Mike Brennan

I have a project where we need to fit a comapct 35mm camera into a aerial rig. What would be the camera of choice? Lightweight Small Ideally dual pin Availability of lightweight mags. Video tap. We can rebuild and fabricate minor bits. Budget is a consideration lets say under $35k. Something old or something new? Mike Brennan

Rest in Peace Neal

A potentially tiny camera with say 1 minute load of super 8 film with a even slower Kodachrome film and super sharp lenses would be very interesting for sport and docs with main camera being HD. Something the size of a pack of cigs.... The lenses would be expensive. It could have a tiny 1/4 inch ccd video tap.... Mike Brennan

Are you wrong? Depends on *why* you are disapointed. The technical grounds for being disappointed can be right or wrong, depending on which video lens you are putting on which camera. ie in general, HD lenses are bettter than 16mm lenses so you shouldn't be disappointed. Standard def lenses on 16mm are inferior. Mike Brennan

"Because the subpixels are severely out of square. You'd need a 4:1 anamorphic lens to get to square pixels, and you'd have to rotate the camera body 90 degrees." Huh? As I understand it Viper has 3 chips each with 1920 horizontal pixels x 4320 vertical lines I'm suggesting *all* 1920 pixels x 4320 lines are used rather than selecting or grouping 1080 or 720 of the lines to conform to HDSDI TV output. Three 16x9 chips with 9 million pixels... lets use all of em! "That and of course there's no way to record the output." "Of course" there (potentially) is! The srw1 can cope with two 1920x1080 4:2:2 streams today! Call it 1920x2160 to tape, sampled from a 1920x4320 chip. Remember we are more sensitive to vertical res than horizontal res so the picture would be stunning. (this is why HDCAM samples horizontal res from 1920 down to 1440 but keeps verticle res at 1080, the vertical res is more important) This could be a walk in the park for the company that makes million dollar 4k telecine machines! Mike Brennan

Having done aseries years ago in black and white I would offer the following advice. If you are 101% sure that you will go b&w then dial out saturation in post, as Phil suggests it may pay a (very small) dividend The wonderful thing that happens when shooting on ccds for bw display is that the tell-tale loss of colour in highlights does not exist. A bleached out skin tone in colour simply becomes a high key effect. So high key lighting becomes very controllable (with a well setup monitor). Contrast range of ccd not an issue! Explore the effect that grads have. Again, without the give-away of saturation change you will be able to be very agressive with grads. The benifit of a HD monitor will enable you to see exactly what you are doing. Forget about major mood changes via grading. The power of HD monitor will enable you to orchestrate grads lighting and gamma settings to shape the framing, mood and create the look you want on location. Mike Brennan

An interesting question is why they haven't made all 9 million pixels (per ccd!) useable to create a 2kx4k (HxV) output.... Suggested this 3 years ago to them. They seem content with leaving it in the marketplace as is, without any further development or upgrades. Mike Brennan

Both articles are good reading. Personally, I think the EBU's decision to recommend progressive scan is the right one. Bring on 1080 50P and put interlace out to pasture! EBU are suggesting 720 50p. Mike Brennan

I would not descibe the HDL240 as a lipstick camera :) All of the box cameras are near as dammitt same size as a viper wthout handle and viewfinder. I've done the tape measure thing.... The exception is the Sony X300 which is the smallest. 1/2 inch 3 ccd 1440x1080 imager, uses a 1/2 inch mount, may be possible to convert 2/3 inch lenses. A new company called Luma is building small hd cameras which look promising, hopefully available next year. Ikegami HDL20 is now available as 50i but no p versions are available. Fuji showed a ultrawide lens for the Ikegami HDL20 at IBC A small cmos cam with no TV processsing, into a 444 recorder may be the future. Limited recording time but small camera head and no processing box. Mike Brennan

Hi Eric I had a good lok at this cam at IBC and had a helpfull follow up from Steve M at Panasonic. It is designed as a news camera using varicam camera head and DSP (however on the stand the spec board said it had 12bit A/Ds whereas varicam is 10bit) Records to low cost tape. Price £30k US model will do 60i 59 and 30p, UK model will do 25p and 50i. Has slow shutter and 15 second memory cache as well as 2 x digital zoom which is an innovative feature and valid for news in HD environment I rahter liked it, it would be even nicer if it were 1920x1080 imager combined with 4:2:2 1080 codec. Mike Brennan

"maybe its just that the plot of the movie looks kinda dumb which makes the acting look kinda dumb which makes some of us conclude its because of....VIDEO." One must use the slow shutter speed on HD vary carefully as it imparts a motion capture that (us professionals ) see as "video". An accurate description of the look is slow shutter look. If film could instantaneously pull down so a 1/24th sec shutter speed occurs then the portrayal of motion would look the same as is being captured on the ccd at 1/24th. It is too early to say how the audience (less attuned than we are) relates to slow shutter at 24fps. I use it for night wideshots where any blurring of movement is minor. Mike Brennan

The camera´s were Panavised 900´s with Evertz downconverter at the back and most lenses were 35mm zoomlenses so that meant about 2,5 times magnification, eg. a 24mm on HD had a similar angle as 65mm on 35. Did you use a 35mm lens convertor? Maybe they were 2/3 inch Panavaision lenses? Mike Brennan

I saw no difference in detail between the two lenses. In fact the wide lens became my lense of choice. What were you viewing on? If you are giving HD for SD prices in SD environment then fair enought. If you are in a HD environment (HD transmission, digital projection,HD post effects, stockshots) then the end user will be disappointed. Here is a blow up from a SD Fuji super wide on a f900. http://www.hd24.com/standard_definition_lens_o.htm Sharp in the middle traffic light effect on the edges. Muddy blacks loss of detail in shadows. It ain't a high fidelity product. If your shots will be compared to others with higher res cameras than varicam and better lenses then they will be second rate. Stock footage value will be less. Is it worth it? Mike Brennan

