Jump to content

georg lamshöft

Basic Member
  • Posts

    312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by georg lamshöft

  1. The Master, the new film from Paul Thomas Anderson (There will be Blood, Magnolia) is on the way, the blog is showing 65mm negative being cut! The first feature film entirely shot on 65mm since over 15 years! What took so long, people are tired of "good enough", something they can comfortably achieve at home with a simple blu-ray... This is how it's done properly! I think the movie will be released in October, a trailer should be there soon! Cannot wait!
  2. Just stumbled upon their conference video regarding the "Concept Anamorphic": [link] [/link] So the output resolution is 2880x2160, how is it processed then? Given 1.5x oversampling for a sharp image, they would end up with 1440lines and 3840pixels (but interpolated) horizontally? Or a perfectly sharp image with 1920x720pixels? Is 1:2.66 a desirable aspect ratio? Or crop it down again to Cinemascope? Why do they use a 4x3 aspect ratio on the sensor, why not 1:1.2 (the sensor is large enough)?
  3. According to the ARRI website ProRes 4:3 (2048 x 1536 pixels) will be available with SUP 7.0 (Mid 2012) - maybe you should ask them about a beta-version?
  4. According to the ARRI 4k+ study (page 29) the biggest distance to fully resolve 4k with normal eyesight is 20m on a 25m wide screen, which results in a view angle of 60° which many people already find unpleasent. So given a 2m wide screen at home (I think everything beyond that remains unrealistic for practical - not technological - purposes) it's a viewing distance of just 1.6m! On the other hand, resolution is more than just 2k vs. 4k, it's the contrast and fine rendering of details - I saw MI4 on a 4k DLP Barco and it definitely was better than all 2k or 35mm screenings I've attended. But that doesn't mean that any acquisition tool can achieve that level of quality, even when the pixel count on the sensor justifies the brand "4k". To be honest, I hardly doubt that it's possible with 24mm wide sensors, yet (without compromising other aspects of IQ). I have yet to see any digital camera that is sharper on 1080p/2k-output than the Alexa besides only using 1.5x oversampling... Not even speaking about the overall look (which is partially due to the large photosites with a 8.25µm pitch).
  5. Saw it on a 2k screen, Rooney Mara was good, the rest just mediocre. A few days earlier I saw Se7en on TV again, IMHO the superior film - not only regarding technical quality and cinematography... Eizo just introduced one: Eizo 4k 92cm but what viewing distance ratio you need to appreciate 4k vs. 2k (when cameras are capable of producing equally sharp 4k) ? 1:2 (2m screen, 4m distance)? I'm not sure if it makes any sense at home, at least not for films. But 3D at home also doesn't make sense, still, the industry is seeing money and pushing it...
  6. I think that was the case. So in 2012, we cannot only create alien worlds but also Manhattan! Exciting times ;-) I enjoyed it very much, best vomiting scene of the year!
  7. IMHO, it's a shame that with rising popularity of the PL-mount/S35-style cameras more and more companies try to rip off customers with substandard quality. Despite the price difference to quality lenses, we are still talking about investments of several 1000$ here! Interestingly enough, your new Ultra Primes also have a little bit of "Cold War background": in 1945, the USA literally rescued (although I bet they didn't realized it back then) 122 specialists from Carl Zeiss Jena from the Soviets and made them start up operations in Oberkochen (West Germany) - within a few years, the vast majority of know-how, skilled craftsmen, engineers and technology came to Oberkochen (besides political aspects, the salary of the Workers in Jena was less than 1/5th of the Oberkochen workers even before the borders was closed). While Zeiss Oberkochen quickly started to innovate again and made highest-quality optics, the leftovers of Jena never recovered (despite the size). If this wouldn't have happened, Zeiss would propably no longer exist after 1989 or wouldn't be able to design & manufacture lenses beyond Lumatech standards.... Now the lens elements from your Ultra Primes are ground in Jena - but luckily with huge investments in technology and training, no Soviet standards anymore...
  8. That's true, you can even touch the lens after 1h of full output. If I remember correctly, it consumes only 1/4-1/5 of the energy (compared to a 1k fresnel).
  9. Money and politics? Of course you need some luck or power to raise awareness within thousands of contributions to the movie-world but the rest is done by the academy - which are the filmmakers and not the executives (I guess the majority isn't actually so impressed by special screenings or free snacks to change their mind). The winners are not selected by specialists, I guess some actors like to "stroke" cinematographers for selecting the most obvious acting performances as well... Actors, sound & costume designers tend to select the "obvious" cinematography as well and Mr. Richardson did a great job on Hugo in this regard - don't you think?
