Mike Brennan

"4k/8k systems to the point that they can compete with film?" I think the costs will continue to fall. Sony's multiplex 4k will be $60k so they say, with a big screen version for $80k. According to the DLP guys, the potential market of 100,000 Digital projectors will be underwritten by the potential sales of 50 million+ home cinema theatre systems. Not a nich market like film projectors but driven by mass market technology which never ceases to surprise. For example according to the Market Intelligence Center (MIC) of the Taiwan government-sponsored Institute for Information Industry (III), China hit record shipments of 65.237 million mobile phones in the first quarter of this year, with year-on-year growth of 64.2%. That is a 1/4 billion phones a year! Nikon's camera plant is knocking out 60,000 digital pro cameras a month, Panasonic is building 2 more HD plasma display factories to cope with predicted demand from China. Mike Brennan

Any sign of a mechanical shutter? This would help pinpoint the type of ccd. We are assuming it samples of course rather than just output the 16x9 portion of the ccd:) Mike Brennan

"An earlier mention of digital correction to aid bluescreen is more likely to help correct fringing caused by the stip ccd than any issue with lens. So already the marketing depart are calling the correction of a artifact a feature!" To clarify the above statement, press release says "and digital lateral chromatic aberration compensation for improved visual effects cinematography". The lateral chromatic aberration could be caused by the strip ccd. It is very usefull to be able to correct but I wouldn't call it a feature! Mike Brennan

Because the Genesis does not output a non downsampled full res image now does not mean it can't. Sony have never developed a camera without a complimentry recorder or vice verca. So although it was (rumoured) that it is possible to get 444 out of a f900 or 950 as there was no Sony product to record it it was never done. Having watched how sony r and d work over the years I would suggest that this isn't meant to be the killer camera for large screen but phase one. Phase two would be a Sony recording system capable of 4k then phase three a better sensor. 5-7 years maybe? In respect of slomo the srw1 runs at double speed and can record 60fps 1920x1080. I doubt very much that its speed can be changed on the fly for ramping. That the Genesis camera tops out at 50fps at the moment is an indication that they are in a hurry to get it out and they are pushing the envelope. In the past they have tripped up on bugs in the sytem when they have done this with their bespoke cameras like f900, but that was developed in a hurry by engineers with blindfolds. Panavision state that Genesis has been in development for 4 years, with the background of the f900 and Panavised f900 behind them one can hope they will make a better job of the Genesis. An earlier mention of digital correction to aid bluescreen is more likely to help correct fringing caused by the stip ccd than any issue with lens. So already the marketing depart are calling the correction of a artifact a feature! Those on a budget will still choose f950 and srw1. I would not be surprised if the srw 1 is further delayed to the "open" market to give the Genesis a head start. Comparisons between Dalsa and Genesis will be very interesting certainly on a 4k projector. That topic will keep emulsion lovers occupied for 12 months, in the meantime anyone who knows how to use a f900 menu can pickup the Genesis and begin shooting... Focus pullers will be in demand more than ever. Mike Brennan

"As for the 300x1, we contemplated going longer but felt at very long ranges (eg. 3000mm) we would experience atmospheric problems which cannot be controlled with glass or their movements. (Ex could be like seeing water on the desert plains given the distances attainable)." Having used the 86x Fuji and the 100x Canon with a f900 and own a 2000mm mirror lens I still think going longer would have been better than going wider. It isn't the longest lens in the world but it could have been. At the end of the day if this is going to cost a small fortune to rent a producer will not rent it he'll consider two cameras one with a 100x another camera with a wide angle for coverage! But since it seems relatively easy for Canon and fuji to make 2 versions of their long zoom ratio lenses maybe you allready working on a 14mm to 4200mm :) A300x is an impressive achievement non the less! Well I should I call it a 200x until I see it sharp past 1500mm:) Mike Brennan

When I tried the lens at NAB it was very very very very very soft from around 1500 to 2100. The Pana minder said "it wasn't optimised for the long end" 10mm to 3000 would be more impressive than 7 to 2100 in my view. 14 to 4200 more so. Some of the 40x lenses start at 14mm. There is only so many times you are going to get away with zooming from wide to tight before the viewer becomes tired of the shot. There are already lenses that reach 2100 so the big closeup is nothing new, a bigger closeup would be! A Fuji optical stabiliser should work with this lens. Long focal lengths like these are very difficult to make for single chip sensors. The prism in 3 chip cameras actually helps the lens designers converge the different wavelenghts of light on zoom lenses. What is the longest zoom range ever made for 35mm format? Mike Brennan

