Interesting Article about Panavision

[Tom Lowe]

35mm Film is still equal to or exceeds 6k resolution, so no gain there.

 

As far as Full Frame 35mm acquisition goes, the additional costs and hassle would far outweigh the benefits in picture quality. FF35 is going to be very hard to focus pull at the sort of stops that are currently fashionable. That either means lots more soft shots (which cost money) or lots more lights for a deeper stop (which cost money) FF35 will cost more either in time, or in equipment costs, while offering an improvement in image quality that your average cinemagoer will neither notice, nor care about. There are plenty of people who are quite happy to watch films on their iPhones for god's sake!, What makes you think anyone cares about FF35?

 

There are also virtually no cine lenses that will cover full frame 35mm, which means that there would have to be a huge financial investment by lens manufacturers to cater for this paradigm shift.

 

On top of this the data management and post production costs of dealing with a 6K image pipeline are going to be huge, and unjustifiable, given that currently all but the most wealthy features get scanned to film at 2k, and there are also so few cinemas able to project digitally.

 

Let's revisit this post of yours in a year or two and see who was right -- you or me. ;)

 

Your post represents the exact polar opposite of my thinking on this subject. For example you say:

 

FF35 is going to be very hard to focus pull at the sort of stops that are currently fashionable. That either means lots more soft shots (which cost money) or lots more lights for a deeper stop (which cost money)

 

Or how about simply switching from ISO 300 to ISO 600, or ISO 900?

 

Again, let's revisit this post in a year or two.

[David Mullen ASC]

Assuming that the post houses don't choke on 6K RAW workflows, etc. I think the biggest hurdle with FF35 is the lack of cine lenses, not so much the depth of field. Anamorphic, after all, has less depth of field but we deal with it when we want that extra quality... the same will hold true for FF35, if there is a perception of a jump in quality and the sacrifice is just compensating for 1.5-stops of less depth of field, I think some people will try -- but only if they have decent cine-style FF35 lenses.

 

The question isn't sharpness, many still camera lenses are just as sharp, but you don't want to combine less depth of field with lenses not designed for cine-style focus-pulling, that's the worst of both worlds (and something many people dealing with DOF adaptors have to deal with, but at least the fuzziness of the process hides some of the focusing problems -- at 6K RAW, there's no hiding.)

 

We have the Zeiss Compacts that cover FF35 and some of the longer Master Primes will cover it (in fact most of the cine lenses cover it above a certain focal length) but I can imagine that building some T/2.0 wide-angle cine lenses to cover FF35 is going to give you a rather large lens. It's probably one reason the FF35 Zeiss Compact 18mm is limited to f/3.5.

[Stephen Williams]

Again, let's revisit this post in a year or two.

 

Hi Tom,

 

We will all still laughing at you then, especially after you loose your bet.

 

Best Stephen

 

PS you can pay $45 now (to a charity of my choice) or $50 in just over a year :lol:

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Tom,

 

We will all still laughing at you then, especially after you loose your bet.

 

Best Stephen

 

PS you can pay $45 now (to a charity of my choice) or $50 in just over a year :lol:

 

lol we will see who gets the last laugh on ff35 :)

[Stephen Williams]

lol we will see who gets the last laugh on ff35 :)

 

Hi,

 

I guess I will shoot some vistavision on film then :lol:

 

Stephen

[Thomas James]

I think in order to really take advantage of digital 4K projection you are going to have to shoot using 65mm film.

[K Borowski]

Let's revisit this post of yours in a year or two and see who was right -- you or me. ;)

 

Your post represents the exact polar opposite of my thinking on this subject. For example you say:

 

 

 

Or how about simply switching from ISO 300 to ISO 600, or ISO 900?

 

Again, let's revisit this post in a year or two.

 

Or maybe even the proper numbers, like 320, 640, and 800/1000?

[Stephen Williams]

Or maybe even the proper numbers, like 320, 640, and 800/1000?

 

Hi Karl,

 

That post from Tom was most informing! :lol:

 

Stephen

[Saul Rodgar]

Hi Karl,

 

That post from Tom was most informing! :lol:

 

Stephen

 

You guys are misinformed, with digital take-nology one makes the ASA numbers one wants, it is that bad ass . . .

[Ruairi Robinson]

Hi Tom,

 

We will all still laughing at you then, especially after you loose your bet.

 

Best Stephen

 

PS you can pay $45 now (to a charity of my choice) or $50 in just over a year :lol:

 

That's LOSE not LOOSE.

 

Sheesh.

 

(While we are nitpicking)

[Stephen Williams]

That's LOSE not LOOSE.

 

Sheesh.

 

(While we are nitpicking)

 

Thanks Ruairi, that's one of the problems of being dyslexic, spell checkers don't always help.

 

Best,

 

Stephen

[Ruairi Robinson]

Thanks Ruairi, that's one of the problems of being dyslexic, spell checkers don't always help.

 

Best,

 

Stephen

 

 

Your attempt at making me feel guilty has failed. For I lack what you humons commonly refer to as a "conscience".

 

Best

Ruairi

Intergalactic space ninja from planet X

[Stephen Williams]

Your attempt at making me feel guilty has failed. For I lack what you humons commonly refer to as a "conscience".

 

Best

Ruairi

Intergalactic space ninja from planet X

 

No attempt to make you feel guilty, probably the reason that I am a DP & not a scrip writer :lol:

 

Best,

Stephen

[Tenolian Bell]

I'm sure Kodak sees the beginning of the end for television being shot on film. This television season appears to be the tipping point.

