it's a T-adapter that resembles an Arri 435. It uses a fiber connection between the camera body and optical head block. There's also a built in WIFI/Bluetooth Preston control system, so all you need are motors and cables.

 

Other than that booth and Arri's booth I didn't get to venture too far away from our booth.

 

Was there anything else anyone has seen thats especially interesting?

[David Mullen ASC]

John Sprung and I just saw Vince Pace's modified F950 tonight at the ASC. He basically took the T-adaptor for an F950 and built a handheld camera around it, with a thin fibre cable going to a separate F950 (for the image processing) and then a recorder (usually the SRW1 deck.) His camera basically has a power button and a deck recorder trigger button, pretty simplified.

 

The back of his camera is devoted to new processing for things like lens data and remote wireless lens control, plus some HD monitoring. It's sort of hump-shaped like the new Arri-235.

 

I sort of asked him why he has to cable to a separate F950 when all he's using it for is the processor, not the optical block in there -- couldn't he put that stuff in a small box? Basically his answer was that the closer he stayed to Sony's basic set-up, the more tech support he could get from them, rather than redesign and build too much from scratch.

[Tenolian Bell]

a demo of a new compression codec (H.264?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

www.apple.com/quicktime

 

 

Apple has released Quicktime 7 which is based on H.264. There is a gallery where you can watch HD Quicktime movie trailors compressed with H.264.

 

 

I don't think they've released Quicktime 7 for Windows quite yet though.

[Guest Kai.w]

www.apple.com/quicktime

Apple has released Quicktime 7 which is based on H.264. There is a gallery where you can watch HD Quicktime movie trailors compressed with H.264. 

I don't think they've released Quicktime 7 for Windows quite yet though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is nero digital for windows which uses this codec for quite some time now.

 

-k