Mike Brennan

Sony Pocket timeline, note these 1st delivery dates are hard to check. 700 series 1997 HDW 700 60i 1997 HDW 700A 60i 2001 HDW 750 60i (May) 2002 HDW 750CE 50i and 25p, (model number then changed to 750p). 2002 HDW 750P 50i and 25p (Sept) 2002 HDW 730 50i and 60i (1st announced feb 5 2001) 2004 HDW 730S 50i and 60i (long exposure option, otherwise same as 730?) 900 series 2000 HDW f900 Lucas Panavised cams. (June) 2001 HDW f900 Mark 1 available 2003 HDW f900 mark 2 (new block) 2003 upgrade kit Mark 1 to Mark 3 (excludes block) 2003 HDW f900 mark 3 (also called f900H by the resellers) The original HDW 750 was meant to have both 30p and 60i specification at one time, they dropped the 30p. Sony feared HDW750CE/HDW750P would affect sales of f900 so the 25p version is not available in the states. Instead they launched the IMX format, MSW900 a 25p standard def camcorder in the USA in 2003. So the current model range is HDW 750 60i (FIT chip) HDW 750p 25p, 50i HDW 730 50i, 60i (IT chip) HDW 730S 50i, 60i (IT chip. Slow shutter option) HDW F900 H 24p, 25p, 50i. 60i. (viewfinder supplied separately) Mike Brennan

I'm after a special lens to fit an innovision probe or Frasier lens. I need very small front diameter of 1 or 2 mm I would also consider a 1mm endoscope (I own one of these but the quality is not good) Recomendations for the worlds highest quality endoscope or pinhole lens please! Subject is small insects, CGI will be used but we'de like cracking quality plates rahter than create complete CGI environment. Shooting on HD. Mike Brennan

Spider, I take it that you will be shooting at 25p if you are using f900 and HDW750? Was it Mark 2 upgraded to Mark 3 or Mark 3 f900? The difference between the two is most noticable on the larger screen. Yes it is possible to degrade f900 to look like HDW750. 10 bit A/D on HDW750 is the limiting factor. cheers Mike Brennan

"I believe it is chosen because it is cheaper, at least during shooting. For many films that are not sure that they will get theatrical distribution, shooting on HD will lower the actual production costs. Yes, it allows more of the budget to be spent on screen, a great help to those on budgets of $300k or less as they don't have to blow $50k on a transfer to film unless the film is any good. "You can bet that if there is enough money to shoot 35mm, 99 percent of the people will chose to shoot 35mm over HD, because it still gives you the highest picture quality." It is 65mm film that gives the highest quality. 35mm and HD are for those with not enough money. Mike Brennan

F900, HDC 950 output 4:2:2 to semi portable S2 hards drive or more portable SRW1.(compressed) HDCf950 and the Viper can output 4:4:4 to a S2 or SRW1. Panasoninc does not have a 1920x1080 native progressive chip yet. D5 is not portable and it is compressed. If you need little grading and are not doing bluescreen AND it is a TV project HDCAM works well enough considering it is a self contained camcorder. For transfer to film 4:2:2 will have a moderate impact on resolution compared to HDCAM, going to 4:4:4 won't increase resolution much but offers slightly better scope to grade and pull keys than 4:2:2 Time will tell if the additional cost of 444 production is the best way to spend a (limited) budget. Mike Brennan

"You have no idea how much confusion there's been between the HDC950 and the F950. They are two different cameras, but life would have been so much easier if Sony would have used different numbers." Yes. The f in the f500 denotes that it does 24p. But the f in the f950 denotes that it does 4:4:4!! The system goes something like this... If the Sony model has a HDC the c is for camera and is managed by the camera division. If the product has a HDW then the W denotes it is managed by the recorder bods (HDWf500 HDWf900) Also it is not uncommon for a different design team to make a new menue structure. This could explain why the menue from a mark 1 f900 doesn't work with the HDW750 or Mark 3 upgrade. Sony say that they change the teams to have a fresh set of engineers redisign systems so they design out (existing) faults. This is fine in theory but with the clever new ideas comes incompatability with previous models, at least at the operater level. Mike Brennan

