Evangelos Achillopoulos

Chad and Jance A Preliminary Objective latitude test that am running with Cinealta F900R and Varicam F the last days for evaluating the cameras in order to calibrate them in order to get the maximum performance the preliminary tests show the following: The set up is using Danes Picta transmitive step chart with 28 steps of 0,15 density this equals to 1 stop on every two steps a total of 14 stops when the chart is backlight. A grab from the HDSDI out to an FCP in uncompressed 10bit convert a still frame to tiff with combustion and then import it to imatest for noise to latitude measurement. More info in imatest web site The exaggerated (+33% brightness and +77% Contrast) tiffs with Photoshop to show the effective visible steps are following. Cinealta F900R Varicam F The noise analysis is following. Note that Cinealta was on Hyper Gamma 3 and -3db after a factory settings reset with a black balance and a preset white balance in tungsten. Similar thinks with Varicam F Film REC, 0,45 gamma, -3db, 500% DL and black balance with preset white in tungsten after a factory reset. What is obvious, is the problem with the noise in cinealta and the lack of good quality latitude even with no tape intervention. I don?t know yet what I can do to make F900R to perform better. I?m on the search. What is clear to me is that Varicam is far better than cinealta on the latitude/noise aspect with more than 2,7 stops diference in high quality (very low noise) and 1,87 in the medium renge. 2,7 stops is like a car is going with 50 miles/hour and the other one goes with 360 miles/hour, so the difference is huge! For further evaluation the original files unprocessed are in original files 1,8Mb Regards,

Hello Oliver The only way for euroland is FCP and Kona/blackmagic... and you can only do 25fps at 8bit in 720p. You can also do all other frame rates but you have to use the HDSDI to ingest since the FCP FRC plugin works only in NTSC world. Regards.

Simply rent an AJ-HD1400 for a couple of days that?s about 200$/ day or 800$/per week, capture the material directly to avid or dub it your self to a miniDV from Firewire and that?s all. As an example, we offer that work for our clients for 60? per tape with the miniDV tapes included. And we also offer the Online HD for 60?/minute final product with two days for titling and finishing. If you want more we can Color grade for film out with 120?/hour (plus the fee of the Colorist) and then we print it in 5212 kodak for 190? (including stock and processing) per minute. Regards,

Yes, after trying to make both 16mm and DVX better on a 35mm print, I concluded to that result. Remember that is stated on the original post that this is a subjective scoring on a normal theatre (the ones that are in a Village multiplex) with 1:1400 or about 7 stops contrast and 700 lines projected resolution for a 1:1,85 (as again its being described on a previous post in same thread). Thomas he has a point, please find in previous post the link to EBU and will get a lot of answers to the subject of TV out in 720p or 1080i As for the ?same film processed in 2K are looking like video? is a good description of what am trying to say by differentiate the 2K scanned with the 2K Telecine scanners and the log processing and the linear processing. Our work has a lot of traps that someone can easily fall and the differences between formats are so close that figuring what is what is getting more and more difficult. Regards,

The classical debate celluloid vs. digital? What are better Vinyl disks or CDs? Of coarse Vinyl disks but CDs ARE selling every ware, NO vinyl disks any more, producers (Industry) decided that is GOOD enough. A revolution started you (Max, Richard etc) guys didn?t understand it. Cinematography is changed as of today, Apple put Color ?ex Final Touch? that am using for the last two years and I have successfully film print with our Lasergraphics film printer, films that went to Cannes, films that are telling stories and people are buying tickets to see them. So wake up in two to three years the Cinematography will not be like it was for the last 50 years. If you noticed the Mr. Jan signature says ?producer? is the person that hires DoPs to do a movie, so if this guys found that the medium is OK then the film is dead, D.E.A.D., Dead, finished, finito ? Do you remember where is stored your old SLR photo camera in the basement? In the warehouse where? Ohh you have it in your desk, but that centerfold that you sold yesterday to the agency it?s been shot with your DSLR? WAKE UP Instead of 250K dollars now are needed just 40K to do a proper DI system and instead of 400K to buy cameras and 200K to spend on film now just 20K to 40K are needed this IS revolution for Greeks, Italians, Dutch etc? I don?t care if it?s not for Americans? So am preparing my DI/Film transfer house to be a RED (and other digital cameras) friendly place with lots of Terabytes available, capitalizing my know how that I gained the last three years after 14 features delivered in celluloid. And that until DCI became a standard every ware and force me to throw the film printer into the sea? Thanks god that they are DoPs like David that have their eyes, ears and mind wide open for the thinks that coming. Regards, and long live the Cinematography (not film) After all we are in a Cinematography forum not a Film lover?s forum? :unsure:

I want to add something As Bruce is suggesting the detail is better to set OFF. In my tests I have noticed the edge problem when this is on. But the problem is that the image looks a bit defocus when it?s off. Have in mind that detail has nothing to do with the optical part of the chain, its something that is added after the CCD it?s a processing that the DSP is doing before recording to tape. So my suggestion is to have it off and add sharpening in post. I have found that by doing that at the last step before film printing is the best way to do it. Especially if you have upres the footage to 2K with FCP Studio?s new app ?Color? (formerly Final Touch). Bruce you are very lucky you can have Color (Final Touch) in your next upgrade so everything with curves is their? I just have to send you the CFX files? Regards,

The link to the AC mag. For the compere of DVX100 with 16mm http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm When judging what am writing please read cerfully. 35mm DI 4K scan to 2K process = 10.000 35mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 9.750 RGB cameras = 9.300 ? 9.600 Varicam 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 9.100 F900R 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.900 35mm DI 2K Telecine scan to 2K process = 8.600 Varicam tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.500 F900R tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 7.800 35mm old analogue way = 7.600 16mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 5.250 16mm DI Telecine HD to HD process = 4.500 DV from DVX100 to 35mm = 2.700 16mm old analogue way to 35mm blow-up = 2.500 Digital beta to 35mm blow-up = 1.000 As is very easy to understand that the 16mm was ?The film was processed at Moving Images, coordinated by Domenic Rom, and transferred on a Spirit by Milan Boncich at Tape House Digital Film as 2K DPX data files. No grain management was done at time of capture.? This is putting 16mm to the fifth row equals 5.250 which is very different from 2.700 that DVX is. Moreover for 16mm the three to four generations that needed in order to do release prints in 35mm without having the ability to manipulate film with digital processing (just chemistry) this is making the final product inferior of a fully digital processed DVX footage. That?s why the ANALOGUE processed 16mm to 35mm blow up is inferior in my listing. Why the Varicam is better from Cinealta is just the extra latitude and the tonal reproduction that matters not the resolution since as I state previously in the regular theatre it?s not visible due to the bottleneck of the projection system as Mr. jan von krogh is mentioning in his post, sad, but a reality. Someone can say that there are cinemas that are very well tuned and can show 1200 lines, but this is the 5% ? I don?t know if its existing any in Greece? For areas in the world that they can?t afford to pay a ?Hollywood style? budget this is NOT considered as an argument. It?s understood that the winner for me, of the new digital 4K cameras will be the one that has better latitude better color reproduction and as for resolution for me is just the size of the imager 24/18 mm 2K is winning over a 24/13 mm 4K because of the anamorphic advantage. This is not static argument, am expecting to see first before I buy. As for the broadcast 720p or 1080i argument read my EBU articles Regards,

No it was to early the ?soul kicking? or in Greekenglish ?I psihi sto stoma? was our first film transfer two years ago? There are some shoots that the highlights clipping this were due to the lack of knowledge by that time? But the film went to Cannes and was identified at the Variety Magazine. This way of working is just being discovered the last four months and am amazed of the results even Dimitris Katsaitis the DoP of ?soul kicking? is amazed? am just going to finish a demo print to be able to demonstrate it Regards,

