4k numbers

[Patrizio De Sica]

Hi,

 

> What's so wrong with digital cinema camera or digital motion picture camera?

 

Verbosity. Pomposity. Technical vagueness.

 

 

It isn't just marketing though I can follow your viewpoint.

 

Cinema is motion picture: film or video. Mostly associated to the theatrical release because its aesthetic properties with public acceptance and relevance. In general, video is tape, cinema or motion picture is what the aesthetics is made.

 

If DOF and other cinematography aspects like latitude or noiseless are features of the whole thing, here is the cinema or the motion picture. Film and lately and definitely for the future, from a digital source. Not basically video because its weakness on these issues.

 

What it's impossible to figure out is that only a part of this industry can know what the cinema or motion picture is. It isn't so... Who knows? It will be the audiences and for sure the aesthetics capability of this sort of gear. And it's possible to see how far this capability goes. If there are people who cannot or don't want to see that, it's their problem not ours. The grabs are there and these cinema samples (not video if not because it's tape, because its weakness) are speaking by themselves.

Edited September 24, 2006 by Patrizio De Sica

[Priyesh Puthan Valiyandi]

Following Phil´s logic, a filmcamera must be some sort of old-fashioned video-camera, right ? How do you make the distinction the other way round ?

But honestly, I don´t understand the meaning of your statement, Phil.

The Dalsa and ( soon ) the Red are / will be cameras that are some kind of hybrid between film and video, the combination of both´s biggest strenghts ( resolution, latitude of film and the immediate feedback of video etc. ).

 

Priyesh Puthan Valiyandi

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Last days there is something to change in these boards.

 

4K frame grab is up:

http://red.com/gallery-still.htm

[Stephen Williams]

Following Phil´s logic, a filmcamera must be some sort of old-fashioned video-camera, right ? How do you make the distinction the other way round ?

But honestly, I don´t understand the meaning of your statement, Phil.

The Dalsa and ( soon ) the Red are / will be cameras that are some kind of hybrid between film and video, the combination of both´s biggest strenghts ( resolution, latitude of film and the immediate feedback of video etc. ).

 

Priyesh Puthan Valiyandi

 

Hi,

 

Phil's logic is sound IMHO. A film camera is an old fashoned analogue device.

 

An old fashoned video camera uses tubes, a modern one a CCD or Cmos sensor(s)!

 

I have yet to test a Digital camera with the latitude of film. Hopefully Jim can produce one !

 

Why would you expect an electronic device to produce the same image as a Film camera?

 

Stephen

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Hi,

 

(...)

 

Hopefully Jim can produce one !

 

Why would you expect an electronic device to produce the same image as a Film camera?

 

Stephen

Available digital technology for cheaper moviemaking?!

 

Emanuel

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Available digital technology for cheaper moviemaking?!

 

Emanuel

 

I totally agree with Stephen. Why would you want one medium to imitate another? If you only buy the RED because its "cheaper than film" or at least you assume it is, that doesnt say a lot about RED. I would hope that RED is trying to be unique in its look and not just be "poor mans film substitute" but people still shooting on film if they can afford it.

 

To me, that is like buying a BMW so it can be like a Mercedes. Its a strange and futile concept.

[Stephen Williams]

Available digital technology for cheaper moviemaking?!

 

Emanuel

 

Emmanuel,

 

I don't wish to charge less when shooting on a digital camera! I am looking for better quality movie making, not cheaper!

 

Stephen

[Brian Drysdale]

If you're going to try and define the Dalsa, RED, SI etc as different to video cameras you'll have to put forward something more fundamental than using terms like digital and better latitude. If these are a new type of camera, there has to be something about them that fundamentally divides them from other electronic moving image gathering cameras. Or are they just a sub group of video?

 

Marketing rhetoric isn't good enough.

 

I'm looking forward to good, new, edgy RAW cinema (& TV), shot on whatever type of camera.

[jan von krogh]

I don't wish to charge less when shooting on a digital camera! I am looking for better quality movie making, not cheaper!

 

I agree. But: In a world of limited budgets, a red would allow for more cams/light on the set when not reducing the budget. Or increasing payment.

 

Also, i do welcome the flexibilty of the workflow red is aiming to deliver.

 

On the one hand, it is fantastic that my 35mm gear now becomes useable on the red. Otoh, the camera itself can do some tricks which so far required (or made at least sense to use) a second camera: overcranking digital at 1080/2k/4k was something i was always missing. Another cost-saver.

