Keith Walters

I think you're somewhat confused. There have been single-sensor CCD 35mm-sized cameras, the Panavision Genesis being the most notable example. There are also 3-Chip CMOS (prism) cameras. Apart from the superior (and non-patentable) colour separation you get from dichroic prism systems, a 3-sensor camera delivers displayable colour images almost directly from the sensors, which means there is minimal processing delay, vital for live television. Single-chip cameras can only deliver a fairly basic "live" image; most of the spectacular results you see from those are the result of an enormous amount of inter-frame jiggery-pokery in post-production. The industry also wanted to use the same glass and mount system, so they just went for a technology and we're stuck with it. Pretty egregious statement. Do you have any idea how much money is tied up in 35mm cine lenses? Far more than there is in cameras. Also, it's virtually impossible to design a lens/sensor system for a 3-chip system that can reproduce the depth of field characteristic of 35mm cine cameras. Panavision had several goes at this and the results were all laughable. If they weren't able to make single-sensor 35mm-sized digital cameras, virtually all movies would still be shot on film. George Lucas & Co were a classic example of the tail wanting to wag the dog.

Of course it is, but if you listened to George Lucas, it was all going to happen 17 years ago. The infrastructure simply wasn't there then, and nobody was particularly interested in re-equipping and re-skilling everything just because he reckoned it was a good idea... I heard almost the same spiel back in 1988, when NHK decreed that in the "very near future" all movies would be shot in their abysmal "Hi-Vision" format! Hence the "myopic vision" comment. I thought it was hilarious when of all movies, they announced Episode 7 was going to be shot on film.... Anyway few of my comments have ever had much to do with merits or otherwise of the various image capture technologies, they've mostly been concerned with my opinion about which end of their alimentary canal certain posters' words were coming from. :rolleyes:

That was the first year when more than 50% of "mainstream" cinema release movies were shot on video instead of film. There was a rather egregious bet made here about 10 years ago by a certain character who some people still seem to think highly of, for God knows what reason. He reckoned it was going to happen by 2009 if I remember correctly. Even Jim Jannard got involved at one point. I was told by an industry insider that it was actually expected to happen somewhere around 2015, and I even posted that back then and was cackled at by the usual jackasses, but lo and behold, he was right! But that was probably because he knew about the upcoming timetable to kill off film projection, and once that went, origination wasn't going to be too far behind.

"George Lucas's myopic vision"? Episode 2 was captured in 1440 x 800 resolution by so-called "Cine Alta" cameras, basically tarted-up HD Betacams. 1440 x 800 is acceptable if projected directly by a digital projector, but at the time these were very few and far between; the vast majority of screenings were of standard film prints. With a movie shot on film, the standard four-generation duplicating process produces an acceptable quality print, but that's because you're starting with a much higher resolution negative. With Episode 2, they were starting out the 4-generation chain with a digital master that actually had less resolution than the average cinema print, so the projected pictures were pretty dreadful. Very few people followed George's lead; most of them stuck to film origination, all George really demonstrated is several compelling reasons to stay with film, and none to switch to video if you had the budget for film. That was back in 1999! Film origination for big budget productions didn't actually start to seriously decline until around 2016... Yes, the Alexa is a long way ahead of the cameras GL used but it took a damned long time to get there! This whole retarded "Film vs Digital" argument was mostly propagated by clueless wannabes, unshakably convinced that the hardest and costliest part of making a movie is centered around the camera system, and that video cameras are somehow vastly easier and cheaper to use than film cameras, and by some unexplained means, this will fling open the doors of Hollywood to any person who fancies him or herself to be a cinematographer.

You know Ikegami still have a page for it on their website: http://www.ikegami.com/br/products/sdtv/itc730a.html I can't find any information on which pins actually accept 12V input. A service manual would be a worthwhile purchase if you can find one. However you should be able to work it out. Using a multimeter, first determine which pin(s) are connected to the metal chassis (usually the BNC socket is a handy connection point). Using a low-power current-limited 12V power supply with the negative connection connected to the chassis, you should be able to find the positive battery connection by trial and error. The power supply may not be able to actually power the camera, but you should get some sign of life. After you've located the correct pins, depending on how long you want to use the camera for, you could make a reliable connection simply using insulated alligator clips.

You could always shoot it on film! :rolleyes: But generally, the problem with stills cameras used as video cameras is that the Optical Low-Pass Filter is designed for the highest-resolution stills it can take, and that's not usually appropriate for the inevitably lower resolution video modes. A purpose-designed video camera on the other will normally hand have an OLPF "tuned" to the maximum video resolution possible. So, as others have said, there is no real solution other than painting the screen green and Chroma Keying.

Like Phil, I've also said this numerous times before, and I'm not popular for saying this either. Have you actually gone out and tried to produce something? As in, write a script, turn it in to a shooting script, work out which shots are to be shot where, and how? Not something spoon-fed to you by a college, but off your own bat? The excuse for not doing this used to be the equipment cost, but nowadays just about all stills cameras shoot perfectly good 1080p video that's going to be more than good enough to demonstrate your expertise with the 90% or so of film production that's not specifically camera-related.... If you haven't done that (and an infuriatingly large percentage of hopefuls like yourself coming on here haven't) then you've got more chance of being hit by a meteorite than landing a job in this industry.... Surprisingly, an often overlooked way of picking up the necessary know-how is to get a job in some field that's not actually shooting-related, such as set building or even catering! Simply getting on a set and watching what they do can be very instructive, and you are more likely to be paid for it!