First of all thanks Karl for asking Dominic to assist me. Sam I?m trying to reach the limits of 2383 and then, if I reach them, I will try the 2393 which I all ready know that it will work. But have in mind that it?s not the result that matters only, is also the knowledge that am trying to get out of all that. I understand your point the answer is following. Dominic thanks for your assistance I understood everything very well. It?s obvious that I?m already using this new knowledge on things that am printing already. Our company Motion FX is a rental house for Digital Cinematography (a Varicam system) and a DI lab for 2K/HD work. We using RSR Cinespace for color management, Final Touch 2K and a lasergraphics printer, we outsource the scanning in Hungary to a Northlight scanner. We outsource the film process to the Kodak Cinelab?s Greece. One of our works went last year to Cannes in the ?semain de la Critique? the feature was the ?Soul Kicking? of Yiannis Ikonomidis. The whole problem started after CRT printing to negatives, developing and printing positives of 8 features successfully (with the same lab) the last 24 months with everything very well, blacks, whites etc. Until the 9th feature which suddenly the Kodak Cinelabs Greece prints a positive (zero copy as a confidence test for the DoP) for the first act and the image was having milky blacks? No contrast, very bad? Immediately everyone blame the DI process? and forced DoP to give me a direct order to add contrast from the printer software. I was against all this and I didn?t want to do it, I was telling them that something went wrong in the lab but they didn?t listen and I been forced to do it. Because we didn?t have the time to reprint (with the added contrast) the first act of the film due to a deadline for the Thessalonica International Film Festival we left it as is end we continued to print (CRT printing with Lasergraphics Producer) the rest of the acts 2,3,4,5. The DoP changed the Lab and went to another Lab (that didn?t follow the Imagecare practice) in order to do the Zero copy. So he reprints the first act from the ?bad? negative and WOW the image was stunning!!! He calls me in my mobile while he was in the projection room? But on a different Lab? As you can understand all the other acts were awful, crushed blacks and crushed whites? Something happened that day in the Kodak Lab that didn?t happen again from that day. I have developed and print 5 more features with no problem at all at the Kodak Lab without doing anything different from our side. Of coarse Kodak never accepted responsibility and I been left with a client feeling vary bad knowing that all this wasn?t our fault. And he knows that Kodak ruing his work? So the least that I can do is to check what happen that day. During my quest I realize that the tolerances for the positive prints are tremendous they reaching the 0.30 D (therefore almost 9% of the total latitude of 3,5D for 2383) error before an alarm ring. Even though for negatives is as low as 0.02 D (1,3% of the 1,55 D for the 5201). So for Kodak being at the ? 0.23D that day in density at the control strips was OK? The acceptable tolerances are an issue that someone has to address someday, because in the digital era we are measuring everything and we pushing everything to the limits so tolerances like that are unacceptable, while all the rest (DI houses, Post production houses etc.) we trying to minimize them? even eliminate them. Regards, PS. Just for the history we actually film print a LAD to the 5201 and then we skip frames unexposed so the printer lights are set to that LAD which is almost identical with the brunette lady LAD. So there is no problem to adjust the printer lights? and measure the black at the skipped frames area.

Yes Karl you are right the language burier can make thinks difficult. Your guess was right the trick is to overexpose the internegative by 2 stops equivalent of 8 printer lights (push the highlights area higher in the exposure curve) in order when you printing the positive to under exposure by 8 printer lights in order to have denser blacks. This is a common trick that printing houses do, that I wasn?t aware of by that time? Now I know and I understand that camera negative doesn?t allow this only internegative film because of the extended latitude. But in general, the numbers for the above question is been posted. And don?t forget that the question/experiment didn?t involve ANY exposure at all. I?m asking to actually cut a piece of unexposed film (in the dark room), develop it and then print it (normally no change in the printer lights) and measure the visual density of the black in positive. That?s all so NO CRT, NO EXPOSURE a simple experiment in order to be able to judge the numbers that am getting here. Even thought what generated the question was all about exposure and latitude... Thanks for your time. Regards,

I totally agree with David. The period that we live is a turning point to the cinematography and thinks will happen as David is describing. It?s nice to see history and see who it fits to now days?

