Mike Brennan

"Mike, you missed the point. The increse is in Motion picture film sales, not film sales. And it has nothing to do with what you are refering to here" Bob, why post your comment about sales of motion picture film in response to David Baileys statements in the first place? Any comments on what he said? What has sales of motion picture film got to do with this particular discussion? Probably more relevant on one of the film forums or start a new thread! Many DPs and producers on varying budgets make decisons about shooting formats based on the overall quality of the movie that can be delivered to the audience. Baileys comments about social political technical implications of new digital technology are relevant, he trades technical quality for audience impact, which is exactly one of the profiles of choosing HD. Should DPs producers and directors be influenced by sales figures from manufacturers? or statements by photographers who have bucked (a not disimilar) system? Mike Brennan

Source: John Pytlak, Kodak, this forum. Is there a breakdown of print film versus neg? Mike

"Is that really true? I mean, is there some technical reason why video will never have the dynamic range of film?" Yes there are technical reasons why digital cameras do not have the dynamic range of neg film at the moment. But there are no laws of phsyics, religous beliefs or acts of parliment to outlaw development of a sensor that is superior to film:) Not "if" but "when". That is not to say that such a sensor will replace film overnight. Mike Brennan

"The "Cinematographers Test" clearly showed the difference in latitude, especially in the highlights (rendition of subtle colors and flesh tones was also quite different): http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...h/35hd24p.shtml Many cinematographers have commented on it in on-line discussion groups like this" Yes they certainly have!! It has been reported that one of the cinematographers stated that he used the test to push HD to the limit of exposure. Although there may be some merit in the test, in that it potrays how HD can "fall over", the results should not necessarly be regarded as being indicative of how a DP, shooting a HD feature (and not a 'lets see how fast she'll go' test) would impliment the medium! This film was withdrawn from IBC as apparently Kodak would not let it be shown without a Kodak representative in attendance. Originally it was titled "There is more to the story" a title which perhaps was too strong a pointer to its heritage? so it was later changed to "The cinematographers Test" possibly to make it appear more impartial? "The Cinematographers Test" was made by Brava Films Production and was executive produced and financed by.... Mike Brennan

"The "Cinematographers Test" clearly showed the difference in latitude, especially in the highlights (rendition of subtle colors and flesh tones was also quite different): http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...h/35hd24p.shtml Many cinematographers have commented on it in on-line discussion groups like this" Yes they certainly have!! It has been reported that one of the cinematographers stated that he used the test to push HD to the limit of exposure. Although there may be some merit in the test, in that it potrays how HD can "fall over", the results should not necessarly be regarded as being indicative of how a DP, shooting a HD feature (and not a 'lets see how fast she'll go' test) would impliment the medium! This film was withdrawn from IBC as apparently Kodak would not let it be shown without a Kodak representative in attendance. Originally it was titled "There is more to the story" a title which perhaps was too strong a pointer to its heritage? so it was later changed to "The cinematographers Test" possibly to make it appear more impartial? "The Cinematographers Test" was made by Brava Films Production and was executive produced and financed by.... Mike Brennan