I have raised the idea with the remote guys before. It isn't quite so easy as there needs to be a circuit that understands if the RMB remote wants the servo to be in auto, manual or auto with +- override. The remote guys have worked on servos that need high torque to shift focus and zoom elements around and that also need to be able to do both a snap zoom as well as a very slow and smooth zoom. Apparently these motors draw too much current to use the lens socket and they need their own processing box. So existing servos are not right for the job. I'd prefer a lower power servo that need only have enough power to drive the iris. Have mentioned it to Fuji and recently spoken at length to Canon about it and they may be willing to supply existing circuit boards to a third party but they are not setup to do low volume. I've suggested to Canon that such a motor could sell for $1500 and that over time there could be sales of 200, for both HD and SD. As I understand it there is no simple signal on the socket to drive a motor, it needs a circuit board. However if enough boffins look at the problem perhaps there is a clever work around? This motor would be very usefull any time a DP or DT plugged a remote into the camera. No more shouting "open up a bit!" Even auto mode has a (rare) use for low budget work. Finally it would integrate cinestyle lenses into the OB environment. In Europe there has been a shortage of HD video style lenses for OBs. Not being able to control iris via the remote makes cinestyle lenses unatractive for OBs. Given that it is possible/desirable to use the Genesis for a rock concert and the Genesis can be controlled by RMB remotes, this little iris motor continues to be a useful idea that has gone no where :( It could encourage f900 owners to spend a few $$$ and buy the motorised version of the ND CC filter wheel, thus giving full DoF control to the DT and DP under the cloth. A wireless remote for the RMB series would be wicked! (until Sony change the protocole) Mike Brennan

A Star Trek fan mag is reporting the crew are using f900.http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/6165.html Will this be for the whole series or just one episode? Mike Brennan

Anyone seen a iris servo that is powered and controlled from the front lens socket on sd and hd cameras? Idea is to control cinestyle lens from DT tent by RMB remote. I ask this every year.... Seems the remote lens control manufacturers want to sell wireless remotes and lens manufacturers prefer you to buy an additional video style lens:( mike brennan

ason wrote "think the argument is not so much that video is an obstacle to making art, its just the plain fact that when watching episode II, most people are distracted by its "quality"." Plain fact? Is this a personal or professional poll of audience reaction to Star Wars? "video is a perfectly acceptable medium in which to work, but as soon as 'episode II' began my first thought, and i guarantee the first thought of all those around me,......." You guarantee to know what the other members of the audience are thinking.....? ".....was "this looks like crap." maybe my expectations were dashed too abruptly, maybe there is something to the consensus that video kind of sucks." What consensus do you refer? I'll say it again the organisers of various digital cinema initiatives around the world state that even "top DPs" can't tell the difference when shown a test film intercut between HD and film. The early Panavision test shot by Alan D four years ago fooled most people. Sure over the course of a movie there will be tell tale signs one way or another. The point is if the difference is so obvious to an audience it should be obvious in a test too! By the way SWATC used the very first progressive cameras (very scary, black balance drifting backfocus problems ect) but since then improvements have been made in lens, ccd block, AD mapping, camera and recording technology as well as tape to film recording. All evident today in an improvement in quality to any competent user. The single chip cameras are another step forward. So in your language video kind of sucks less than it used too:) Slightly off topic... Any empirical evidence that suggests there is an adverse reaction by audiences watching HD would be very useful. Most work is being done on digital projection. MIT? did a study monitoring heat rate of "video" vs "film" projection. General result was higher heart rate in dramatic scenes when watching HD on digital projector than watching similar scene on film. Maybe someone stateside could check this out?? Screen Digest have been watching this closely. The only report I have seen is one that mentions multiplex owners are seeing greater revenue from digital screens! When STAC was released in one cinema that was screening it both on digital projector as well as film the digital cinema grossed (about) 50% more over a one month run. Perhaps STAC was optimised for digital projection? Mike Brennan