This was the system http://www.urbanfox.tv/articles/editing/e13mobileediting.htm

Jim?s attitude it?s a sing of health on his collision course with a fanatic community like the cinematographers one, am not talking for the forum, its more generic the problem and it doesn?t apply to everyone but to a small minority that has lost through the years the true meaning of making Cinema. I hope that no 9/11 will happen nor Bush will decide to invite Iran while we waiting NAB to happen. I can feel his anxiety, I was in his position few years ago while I was waiting to introduce something quite radical as his camera back at IBC 2001, the first (together with directors friend) system for direct to disk recording and edit while you ware on set for production use and unfortunately two days before the two planes hit the twins towers? in my case this was a disaster? ?Director?s friend? also? With this Idea, editing while shooting, I was having the same fight with editors, engineers and even directors? It was like I was trying to preach a new religion I was feeling like a preacher!!! Today all that is a common practice ? And masterpieces like Russian Arc were made possible. My personal opinion is that all this argue is meaningless since digital is the physical evolution to that industry and the one that hasn?t has open mind he will loose his job because for producers its just the storytelling what maters. And Jim is not like a small company in Greece or in Germany that tries to conquer the world with few hundred thousands dollars. Jim is in the Fortune 500 so this is a personal Vendeda (Fight) for him and by looking of how professional Oakley is handling their clients like US army I can say that very few thinks can stop Red to evolve. So Jim don?t stop try your best and at the end you will win because everyone that has a bad word for digital cinema has the most advanced DSLR in his bag to make his living and not the old film SLR? But look to other sensors like Foveon and try to make an optical shatter and an optical viewfinder. I have play a little bit with a Foveon kit from Alternative Vision and this lack of need to deBayer is awesome? Best regards from Greece, P.S. I will probably be a client of yours for my rental/DI business quite soon?

Karl thanks for your effort to assist me. We are simple try to squeze to maximum the tools we have... Please read the post from start and you will realize that am not developing films and am not expose any the question is very simple you can try it in your labs and tell me your findings. We use Cinespace for viewing that has a correction to the latitude issue but in general you are right. Find their web site read about them a bit its very interesting. You can keep my follow up as its being concluded together with Kodak R&D in France. My problem was that when we print to Camera negative we can?t push the neg by two stops while we expose it in a film printer in order to get richer blacks in positive. I realize that this is a trick that?s can be done only with inter negative because it can reach higher densities. Happy Easter to you also

The answer to the original question is: 3.25 to 3.3 visual densities If the film printing is being pushed by 2 stops the numbers should be around 3.4 ? 3.5

A good information source for Colour Checker is the following page: http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/ColorChecker.htm Check out also the software it?s very useful if you own a gretagmacbeth eye one pro spectrophotometer. It?s interesting to take a look also to: http://www.imatest.com/docs/tour_colorcheck.html Regards,