"It seems to me that when new cameras are announced, the companies are touting the resolution." I'm not so sure about that, the latest Genisis camera is "touting" use of 35mm lenses as well as improved resolution. They are saying it has a stop more range than f900. (not disputed so far in early tests by Alan Daviau) The f950 *wasn't* touted as having more resolution than f900 but it has! (when one records 444) The electronics marketing guys respond to whatever they think will sell cameras, rather than imparting really salient information, where as Kodaks recent advertising is esoteric and philosophical. I wouldn't make any connection between marketing and the real world:) "To me, that is not the main issue in what gives video a video look. The latitude seems to be the largest difference between video and film, yet I rarely hear companies addressing that." It is not surprising that the term latitude isn't mentioned much as it isn't a video term. But terms like dynamic contrast control, knee saturation, 444 all relate to the digital equivelant of latitude and are constantly mentioned if improvements are made. "I know that they are working on it, and they tout the resolution because it is a good marketing strategy, but I haven't noticed much progress in the latitude of HD." There is a least 1 1/2 stops betweeen first 10 bit HDCAM and current f950. The early responses to the Alan Daviau test would suggest that the Genesis has greater range than f950. Lets call it 1/2 stop. That makes 2 stops improvement in 6/7 years, perhaps this is as much as we can expect without a revolutionary sensor. "What makes the latitude more difficult than other issues? How much longer do you think it will take until HD can compete with film on that level." I'll bet that within a decade a sensor will exist that has seperate control of "exposure" of different levels within a image falling on a sensor, maybe a multi channel facility, for example so you can retain some colour in the bright sun on one channel as well as detail in rim lit clouds on another channel, without effecting the rest of the picture. In theory this can be achieved today on a bench with a prism system. A mirror and a second sensor in the Genesis could create a second channel that could be recorded on one of the two SR HDSDI tracks for instance. But more processing more weight ect. Ikegami had a 4 sensor prism in the nineties. The forth sensor could be NDed to recieve 2 or 3 stops less light than the other sensors. A 14 bit A to D would make a slight improvement over the current 12bit A-D in f900 and 10bit A-D in 750, Varicam and most other DV cameras. "Comparing the latitudes, HD and miniDV and the others do not seem to have that much of a difference. This is a subjective apprasal of HD vs DV:) The likely hood is that you were watching a crt? where well shot film, HD or DV may be difficult to tell apart. In respect to distribution of images to cinemas, HD (transferred to film) *is* competing with contrast range of film. By this I mean that the quality of cinema prints falls to within the range of HD. However it is a different story at the HD camera end, as one must expose correctly and control the subject lighting to fit the range of the sensor. If there were a way to project all the quality and range that is in the neg it would blow current digital formats out of the water. "I'd like to get your predictions on when video latitude and gamma will compete with film, and what makes it such a difficult goal to achieve." Sony's 12 megapixel ccd sensor was a surprise, the Fuji dual pixel per photosite, is so far a dissapointment. It took Kodak 100 years to get to this point with far more revenue over these years much from consumer use of film than broadcast TV camera manufacturers have earnt. The digital sensor revolution is as likely to come from product developments or spin offs from satisfying the mass markets, than from in house developers. Nikons new factory is making 60,000 pro digital cameras a month, perhaps the next big thing will evolve from the stills market? Mike Brennan

"And year over year, quarter over quarter, professional motion picture sales are at an all time high and increasing." I don't disagree with the satement, it makes sense, but what is the source? Below is a recent Kodak announcement "....Consistent with that strategy, Kodak plans to develop and implement a new, lower-cost business model for its silver-halide based film and paper products, which will allow the company to claim a larger manufacturing share of the traditional industry. This will create a flexible business model whose cost structure enables the company to compete aggressively in the traditional business and stay ahead of declining demand in developed market...." So, if I interpret this correctly, Kodak is getting a larger market share of (all film products) in a decling market. It went on to state it remains committed to serving the movie industry. But should any of these figures and statements mean anything to a producer or DP needing to decide what format to choose? Mike Brennan

Panavision? contractor replied, "All the feedback is appreciated and I shall mention to the R&D folks such comments, but I feel that they are likely to concentrate on perfection at this stage." I know a man who would be very keen to build a gimbal around this lens! "For curiosity purposes, what 2000mm mirror lens are you refering to? I would like to learn more about it." It is a pentax 2000 f13.5. I use a nikon adapter to converge the image for 3 ccd use. It is not ideal for camcorder use as the rear portion of the lens moves in and out when focussing! But ideal for remote head cameras. Pretty amazing magnification when used with 1/3 inch cdd cameras. Not that it is not the moon shot on my early HD reel, that was 1000mm cat lens. Having tested the fuji and canon mega zooms this is better, but not that much better. There is a company making a zoom cat lens suitable for HD, another making a 500mm T2 which I have my eye on for high speed (1000 fps plus) applications for sports. Always thought that a high speed 50mm 100 and 200 and 300mm lenes would have a place in future digital cinematography applications. With relative ease of controlling exposure vis filter wheels, gain and shutter fast lightweigh cat lenses with distinctive doughnut out of focus highlights would have a place in commercials and wildlife. But I am disappointed to see the Genisis has no internal filter wheel! What a missed opportunity for remot control rotating pola, grads ect that can be used with ultrawide and super telephoto alike and controled by the DP in the tent or by aerial cameramen in cockpit. I undestrand it is not easy I hope it is on the wish list. More useful to me than an optical viewfinder. Mike Brennan

