Walter Graff

Matt, a video camera does not react like film. That is one of the reasons why it is a fallacy to use the term exposure index with video let alone still terms such as ASA and ISO. The MTF of any video camera is not a perfect "S" slope nor as 'skiable' as it is with film stock. As a result depending on how much light you have you can get any number of readings for "exposure index" which will work for the stop you pick but will not correspond as you go to different ranges of exposre. And CCDs have little pieces of glass on them called micro chips. They are little magnifying glasses. They are designed to make chips more sensitive to light. Problem is they help you least when you need them most, when a lens is fully open due to low light. So while you can pick and arbitrary foot-candle setting and use a scope to see where the gamma crossover point ends up, that crossover point will not fall linearly as exposure in increased and decreased with a video camera. Hence why light meters are good for ranges but not entirely accurate over the exposure range of a video camera.

Actually I hope people do not use these "tests" as any reference. To turn two cameras on out of the box and try to make reasonable evaluations without first properly setting up both to some standard is not a way to get results that are realistic. You admit you had no time and no lights so your evaluations are so subjective as to tell you little that is valid. I have tested both cameras extensively and would say that other than subjective choices, both cameras makes a picture that can be more similar than dissimilar. Over and under exposure tests require individual tweaking of each camera on each exposure to get the most out of the camera. Your 'results' leave too many questions to be reliable. And exposure index testing requires a standerd too so while your numbers might have worked at one particular esposure they may have been different at another so should be taken with agrain of salt. I hope no one looks at these tests as anything but showing chocolate and vanilla ice cream and asking which one you like more because from an engineering perspective that is what they are.

Foil will not stop cosmic rays. They are very light helium and hydrogen nuclei for the most part that easily pass through the earth so foil isn't going to do much. Higher altitudes mean you have better chances of having one affect a CCD. The camera in the freezer trick was taught to me by one of the head engineers at one of the networks. He said he has had some success wrapping a camera then putting in in the fridge or freezer overnight. Always make sure to let it thaw for 24 hours before trying it. If it's a major problem there are engineers who specialize in repairing the problem. But then again you would have to have it diagnosed as there are different kinds of problems that everyone seems to clump under the term "dead pixel".

"I appreciate that Phil points out the drawbacks of Bayer reconstruction, because it offers an alternative view to what Red is saying." etc, etc This is not directed at anyone here, but at the entire thread and the disturbing trend I see that is like a virus invading most every web site out there, and now killing this one too. That is a trend towards technology and the false hope it brings. It's sad that people take things so personally, especially considering the camera in question doesn't even exist. Technology has gotten many of us to forget about the art of filmmaking only to concentrate on tools. Tools are great but no tool build the pyramids. No tool built the great Wall of China. And if you took AFI's 100 greatest films of all time and saw what 1100 pound steel boxes made those epics, you'd humble yourselves to realize that no tool will ever make a great movie, nor will it make you a great filmmaker. While the reality is there is no holy grail of cameras, we have so gotten into pushing matches over everything but the art of filmmaking that perhaps it is a good reflection of why filmmaking as a whole is in such a bad way right now. For the most part this is probably one of the most professional boards out there but to hear folks screaming over a $10k camera and wanting a $200k result makes me wonder where it all went wrong. actually to see pagees and pages of threads based on gossip and supposistion is disturbing. I know it has a lot to do with the new push in marketing that is convincing many that it is the tool that makes the diference. It's also the avalability of equipment that years ago was only available to proffesionals and now offers some glimmer of hope that anyone can be a filmmaker. I watched The Rolling Stones Circus tonight. An amazing marketing video made in 1968. It featured the Stones along with the likes of Lennon, Clapton, The Who and a bunch of other cream of the crop performers all at the peak of their careers in terms of creativity and what they produced. No they didn't have anything more than four and five piece drums. No keyboards connected to computers. Simple cardiod mics. Four track 1/4 inch recorders for sound. No crazy silicon based foot petals that make even a lousy guitarist sound good, nor electronic devices like pitch perfect that are used today on most every vocal on every album you hear. A device that makes everyone sound great. No this film had simply talented musicians who showed that with a six string guitar and talent, the tool wasn't what made you good at what you did, rather it was just something that helped you get there. And the funny thing was this was a film designed as a marketing tool but long before most schools even had majors for marketing, and long before the public was ignorant enough to follow whatever shampoo they were told was good, or what camera they were convinced would make them a filmmaker. As I see it today in most every artistic industry we are not forging new creative ideas, rather rehashing the past because it's safe and a sure bet. And we are turning from art to technology because somehow we really think that it's going to make a difference. Tell that to the folks who made what are still considered the greatest films of all times. Films made some fifty years ago with what we would consider bear skins and stone knives by today's technological standard. Yet we can't imitate their enduring quality even with a 12k sensor. Rather this is a world where text messaging replaced communication and people live more isolated lives due to technology. Perhaps that is why suddenly everyone wants to be a filmmaker so they can express the pent up anger that lives in them. Today I saw more people toting HD ready TV sets everywhere I went in NY than cell phones. It looked like the looting that went on in Harlem and Brooklyn after the great blackout in the 1960's in NY. All these people believed a promise made to them by an industry set on selling TV sets. And they took the bait. 99% of these people will simply hook this sets up to their regular cable and will think they have HDTV. But that is okay, it was marketing that made them spend between $1500 and $5000, not common sense. It's sad to see how the same virus has infiltrated the industry I work in. Do you really think Red is going to change anything? Of course the people who make it do. I wouldn't expect anything else. But I say let them make it first before all the theories and internet researched replies lead many down roads of ignorance and embarrassment. It's just a camera, a camera that is nothing more than block of wood and a glossy picture on a website as of now. Let's see what they offer when they do. It could be great or could be another backfiring of a product due less with the product and more in the mistakes in marketing that convinced the world that they were getting something they felt they didn't. But we can't guess until it exists. And we can talk all we want about technology and what it could mean for such a camera but why not wait till you can actually get one in your hands first. No it's not anyone fault. It's marketing. Marketing has replaced common sense. It promises dreams and creates hope that we somehow believe will make our existence okay, but as I stand back all I can ask is hope for what? Filmmaking is now some strange form of emotional therapy that somehow gives folks the false hope that someone will pay attention to them. And if they have a camera that fits some imaginary standard of professionalism, their lives will be validated.