I have to dig to find it, but I will try in the next few days. It was back in 2001 to 2002 a big technical article with 35mm camera 16mm and DVX100 when it was just introduced. But is so hard to cut the BIG words and answer to my question? Has anyone, just one, used Varicam in the workflow described below? "To shoot with Varicam (at least how we setting the Camera) you have to use your light meter as if it was positive film (in negative it would be better to overexpose 1 stop but HD is positive so it?s vice versa) tungsten or daylight (the settings that we load are pre-balanced) with EI 640 (-3db, MG0,35, DL500%), keep iris under 4 to 2.8, no white balance only black balance and look the monitor just to frame and check focus. Light as it was a film camera with over 10 stops of latitude (YES Varicam has over 10 stops of latitude!) and never light using the monitor. Better to use your eyes (HD monitors doesn?t have the latitude is like video assist in film cameras). Use lenses as it was 16mm and that?s all the rest is on the DI suite. You can sleep confident that everything is OK. Do the editing in your favourite Avid. Export an OMF from the timeline and bring it along with the original tapes to us. In the DI suite we are rebatching the whole material from original tapes in uncompressed 10bit native resolution 1280x720. We reconstruct the whole timeline in FCP and then we sending it to Final Touch 2K. We working in a Log 10 bit colour space by loading a special cineon reverse Telecine curve in CFX room of FT. We colour grade as a 2K film DI with Cinespace and our custom LUTs. And the trick is from that point on. We render using RGB colourspace instead of YUV at 32bit per colour in the same time that we up-resing the images to 2K. This technique is forcing the FT to resample everything in 32bit per colour at that point the image gets tremendous tonal clarity and compressing the noise. Is like, we using during recoding to tape a pre-emphasis and during rendering a de-emphasis like Dolby is doing in audio for years. At the final stage during film printing we add sharpening because during shooting the detail was off." Regards,

35mm DI 4K scan to 2K process = 10.000 35mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 9.750 RGB cameras = 9.300 ? 9.600 Varicam 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 9.100 F900R 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.900 35mm DI 2K Telecine scan to 2K process = 8.600 Varicam tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.500 F900R tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 7.800 35mm old analogue way = 7.600 16mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 5.250 16mm DI Telecine HD to HD process = 4.500 DV from DVX100 to 35mm = 2.700 16mm old analogue way to 35mm blow-up = 2.500 Digital beta to 35mm blow-up = 1.000 Ok the 8 bit tape is below the 35mm Telecine scan 2K DI and this is for DVCPROHD but if you noticed am referring to TELECINE SCAN meaning 8 frames per sec scanning with no over sampling like a Northlight scanner do. Above is uncompressed 10bit full resolution on set capture which is much better than tape. When I referring to the old analogue way I don?t try to downplay it but everyone knows that the generation?s losses of that workflow in addition to the lack of artistic capabilities of the old methods in contrast to a DI process can make a result inferior to film that was DI properly. Also in the equation is added the argument that DI process always deliver better handling of the Colour Grading than just chemistry does (printer lights etc.). The score is from subjective viewing and it includes the DI advantages so its not only numbers. Finally is understood that since HD Cinema cameras are shooting natively to 1:1,85 all the test are with this type of film (3perf 1:1,85) NOT anamorphic because then everything goes better for Film. But the question remains answered: Has anyone, just one, used Varicam in the workflow described above? Because your experience is probably based in bad examples also we have to understand that HD material is delicate and it has to be handled with great care as is happening for decades with Film. Regards, As for 16mm compared to DV you can read American cinematographer article something like five years ago that concludes to that result. And someone 100 years ago when he was asked to leave horse towed carriage and ride an automobile he was refused so what? Regards,