[Priyesh Puthan Valiyandi]

Hi Stephen,

 

that was not a totally serious remark by me ! I mean he ( Phil ) divides everything into film / video and puts the Red into the second one, like it´s a very clear decision, not totally logic to me, that thing seems to be something different.

 

Gruss aus Berlin in die Schweiz !

 

Priyesh

[Stephen Williams]

Otoh, the camera itself can do some tricks which so far required (or made at least sense to use) a second camera: overcranking digital at 1080/2k/4k was something i was always missing. Another cost-saver.

 

Hi,

 

With respect there has been no demonstration of overcranking with a Red camera AFAIK.

 

Again I quote from the Red website :-

 

"Red makes no promises or representation as to the delivery date of the camera or final specifications"

 

Stephen

[jan von krogh]

Hi,

 

With respect there has been no demonstration of overcranking with a Red camera AFAIK.

 

Again I quote from the Red website :-

"Red makes no promises or representation as to the delivery date of the camera or final specifications"

 

At ibc we "only" saw moving 4k images at 24fps/10 bit from their CMOS sensor, projected in the d-cinema which they rented directly after panavisions presentation.

 

60, 120p or other framerates weren´t presented. Their actual planning is prototype in december, delivery to customers ~april 07. The team cleary announced: The only thing that is really sure, is that there will be changes.

 

However, pulling higher framerates out of CMOS-sensors isn´t that tricky, as far as my knowledge and understanding of digital optical aquisition is valid for the design RED has implemented, its rather a cooling problem if any.

 

Hotter sensor=more noise, besides that, a cmos should be quite read-out-frequency agnostic, compared to ccd or mechanical filmtransport. 60p@4k and 120p@2k is what red is aiming at. High bandwidths, but nothing a decent storage couldn´t handle today.

 

i personally wouldn´t mind if the camera will miss features in the early release, to be precise: I wouldn´t even miss them if the camera would cost 500% more and would ship half a year later.

 

Arri, Dalsa, Panavision all won´t sell cameras to me (anyone) and empower their niche-monopoly, Sony has excellent cameras, but we already operate them and for many films we produce/rentout for/postproduce/supervise a lesser DOF and the use of our classic 16&35mm glass & all is highly interesting. Overcranking would be the icing on the cake, one i really would want to have. But besides, red is not noisy, very compact and leightwight and will record synced sound - ideal for steady and many other form of shooting. Run´n´gun / handheld shots, especially on location will also benefit from the less intrusive body.

 

It is my guess, that if red archieves their goals, the red 1 will be the most popular camera for scenic top-end photography here within a short period of time, lets say 1-2 years. the cinealtas will have their place as well, but i think the 70-80% 35mm we had here 99/00, which dropped to ~20% in 06 will be even less.

 

_if_ they deliver, it will be the most versatile camera with images among the best in the market for a really good price with really low operating costs and offers at least on the physical side a very ergonomic design. Or do you see that different?

 

p.s. also greetings from berlin!

[Graeme Nattress]

We've had the full sensor running up to it's rated 60fps in the lab for testing, but we don't have any images from that. As we're still recording uncompressed as the codec boards are still being worked on, it gets tricky to record at that fps :-) However, we're totally confident that the sensor will work at that speed.

 

Graeme

[jan von krogh]

We've had the full sensor running up to it's rated 60fps in the lab for testing, but we don't have any images from that. As we're still recording uncompressed as the codec boards are still being worked on, it gets tricky to record at that fps :-) However, we're totally confident that the sensor will work at that speed.

 

Graeme

 

and then there is still REDCODE BLACK, isn´t it? ;)

[Stephen Williams]

60, 120p or other framerates weren´t presented.

 

Hotter sensor=more noise, besides that, a cmos should be quite read-out-frequency agnostic, compared to ccd or mechanical filmtransport. 60p@4k and 120p@2k is what red is aiming at. High bandwidths, but nothing a decent storage couldn´t handle today.

 

Jan,

 

I like the idea very much, but the cost of recording 60p @4K raw will still be quite high in 6 months time.

 

I don't see noise an issue with high speed photography!

 

Did you see the Panavision presentation? I had limited time at IBC this year so was unable to-

 

Stephen

[jan von krogh]

Jan,

 

I like the idea very much, but the cost of recording 60p @4K raw will still be quite high in 6 months time.

 

Hello again,

 

yes and no. uncompressed it will pretty high, but not if you compare it to 35mm film or a digital speedcam (weinberg etc). additionally, if one can use their codec (and i do have the impression that it is highly useable), the required storage would be totally affordable, even for low-budgets.

 

I don't see noise an issue with high speed photography!