Most "Studio" cameras basically needed a studio attached to run them. You will also need something that can record composite video. There are still places that can handle Betacam tapes, but good luck finding a Betacam CamCorder with a working deck. There were also still quite a few studio colour cameras in the US in the early 70s that used Image Orthicon tubes for the luminance and vidicons for the chrominance; they produced an extremely distinctive "look" One other thing that needs to be kept in mind; much of the so-called "look" of "vintage" video comes from the careless way it's been transferred from the original 2" videotape. An awful lot of really good colour video was ruined by cheap and nasty archiving onto the Betacam format. If it was shot and lit correctly in the first place, videotaped material from 50 years ago can scrub up far better than most people seem to imagine, if it's "respectfully" transferred.

Were they modern LED tail lights or the older incandescent type? I've seen that quite a lot with consumer video cameras, but I'd never heard of it on high-end cinematography cameras. The reason it adds spurious blue is that, because a silicon sensor is much more sensitive to red than blue, the blue channel has to have more gain to compensate, and so any spurious response from the blue-masked pixels tends to be exaggerated, producing a blue cast.

I suspect that the main problem is simply that, as with a lot of other retail markets, it was the turnover of mass-market consumer gear that allowed these places to stock more professional items, pretty much as a sideline. The problem now is, most consumers who wanted a "better" camera have already got one, and they can't see any particular need to upgrade, plus the cameras you get in phones are pretty damned good now, and it's all a lot of people ever use. Even with phones, it's getting harder and harder to find plausible reasons to upgrade those too, apart from "accidents".

In places like call centers they often keep all the document files on a completely remote server, and reboot and re-install Windows XP every morning from a master DVD-ROM.

Hard to believe these images were shot around 80 years ago. And when archival longevity wasn't really thought about.... http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2016/07/27/fsa_documentary_coloar_photos_featured_in_new_deal_photography_usa_1935.html

Well anyway, IMDB seem to have gotten their facts straight now: Camera Alexa Mini Arri Alexa XT Studio, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses Negative Format Codex MXF/ARRIRAW Cinematographic Process ARRIRAW (3.4K) (source format) Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format) I had a vague recollection of Jim Jannard once stating that "Blade Runner" was his favourite movie and how thrilled he was that "Prometheus" was going to be shot with Red Cameras. A quick Google and whaddya know: http://www.red.com/news/ridley-scott-and-red-bring-prometheus-to-life Of course, Ridley Scott also directed "Alien: Covenant", which, strangely was shot with Alexas :rolleyes: Same same Blade Runner 2049.... Sounds like Red cameras are stuck with a five year lifespan :D

I was living in NZ when this came out, and yes, I seem to remember a different version was played on the radio. The narrator/singer whatever sort of had more "pathos" in his performance in that as I recall. There was a kid I worked with who particularly liked the track , and he immediately became re-christened 'Wash-hose", which is probably why I remember it. (I don't recall it ever doing too well on the charts). I don't recall ever seeing that particular music video though, and that was when the redoubtable Karryn Hay was running the show, so it would have probably gotten an unreasonable amount of airtime :rolleyes:

What?! A way to have real-time HD from a Red camera? Surely you jest! I wonder what the latency is, considering that's one of the reasons they still make 3-chip cameras.... On past experience, there's got to be at least one fly in the ointment; I wonder what it is... Well that's interesting; the "Shot on RED" page: http://www.red.com/shot-on-red/cinema goes on forever now, with hundreds and hundreds of titles. The vast majority of which I've never heard of..... It's like shopping at Aldi :rolleyes:

Sorry; we're getting a "live" broadcast of 4K material, recorded earlier? :blink: So when did the Dragon start doing live 4K?

???? NOBODY would use a video tap to focus from. You don't focus a Movie camera the way do a TV news camera, the focus puller generally works off pre-measured marks. What do you think all those Sharpie-covered white discs are for?

ALL cameras are analog devices where it counts, which is the image capturing device or medium. In a "Digital" camera, the captured analog signal is immediately digitized and thereafter processed digitally. In-camera Digital processing is far more more flexible than the analog processing systems that preceded it, because making significant improvements to analog processing normally required hardware changes; with a digital processor it's most just a matter of software. Digital cameras have gotten a lot better at disguising the many shortcomings of CMOS image sensors, but film emulsion is simply capable of doing a better job of capturing the initial information. You can do what you like with the images after the film has been processed and scanned, or the analog sensor images stored digitized and stored, but you can't put back what was never there in the first place.

Speaking of that, whatever happened to Jan von Krogh..... :rolleyes: ?