I feel that I have to add some more info. It?s not that am biased to Varicam but I think that very few DoP in that forum worked with Varicam properly (after all we are in the Varicam sub forum). Probably because of a misunderstanding or a lack of documentation from the side of Panasonic or a misleading info from various sources. According to our tests if I would put a score to every format in the base of how it looks in a 35mm projection it would be: 35mm DI 4K scan to 2K process = 10.000 35mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 9.750 RGB cameras = 9.300 ? 9.600 Varicam 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 9.100 F900R 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.900 35mm DI 2K Telecine scan to 2K process = 8.600 Varicam tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.500 F900R tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 7.800 35mm old analogue way = 7.600 16mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 5.250 16mm DI Telecine HD to HD process = 4.500 DV from DVX100 to 35mm = 2.700 16mm old analogue way to 35mm blow-up = 2.500 Digital beta to 35mm blow-up = 1.000 This is our assessment in formats If we add the cost to benefit graph only Varicam is the winner. An observer can see that is so small the difference in the top between them that is within marginal error. The 8 bit issue we will discuss it later. We are based in Greece a country with 10 mil people. A Greek block buster is selling no more than 1.2 million tickets and this is happening once every few years. The absolute record is with Titanic 1.8 million. The typical ticket count is between 10.000 to 300.000 tickets the profit to the producer is about 2.7$ per ticket. So the A class movies having a budget of 300k to 800k (the top is very risky) and the B class 50k to 250k. There are productions that have over a million budgets but they are counted in one hand in the history of Greek cinematography. In this type of market is living the 2/3 of the world cinematographers. When you are discussing in a global medium like internet thinks like that, imagine what a Romanian can do or a Nigerian or a Vietnamese or a Dutch or even a Greek. It?s not USA or English talking regions the whole world. There are people that they shot just two takes its scene to make it in 35mm because they try to do ?FILM? with 50K budget for film costs (including rentals)? So the evolution of the digital cinematography will help this entire people to express themselves in a much better way and it?s our duty (engineers) to assist them in order to leverage the quality of their storytelling by teaching them how to maximize performance of tools like Varicam. To shoot with Varicam (at least how we setting the Camera) you have to use your light meter as if it was positive film (in negative it would be better to overexpose 1 stop but HD is positive so it?s vice versa) tungsten or daylight (the settings that we load are pre-balanced) with EI 640 (-3db, MG0,35, DL500%), keep iris under 4 to 2.8, no white balance only black balance and look the monitor just to frame and check focus. Light as it was a film camera with over 10 stops of latitude (YES Varicam has over 10 stops of latitude!) and never light using the monitor. Better to use your eyes (HD monitors doesn?t have the latitude is like video assist in film cameras). Use lenses as it was 16mm and that?s all the rest is on the DI suite. You can sleep confident that everything is OK. Do the editing in your favourite Avid. Export an OMF from the timeline and bring it along with the original tapes to us. In the DI suite we are rebatching the whole material from original tapes in uncompressed 10bit native resolution 1280x720. We reconstruct the whole timeline in FCP and then we sending it to Final Touch 2K. We working in a Log 10 bit colour space by loading a special cineon reverse Telecine curve in CFX room of FT. We colour grade as a 2K film DI with Cinespace and our custom LUTs. And the trick is from that point on. We render using RGB colourspace instead of YUV at 32bit per colour in the same time that we up-resing the images to 2K. This technique is forcing the FT to resample everything in 32bit per colour. At that point the image gets tremendous tonal clarity and compressing the noise. Is like, we using during recoding to tape a pre-emphasis and during rendering a de-emphasis like Dolby is doing in audio for years. At the final stage during film printing we add sharpening because during shooting the detail was off. If you record uncompressed 10bit from shooting then the results are far better. I think that there are very few of you guys that have worked like that in your HD projects and this is the basis of all your problems with HD for cinema shooting. Waiting for comments. Regards,

David additionally I agree that over sampling is for the best, but where and when it?s needed, not everywhere without discrimination. Because it?s a waste of resources and some times producers want to put more money and resources for costumes for instance or for better set even for better VFX not to a wasted 4K processing just for the eyes of the Hard disks that this footage will lay in until its being erased for the next project? Everything has to have a justification, and I sympathise you for what has happened in the past to you but this is not the best case in order to justify the 4K everywhere argument. We have to give storytelling a chance and not waste money for big, big and bigger without a meaning. I don?t have anything personal with you David in contrast I read a lot of your writings carefully and I admire your work but this is my professional opinion. Regards,