"I will be shooting blue screen for the first time with the Sony HD900. What are the differences between shooting blue screen with SD and HD?" If you ar enew to HD, make sure you are in focus! Shutter on. If there is a lot of movement consider a slightly faster shutter speed. Warm/cool the subject with gels on lights not via camera matrix. Record 4:2:2 if you can it helps the key a little. There are many keying plugins, some work better than others. Mike Brennan

'Sorry Mike, but I just don't buy your arguments. To be honest, to me you sound a little too much like Larry Thorpe." Has Larry Thorpe ever said Film is better than HD? I have. Does Larry run a website pointing out faults with Sony equipment and Sony service? I do:)) Mike Brennan

"I'd like to point out that Lars von Trier's previous films were either shot on video (Idioterne, Dancer in the Dark) or shot on 35mm and transferred to video (Breaking the Waves)." HD didn't exist when Lars made Breaking the waves. Since then he has chosen HD to shoot Madelay and Dogville and his studio has produced others on HD. "It is safe to assume that he does that because he likes that look, not because he thinks it will give him a 35mm look at a lesser cost." But maybe he believes that it will give him a 35mm for lesser cost as well as liking the look! Here is Lars personal assistants email; anne.mette.kjeldsen@filmbyen.com I would be interested in you contacting him to clarify his position. "What I do have a problem with is people who are forced to shoot on HD for budgetary reasons" They have a choice and choose HD! because they think it is better for *their* movie. No matter what the budget people can choose film or HD. Many peolple ar enot getting their facts straight when it comes to budgets , mainly becuse of the vested interst in telecines and film cameras. and then proclaim: 'Well it looks just as good as 35mm' or 'The average audience won't know the difference anyway' Since the average audience won't know the difference between HD and film that is a cool thing for them to say. "Because in my opinion they are just trying to make themselves feel better for not being able to shoot 35mm." Not all film makers are emotionally attached to shooting film, unfortunatly some of those who are wear their heart on their sleeve. Mike Brennan

Yes directors friend could be replaced by S2 or the new SRW1 recorder which will be cheaper than S2 but needs a digitising step but then also serves as archive. Most producers and production teams on features work to the established film method of pre and post production with a few tweakes. (some of them remember to strike the telecine costs from the budget others don't!) The devil is in the detail. No one has written the book on digital mid budget ($500k to $5M) feature film production techniques yet. The saviest film producer I have ever shown HD observed, "so we should get a production manager who has done drama on video." There are numerous small cost savings with HD... from lower "neg" insurance, earlier striking of some sets to lower cost of storing rushes which are rarley noted in a paper budget. In the case of 2/3 inch HD cameras, lighting bluescreen to half the lighting level required for film achieves same depth of field. Slo motion (beyond 120fps) and dynamic range are digitals weakest technical points at the moment but lack of production expertise is a problem too! There is more to the story than quoting camera packages and telecine costs. Budgets, regardless of size, are not an indicaton of production value! Trying to comparing budgets of one feature shot on the cheap on film to another shot on the cheap on HD is ludicous if we don't judge the results. How do we know if a fantastic performance was shot on the first take on film or if the director could afford to go to 4 takes on HD? Mike Brennan

Thanks Bob, but diameter of front element is not small enough. A funnelled pinhole adaption for the innovision would be neat.... Mike Brennan

Is there any more recent analisis? Interlace SD video on a 1960s crt is one thing, progressive HD transferred to film is more relevant. Even more relevant would be digital capture and projection vs film capture and digital projection. Mike Brennan

"I was Steadicam operator and Motion Control operator on this movie." Was the choice of slow/no shutter an artistic one? or driven by lighting budget? regards Mike Brennan

ou know, I have taken an interest in finding the difference between the Panavision Digital lenses and the Zeiss Digiprimes... Panavision tend not to bring Zeiss primes for comparison tests. If anyone is conducting a realistic test (whatever that is) between Panavision, Zeiss, Fuji and latest Canon primes and zooms contact me, I know a magazine that would love to print the results. Mike Brennan

"I have seen the exact same cameras being used for other productions with the same crew, and you would not be able to tell if it was shot on HD or 35mm." Well if the "you" is the audience then I agree. Mike Brennan

'We want the best quality out of our upcoming film... We have the choice of HDC-F950, Viper Filmstream or Super 16mm." Quality from whose perspective? Producer, Director or DP? An improvement in quality for the director may be being able to afford to do an extra take to get a better performance. Understandably DPs prefer highest possible in-camera quality. Usually but not always this is 35mm Depending on shooting ratio 35mm delivers higher quality in camera at a higher/same cost. In case you have been looking at rate cards in reality a 24p kit with zoom lenses covering 5mm to 150mm can be had for $3500 to $4500 and tape at $60 an hour. Get a good range of post quotes, including one from a company that does not have a telecine. When getting a quote from a company that does have a telecine do not ask them to quote for HD and 35mm film as they tend to mark up the HD to lead you toward film. My experiences in London anyway. When you approach these companies don't say you are making a film vs HD comparision, instead say you will definitly shoot on HD and you want the best deal. A producer needs to figure out the politics of the local advice, often the right decision is to go with the flow rather than rock the boat. Mike Brennan

I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to work. People decry 4:2:2 video formats because half the colour's made up, then go running to a Bayer single chip, where... half the colour's made up. Anyone? Arri say that they "image" at 4:2:2 but record 4:4:4 Familiar lenses and accesories, familar rental company is more important to individuals being presented with new technology than any nuance in the technical quality. Mike Brennan