 

in film, no, in cmos (or generally speaking, in digital aquisition) heat is generated by readoutspeed, and heat generates noise, and therefore i will be evaluating criticalyl when we use our first reds here if the noise level will raise after highspeed-shooting over a extended timeperiod.

 

But this is only speculation basing on my basic understanding about the inner working of ccd/cmos sensors. if red decides to integrate a peltier cooling element or whatever cooling system, heat might be no problem, or maybe they don´t have any problems with this at all.

 

Did you see the Panavision presentation? I had limited time at IBC this year so was unable to-

yes, my company attended with 2 people @ panavision.

 

basicly

 

- 21 full features shot on panavision genesis videocam.

- panavision is surprised that genesis is used so much, they expected genesis mainly on use on A-budget and VFX but everyone is using it. A-budgets often rent out 8 cams at the same time.

- they showed excellent stuff from apocalypto, superman, flyboys, click and many many other a- and b-budgets.

- shooting at >40° celsius in the south-american rainforest, camera ramped up to ~2000 ASA on apocalypto generated some noise, but it was fully acceptable (also for the audience)

- panavision filmcameras weren´t mentioned with a single word, same for cooperation with sony.

 

Funny things happened in the Q&A.

 

The Panavision Genesis, dispite its 35 mm sensor, only records 1080p. Guy in the audience asks (very distrusting) - "so, did we see all that stuff blown up to 35mm film as projection". panavision exec smiles and says: "interesting that you ask (because the sceptical guy couldn´t see the difference obviously)... no, we saw it on a sony 4k projector".... 5 min later a dutch IBC organisationgirl came, handed him a written note on the stage and he begun smiling... short pause. he laughed and then said... "i have just been informed that we actually saw all on a christie 2K digital cinema projector"...

 

I suppose the 4k was already connected for reds presentation. anyhow, one has to understand that the panavision genesis and the sony 950 (and their upcoming NR23) only have ~20% of the resolution of red 1. so a 4k filmout or digital projection of sony or panavision or arri d20 would be a blow-up anyhow.

 

And if one visits a regular cinema with classical photochemical projection, one can be happy if one can get 800-900 lines of resolution...

 

We also have been to the conference, at DCI, dolby and many other interesting sessions. Was a great IBC this year. AH, and jim jannard smokes cigars in reality as well, he had one when i first met him. red both was directly besides kodaks btw. However, no one was popping bubblegum at red.

[Alan Lasky]

For the record the DALSA Origin currently tops out at 36fps, and we recently got there due to some great work by our partners at CODEX. It is believed the Origin can go to 48fps, and perhaps beyond, but not without moving to a solid state recording medium. As Graeme quite correctly points out: things get tricky at those speeds. RED's IBC presentation was very cool, and they should be congratulated for getting 24fps running on their system so quickly, instead of being diss'ed for not showing 60fps 4K.

 

On another note, I have a question regarding a previous posting in this thread. Someone posted this: "Arri, Dalsa, Panavision all won´t sell cameras to me (anyone) and empower their niche-monopoly" Uh, do you really believe DALSA, Arri, & Panavision are conspiring with 'the man' to keep you down? Would it not make sense to stop and think for a minute about elements like service models, technical obsolence, very small customer base/market, hardware costs, etc when making decisions about renting vs selling?

 

Despite the fact that RED is selling their camera to the GP (much as our 'niche-monopoly' brothers at Arri do) my instinct tells me that a very large percentage of those cameras wil be sold to rental houses for distribution. Indeed were I to want to buy an Arri 435 (or a SONY, or Panasonic) camera I could whip out the old check-book at any time and scoop one up.

 

This is not a "workers control the means of production" piece of 60's 'fight the power' politics. The economic reality of high-end film production (the market we are serving) warrants the use a rental model for everything: cameras, lights, post-production, actors, and just about everything else that can not be classified as 'expendables.' I applaud RED's decision to sell their camera for $17,500 and keep it in reach of independent film makers and professional DP's. However does anyone really believe that an inexpensive camera is going to fundamentally change the economic model of current film production? What has been characterized as 'snobbery' may in fact be a mis-interpertation of the blunt realities of the world we do business in every day.

 

I, like many of the people on this board, enjoy making my own film imagery. However, I have also worked on a number of feature films that have been released commercially by major studios. I am not naive enough to know that there is a large gulf between those two modes of film production. I have been in the camera department, visual effects, and post; and more importantly I have seen the budgets for all of those line items on a film. I do not believe that an inexpensive camera is going to empower me to "storm the castle" of the film business. Indeed the business side of the equation is a bit more complex than that, no matter what we would like to believe.