I think I have to clarify few thinks? Phil Gerke sorry instead to press the quote button I press the reply? David, as my signature states, above all, I?m an electronic engineer with more than 20 years of R&D in my back, in which the last 7 is in the AV industry (TV & Film) so my engineering background doesn?t allow me to talk without measurements and numbers. The art of Cinema wouldn?t be here if the art of Engineering wouldn?t allow it in the first place many years ago. So Cinema is evolving along with engineering through the years (first B&W then voice then color etc.) and since engineering is coming first, numbers are always relevant. BUT the art of MAKING CINEMA is a different think and I agree with you. The storytelling has nothing to do with engineering numbers (except financial numbers that they always apply?!!). We have to try for the better and bigger every time so I agree that we have to peruse the 4K acquisition and projection (and even 3D). I?m waiting to order my RED think also ? So when it comes to ?How we gone light that scene? I?m backing of and see the art happening in front of my eyes and let the Maestro (DoP) to do his magic*. But when we engineers trying to make thinks bigger and better subjective evaluation is NOT efficient. There are thinks that we have to measure for instance thinks that physics are the limiting factor. Like projection systems and particularly projection lens systems. Did you know that on my test print with the resolution chart the limiting factor was the projection system and not the generations? I see my negative with microscope and I was having 1700 lines visible and in my positive 1600 lines!!! And in the projection 700**! So NO, the film process isn?t the problem? So let us now discuss something more critical. The aperture of the 35mm is one very small slot that tremendous light flux has to pass with uniformity to be able to project 80m away in a 400 square meters screen that has to have at least 2000:1 contrast to be adequate for a theatrical viewing. The projection lens system has a big problem to solve. It?s a give and take game. The more light power the less MTF aka less resolution, that?s why when you see a screening in the lab which is always in a lot smaller screen than your nearest multiplex everything is more detailed. In the real theatre where our clients (audience) are seeing our works of art there are some considerable obstacles that doesn?t allow as to see more resolution and that?s old projection machines, projection lens not replaced every six months (the lenses are burned out from the light flux) bad focus etc. So is easily understood as much resolution as we pump the projectors would not be able to project it except if a major lens technology come out and solve the problem. Until then a 65mm projector will have a much better resolution for our eyes to see. And we are coming back where we started: ?So in my point of view thinks like ?latitude?, ?tonal reproduction?, ?35mm Bokeh? and others (even a good scenario or an outstanding photography) are more important in audiovisual masterpieces than resolution.? And to that I think we all agree. Since the current state of the art is reaching the 700 lines that a normal projector can show. In my facility in the same machines I have done 2K DI with 35mm film as well as Varicam transfers. I can easily say that the difference is only subjective when we comparing similar thinks 1,85:1 HD with 1,85:1 3 perf 35mm film similar light conditions and subject (except of the bokeh). But remember to do that you have to handle Varicam in the correct way. ?? in order to correctly expose with Varicam you NEED a grey card and a SPECIAL exposure chart from Panasonic. And, when you colour grading you need to apply a special cineon curve (again sourced from Panasonic) in order to do on the fly the reverse Telecine transform in the LOG colour space (YES Varicam records images in a LOG way).? As I wrote in another post These are my two cents? Regards, * In a very good cinematic HD package I don?t think that DIT has a place in the set just a lightmeter and light as if you have a positive stock in the camera not a negative ?that?s my opinion ** Anomorhic projection has more detail because is a bigger aperture than 1,85:1 so instead of 24mm x 13mm you have 24mm x 18mm gate = more light better MTF.

I don?t want to be rude but why everyone is so stack with resolution? Yesterday, today, and tomorrow (at least for the next couple of years) we will not be able to see in a theatre near us (meaning around the world not USA only) anything better than a normal 35mm projection. Has anyone of you done a simple test. Take a resolution file like this http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/respat/respat.ps import it to Photoshop scale it to 4K and print it to your favorite lab for several feet?s as a repeat frame, make a positive print and project it to your favorite theatre. You will be amazed by the result, you will see about 700 to 800 lines!!! I know many filmmakers that shot with 1080 24p and at the final stage blurring the image? like Benini in Pinokio! So in my point of view thinks like ?latitude?, ?tonal reproduction?, ?35mm Bokeh? and others (even a good scenario or an outstanding photography) are more important in audiovisual masterpieces than resolution. And since we are in a Varicam Sub forum, it?s my opinion that is much more productive to focus on how we can maximize the performance of our tools than losing our track to technicalities like resolution, since Varicam has the latitude and the resolution (see above argument) to cover a theatrical release in my opinion. And as for the subject mater (and since all that discussion is looking more television than cinema to me) the European Broadcasting Union ?EBU? has created a earthquake two years ago when a technical committee of numerous broadcast engineers of around Europe concluded that the HDTV preferable format for EBU will be the 720 50p and not the Sony proposed 1080 50i because of the better visual experience that offers? Regards, PS. For the records, EBU is at www.ebu.ch http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_text_r1..._tcm6-16462.pdf