A lot of the sports shows use hteose grids but they are not good for most other applications. Very simply you could put three ligths in three coners of the room with soft diffusion and do the trick.

I had some sort of error posting he last message. Here is what I was saying One of my favorites is John Badham's Saturday Night Fever. Not only did this movie change the way movies were made, but it is so much part of the American culture of the time. And as popular a film as it is, in reality it really was a very low budget production. The directors track is great! Mr Badham looks at many aspects of the film that many directors never discuss on such a film. One of my favorite parts. Of course as we now know the Bee Gees wrote five songs for the film. And these songs would go on to inspire a whole new form of music. Some of the single biggest selling songs of all times. They never say the film nor the script, simply wrote the tracks. Towards the end of teh film, Tony is making the trip to NY to see Stephanie. There is a music bridge when he is waiting for the subway. The director needed a song to carry Tony into NYC. He turned to the editor and said, hey we got any of those songs left by that band the Bee Gees? The editor said yea there is one. He said throw it in here cause we have nothing else for this spot and we need something. It was a little known song called "How deep is your Love", a song that would become one of the most popular songs of all time. And of course Badham discusses being fired after making the film once the execs watched it

One of my favorites is John Badham's Saturday Night Fever. Not only did this movie change the way movies were made, but it is so much part of the American culture of the time. And as popular a film as it is, in reality it really was a very low budget production.

It sounds to me like a good entry level set-up.

Both the ignitor and lamp are factors in how well or how fast a fixture restrikes.

I think everyone has something great to offer but most of what everyone has costs to much. I always look for value in what I own. For instance, I have Altman pro1000 watt fresnels rather than Arri (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=196647&is=REG&addedTroughType=search). They are identical in design but less in cost. I do own redheads and Arri open face 1ks and both are exceptional. I also own some source 4s and Jokers, plus a bunch of other crap I never use. I am not a fan of fluorescents for the most part. Like I said for me it's about versatility. No one fixture does it all, and frankly I wouldn't want it that way.