If we are expecting Genesis to be 4:3 aspect ratio how many pixels would be used for a typical theatrical 1.85:1 presentation? In comparing single chip Genesis Super 35mm format to 3 chip 1920x1080 formats we should be aware that for 16x9 or 1.85:1 transmission/release not all of the Genisis 12million pixels will end up on screen. Anyone care to do the math? Also it has been reported that it is a strip ccd sensor. As far as I know this is a sensor with red green and blue pixels. This could mean that there is no bayer filter no bayer processing... Mike Brennan

"So what do you think Mike, begining of the end for film in most main-stream applications?" I don't know, but high end features will still be shot on film in 20 years if Kodak are still manufacturing and processing it. The means of production will still exist for film for decades in the form of cameras and lenses and no matter what the quality or performance of alternative industrial processes, artists will choose what they like or are accustomed too while others will continue to choose what they have made money on, until there is a clear path to make more money on the alternative process. So those who have a significant financial, career or political investment in the industrial process called "film making" will understandably continue to defend and support it. So a successful 40 year old DP will continue to knock out good pictures on film for another 25 years. Those with enough energy to embrace new technology while maintaing equilibrium with current film process will do well. In decades to come, filmakers who want to shoot film for asethetic, emotional or nostalgic reasons may well be able to continue using film, I hope so. In the western, capitalist world there are very few mainstream industrial craft based processes that survive progress. Film makers won't kill film, Sony won't kill film, Kodak will. Mike Brennan

Here are my best guesses in response to some earlier questions and observations about the genesis of Genesis It is theoretically possible to do a diy trick and bolt the SRW1 onto the f950, 950, D20, Viper or Kinetta. Angle iron and two BNCs are all that are required. The unexplained delayed introduction of the SRW1 recorder has given the Genesis a head start in the SR 2k+ "camcorder" field. For the last week I had thought Sony had shot themselves in both feet by announcing a 4K projector without a 3k+ camera to support it... it would have been a good excuse for some producers to continue to bury their heads in the sand (regarding HD cameras) and certainly a 4k projector for $60k was a fillip for those pursuing DI, as it should be. So the last week has been a setback for HD origination in general, in my view, until this announcement. The SRW1 can record 1920x 1080 dual 444 by compressing 4.2:1. It also has a 2x speed mode that reduces compression of 444 to 2:1 If you combine (my guess) the 4.2:1 compression with the 2x speed mode it is theoretically capable of recording more pixels. There has to be some number crunching going on with this 12meg head, our old HDCAM friend sampling may come to the fore! So this camera may "only" be a approx 5.1k x2.3k (super 35mm ratio?) image sampled in camera to fit an existing 1920x1080 recording structure? However the 4k Dalsa images sampled to 2k have looked better than the 2k originated images in the DCI tests, when projected on the 2k projector. Originating at higher res reduces aliasing. Would be interesting to see if their is much lag between Bayer processing of 12megapixels and viewfinder output. However the Accuscene viewfinder may be doing more than converting 444 and displaying 720 p as it does at the moment, it may have the potential for displaying a bayer image "live" I expect. More than 1/4 second lag makes it impossible to operate remote heads! Battery consumption will be interesting. And indeed we don't really know how well 35mm lenses will perform, wibbly wobbly film with a different grain structure from frame to frame is a very different form of recording to a rock solid noiseless sensor being projected one to one on a large screen. Someone mentioned Sony selling these cameras, this would be a big mistake unless they really revamped their customer support and servicing. Perhaps one specialised dealer per continent could cope with such a high fidelity piece of kit and the customers who intend to use it. I believe they are aware of this:) This is not the end of the road but just another step. Sony will make money on the recording format not the development of the camera. Just like the development of a 4k projector the goal is hidden aren't for proding 100,00 units for cnemas but 50 million for home cinema. Fun to guess, hope that their is not too much time and hype before the reality hits. Hope this post gives stateside DPs some background when quizzing the creators of Genesis. Mike Brennan

