Tenolian Bell

Film is also improving. Kodak continues to improve the sensitivity, dynamic range, and color reproduction of film. The benefit of this system is that most of the technology is in the film itself. Modern 35mm film can run in a 40 year old camera. Film is not really 4K. Film is not digital. Film is not limited to a set number of pixels. The decision of considering film resolution at 4K came as much from the practicality of what current electronic technology can scan, store, and project from a 35mm negative. Under the proper circumstances 35mm can be scanned far beyond 4K. I think the work of Robert Rodriguez is probably judged more on a generational basis. Those born before 1985 tend to not think it all that great.

This is a somewhat distorted understanding of the process. Its true you loose information as copies are made. The advantage of 35mm film starts with so much information that it still looks good after going through so many copies. Its not as though you loose all of the qualities of 35mm by the time light hits the screen. Their isn't necessarily anything horrible about film or digital. Their are advantages and disadvantages to each. So far digital has only strived to do what film already does, and hasn't proven to have enough advantages that warrants the replacement of film.

I think its likely the cheaper Scarlet. They did promise a 4K monitor a while ago that so far hasn't seen the light of day.

I tried to tell a good story to get things back on track. We can't seem to stay focused on a discussion about photographing naked women :)

Yes I do. A couple of years ago I was in Los Angeles, a friend of mine offered me to finish a film he was shooting because he was moving on to another film. He explained the film was soft core porn. I told him I'd never done anything like that before. He said its fine they want it to look like a high key movie. I got hired on. I looked at the footage they'd already shot. It was primarily high key glamour shots of naked girls. I never read the script. But their didn't seem to be much point any way. The scenes we shot were of girls having empty banter while nude or changing clothes. I learned the girls in these movies are the ones you see in Maxim Magazine or in Playboy. They don't mind showing T n' A. But they came to LA to be legitimate actresses. They don't want to do porn, but they cannot get much mainstream work, soft core pays the bills without making them hardcore porn stars. One day we are outside in a neighborhood in Calabasis. I'm with the grips setting up a 6x6 silk to soften the harsh California sun and a 6x6 reflector board as fill. The actress in the scene is standing stark naked on the street as I tweek her lighting. I'm thinking to myself maybe things are different in California, but normally its illegal to stand naked on the public street. I'm pretty uncomfortable. I'm not used lighting to naked women, add to it we are out on the street and she is the only naked person. She has to walk into this shot. Trying to ignore her artificially enhanced breasts, I'm explaining to her where her mark is and where her lighting is perfect. While I'm talking to her. I begin to see tears come down her face. She tries to control it but she suddenly begins to cry. This adds enormously to the uncomfortableness of the moment. I suppose I don't have much of a feminine nurturing instinct. I stand there unsure of what to do. What do I say? How do I comfort a naked crying woman? Thankfully hair and make up see what's going on. They come over and grab her taking her to the side. They pull out a towel and cover her. I'm wondering why wasn't she covered before. The director comes over asking what is going on. He gets upset and begins to curse because the shot is ready to go and she is holding us up. I find out later that at that moment I was talking to her she realized this is not why she came to LA. She came to LA to be an actress not to be standing out on the street naked. It was quite an eye opening experience for me. Oh also we were shooting with two Panasonic Varicams, Canon zoom lens.

Along with the fact that their is no successful industrialized nation that functions on the principles of Christian conservatism. Are their any successful industrialized nations that function on the principles of democratic socialism?

The universe does not work by magic. Everything is built on a system. Its fine to say God built the system but its all a system none the less. Science constantly strives to prove and disprove theories using empirical evidence based on repeatable tests. Science only strives to understand how things work. The theory that the world was flat was not based on science. Its was just as much religion and belief with no empirical evidence. The only way to gain empirical evidence is to sail out to the edge and see for yourself.

A friend of mine who works at SAG offices. She told me that only about 30% of SAG members make any income from acting. Only around 18% of SAG members make $200,000 or more. The top actors who make millions are less than 5%. With around 70% of SAG members making little to no income from acting. You see this is all an argument and benefit for an extremely small group of people. While it risks the livelihoods of a much larger group.

Theirs nothing wrong with excitement in of itself. But the excitement stems more from the fact that its new. Rather than rationally looking at the reality of the new cameras usefulness or how it actually improves on what is already available in real world production.

Thus far AF has not worked in narrative cinema the same way it works in still photography. In narrative cinema focus is used as a subjective story element. This can only be done most effectively by a human being who understands what needs to be in focus and why. An AF system (at least at this point) cannot understand these thematic choices.

This issue will become even more crucial as sensor size and file size increase. A low resolution digital viewfinder makes it more challenging to find critical focus.

With the Mac Pro you can either get four core 2.8Ghz, or eight core 2.8Ghz - 3.2Ghz. The problem with this is that most programs are not designed to evenly take advantage of that many cores at one time. At its heaviest load FCP will only use 2 cores at any one time. The other 2 or 6 will sit idle doing nothing. Two 2.8Ghz cores are slower than the two 3.06Ghz used in the iMac. To buy the eight core 3Ghz costs an extra $800. Unless you are really using programs that will take advantage of all eight cores, its just a waste. Food for thought. :)

I agree over sampling is always a better place to come from. But like everything Red has to make some compromises. Starting with less information in the first place allows a technology to make less compromise and to some degree nullify the advantage in increased information. Spec sheets are one thing, seeing a test is what tells the true tale.