I don't have a lot of 3d experience, just a few jobs on HD. "I have more question. All answers will be appreciated. If you make 3D film with F900, do you shoot each at 12 fps, delayed by 1/24 sec? Or you don't need the delay?" There is a time delay technique that creates a 3d image with a single camera (only) if the camera is pointing at 90 degrees to the direction of travel. There is a optical device that can be used with a single HD or sd video camera that switches a mirror in a special adapter, in synchnonisation with timecode so one field is left eye next field is right eye. Otherwise you need two lenses and two imagers. "If you need the delay, how do you create it?" Why do you need a delay? How far apart do you mount the cameras? Interocular distance is 63 -66mm. Cameras can be mounted in (fixed) parellel relationship to each other, or by using an adjustable, converging rig. There are a few versions of these available. Some use small remote head cmaeras, others use beam splitting mirrors. A typical 3d hd convergence rig is $50k a week with operator. You could build a parellel rig and rent two T950s or the lower resolution X300 camera for a lot less. Do the primes need to be somehow matched? Primes usually are matched. In the digital domain a slight variation of some characterisics can be fixed in real time automatically. However Fuji have introduced matched primes with small front diameters to aid 3D hd work. "How do you do follow focus?" Special rig "Do you need big depth of field?" Not necessarily "Will wide angle closeups give the best 3D effect?" Not not necessarily. I guess zoom lenses could not be used. Is it correct? Zooms can be used. Mike Brennan

"he morning of the shoot we found out what it was. His acting coach said she didn't care for his work because he shot digitally..." Here are extracts from an interview with a photographer who was one of the first to go digital in the late 90s. 'I'm doing a new book, the image files are 2mb and they've printed fantastically. Digital photography now is a bit like 35mm was in the early 60's-all the magazines were scared of it. They'de complain to me "oh, its too grainy' and I would say 'It's not too grainy, its what it is.' I think the technical boffins like to keep the mystery going." "I think people get confused about bad quality and change of quality" "I can get better prints on the Machintosh than I can with chemical prints" "I think digital is dangerous because it makes good people average and makes bad people average" "All that counts is the image that comes out, and if someone can manipulate that and make something unbelievable then I think manipulation is fine." "I did an advertisement about four years ago with Quinten crisp, and that was shot on an Olympus digital. That was only 1.6 megapixels and no one could tell the difference[from film]- and it was a third cropped." "Digital Technology like a paintbrush, what matters is how you use it or don't use it. I think that there is too much discussion "how many mixapixels is that? Because I notice that if you give someone a disk with a 10mb file they'll say we can't print this', but if you give them a print from the same file, they can" (laughs incredulously) David Bailey Interviewed by Gavin Stoker Sept 2001

"Then again I saw S16 "Monsoon Wedding" on the same screen as SWAOTC, way better & sharper. *Optical*" blowup (mostly) but by.... Swiss Effects." It would have been interesting to see what they would have done with SWAOTC. But I doubt that they would have been able to fix some of the camera and lens issues. Saw a transfer a few weeks ago by a Mexican post house of a film I've been working on and was stunned at the high quality. Mike Brennan

Even my mother said that there was something funny about episode2, not like other films (yes, even old people go to see star wars) Hmm star wars, shot with a camera for the first few weeks that had no auto black balance or black balance memory. Some portions soft due to backfocus errors, some of the best and worst keying I've ever seen. They were learning as they went along. Scope image extracted from 16 x 9 did not help either. Mark 1 camera, now we are on mark 3. This really was day one of HD to film. Every HD production has the potential to be superior quality to Star Wars. I've been involved with $20m and $300k productions where the film out looks better than swaotc.Techniques and equipment are improving. Mike Brennan