12 megapixels in "super 35 aspect ratio" gives us how many H x V pixels? Maybe after the bayer filtering (assumption) a true 3k camcorder? Now they can move on to sorting out dynamic range. Of course the cost of renting this kit will put it out of reach of 95% of film makers... A week after demonstrating the 4k projector they announce the 12megapixel camera. A lot of what Sony does is about capturing the market, not necessarily serving the market. But with the srw1 recorder delivery being delayed and f950 not being launched outside of the USA, pointers that something was in the wings, this camera may indeed be Sony's international rival to the viper and d20. Sony's rival to film is still on the drawing board. Will *it* have a Panasinic badge? Mike Brennan

>Anyway, I could keep arguing this further but it's pointless. Since you said you work on zero budgets I can see why any discussion about production value is pointless, apart from the important work of clarifying your assertions regarding HD. >I've been shooting in a zero budget situation with 35mm and I think that's the best choice I could have made. I agree that personal preferences hold great store when it comes to zero budget filmaking. But when it comes to producing the best on screen production value, then hard facts and experience are needed to choose the best format for the job. >Film is not more expensive to make mistakes on when you consider the time that has gone into it. A qualification to your original statement and since your budget is zero, in theory your mistakes cost nothing, regardless of format :) >Too much buzz is made about HD being a "perfect" low budget and ergonomics format, and I don't really think it's true. Apart from the zero budget example explain why you don't think it is true? >Some people just don't like using older methods, but that's a different story. Another story is how some people just don't like newer methods. Mike Brennan

>"t's such a pain having to discuss costs in order to sell your format of choice. Now we need to add producing skills to our already long list of skills. I too use the line that if they want it to look like film, they need to shoot film. If they want it to look like really amazing video, they need to shoot hi def." A director once said "that the budget *is* the look." Many producers and DPs do not know how to best utilize the gains borne out of the relationship between HD shooting and HD post because they have had little experience with di, digital post, video or hd. Great production value is unleashed through simple effects in post. The DP and producer should be aware of this when discussing the relative merits of formats. The benefits vary from project to project, budget to budget. The audience seem not to be aware of HD origination once it is scanned to film and projected. So the statement that "if you want it to look like film then shoot film" needs clarification. Shooting ratios! I worked alongside an experienced (film) feature director on a modest budget HD movie earlier this year. I encouraged him to say "reset" rather than "cut". But he kept saying cut! At the end of the 3 week shoot I quizzed him about his opinion of HD. He said that he liked the opportunity to shoot more takes to get the performance he wanted. Yet from my perspective he was very frugal with tape. His point was that if shooting film, after 3 takes if he had a performance that was "close" to what he wanted he would move on. With HD he could shoot a few more takes to push the performance. A undisciplined director will be wasteful no matter what the format, but even a disciplined director is at the mercy of the talent, the weather or any member of the crew having a "off" day. Unquestionably film is a higher quality format at the point of acquisition, but a lot happens to the image before it reaches the audience. HD and DV when transfered to film have the same on screen contrast as if originated on 35mm neg. The resolution, tonal range and colour pallet are different. We should strive for the highest quality at the camera end, but perhaps not at the expense of a poorer experience for the audience. Most of the DPs in the world do not shoot $10M movies. Mike Brennan