 

Alan Lasky

DALSA Digital Cinema

[Stephen Williams]

one has to understand that the panavision genesis and the sony 950 (and their upcoming NR23) only have ~20% of the resolution of red 1.

 

Hi Jan,

 

As the Sony & PV have 3 sensors surely it's more than 20% of Red's resoloution.

 

Stephen

[jan von krogh]

Hi Jan,

 

As the Sony & PV have 3 sensors surely it's more than 20% of Red's resoloution.

 

Stephen

 

Hi Stephen, we are turning this board into a chatroom.

 

Sony 750/900/950 have 3 sensors, Panavision Genesis has one sensor.

How much these sensors capture is in _camera_, however they all record HD,

1080p: 1920*1080 = 2073600 pixels

 

red does 4K, at 1.66 thats

4K@1.66 : 4096*2464 = 10092544 pixels.

 

that would be 20.55% of the resolution. red also does 2540p, but i have no idea about the actual resolution.

[jan von krogh]

On another note, I have a question regarding a previous posting in this thread. Someone posted this: "Arri, Dalsa, Panavision all won´t sell cameras to me (anyone) and empower their niche-monopoly"

Hello Mr. Lasky, that was me. I have great respect for dalsas archievement and only put you in a row with panavision and arri, as you deliver fantastic quality. they certainly have a different businessmodel - and marktshare in cameras for cinema.

 

Uh, do you really believe DALSA, Arri, & Panavision are conspiring with 'the man' to keep you down?

When Jim Jannard is the man then certainly not. No, i don´t see them conspiring. They are simply trying to get the most revenue out of their products and have few, if any competition in certain niches.

 

Would it not make sense to stop and think for a minute about elements like service models, technical obsolence, very small customer base/market, hardware costs, etc when making decisions about renting vs selling?

Despite the fact that RED is selling their camera to the GP (much as our 'niche-monopoly' brothers at Arri do) my instinct tells me that a very large percentage of those cameras wil be sold to rental houses for distribution.

In fact i own & run a rental house. And in 2006 i am not able to buy a 35mm sensor digital moviecam from 3 company who manufacture them, because they don´t sell them.

 

Indeed were I to want to buy an Arri 435 (or a SONY, or Panasonic) camera I could whip out the old check-book at any time and scoop one up.

yes, i have done that, we have several $100.000 in cameras, but there are no d20, origins, genesis - and i certainly won´t bet my bucks on 35mm camera rental gear in 2006 - optics, peripherals et all - yes, cameras no.

 

This is not a "workers control the means of production" piece of 60's 'fight the power' politics. The economic reality of high-end film production (the market we are serving) warrants the use a rental model for everything: cameras, lights, post-production, actors, and just about everything else that can not be classified as 'expendables.'

as a generalisation i would i disagree. i don´t know the hollywood-business en detail, but i surely know quite a bit about production reality.

 

the easy formula is: make more money. produce the film with better quality cheaper.

 

if one has ~300 days worth of shooting on a camera and year, owning is certainly better than renting. and we surely have >300 days worth of shooting on our cameras a year.

 

this is valid for almost any gear. if renting is cheaper, as there is not enough business, go for it. if renting is more expensive than buying and cost of ownership, buy.

 

this has no too much to do with politics, especially not with "fight the power", this is basic economics.

 

I applaud RED's decision to sell their camera for $17,500 and keep it in reach of independent film makers and professional DP's.

agreed, even if this will put a little tornado into my rental business.

 

However does anyone really believe that an inexpensive camera is going to fundamentally change the economic model of current film production?

technology changes production reality all the time. when the first DAW ala nuendo, soundscape, protools, audiologic etc came to the market, i was pretty sure that they would kill the million-dollar ssl audiomixers. same for software basing samplers against the million-dollar synclavier. today, almost noone would pay a $4000 dollars a day for synclavier. that was rental business versus ownership.

 

i cannot predict how strong the impact of the red camera on the movieproduction will be.

but we shouldn´t confuse or mix movieproduction and camera-rental business here, and for camera-rental business, the impact should be somewhat... remarkable.

 

I, like many of the people on this board, enjoy making my own film imagery. However, I have also worked on a number of feature films that have been released commercially by major studios. I am not naive enough to know that there is a large gulf between those two modes of film production.

I have been in the camera department, visual effects, and post; and more importantly I have seen the budgets for all of those line items on a film. I do not believe that an inexpensive camera is going to empower me to "storm the castle" of the film business. Indeed the business side of the equation is a bit more complex than that, no matter what we would like to believe.

agreed. but how do you come to the understanding that i want to storm my own castle btw? ;)

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Why would you want one medium to imitate another? If you only buy the RED because its "cheaper than film" or at least you assume it is

I didn't say that or at least it isn't the unique reason...