  10. I'm surprised that they didn't push into the direction of the Vision HD: less filters, no tungsten/daylight but entirely optimzed for DI. No optical printing. Otherwise it might get difficult to improve grain and/or sensitivity.
  11. I guess it's a pretty ugly reason because a simple time or health problem would have been made public. Wasn't there a similar thing with "Panic Room" where Darius Khondji was replaced because of "creative differences" where he later said that every single scene has been worked out by Fincher including the focal length and Khondji didn't want to work as a simple "operator" on set? I mean all Fincher-movies look like Fincher despite the changing DoPs - that's at least my impression.
  12. It would be unreasonable, saving a few cents and therefore compromise reliability for such a critical piece of technology. There are a few PCB-specialists in Germany - their boards are used (besides some mass-market stuff for the automotive industry) in the aerospace industry and even in US-American electronics for the oil industry - most likely ARRI sources their boards from one of these suppliers. I'm a mechanical engineer, I have limited knowledge of electronics and speak of second-hand experience (from reliable sources, not the net...) - but from what was told me, the biggest issue in high-quality electronics are standard components like transistors which have been outsourced by the manufacturer and are no longer available in high quality. They usually try to compensate by doing 100% tests with high rejection rates. Even the ALEXA will have a few components like that (FCPGAs, resistors...) and they remain the weak link. Even Mr. Jannard stated specifically that the PCBs they use are US-made. I cannot judge the quality from the PCBs just by looking at them but covering up design flaws with hand-soldered wiring in a production camera is definitely a quality-flaw.- not even necessarily from the PCB-maker but the customer (Red) who tried to cut costs by using them instead of paying for redesigned PCBs. That's exactly what happens and what is making the last 1% of quality much more expensive. You're right, this kind of "good enough" behaviour is common place, I've even seen it with some very small German companies - where "Made in Germany" was just a marketing trick, no union-contracts, critical parts were sourced from cheap suppliers in Eastern Germany, bad parts not rejected... But companies like ARRI are different and we cannot appreciate this enough. This is not the typical lean production, continuous improvement system, an huge, unproductive QA-department (with twice as many people making PP-presentations and flip charts then engineers and craftsmen solving the problem in R&D/production) crap - this is quality. If it's bad, it's thrown away, period. If QC rejects 30% of the parts the underlying problem is investigated but the QC standards remain the same, even if it takes years to solve the problem. If a supplier is offering considerable better quality at 2x the cost, it won't be replaced by a cheap supplier even when they offer nice quality samples and all kinds of "quality proofs" (ISO9001...). I didn't say that, although I think those working conditions are still standard at smaller subcontractors in central China. I just said the working conditions are much worse than in the western jobs they replace - that's the reason why it's made in China - not knowledge or skill but lower standards. We're heading into the wrong direction. We are more productive than ever but real economy is following the Insustainable rules of the financial system. I think I had to pay more than a daily salary of a worker for an Espresso in Beijing - how much is an IPad? 500 hours? For whom? And why are the machining and assembly processes 20 years behind (not to mention environmental standards) That's ridiculous! A little side story: I buy leather shoes from a small manufacturer in Germany, they're not cheap (about as expensive as Chinese-made Adidas or Boss) and besides the Italian rubber sole they're entirely made in Germany. They last about 5x as long as the Chinese ones ! A relative of mine is responsible for inspecting production and quality in Asia for a big shoe-brand. He gave me hand-selected ones made by their best supplier - same problem. Why is that? The small shoemaker uses leather made by craftsmen and the people in production are also trained shoemakers (I think 3 years oftraining). The Chinese factories cannot replicate these old production processes because they cannot afford to train production staff for three years. we are talking about shoes! No über-complex cinema camera! Same price, 5x the quality - but still, the craft for making shoes better and more efficiently is vanishing! Yes, I think it should make a difference for us where and how the ALEXA and Epic are made. P.S Sorry Mr. Bloom for doing my little rant on your thread ;-)
  13. And that is highly appreciated, but it's still just final assembly, a few min of mounting the PCBs into the housing and run a short operational test. According to Mr. Jannard it's mostly US-sourced - we cannot proof or disprove that. What makes me wonder is an image of a PCB of the EPIC-M: http://www.wirelessgoodness.com/wp-content/gallery/red-epic-m/2011-05-03_193650.jpg You can clearly see a hand-soldered wire running across the PCB! Is the EPIC-M really considered a prototype which you can buy at your own risk and is the design flaw solved in the "real" production models or is this considered the future quality standard we should expect? But the ARRI Alexa is designed and made ENTIRELY to a different standard, just a few examples: - entirely sealed electronics with an elaborate heatpipe/peltier/radiator cooling system (the electronics on the EPIC are open, one drop of liquid through the radiators of the cooling system and the camera is dead) - sensor assembly with stainless-mounting to the lens mount (the EPIC uses a few mm^2 of machined cast-aluminium as a flange for the mount)# - the vast majority of the ALEXA is made by ARRI or surrounding suppliers in the Munich area. They are paid by the union contract (35h/week, 30 days paid vacation) and earn 4000-6000$/month - which translates into costs for the company of 40-60$/h! Nearly all people (yes, also in production) are trained craftsmen - that takes 42 months and costs the company 70k$ or more! So please, don't compare these entirely different approaches. The ALEXA is expensive, heavier and bigger - for a reason. What Western workers do you compare to? Even within Germany there are vast differences, but even the unemployment money allows for a higher standard of living than the salary BMW or Daimler pay Chinese workers for 60h/week! Do you know production workers in China that earn more than 2$/h (that should roughly translate to the live standard of the US-minimum wage) making our beloved Adidas shoes (200$) or IPods (100$)? Production is outsourced to China, retail price stays the same. Is it "hogwash" to call 10x less pay for twice the work with no sustainable perspective exploitation?