If they can't see the very obvious difference between film and hdcam, then I would hardly call them 'top dops'... Are you doubting that I don't know what a top DOP is? Rather than put down my comment by assuming it can't be try you would do better braodening your outlook max! When is the last time you watched a comparison between 35mm and HD transferred to film and were not told in advance which shots were HD and which were film? It is very difficult to spot HD transferred to film unless it is split screen. It gives me an oportunity to repeatmyself that top DPs have been fooled by watching HD transferred to film. HDCAM at that. I get the kind of feedback from these tests that doesn't get printed in ASC mags! Having said that there is a lot of agreement with the new genisis camera v film test that the test became very confusing with film and hd being intercut it was imposible for most to tell the difference. Mike Brennan Mike Brennan

Sure. "Telecine. Downres. Reduce the contrast ratio. Optionally, add video artifacts. Video." Won't look like HD video. Too clean, you'd have to shoot 65mm. The first film I've ever seen on a HD monitor that fooled me was in Geneva, aerials shot on vistavision transfered by Swiss Effects. Grain free very steady ...then I saw a few dust spots. Hardly an easy thing to do, getting rid of the grain and dust and wobble not to mention shooting large format. I don't know why you would want to reduce contrast ratio, properly shot video HD displayed properly displayed is hardly contrasty... you really think you can get film to look that clean? Some very well shot and graded 35mm fooled me for a little while on grants stand at NAB on the Apple display. Make film look like HD, not easy. Make HD look ike film, just transfer to film, easy, but expensive :) Mike Brennan

"Mike said that Sony owns Panavision. Is that true?" I hope I wrote that Sony owns part of Panavision. "Except for more shallow depth of field there will not be difference between F950 and the Genesis. Why all the fuss about the camera? Does it do Cinemascope aspect ratio?" Too early to tell what the difference will be other than shallower depth of field. If you put scope lenses on it should. "F950 requires separate MPEG4 processor to record to the portable recorder. Where is the MPEG4 processor with the recorder docked into the Genesis?" Its that big lump bolted to the back (can be removed) The recorder does not work without the processor. Sony list them as seperate items to make the system look less expensive:) No, I'm being cynical, apparently you can daisy chain two recorders from the one processor so they list the prices individually. Last years pricing was $55k for the recorder and $15k for the processor but don't quote me on this. Maybe we could expect a 2/3 inch camcorder with inbuilt SR MPEG processor that could take the srw1 recorder as a dockable. The xdcam camcorder (inbuilt mpeg encoder) runs very hot so heat would be a big issue for HD. How much does depth of field change with each stop? Difficult question to answer, get a depth of field calculator or try playing with a HD camera and monitor. Depth of field on HD at T2.1 for typical head and shoulders at 4 feet camera subject distance is 4 inches, at T1.8 it is two inches. Hd detail is always on so ther is an artificial sharpening of all of the picture, this creates a less snappy seperation from the background on all but longfocal lenghts. "Are 35 mm lenses for the Genesis as fast as HD primes?" The fast 35mm primes are faster. The prism in 3ccd sytems limits max aperture to around 1.6. However longer zoom ratio lenses are available for 2/3 inch than 35mm. A 21x is no big deal for 2/3 inch but a head ache and back ache for 35mm. Mike Brennan

Are you serioulsy suggesting that 'top dops' can't see the difference between hdcam and film? Thats what I wrote. HDCAM transferred to film. Or HDCAM and film transferred to HDCAM viewed on big screen or HD monitor as experienced at post houses, transfer houses, camera tests ect. SOmer of the loadest mouths in the world come unstuck! I am talking about a step down the picture quality ladder, as you know very well. Picture as in 'image' not 'movie'. No max I don't know very well thats why I asked for clarification as some readers may think you mean that filmakers who choose HD will end up with a lower quality movie than if they had chosen film. Mike Brennan

"For bigger budgeted films, it seems that 35mm is still doing very, very well, and Super 16 use has picked up. That's just a cold hard fact which is sort of hard to argue with, unless you want to be like Mr. Ultra Definition here." I didn't say film was or wasn't doing well, I was clarifying your assertions about the ins and outs of shooting HD. Mike Brennan

Film never struggles to look "just like video" Are you saying it is easy for film to look like video? Mike Brennan

"Sorry Mike but your presumptuous statements here aren't really bolstering your argument." What was presumptious about my previous post? Mike Brennan

