Using Film 20x More Expensive Than Uncompressed HD

[Tenolian Bell]

but as a reportage of the HD industry and latest camera developments. For example I like to hear the trends in 8 bit, 10 bit, 12 bit and what the latest HD camera is offering.

That's generally what everyone is complaining about what J is talking about is not the latest, it is a dream of what he wishes to come. And unfortunate souls who don't know the difference may think he is speaking of the latest.

 

This is what makes going to NAB valuable you get to see the concept camera's of what Sony and Panasonic would like to do one day. But those camera's are generally shells with no electronics displayed in glass cases or high out of reach.

[harryprayiv]

downix Posted: Jun 3 2004, 06:04 AM 

Have you ever shot Super8? I have. Have you ever shot HD? I have. 

 

I have too.

 

Anyway, what I am posting here is information on new way of filmmaking, for less $. It is a new option. It may help someone who is directing or producing a movie or a DP who is open minded. That is the only purpose of my posts. There are too many filmakers out there who don't have large enough budgets. Doing an acquisition with a computer and working inexpensively with a new codec may be exactly what they are looking for. It is not about film vs. HD. It is about "Can I afford that or not?" My suggestions may allow the indie filmmaker make a lot higher quality film, or make he can make the same quality film for less money. That is all.

 

Have to get back to my project.

But why are you saying it costs less when you KNOW it doesn't. You're math doesn't work out and the highest quality video isn't even close to the lowest quality of film. HD my ass. I am getting sick of this debate as well.

[anonymous]

Someone was talking here about 24fps artifacts being no problem and that they even have a supposedly hypnotising effect on the audience. This may be true but just as apiece of additional information I just wanted to mention if that person heard of tests made by the "Brainstorm" director Peter O'Fallon, where they showed the same footage to a test audience at different frame rates and measured that the physiological response reached its peak somewehere about 100fps - meaning you get a more intense experience watching a film at a higher frame rate. (This eventually led to the creation of the "Showscan"-technology). In fact the human eye can discriminate images at 200+ fps. I've tried this experiment myself with a synthetical film sequence of a 3d-flame. One in 24fps and one in 100fps. The difference is striking: with 100fps you're almost overwhelmed by realistical aspect of the sequence, it almost seems to jump out of the screen - as compared to 24fps that seem really cheap and unnatural after that.

This statement, however, concerns only frame rates, not HD vs. Film discussion, as in the meantime HD is nowhere near such extreme frame rates, whereas conventional film is.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I think it was Douglas Trumbull who commissioned the experiments in frame rate and perception of "reality" that led to the 60fps choice for "Showscan":

 

http://www.cinematography.net/30FPS.HTM

 

There is a technique called Showscan, invented by a genius named Douglas Trumbull, which involves filming at 60 frames per second and projecting at 60 frames per second. This number was not arbitrarily chosen. Trumbull did psychological and physiological tests on all kinds of audiences and determined that 60 images a second is the maximum visual information that can be transmitted through the optic nerve to the brain. Watching Showscan resulted in a direct visual implant without any perceivable blank spaces. If the rate is raised to more than 60 images a second, the audience won't get any improvement in image transference...

 

Steven Poster ASC

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure I would call Trumbull a genius, although he's been involved in some deeply clever things.

 

Phil

[adrianwhite]

Possible cheap workflow?

 

Haven't posted for a while as I have been following the contributions of the more technically knowledgeable people on this forum. I have come up with a possible low cost hd workflow solution. (feel free to respond and pick holes as any feedback is very welcome.)

 

Hardware:

Camera link camera (silicon imaging or imperx) 1920*1080

frame grabber

Streampix recorder software.

Suitable spec pc with either raid or number of external hard drives.

Use 16mm c mount lenses bolex or sneider (or get c to f mount adaptor and use nikon 35mm?)

 

1. Use streampix software to record 8bit images from camera and save to hard disk/raid. Save in a file format that is compatible with both streampix and Vegas.

2. Import video files into Vegas Video 5. Here are a list of file formats acceptable, when i last checked, streampix uses at least 3-4 of these:

 

AC-3 Dolby Digital AC-3**

AIF Macintosh® AIFF

AVI Microsoft® Video for Windows®

BMP Windows® Bitmap

GIF CompuServe Graphics Interchange Format (stills and animated)

JPG Joint Picture Experts Group (JPEG)

MOV Apple® QuickTime® Movie

MP3 MPEG-1 Layer 3 (Audio)

MPG MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 Video

OGG Ogg Vorbis

PCA Perfect Clarity Audio?