  14. I've seen the trailer before MI4 on a 4k DLP Barco - didn't look as good as MI4, either - but hard to tell from the few scenes and fast cuts. Are the trailers even 4k?
  15. Of course the Hawks are superior they're made by Rodenstock with state-of-the-art technology. But some of the Lomo-results are just embarassing! I mean the 35mm wide open looks like a lens element is missing! That's not just soft... Who made these lenses? Who is still ripping off people for that quality?
  16. Barely any, according to an 70mm-event at the Berlinale 2 years ago, ARRI has a special deal: rent 65mm-equipment but pay 35mm and a agreement with Kodak: same cost for film and processing per foot!
  17. Doing that and still assuring state-of-the-art-quality? I know managements that are stupid enough to do so and therefore creating products that are only cheap and good on paper or early prototype stages. Zeiss has done that once with cine-lenses and they failed. Now they come up with lenses that are a full-stop faster than any other modern anamorphic lens and Mr. Deakins calls it almost too perfect. No, I'm pretty sure these are true Zeiss-lenses - optical glass from Schott, mechanics from Oberkochen/Wetzlar, lens grinding in Jena and assembly in Oberkochen. Even the CP2, mainly consisting of simpler designs engineered to be manufactured by their Japanese subcontractor for the still photography market (ZF) are made in Jena/Oberkochen/Wetzlar by Zeiss - and these are the so-called entry-level cine-lenses... I'm pretty sure it's a winner when the lenses offer basically the same comfort and quality as Master Primes but working perfectly with an Alexa Studio.
  18. It's simple multiplication but actually, it's not so much about extinct resolution of high-contrast test patterns but resolution-over-contrast (MTF). You have 50% camera contrast (film/sensor) at 4k and 50% lens contrast - you end up with 50% x 50% (or 50% of 50%) = 25%! The higher the frequency of the detail, the lower the contrast. So what is a "4k-lens" then? I have to agree, it's marketing. For S35 it means that it can handle 80 linepairs/mm with reasonable contrast. But what is reasonable? Will it be overshadowed by aberrations? Most "modern" (50 years?) 35mm-lenses do show some detail at 80lp/mm - not at every aperture, not with high-contrast, not with any image height - but they fulfill the very basic criteria for being "4k". It's the same stupid argument as with camera resolution...
  19. That's actually not the case. Carl Zeiss was a company found in Jena, which is a city in east Germany, after WW2 it quickly became apparent that the soviets have little interest in rebuilding the industry and infrastructure the way it was did in West Germany. So Zeiss decided to relocate to Oberkochen. Pretty much the same can be said about Schott (which relocated itelf to Mainz, another West Germany city). Very little skilled people and machines remained until the border was closed and the Soviets/GDR tried to make it operational again with these limited resources. Carl Zeiss Jena is basically pre-WW2-know-how and standards, they had very little access to state-of-the-art machinery/equipment (which was/is also build in West Germany) and Glass (Schott was also located in West Germany, CZJ used the so called VEB Jenaer Glaswerke, the remains of Schott Jena). Carl Zeiss at the same time in Oberkochen invested billions of €/marks into pushing the envelope in optical design and technology, till today where they manufacture the core components for future EUV-lithography production with tolerances of up to 0.15nm - nobody else can do that. But Carl Zeiss Oberkochen also bought the remains of Carl Zeiss Jena after the reunion and invested billions into updating the standards, machinery, training of the people and today they do the glass grinding for many products and the assembly of most light microscopes there, with entirely different standards than before 1989. So you should not pay any premium for the brand name "Carl Zeiss" in Carl Zeiss Jena products, you might be disappointed.