John wrote "Yes but in the real world QUOTE "Larger photosites are more likely to be impacted by non-light energy, cosmic rays, heat up, etc, and so generally have a higher noise floor resulting in overall similar dynamic range but often increased sensitivity." - thank you Phil" It was the "real world" that lead me to ask the question!! The larger format digital motion picture and stills cameras appear to have greater dynamic range than 2/3 inch! This is a post from Martin Euredjian on CCow that seems to get nearer to the point of discussion. The conscept of greater dynamic range is also alluded to in various white papers from CCD manufacturers. Also born out in greater dynamic range of larger format digital stills cameras, which is what is prompting me to ask the question. Martins response on Creative Cow "A CCD sensor is a photodiode. Photodiodes convert photons into electrons. For each photon a number of electrons is released. Quantum Efficiency (QE) is a measure of how well a particular photodiode can perform this conversion. QE depends mostly on the quality of the material used to make the sensor. In addition to this, QE is measured in electrons per unit-area per second. It's a great little number because it defines most of what you want to know in order to determine exposure. For example, if a photodiode has a QE of 50 electrons (e-) per square millimeter per second it means that one photon strike will release 50e- into a square mm of silicon. I'm simplifying a little here, of course. Now, as I said, CCD's are special versions of photodiodes. Instead of having one big sensor it is sliced-up into many. This is done by a clever arrangement that creates these "buckets" that accumulate all electrons released into a certain area --the pixel. It follows from the above that a larger pixel will have the ability to store more electrons. Given equal exposure settings, a larger pixel (greater electron capacity) can offer greater dynamic range. I say "can" rather than "does" because this, of course, depends on whether or not the camera is designed to take advantage of this." Mike Brennan

Here are more specific details of Panavision market share, this time from Morning Star http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Com...ocktab=snapshot "Panavision manufactures high-precision camera systems, comprising specialty cameras, lenses, and accessories for the motion picture and television industries. The company's camera systems are not available for sale and are rented exclusively through the domestic and international facilities the firm operates and its agent network. Panavision's market share includes 71% of the major studio feature films and 86% of the episodic television programs made in North America as well as 49% of the independent feature film market." Mike Brennan

Hold your horses while I'll get that % figure in writing, I'll stand to lose my Arri discount otherwise:) Mike Brennan

"Panavision by using chips from their new company PanavisionPSV." Opps should read PanavisionSVI Mike Brennan

"50 ISO stock is not necessarily going to see more into the dark and more into the light than 500 ISO and likewise 1/4" chips do not inherently have a lesser dynamic range than 2/3" of the same resolution." Yes larger pixels means more potential dynamic range. Something about binning wells and noise....... Mike Brennan

The Genesis sensor is a striped sensor. RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB Not a bayer filtered sensor RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGB RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGB RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGB It is pretty easy to see that the signals from the individual Red Green and Blue pixels of the striped ccd sensor are familiar processing territory for Sony. Whereas the bayer filter arrangement requires not insignificant processing to interpolate full colour. Bayer is comparatively unfamiliar territory for Sony in respect to quality motion picture imaging. The 12 milllion pixels are probably equivelant to about 8 million pixel in a bayer filter in respect of resolution. However there will be no bayer artifacts and full colour resolution with the striped sensor. Panavisions lens range, their recent purchase of a innovative CMOS chip maker and alignment with Accuscene viewfinders could be a pointer to where they are going. The Genesis was made under the DHD Ventures organisation, a company incoporated in Delaware. (A bit like an offshore company?) Sony and Panavision are equal share holders, it doesn't appear to have any assetss ect just a paper company to get around various US laws, not anything underhand, standard buisness practice. Although Sony own 15% of Panavision billionare Ron Perleman owns the rest! Both Panavision and Sony would have exit strategies. Panavision by using chips from their new company PanavisionPSV. With Panavision having 85% of the film market (their figures) and their own lenses and a deal with Accuscene viewfinders and Arri building their digital camera then Sony need a lens manufacturer to support any future independent foraye into large single chip imaging. Fujinons recent annoucment that their super zoom HD lens is now available for 35mm film cameras could be a indication where Sony are hedging their bets. As I wrote earlier, this isn't the killer camera. Question is will the killer camera have a Panavision badge or a Sony badge. Longer term question, is their room for Panavision, Arri and Sony in the digital high end? The sums are not enormous, Sony paid $10million for the 15% stake in Panavision. I'm told by a buisness analyist that they have spent $100s millions developing HD cameras and editing. They could buy Panavision tomorrow if they felt they needed too. But don't be surprised to see Panavision spread their wings. They have a good brand name. Their recent 300x lens is now being marketed by a TV company! Watch out Canon! Who knows how long before we see a Panavision branded consmuer cam! Mike Brennan