Hello to all forum members I have been tracking your discussions the last months about various HD cameras. Being the only owner of a Varicam in Greece I didn?t have a chance to take info from local Panasonic in order to operate correctly the camera. We at Motion FX have a Lesergraphics Film printer and a Final Touch system for color grading and we using RSP Cinespace for colour management. All our films are being developed by Kodak Cinelab?s Greece. My background is Electronic engineering. I?ve done a research around my Varicam (note that it?s an F model not an H) and I found few thinks. First, the camera has a latitude of 10,5 stops and this is measured by www.imatest.com software with the Denis Picta latitude step chart. The highest white for Varicam is 850 Cineon code value equivalent to a 1,52 density on a camera negative, very close to the D-MAX value of 1,59. Also I can reproduce an adobe colourspace with my Varicam which is wider than Sony?s sRGB, again tested with imatest and Macbeth Chart on a reference 3200K/5600K light (measured with X-rite eye-one pro spectrophotometer along with www.babelcolor.com software). Second, in order to correctly expose with Varicam you NEED a grey card and a SPECIAL exposure chart from Panasonic. Third, when you colour grading you need to apply a special cineon curve (again sourced from Panasonic) in order to do on the fly the reverse Telecine transform in the LOG colour space (YES Varicam records images in a LOG way). If all the above it?s being done then the result is stunning. All this ARE NOT DESCRIBED IN THE GOODMAN?S VARICAM GUIDE!!! When we did all this it was like we shoot features with another camera. I can compare only with RGB cameras and above not with F900R since it doesn?t render colour the same way as Varicam filmrec mode did. And resulotion is not the issue. Resolution alone doesn?t make stunning images on the other hand colour rendition does. It would be nice if I add a PRO 35 converter since the only think I miss is the 35mm bokeh (or quality of blur). I will prepare a post on how Varicam should be handled since the machine its being designed to write images as it was negative on tape. Regards to everyone Lakis@motionfx.gr

Hello If the 3.22 is producing less than 1/1000 then it?s not correct according to the film projection standards. But 3.22 how is it translated in contrast 1/900, 1/800? Or less? Thanks in advance John. PS. Rising Sun Research found that from a database of profiled positives from Kodak (films samples that are coming from around the world) the average Visual black density for the 2383 is between 3,5- 4.0.

Dear Mr. Pytlak I read another post and I realised your medical situation and I have been shocked. Am sympathizing you and my honest wishes to overcome that evil. Just be strong and see the example of cyclist Armstrong and what he has achieved. Now to the subject of this post ?Step 1. We take a negative stock Kodak 5201 50D Vision 2 and in total darkness we cut a piece of few feet?s. Without any exposure we send it to a lab? so there is no CRT printing involved so NO flare issues in my test ? My questions are still UNANSWERED: ?More over a pre exposed 2383 Kodak test strip has a black visual density of 3.64 in that particular Lab and our negative print gives when printed in a positive 2383 gives 3.22.? There is a clear difference of a 0.42 Visual density. So what we have to do to reach the 3.64 visual densities in normal LAD conditions? And what are the expected densities of the above example (original post)? Is their any spec sheet that states the tolerances of the expected densities in order to evaluate the quality of printing of a Lab? So please someone from Kodak give an answer to the above questions or explain me why I can?t have an answer. Thanks in advance