  20. It's not difficult to build a cheap camera, it's difficult to build a good camera! If I remember correctly, a "S35-sized" (read: standard APS-C CMOS) sensor can be bought for about 50$, add some cheap slave labour and voila! we got another piece of crap flooding the market. As long as the manufacturers don't outsource their know-how (like they did in other industries) they have to fear very little.
  21. I have to admit that I only had the chance once to see a 1st gen copy - I think it was contact printed - but I'm not sure. As far as I understood it, a 1st contact print was the benchmark for the development of the ARRISCAN, not just choosing a DI because it's simpler or fits into the workflow but to actually maintain as much possible from the original in comparison to an optical/analogue process. But don't get me started about real-world prints in movie theatres...
  22. I think this is what causes the "enthusiasm" and "emotion" of these discussions - I feel the same way. It's not about "K" but MTF and other artifacts. A bayer-sourced image is unusable in it's original size for the big screen. In cinematography we cannot carefully sharpen every single frame and remove all the artifacts caused by color interpolation. We have to downsample it, even if it reduces MTF or countable lines on a test pattern near extinct resolution. A film negative on the other hand has to be scanned and processed professionally to minimize the quality loss - I personally think that an oversampled Arriscan-scan (?) which is carefully degrained looks better than a normal 1st gen optical copy. Here you can see two nice samples: http://www.filmaufzeichnung-hamburg.de/media/pdf/Testscan.pdf I think everybody has to agree that the cherry-tree 100% crop (2k) looks way better than the still-photography-samples done with a consumer-scanner. 4k is not tack-sharp anymore, because MTF is too low close to extinct resolution - a 4k-image from 65mm will look clearly superior while having a not-too different extinct resolution when shooting a test-chart. Is 4k with high-MTF and little artifacts (sourced from an hypothetical 65mm-Alexa or 6k->4k 65mm Arriscan) comparable to IMAX with optical prints? In terms of extinct resolution - I don't think so. But on the big-screen, without looking at still wide-angle-shoots of landscapes all the time, with a next-gen DLP-beamer, our eyes might be the limitation... The fact is: our technology is not ready yet, we cannot process sufficient data-rates for uncompressed 6k-RAW practically and we cannot squeeze this many photosites on a small sensor without loosing the just desperately achieved "looks-nearly-like-film" IQ from Alexa. Using a larger sensor? And managing to get new lenses for this format? Bigger and heavier again? Even if this would happen, we still cannot manufacture sensors beyond 30mm wide without "stitching" - which leads to further problems, which might be manageable in still photography, but not for cinematography, not without "stepping backwards" in many ways again. I think we should be happy with the 2k-digital-quality we just achieved and the options of 35mm/65mm/Imax - keeping them alive and fight for them. Digital 70mm-IMAX-quality will be possible, but not yet. When we scream for "more K" any longer, we will propably end up in "megapixel race" again: large, unhandy images without justifiable IQ-gain.
  23. As long as it's only about highly compressed HD-output from an HDSLR and using certain optical adapters, optical performance won't matter that much. Basically any Leica-lens will give you decent mechanics and bokeh/color-rendering. The same will be true for regular lenses from Nikon/Cnnon/Olympus. A lens in the 12-40mm range will be hard to find. Maybe some APS-C-lens from Sigma, Tokina or Tamron? When it's about highest quality, investing into newer Leica-designs makes sense - 21-35mm, 28-90mm, last-gen 19/28/35/50mm and so on. Most of these lenses are capable of outresolving even high-resolution sensors. But they're expensive. The 24mm R-lens was always a mediocre Minolta-design, as well as the 3,5/35-70 (I think the 4/35-70 was designed by Leica but made by Sigma - back then, Leica still believed in "consumer-grade-lenses" - something they no longer do).
  24. There are some interesting Leica-R-lenses available which can be used on a Full-Frame-Canon (5DII, 1ds - no crop - 19mm = stays 19mm regarding image angle) as well. Some of them might collide with the mirror but there are modifications (shaving the mirror) for that (modify the camera, not the lens - the mirror costs a few bucks, the lens might be irreplaceable!). Here is a nice site: http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Leica_db.html Do yourself a favor: get a Novoflex-adapter, not the Chinese ones Keep in mind that some designs are already 30 or 40 years old, don't expect Leica-superiority with those (the 24mm is even based on a Minolta-design, forget abot that). The Leica Elmarit-R 28mm (with rectangular shade) and the 19mm (small version with internal filters) as well as the Vario 21-35 and 28-90 are really good lenses.
×
×
  • Create New...