 

that doesnt say a lot about RED.

By the opposite, it says a lot...

 

I would hope that RED is trying to be unique in its look and not just be "poor mans film substitute" but people still shooting on film if they can afford it.

Some people will be, others don't. And maybe that's where is coming such hostility against this project and such camcorder. BTW, a good publicity and free advertisement. I think Jim must be grateful. :D

 

To me, that is like buying a BMW so it can be like a Mercedes.

I fully agree. So...

 

Its a strange and futile concept.

So, you can see how your futile conception was misunderstood or/and is wrong.

[Patrizio De Sica]

I don't wish to charge less when shooting on a digital camera!

 

Stephen

 

Is that your problem? :P

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Emmanuel,

 

I don't wish to charge less when shooting on a digital camera! I am looking for better quality movie making, not cheaper!

 

Stephen

About the first part of your assessment, I could even agree. Regarding both parts, I understand your concern. About the second one, if we can have both commitments or something similar considering the quality issue (who knows if won't it be better?), why should we have less? I mean the same, similar (unnoticeable by a customer or an audience) or even lesser quality for a higher price?

 

I'm speaking as producer or director not as director of photography.

 

Emanuel

[Patrizio De Sica]

...not as director of photography.

 

Emanuel

 

Here is their problem...

 

The producers (PS: ...worst! the directors are buyers! :angry: :lol:) are buying and the people from the cinematography are frightening. You're losing your power! :P

Edited September 24, 2006 by Patrizio De Sica

[Chris Kenny]

However does anyone really believe that an inexpensive camera is going to fundamentally change the economic model of current film production?

 

I've thought a lot about this, and the answer I've come up with is "sometimes".

 

If you're making a $100M movie with tons of visual effects work, A-list actors, etc. then even if your camera and your film stock and processing costs were free you'd probably only save a couple percent, at most, on your budget. This means that, obviously, an inexpensive digital cinema camera won't enable you to make a $100M movie for very much less than $100M. Or a even $5M movie for much less than $5M. If digital is chosen for films in this price range, it will be because it's better for a particular production, not because it's cheaper.

 

It's more interesting to approach this from the other side. What are the people making $3000 movies with $20000 worth of equipment doing right now? They're not spending anything on crew payroll, because they're just making movies with their film school friends. They're not spending anything on cast, because they're getting underemployed actors, who just want to act, to work for free. They're probably spending next to nothing on things like wardrobe and locations, because they're taking interesting stuff their cast/crew have free access to (the rich uncle's yacht, etc.) and writing them into the script. They're choosing their subject matter so they don't need stunts, explosions, elaborate visual effects, or other stuff that just fundamentally can't be done for cheap. They're doing post-production on the desktop, even if that means they can't twiddle knobs to tweak color in real-time as the footage plays.

 

If they do all of this well enough (most of them won't, of course, but a few will), you can't tell they've done it on the cheap. But there is still one place where you can tell, immediately, if a production is an ultra-low-budget affair... right now, there's just no way to do acquisition on the cheap and have quality that rivals 35mm on a big screen. Unlike with all these other things, it doesn't matter how talented you are, or how much time you're willing to invest, or how carefully you tailor your script to fit within your limitations. There's just no way to shoot a 35mm-quality feature without spending tens of thousands of dollars (probably upwards of $100K) on camera rental, film stock, processing, telecine, lab costs, etc. or renting one of the existing digital cinema cameras at a daily rate that's probably higher than the production's entire budget. (And ending up with digital footage you probably can't practically use with your desktop editing system anyway.)

 

And this is where inexpensive digital cinema cameras make a huge difference. If RED delivers, 6 months from now there will be a way to get that quality level, with maybe a $25-30K camera package you can buy outright, and few additional costs on a per-production basis. Now, obviously this approach won't let you tell every story. You can't make Star Wars or Lord of the Rings for $3000 just because you can now shoot 4K for cheap. But there are a lot of interesting stories it will let you tell.

 

This isn't going to radically change Hollywood, mind you... but bringing the cost of 35mm-quality acquisition down from $100K per feature to $25-30K as a one-time expense and maybe $1500 worth of hard drives per feature is certainly going to have a major impact on a particular segment of the market. And it will matter to major distributors, because they'll start seeing ultra-low-budget stuff on their radar that they might want to consider buying because of the picture quality, rather than in spite of it (or in rare cases, because the low quality works artistically for the subject matter).