Sorry for the long post. >until you've actually gone through the experience of working with both on a serious project, you won't really be able to say what is and isn't easier! One needs a lot of experience to draw conclusions. A few projects are valuable no doubt, but the goal posts are moving, cameras and lenses are improving and their are many workflows to be tried. >But the difference all lies in what's on the actual screen. I have a lot of problems out in the sunlight, clipping whites. Yes HD has less dynamic range. But I'd still prefer a nice sunny day to a overcast day. When transfered to film the HD image as presented to the audience has same contrast range as if the movie originated on film. >I have too much depth of field, which is okay when I have no time to focus as in a documentary, but not dramatically interesting for some situations. I have to fly in fill lights or cards to reduce the lighting ratio, so my whites don't clip. Good depth of field is also an advantage for bluescreen low light and long lens work. As much as it is a pain to control highlights it is a breeze to control and monitor shadows. >When I project it on a large screen another can of worms opens up. With good on set monitoring and or an experienced crew who know what they are doing there should be no surprises on the big screen. >With film I have a major expense up front in film and lab costs, so I'm not likely to pick up my camera to go on a quazi anthropological experiment and grab footage to "see what happens" (that said, it's almost exactly what I did two years ago and I'm just starting the edit now ). It forces you to say "Okay, THIS is what I am going to do, because I gotta shell out up front". Yes film does put a limit on the number of takes a director can go for. Hardly good for the audience if the director has to stop when he has a "near enough" performance. Low shooting cost allows a disciplined director to go for a few more takes. Undisciplined directors will be wasteful no matter what the format, but a disciplined director is still at the mercy of the talent, weather bad luck or any member of the crew having an off day. >It makes you feel a sense of commitment immediately, and to me that is a good thing. How does one format make you feel a sense of commitment more than another format? DPs need to be committed no matter what the format. >What concerns ergonomics, video cameras are great when they behave but when they misbehave they are just awful. So what? You get another camera. You can see a problem *before* you shoot if you have an experienced crew who check back colour bars after recording them. >Film cameras require some fairly standard maintenance (the optical alignment is probably one of the most delicate areas), but they are more rugged as a general rule. Not so! if you consider that the film inside your camera is so sensitive to xrays and heat! A remote head camera can withstand many Gs. I've had a f900 strapped to a bean bag on a super cart at 150mph. However there are manufacturing and assembly faults with some HD cameras. >Things like threading film become second nature with practice. It's not something you can't learn, and with time you'll have someone taking care of that for you, i.e. Dave's camera assistants. Yes HD also requires trained and experienced crew. >I myself can tell you this from firsthand experience - I am the director and DP of a 35mm feature film. I operate the camera and light everything myself on the set. With HD you can direct, shoot and edit! Sounds like the ideal format for you. >Sometimes I get a hand, but most often I'm lucky if I'll get help taking my equipment in. Yeah, my Arri weighs 15 lbs as opposed to the Canon XL-1. Yeah it's annoying to have to load film versus popping in a tape. I thought were were talking about HD not DV. Without a focus puller both HD or film is likely to be soft if the camera or subject are moving. >But damn, I love the results, and shooting on short ends which cost one sixth the price of new film, I can't say it's entirely out of my reach - even though it isn't exactly a ten dollar tape. I spend less time lighting. I have more flexibility, so long as my meter is registering an exposure. Everyone is impressed with the dailies, "it looks like a real movie", as opposed to "it looks like a soap" or "it looks like a porn". I applaud your enthusiasm and commitment to film but your assertions that HD can't look like a movie or looks like "soap" or "porn" are simply inaccurate and an indication of the lack of experience of the production team rather than any failings of the aesthetics of the format. >Furthermore, even if I don't go back to film, I can do so much color and exposure correction in the final supervised transfer. You try correcting something that looked passable in your camera's color LCD finder but was totally off when you saw it off a real CRT. The mistake in you made was using a LCD viewfinder for colour evaluation in the first place. All HD takes are available in a online for grading and and can benefit from an extraordinary range of production value boosting effects and secondary grading. These effects can be explored in low cost offline environments and OMF files transferred to the online where even a 4 pass moc move can be conformed in minutes. Creation of in-shot sign-age, removing advertising mixing two exposures are a few simple ideas that boost production value (if the camera is locked off) Not to mention being able to drop a portable blue screen into shot every now and then. >Tapes in my opinion drop out more often than film scratches or tears. I've shot over 4000 digital tapes over 12 years, apparently without a dropout. >I remember when I shot my first commercial job on mini DV. I looked at that small tape and said "Darn, this is an entire day's worth of work, of all the talent and crew - on this little fragile palm sized tape". Size means everything to some people:) >It's a bit scary Quite a contrast to those nice size-able film cans you get back from the lab - which the lab usually keeps in its conditioned vault where it is safe and can always be used again should your master tape get erased by the magnetic fields of a vaccum cleaner. HD recording requires a hugh magnetic field to be affected. You could run a metal detector over a metal tape all day and not have it affected. Even powerful hand held tape eraser passed over a tape will not effect a HD recording. I have yet to see a documented case of a recording being damaged by spurious magnetic fields. Consider the thousands of tapes being shot and shipped by TV crews around the world. I have clones of my important work so don't need to worry about a single master being damaged, nor pay a premium for airconditioned storage of comparatively bulky film cans. Mike Brennan