"And for Georgie shooting HD, well his Star Wars is an animation movie anyway as far as I'm concerned, so shooting film doesn't make much sense." Yes shooting a largely bluescreeen movie makes no sense, though with 98% of shots containing real life elements I personally wouldn't refer to it as an animation movie "On top of that he just likes to indulge his technology fetish..." Whatever drives him, the audience love his movies! Bravo Lucas Mike Brennan

"In using the cinealta, it cost more that using film." Wrong(if you believe rick McCallum) or impossible to prove define. "It didn?t have a depth of field, so didn?t look as special." Since most of it was bluescreen the added depth of field was an definate advantage. "It didn?t have the resolution, like film does," HD transferred to film has same resolution as film in the local cinema. "and considering it was shown on iMax cinemas, I find it strange that they did that, being that it had enough problems fitting a standard cinema screen." What problems do you refer to? "So, why did he use film?" You mean why didn't he use film? He is a very experienced producer dirtector who can orchestrate a in house digital production to deliver the control and production value he desires. There are many more quotes as to why he continues to shoot digital. Check the web. "There is a device called "Mini35". This gives digital a depth of field. Although I?m not sure he will be using it for Ep. 3." No he didn't use this for Ep 3. Why would he? To reduce depth of field at the expense of shooting through a spining groudglass and a couple of stops of light loss? "Is there an explanation for all this, or is George'y Porgey just being a doughnut..." More to the point, is their an explanation for your assertions? You shooting from the hip? Mike Brennan

"Question 1: If I shoot 60i and translate it in post pro to 24P in order to get slow motion... what is the equivalence with fp/s ?? = is this 36? or 38?" Consider a 60i frame (made up of two fields) as two 1/2 res 60p pictures. 60i replayed at 24 is a 2.5x slow down. So the audio playback will have to run 2.5 times faster when you shoot. "I want to shoot a video clip with moth sync + slow motion...what is the percentage the sound guy should put the music?... Urgent help needed!!!" "Question 2: Any suggestion about lenses on shooting HD?? what about the comparision Zeiss Diprimes versus Arri Ultraprimes with Pro35 adapter???" Need more specifics about budget look ect. Mike Brennan

Just to add another angle to this subject apparently the larger the size of the individual pixel the greater the dynamic range. Anyone who knows what they are talking about care to elaborate:) Mike Brennan

ya beat me to it. I thought Shrek 2 had a great use of motion blur.......like at the end, when they do freeze frames to credit actors/actresses, you can see some motion blur in those stills...especially in the shot of the princess. Did the motion blurr look slightly videoish? Is so is it a problem? Mike Brennan

"They probably used less than 1/48th shutter." By this I mean they used a longer exposure time fro each frame, ie 1/30th or 1/24th Mike Brennan

"BTW, if you have the shutter at 1/48th, you shouldn't get any abnormally smeary "video look" motion blur, would you?" No, 1/48th pretty much replicates motion portrayal as per film capture. However some people consider that HD when transfered to film looks slightly more stroby. On HD (even HD transferred to film) I occasionally I see a "video look" on tilts when the speed of image across the ccd is or isn't synchonos with the scan of the ccd ( ccd is scanned from top to bottom). Film is obviously exposed from left to right? right to left? which has its own subtle signature and interaction with movement within the frame. Remember watching the movie Simone on a long haul flight , I had forgotten it was shot on HD, until I noticed a very subtle video look on a tilt. In Europe we go with 1/50th when shooting 24 or 25p. Mike Brennan

"Time of exposure has no effect when using computer animation. All blur is created by the software. If blur is not created, it is not "induced" by record time or exposure. Exposure time for each frame is not 1/48 or 1/30. Frames are recorded the same as a DI would using machines similar, or maybe exactly, to the ArriLaser." Ahh virtual shutter angle was the technical term I was looking for...hence my incorrect use of "exposure" in quotation marks. I wasn't reffering to Arrilaser either:) Some scenes appeared to have virtual shutter angles different to the norm of 1/48 ie 1/30th. The rest of my musings remains. I'm more interested in the effect on the audience than how they do it.... Mike Brennan

I've only seen the trailer at the cinema. I immediatly identified it as HD due to the motion blurring. They probably used less than 1/48th shutter. Would be good to learn if this was intended. Mike Brennan