PNG Portable Network Graphics

PSD Adobe® Photoshop®

RM RealNetworks® RealAudio® 9

RM RealNetworks RealVideo® 9

SWF Macromedia Flash

TGA Targa? File Format

TIF Tagged Image File Format

W64 Sony Pictures Digital Wave 64?

WAV Microsoft Wave®

WMA Microsoft Windows Media® 9 (Audio)

WMV Microsoft Windows Media 9 (Video)

Still Image Sequences (Script)

 

Apparently Vegas 5 is resolution independant and can manage frame sizes up to 2048*2048! 1920*1080 is supported with 23.976,24,25,30 fps options.

 

I dowloaded the trail version toady and will be web hunting for small clip samples to try.

 

Further info can be found at "sony pictures digital"

Am I missing something here or is this workable, any responce welcome.

 

P.S. If this is workable, I also found out about a linescan dalsa camerlink camera currently in beta version that has a frame size of 2048*2048 at 30fps but can be reprogrammed to do 24p, would this be practical?

[Jason Rodriguez]

I'm not too sure about this, it seems as though these "cheap" workflows are only good for personal projects, because frankly as a paying client I would never put my production at risk with such a "piled-together" product. Just recently I had to cancel a shoot after our F-900 came up with a broken servo in the VTR, so if something as simple as that can go and destroy hours of a shoot, I'd hate to see what could happen wrong with this system.

 

Which also brings up the fact of how much shooting do you actually plan on doing versus tinkering with the camera/computer? I find that even current HD cameras like the F-900 can be tinker-mania, and they are much better set-up than these industrial cameras and the poor frame grabber software that's out there.

 

So again, you're spending at least $6,000 for the complete system, enough to get you a tricked-out F-900 for a week-and-a-half, sometimes two weeks depending on who you talk to and what deals you can make. Downconversions for editing can be done for around $100 per tape, and then online for HD (if you find someone with an HD FCP system) can be done for $400/hr. There's a lot you can do with the money you're about to spend on a camera system that may not make you very productive on set, and cause you to loose the focus of the actors, crew, etc., which is nothing to sneeze at. In other words, if you're trying to direct and tinker with your toy becaue you're the only one who knows how to use it, you're going to have problems-at least more so than with a more tried-and-true approach that other people can help you with.

 

JMHO.

[Guest Pete Wright]

It may be most efficient to rent the camera and buy a Mac with FCP HD. I don't think that those industrial cameras are worth buying. I want through the reasoning process in the past too. It's not worse waisting money on it.

 

You can get a lossless compression on the Mac with about 2.5:1 ratio to save on disc space.

 

Can you use the F900 to feed the tape to the computer or do you need a VTR? Does anyone know? Any input would be appreciated.

 

Pete

[Mike Brennan]

Can you use the F900 to feed the tape to the computer or do you need a VTR? Does anyone know? Any input would be appreciated.

 

Short answer yes. But replay from a deck has better error correction.

I had a reel edited in house by a top post company, they had borrowed a demo f500 deck for playout. We checked back the recording and i was fine.

But then the tape would not playback very well at all from my f900!

 

You should have no problems playing back from a f900 if everything is in order. I wouldn't reccomend it if you are playing back more than a few tapes a day.

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Tom Polson]

"cheap" workflow.

 

without going into the sordid details, don't spend time or money on slapping a system together just to save a few bucks. the cost diffenernce between Vegas and Final Cut is only about $400 and FCP has much more HD capture options as well as decent EDL support. also remember 90 minute movie is about 600GB HD 10bit uncompressed. say you shoot super conservative 10:1 that will be 6 terabytes. (more likely 40:1 or higher=24TB) it's no longer cheap to do it this way.

 

you'll spend four times as much time messing around with hardware and software that was not designed to work together. you need your time and energy focused on your film, not jumping through hoops. also, what will happen to all of the files when the film is finished? they have to be layed off to deliverable format and archived somehow.

 

if i were to do the lowest budget HD, i would rent Panasonic Varicam, shoot 720P(tape stock is still the cheapest recording medium), offline FCP, online FCP upconverting when inputing (the Panasonic deck can do this) and deliver 1080P. if i had a little more money, i get a Sony camera and shoor 1080P. the chances for problems are greatly diminished as well as the costs in the long run. i don't know how many times i've seen people cheap out in production only to loose all the savings in one post session trying fix the master so it can be deliverable.