Outside of age, GM and Ford have little in common with Arriflex. The US automakers failed to correctly forsesee the changes in the market and demand for the types of vehicles they wanted to sell. They refused to change and innovate for what the market wanted. With the Arricam, Arri 435, Arri 235, Arri 416. Arriflex has always continued to innovate and improve its cameras meeting market needs and demands. The professional cinema market is not necessarily demanding digital cinema cameras. Digital cinema manufacturers are attempting to convince the professional cinema market to adopt their products. We have been socialized to think that simply because something is new it is always better. For FF35 to find a place it needs to be proven that it provides better, cheaper, and easier solution for modern film production.

It sounds as though you want to do this within a budget. With the iMac you get a beautiful 24" 1920x1080 monitor, dual 3.06Ghz processors, 518MB graphics card, 4GB of RAM, and 1TB of storage. You can add a second monitor. That is more than enough to meet your needs at a fraction of the cost of a Mac Pro. The main advantages of the Mac Pro is the ability to upgrade RAM, but are you really trying to spend over $1,500 in RAM. You have open expansion slots for Blackmagic or AJA Kona cards. You only need those if you plan to use tape decks or other high end video equipment.

A Mac Pro is total over kill. You could use the 24" iMac with 3.06Ghz processor, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS graphics card, 4GB of RAM. If you use external storage get a 7200 RPM hard drive.

Red will not necessarily perform better than a 3 CCD uncompressed 1080 camera that has more megapixels and a higher analog to digital bit rate. Has anyone done a full out MTF test to see how they all perform. Slapping the name Red on common S4 is simply a marketing tactic. People are easily susceptible to marketing.

Yes this happens with specialized and rarely used cine lens. It can be prohibitively expensive to ground new glass for a lens that will not be widely manufactured and rarely used. It can be easier and cheaper to rehouse still lens.

Its not really my intention to have a cinema vs still lens debate. Yes Leica, Canon, and Nikon make some great glass. Yes they can be used to shoot motion photography. My over all point is that cinema and still lens serve two different purposes. Still lens are not designed and optimized for motion photography. As well as cinema lens are not designed and optimized for stills. They are intended for different purposes and their is nothing wrong with that. Breathing is eliminated through the grouping of lens elements inside the casing. Still lens are generally not designed to eliminate this because they are made to take one picture. So it doesn't matter that they breath. Yes this can be done with parascopic lens systems for shooting macro in cinema. Such as the Frazier lens system.

This type of statement makes you sound young, because honestly this is an old argument. When the Sony F900 first came out nearly 10 years ago. Those who were extremely exited about it proclaimed film dead. They accused anyone who did not believe the F900 was going to replace film of being dinosaurs who lived in the past. As it has turned out the F900 did not replace film. Lens manufacturers are going to place their research and development into the lens format that will receive the most use. In cinema the lens format that is most used now and the foreseeable future is S35mm. Because lens manufacturers are in competition with each other lens technology continues to improve. The best of the current 35mm lens are the best of what technology is able to provide. Cinema does not use rehoused 35mm SLR lens because they don't perform the same task and are not designed for motion cinema needs. In cinema we are shooting with lens that can stop down to T1.3 focus down to 8 inches with no focus breathing, no vignetting, and no color fringing. Virtually no commonly used consumer still lens function under these tolerances. The ones that do are rare and very expensive.

He's right still lens are not designed for pulling focus. For one they do not eliminate breathing while pulling focus. The barrel of a cinema lens is made wide to provide a smooth pull. What you describe is more work than necessary when a lens has been designed to make this easier.

65mm has been around for decades. You believe Cooke is suddenly going to change course because of Red? Still glass isn't made for motion photography. Cinema lens are made large for easy focus and focus breathing. They are made to match across a full line, eliminate vignetting, and strange color artifacts. Still lens don't have to deal with these issues and aren't made at the same tolerances. Before I believe this I would need to see who conducted this test and under what circumstances. Anybody can post any opinion on the internet. If still lens performed the same as cinema lens for a fraction of the cost. Why would companies and rental houses invest in cinema lens. It makes no sense.

I've raised such concerns in the past. In the excitement of big resolution number people aren't really thinking about the practical application in the current real world production environment.

Film does have dynamic range. Gray scale is the reproduction of white to black and is what defines dynamic range. What you describe is not exactly how film works. Film is not binary. The closest you can come to a on/off system for film is at the molecular level. Light photons are absorbed by silver halide crystals. The photon interacts with an electron and forms a photoelectron. The photoelectron becomes captured in the crystal latticework of the silver halide and interacts with a silver ion to form an atom. A cluster of atoms form in the halide crystal which makes up the latent image that is properly exposed and ready for development. Groups of millions of halide crystals form sections of the film and subsequently the larger image. A halide crystal needs at least four or more photoelectrons to form a latent image. Kodak has developed a doping technique that allows a crystal that has partial exposure to be fully exposed by filling in the missing photoelectrons. This extends films sensitivity, which allows the use of smaller crystals, which improves the sharpness. The only place in this process that is absolute or not, is the formation of atoms from photons. Each halide crystal has a variable number of atoms. Groups of halide crystals have a variable amount of exposure. One part of the film could be over exposed, another part could be underexposed. The red color layer of the film could be over exposed while the blue layer is underexposed. Their are few absolutes in the over all exposure of a frame of film.

My guess would be this is the studio system thinking of how it will market their acquired "indie" type films. People who work outside of the studio system would not really care how the studios define indie film.