ktabes Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Does anyone have any info on the thomson viper filmstream HD cameras? and is there a website about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Josh Hill Posted July 25, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 25, 2004 You should try Googling. Look what I found by typing in "Viper Filmstream" http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/cameras/viper/ http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/ products/cameras/viper/pdf/viper_ds.pdf http://users.pandora.be/newmediasystems/ pdfs/thomson/viper_specs.pdf http://users.pandora.be/newmediasystems/ pdfs/thomson/viper_faq.pdf Not to be a jerk, but I think it bothers people sometimes when people come in and ask for links they can find if they would just use Google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Wendell_Greene Posted July 25, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 25, 2004 Director David Fincher has shot several commercials using the Viper, including ones for Xelibri "Beauty For Sale; Nike "Gamebreakers" and most recently, Hewlett Packard (HP) "Constant Change" and if you do a search under those names you'll find information about his use of the camera and comments from Digital Domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted July 25, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 25, 2004 Hi, Oh, I do love the way they're trying to make Viper into a film camera in that PDF. Item: the first thing they mention under light levels is using a light meter. Sorry, no. Zebra stripes, please. Light metering probably has a place, but it's got to be subordinate to the real data. Item: "You have more [exposure] tolerance than with video cameras." Now this really ticks me off. Viper is a video camera - in fact, the relevant bits of it are a preexisting Thompson camera head; so they're implying that their usual back-end electronics are crap! Secondly, if it's electronic recording of motion images, it's a video camera. Call it data if you like, but it's data representing video. Dalsa Origin is a video camera; their people took the greatest possible exception to this implication, which was a rather endearingly pathetic reaction to someone denying a rather obvious piece of marketing-speak. Panavision Genesis is a video camera; Kinetta is a video camera. Sorry if it's politically unacceptable to say so, but they're all video cameras. The PDF even goes on to mention "camera video processing functions." It's a video camera! Live with it! Deal with your disappointment! Jesus. Now really and truly I don't care what they want to call it, but it seems that people have become so married to the idea that video can never challenge film that once it actually starts to do so, they deny it by calling video cameras something else, and it's misinformative bollocks. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Not to be a jerk, but I think it bothers people sometimes when people come in and ask for links they can find if they would just use Google. Oh YAHOO!!!!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 The feature film, Silence Becomes You, shot on a viper. In the article that was posted on 2-pop, they stated that using the Viper was cheaper all around as compared to 35mm. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Viper and all the other 2k or 4k like cameras, very expensive? As is the post production of this "data". It seems to me that the tried and true 35mm film camera is still the best acquisition format. Image quality compared to price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 1, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted May 1, 2005 Even the people at Thomson aren't going to argue with you that 35mm is better. They are very clear to always tell people that the Viper is not a replacement for film. It's one of the best HD cameras out there, though. HD cameras are more expensive to rent and the recording will add more cost with a Viper, but considering even a low-budget 35mm feature that shoots 100,000' of stock may spend $60,000 on stock, processing, and telecine JUST to get into the editing stage, generally HD works out to be cheaper... UNTIL you spend the money on the transfer back to 35mm. But since most features fail to get a theatrical deal, you may never have to spend the money for a film-out, and IF you get get a theatrical deal, you can afford the film-out even if it negates your savings over 35mm. So in some ways, the decision to shoot HD is similar to the ones for shooting in Super-16 -- it's a cash-flow issue: more up front for production even though final post costs may be higher if a 35mm prints are needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Cox Posted May 1, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted May 1, 2005 It seems to me that the tried and true 35mm film camera is still the best acquisition format. Image quality compared to price. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It depends what you are doing with it. If you are shooting a "straight" drama that you are happy to grade and title optically and it has few (if any effects) then this is probably true. However, if you have a large number of effects (including effects you don't see such as removing the digital wrist watch from the actor in the period drama!) or you want to take advantage of a digital intermediate, where you can colour grade with immediate results and add a whole host of other enhancements, then you will have to have your film scanned and this can be expensive. However, for those film-makers who are not budget-challenged, acquiring on film, 4K scan digital intermediate and film out will (in most situations) provide the best quality / control combination. David Cox Baraka Post Production www.baraka.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Schweickart Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 I want to address a couple of the topics posted here. One, yes Thomson is making a concerted effort to distance the Viper from the term "Video." I don't think that this is as hypocritical a stance as some are making it out to be. The truth is that, of course the Viper is not film, but in "filmstream" it bypasses most of the tools that are essential to video cameras. Namely, there is no gamma curves or color processing applied to the image. I personally think it is better to think of the Viper in terms of being part of a digital intermediate process than being a video camera. At the Camera House we use the term "Digital" rather than Video to differentiate the Viper workflow from typical HD. Second, the rental price of the Viper is less than an Arricam studio and comprable to a 435 package. The support/recording/viewing equipment rentals can add up but this must be seen on a case by case basis, and when using the S-Two recording system with a proper opertator you replace the need for video assist and loading. It is hard to come up with hard numbers to compare film vs. digital but from what I can gather the price of the packages and personnel required are about even before you consider the savings in film stock, developing and perhaps digital scanning. Now, the long format workflow when using S-Two devices, consists of backing up recorded material to LT02 (soon LT03) data tape. This is an acceptable deliverable and is in effect your digital negative. You can cut from lower res dailies then conform back to your original material. Again I don't know what exactly the numbers are for post-production but on a long format project I believe there are great savings. Silence becomes you was recorded onto S-Two and archived using S-Two's A-dock. They were very pleased and if they say it ended up being cheaper, I don't doubt it. I hope someone found this helpful. Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Sanders Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Film snobs will always push the "video" terminology. Digital snobs will always push the "digital" terminology. Full disclosure: I'm a digital snob who still believes film is still superior (for color and resolution). But I find manipulation of digital imagery easier and more affordable, therefore it is my preference. However, if I had the budget necessary to shoot film as an acquisition medium only, scan it, and have a complete digital post pipeline, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now