John P wrote "No disagreement that a 4K scan is much better than a 2K scan -- just goes to show the detail is on the film negative if you need to get it.' Agreed. Mike Brennan

"I think you are missing the point here. This is not about resisting progress, but about making sure that newly developed tools offer an improvement over existing technology. Compared to film HD is a setp down the ladder and you know that very well." So all HD origination is a "step down" what particular ladder??? Filmaking has many snakes and ladders so to be selective is nonsense, a mis service to the budget and ultimatly to the audience. On some budgets some genres, compared to film HD enables the producer to deliver a better movie. On some budgets some genres, compared to HD film enables the producer to deliver a better movie. Mike Brennan

"Even if they can't consciously make out a difference doesn't mean that they don't feel this difference subconscioulsy." That is your opinion. But where is the study that says HD origination imparts a different feeling on the audience? Steven Poster and I have been calling out for such a study for years. Maybe it is a more powerful feeling maybe not! It is interesting that Screen Digest reports that cinema owners record higher takings for digital screenings than the same film screened on film. "I think the audience deserves a bit respect than your statment implies." I do not concur. "Here we go again... I am really sick and tired of peple always complaining about how bad film projection is." I am more interested in exploring the difference between HDCAM origination and film, so I am outling typical image quality/artifacts where the slight softnening of HDCAM transferred to film, when seen in amongst the scrathes grain and wobble is not an issue to the audience. Since the discussion is about HDCAM transferred to film then the HDCAM print suffers the same fate as the film originated movies, scratches wobble and grain. "The vast majority of theatres I have been to offer a very good to excellent viewing experience." Ok then HDCAM transfered to film will look very good to excellent for the audience in these theatres. "The root of bad projection is not that it is film that is being projected, but the projectionist is to blame." Good point, the industry has treated the audience with disrespect for decades, they deserve better! But you miss my point, that there are many issues with film projection, HDcam gets rid of one layer of grain and wobble and replaces it with a slightly softer picture with less colour pallette. "If you think that will go away with digital projection, think again." I didn't say digital projection would be fault free. I am refering to your original comment and suggesting that what you see as slightly soft HDCAM transferred to film actually has no obvious effect on the audience. Not even top DPs can tell the difference so I am reliably informed by those undertaking digital cinema and HD to film tests around the world. No obvious effect. 4K projection will raise the bar for both film and digital workflows. Mike Brennan Mike Brennan

"which is really where I see HD-24p fitting-somewhere in between S16 and 35mm." We have yet to see what Snell and Wilcox will do with upconversion of 1920x1080 to 4k. Give them a few years? Maybe at this high resolution new types of upconversion with proper interpolation of image, (not merely line doubling) will "work". Since we have little experience of watching digitally projected 4k images who knows what the audience will appreciate. We are making the rules up as we go along. The recently announced innovative wobblevision concept from Hewlett Packard to turn a 2k projector into 4k, (if it works!) is one example of thinking out of the box that can surprise the industry. Another example, the Micro lens on ccd came to market out of the blue and gave us an extra stop. First I heard of that technology was when it was mentioned in the press release just before the launch of the new camera. Mike Brennan

"when you try to focus on a specific part of the frame, there isn't enough detail." This observation is not one that seems to matter to the average viewer. Since day one most people even those looking, cannot tell the difference between HD and 35. I do not disagree that film has more res than HDCAM at point of shooting, but the typical audience does not evaluate the image on a technical basis. Otherwise they would have given up on scratched, grainy and wobbly film presentation years ago. Mike Brennan

"Respectfully, I think the argument/discussion is more that the -images- from the f900 (when blown up to big screen) look like poop. I'm pretty forgiving, but every movie I've seen that originated from the f900 (and output to 35, and presented in a theatre) looks soft and mushy and awful, no matter who shot it." A more pertinent comparison, Genesis vs f950 or Viper with srw1 bolted on top. I'd be surprised if Arri didn't buy a Genisis for their rental department. They bought Vipers and f900s, but will Panavision undercut the competition as they did appeared to do with Panavised f900 in Europe? Since Sony partly own Panavision this is a case of the manufacturer killing its own market. Good for producers bad for everyone else. Mike Brennan