This clarification regarding Blair Witch from another forum. Blair Witch 2 used digibeta. And in case you were wondering... there is a common misconception that the video portions of The Blair Witch Project were shot on Mini-DV. Neal L. Fredericks, DoP on the project, sets the record straight: "Not one frame of The Blair Witch Project's(TBWP) video portions was taped on a Canon or Sony mini-dv camera. In actuality the video portions of TBWP were taped on the lowest quality RCA hi-8mm camcorder. The directors specifically wanted the video to look video. The film portions of TBWP were photographed on a Cinema Products CP-16A 16mm motion picture camera." Mike Brennan

The f900 when in normal operating mode what (I think) you have desrcibed does not happen. If you have saved your camera setup at the time you were shooting, to memory stick then you could check with a local expert. The D whte balance function, shadow saturation can create noise. Finally their could be a fault with the camera. The rental company should be made aware of this fault, follow it through so that both of you can figure out what happened. This should have been rectified when you saw it, one of the advantages of HD is that you can see what you are doing before you do it! Lets us know what what you conlude Mike Brennan

Mark 3 software (and settings recorded to stick) are not compatabile with earlier mark 1 and 2 cameras and vise versa. Just picked up a new mark 3 f900, Sony included a 128mb stick, which I've yet to try as I bought a load of 16mb sticks. I'll try it and report back Mike

What size stick? The lowest size you can find. Unfortunatley you'll be stuck with an expensive stick but only use a fracvtion of its capacity. Despite giving 4mb sticks ith some digital stills cameras sony seem only to provide 128mbs sticks for f900! Version three upgrade and software enables 20 groups of 5 scenes to be stored in camera or on a single stick. Mike Brennan

I'm interested if anyone is considering a Zeiss vs Fuji vs new Canon HD prime lens shootout. Mike Brennan

s this Canon anamorphic lens a rear or front attachment or a whole zoom lens built with an anamorphic element? It is a (ungainly) 6 inch long adapter. The image is unside down so needs to be corrected in camera, this is possible with most HD cameras. It will be very interesting to see how well it workes with the new Canon Primes. The picture looked looked promising on the stand. As an aside ...the combination of the anamorphic adapter and a Viper in scope mode will produce an aspect ratio of around 1.4:1!! This aspect ratio has an application for 100+ degree multi projector exhibition. A specialised 120 to 150 degree angle of view HD lens would be interesting.... The "stadium" lens is not up to large screen presentation in my view. Mike Brennan

Jerry Springfield wrote "Pytlak, your picture and Kodak make a perfect match in the modern world. Neither fits.' And it is not much of a modern world that enables cowards to hide behind an alias while they make personal attacks. What do you have to gain Jerry? Mike Brennan

From translation of Japanese website... S280 is a portable deck, 12 volt operation with sdi down converter and LCD screen. 3.9 million yen due JAN 2005 S2000 deck is due Oct 2004 4.7 million yen Both record HDCAM (don't know what frame rates) and playback SP and SX. Mike Brennan

Canon's Japanese website has a B4 mount 1:2.35 anamorphic adapter listed along with a extra high quailty HD zoom the 8 x 5.5 and a fleet of HD primes with common diameter of 95mm, even for the 5mm. There is also a new HJ 22x7.6 with built in encoder and output. If this could be recorded automatically as meta data it would be very usefull! The anamorphic adapter appears to crop a 16 x9 2/3 inch lens to 1:2.35 aspect ratio then squeeze (the sides in) to make a 16x9 ratio which is relayed to the ccd. Enjoy. Mike Brennan

Well done David, may I add that the ASC needs you! cheers Mike Brennan

John P wrote maybe someone should try using Kodak sensor technology? John in respect of Bayer filtering is there a rule of thumb we can use to make a reasonable comparison between resolution of single chip Bayer filter imagers and 3 chip prism cameras? For example does a 4k single chip bayer actually have 3k resolution? Mike Brennan

My personal favourite is your 'Build your own home-made HD camera' post. Absolutely hilarious! You might have stumbled across a new catch word here: 'HDIY' Hilarious maybe but a reality, but this is what Jeff Krienes has done, a diy HD camera. www.Kinetta.com Mike brennan