I don't think you are wrong so please don't think I am questioning your validity for "true HD". What I do see too often is folks using numbers as rulers. Reality is HD is a physiological illusion more than reality. If I placed a 46 inch HD set 10 feet from you playing HD material and a 32 inch SD set playing the same material in SD you could not tell the difference. That is because the eye has a physical limitation as to how well it can see (also the reason HD was invented in the 80's). At the same time I could show you three different types of HD cameras on a monitor some 960 and some 1440 and you'd not know which is which. Numbers are great and we always strive for the best we can but the reality with HD is there is no hard reality as simple as 1920 is biger and beter than 960. Rather there are simply too many factors that determine what HD looks good to who from how it was shot, what kind of format was used, what kind of camera, what kind of DSP is in that camera and what method you are viewing it.

In the states GFCI stand for ground fault circuit interrupter. I believe in Europe they are called RCB or RCCB Residual Current Circuit Breaker. Point is any damp area where you use electricity should have them installed between fixture and source. They detect the smallest leak in voltage and trip an internal breaker protecting you more than a regular circuit breaker can.

It's certainly nice to have options. The kits you mention give you that. With your background you would seem to me like a person that does not want to get pigeon holed into one fixture. Versatility is the key, at least for me.

I think the key is to know what requirements your client and or stock house requires. Today many stock houses take any number of materials all labelled under the umbrella as HD, even Sd that they line double in some cases. As for the capital TRUE, I say that because many cameras which are labelled as being this or that, are not. Great marketing material but not really what they sell.

I thought I made the post above somewhere else yet somehow it appeared here. It is not a response to the question in this thread obviously.

NEC requirements are that all outlets in pool areas be GFCI enabled. So you can first look for local outets around the pool and use those. Test the GFCI curcuit switch to make sure fixture is workign properly. If you need more power, you can purchase a portable inline GFCI curcit breakers at stores such as Home Depot. Since you are not familar with this situation do make sure all power goes to a GFCI curcuit. As for lights. Make sure they are far enough away from pool so as not to fall in (including the total lengh of stand once it is raised. Sand bag all sands well. Also make sure all plugs have three prongs. Do not use plugs where the ground pin is missing. Do not use three to two prong convertors. Be safe with cables making sure they are taped down and covered so no one trips. Cable runs should always be heading away from pool and not around it like a lasso. Get yourself one of those little three prong curcuit testers that will tell you if the wiring in the house is correct. Test each outlet you plan to use. If it shows a ground fault DO NOT USE THE OUTLET. Lighitng around pools need not be scarey if you simply follow common sense. As for underwater lights. No many of todays productions use AC fixtures. As for underwater speakers a search on the web wil bring up a hundred companies that make them.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...egoryNavigation This mic kit is $500 and is a great all around mic to attach to a camera.

I don't know if you are going to have any problems to speak of. I light many situations with brushed steel for a kitchen company and I don't usually have any problems. Such metal can have problems with incident reflections but at that point it's simply moving a fixture slightly to loose the reflection. Since most all stoves are against a wall you will not have much in terms of incidence reflections. Softer sources will help as will bounce if it is an option.

Lowel lights are great. They are mostly made to be lightweight and the company is very good at repairs if you need it. I still use many Lowel fixtures, some at least 15 years old. I have numerous articles on my website about production technique where I use Lowel Lights in case you are looking for some lighting resources. http://www.bluesky-web.com/new-page6.html

Put the camera in a plastic bag and put it in the freezer overnight. Take it out and let it sit (out of the bag) for a day. This often fixes such problems. No I'm not kidding.

"Anybody have some suggestions of cameras that will do TRUE 1080p (1920x1080 at 24p) in the < $20,000 price range? We currently have some Super 16 PL mount lenses, so the PL mount and single sensor would be best." why TRUE 1080P? Why 1920x1080? Do you need them for any advantage such as projection, etc. Many folks are confsed and think that only 1080 line cameras with 1920 chips (none of the cameras you menation are 1920) are better. This is a fallacy.

Simply aiming a camera at things and making critical judgments is not really a good way of testing. Many of the instances you mentioned could have been easily adjusted internally so as not to be the problem you made them out to be. From your descriptions your testing was flawed in terms of making good evaluations.

Simply aiming a camera at things and making critical judgments is not really a good way of testing. Many of the instances you mentioned could have been easily adjusted internally so as not to be the problem you made them out to be.

I don't know if you are going to have any problems at all. I do quite a bit of shooting with brushed SS and really it isn't a problem. If you get a reflection it's usually due to incidence and cured by simply moving a light slightly.