Parallax is just one of many physical aspects of a scene your eye and brain use to conjure up a 3-D image. Depth of field is vitally important, otherwise you get the "walking cardboard cutout" effect as seen on a surprising number of big-budget features. Choice of correct focal length and camera placement produce subtle distortions of perspective that give further clues as to where an object actually is with respect to the POV. Most of the Marvel Studios features are shot almost entirely green-screen, with the parallax and other visual clues added later by software, before matting into the background.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/614804/piracy-crackdown-village-roadshow-launches-legal-action-block-41-websites/?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=googlenewseditorspickfeed&google_editors_picks=true What intrigues me about this and similar articles is the way they invariably provide a handy list of all the best sites :rolleyes: The current method of choice is to use Android-based "Kodi Boxes" which simply tap into your network without your computer being involved, thus removing concerns about Malware getting into your PC. The boxes (and Kodi) were originally intended for managing offline media stored on Hard Discs etc, so you could basically add the functions of a so-called "Smart TV" to an ordinary TV for just $50 or so. But what you don't get with smart TVs are specialized downloading functions provided by third party apps. There appears to be quite a community out there of sites that host illegal downloads, and others that keep track of what is available on what website and so on. So in theory you can download a seemingly endless list of movies, TV shows etc that are supposedly available. What's supposed to happen is that when you click on a title (or run a search for it) it then will download a list of all the places it can be downloaded from. (Once again, you have to ask what people get out of doing all this unpaid work :blink:) "In theory" because the only time I tried using one of these boxes, I could get all the legal downloads ("catch-ups" provided by the TV stations etc) with no trouble at all, but no matter what else I clicked on, it would whirr and clank for 30 seconds or so and then come with the message "no D/L available". I thought I must have been doing something wrong, but eventually I got a "Hit". That was to what looked like a third generation VHS copy of a few episodes of "Barney Miller".... So I'm beginning to suspect that illegal downloading isn't QUITE the cakewalk people make it out to be, even with anonymous people doing all the work for you. Me, I couldn't be bothered. FINALLY, we're starting to get entire TV shows (that is all seasons and all episodes) available on DVD for a price that works out to a couple of dollars per disc. No viruses, no superimposed station logos, no ads, anybody in the household with a DVD player can view them. It would even make it easier for people who do the illegal hosting; everybody wins!! :P They make great Christmas gifts too; I got enough last Christmas to keep me going probably until mid-year, not being a huge TV watcher...

There were many advantages of shooting at 24 frames per second. Apart from stock and processing savings, you have a much greater range of cameras and other equipment available, and for release in PAL/SECAM countries, the original masters can be re-telecine-ed at 25 frames per second instead of standards converting the NTSC video. I remember once seeing a 30fps beer commercial shot in Sydney for a Japanese client. That was shot on Arri 3s with Cinematography Electronics crystal bases. That was the only one I'd ever seen; everything else for NTSC clients was shot on 24. It really is hard to pick the difference between 30fps and 24fps with 3:2 pulldown; the average viewer couldn't care less.

Have you looked at the knuckle-draggers who infest YouTube?

The book was written in 1968, but the big breakthroughs in DNA technology didn't happen until the early 1970s, so Dick wouldn't have known much about that. In the novel the only reliable physical test was to sample their cerebo-spinal fluid. The explanation in the book for the Voight Kampff test was quite straightforward: The Androids' (not called replicants in the book) apparent emotional responses were basically generated by software algorithms, and asking tricky questions in the correct way caused glitches in the responses that a trained operator could pick up. The questions were simple imaginary scenarios; there was none of the tortoise-in-the-hot-sun stuff. Some of the questions sound odd in the movie, because it has no mention of "World War Terminus" and the fact that live animals were now extremely rare. It only cost me GBP 7.84 for a new copy mailed out to Australia from the UK, so why don't you get a copy of your own. Lots of places on eBay have it.

I've just finished reading the original novel, which is available quite cheap on eBay. Wasn't it J.R. Isidore (the character J. F. Sebastian is very loosely based on) the one who was upset by Pris cutting the legs off the spider (not pulling them off)? But later in the same chapter the spider is still alive and unharmed and when Isidore lets it go, Deckard comments to the effect of: "What did you do that for? That's worth at least 100 bucks" I presume this is meant to suggest that the scene with Pris was just an illusion, illustrating how fragile the concept of reality had become. The book is really not much like the movie at all. In the novel Deckard has a wife and he actually does own an electric sheep! (Live animals are a costly status symbol, and if one dies, people often resort to replacing it with a robot version to keep up appearances!) The replicants are far less physically formidible than in the film, and are not particularly perturbed at the prospect of their demise. Eldon Rosen (Renamed Tyrell in the film) is similarly a far less imposing figure in the novel, and Rachel fails the Voigt/Kampf test almost immediately. You can recognize some of the novel's names for chartacters and other bits and pieces in the film, but overall the storyline is almost completely different. The term "Blade Runner" does not appear in the novel at all. A large part of the action in the film was devoted to Deckard's frantic efforts to hunt down the extremely dangerous replicants; that was not in the novel either The film also never mentions the nuclear war which is the reason everybody is leaving for the offworld colonies.