 

The rumors I've heard place 65mm as the center of Kodak's future plans. Kodak is actively working on finding an alternative to the most expensive element in film, the silver. This should allow them to lower the price considerably.

 

Since most big tenet pole summer/Christmas Hollywood films are looking to go large format and IMAX. Kodak would provide 65mm as an affordable option for these movies to be shot in a larger format.

 

 

I think in order to really take advantage of digital 4K projection you are going to have to shoot using 65mm film.

[Tenolian Bell]

I have a friend who has retired but was working in commercial photography for over 30 years. He heard about RED and their ambitions of competing directly with Canon and Nikon. He went over to RED forums and began asking questions about how RED planned to get over some of the hurdles of competing with companies who are well established.

 

He admitted he was asking some tough questions, but was very soon flamed by people who had no idea what they were talking about. Eventually Jim himself joined in with some rather choice comments about the inquiry. At the end of it my friend said no one gave any good answers to his questions, he was only met with venom for doubting RED.

[Stuart Brereton]

Or how about simply switching from ISO 300 to ISO 600, or ISO 900?

 

Given the noise levels that exist in all digital cinema cameras at present, I can't imagine anyone willingly shooting at 900asa, or indeed anything much above 500asa.

 

35mm motion picture film has existed for years because it offers great quality imagery at an acceptable cost, whilst remaining relatively easy to use. In an industry that is as inherently conservative as the film business there is simply no reason to switch to FF35 purely because it is available. It is easier in every way to stick to shooting either an Academy or s35 sized chip, using the the lenses that are readily available FF35 on the Epic, or any other camera, is simply not necessary.

[Thomas James]

And this idea that 4K digital projection will not be significant is totally false. Yes it may be true that the majority of theatres will install 2K digital projection systems however the AMC chain of theatres has decided to scrap 35mm film projection and go with 100 percent 4K digital projection. What this means is that these theatres will be starving for movies that are shot with 65mm film in order to create the ultimate high definition experience that you cannot get at home.

 

Of course people will make the claim that resolution of 35mm film already exceeds the resolution of 6K as if 35mm film is overkill for 4k digital projection. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even if 35mm film has 6K resolution the finer grain pattern of 65mm film unlocks the resolution potential and will result in a cleaner picture which means that the apparent resolution of 65mm film when using 4k digital projection will be much greater than if you used 35mm film for origination. Audiences all of which have golden eyes will be able to tell the difference not just because of the greater resolution of 65mm film but the richer colors and the better contrast.

 

After creating the Dark Knight which used 65mm IMAX film the director wished that he shot the entire movie using 65mm film and is craving for more 65mm for his future productions.

[K Borowski]

That's LOSE not LOOSE.

 

Sheesh.

 

(While we are nitpicking)

 

Ruairi, not because you are on the opposite side of the argument as me, but I think it is incredibly rude to criticize someone who is almost certainly speaking English as a second language for a minor gramatical mistake that most native speakers make all the time too.

 

How about a little bit of respect for non-native speakers?

 

I doubt you or I would have a quarter of the aptitude for speaking in either French or German that Stephen is probably used to.

[Ruairi Robinson]

Ruairi, not because you are on the opposite side of the argument as me, but I think it is incredibly rude to criticize someone who is almost certainly speaking English as a second language for a minor gramatical mistake that most native speakers make all the time too.

 

How about a little bit of respect for non-native speakers?

 

I doubt you or I would have a quarter of the aptitude for speaking in either French or German that Stephen is probably used to.

 

Uh huh.

 

You are misreading what was said. There is zero hostility between Stephen and I.

 

Best,

Ruairi Robinson

International field specialist in jokes that seem like insults if you are not paying close enough attention.

[K Borowski]

It also seems you are an expert at passive aggression.

 

 

Just because there is no hostility doesn't mean that we ought cut non-native speakers some slack.

[Ruairi Robinson]

It also seems you are an expert at passive aggression.

 

 

Just because there is no hostility doesn't mean that we ought cut non-native speakers some slack.

 

This is only an issue in your head.

[Stephen Williams]

How about a little bit of respect for non-native speakers?

 

I doubt you or I would have a quarter of the aptitude for speaking in either French or German that Stephen is probably used to.

 

Hi Karl,

 

I am Brittish, English is my first language, my French & German is very very poor!

 

Best,

 

Stephen

[Keith Walters]

The level of literacy shown by Native English speakers on these sorts of forums, on both sides of the Atlantic, is somewhat frightening.

(Although I daresay if you suggested they were illiterate, they would triumphantly pull out their Birth Certificates to prove you wrong :lol: )

 

And whatever you're going to say Karl, I knew you were going to say it...

And whatever you're going too say, Tom, it's probably another complete crock of sh!t, but "we shall see" :P

 

Now, can we get back to Panavision....

[K Borowski]

And whatever you're going to say Karl, I knew you were going to say it...

 

Well, since you can read my mind Keith (Or should I say Jim Murdoch?) I'll just butt out then so you can be clever all by yourself. :rolleyes:

 

 

As for you Stephen, yeah, I guess you're hopeless then and Ruairi is right! ;)

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Karl,

 

That post from Tom was most informing! :lol:

 

Stephen

 

Lol.

 

Listen here you old film relics :lol: , I was trying to make a point that we have to change we think even about ISO/ASA ratings. Semler shot parts of Apocalypto at "ASA 2560." Is that a traditional film ASA rating?

 

The point is, I was responding to someone who said they would have to double or triple their lighting package. My point was: not if you can crank up the sensitivity. I shoot at ISO 3200 all the time now, and the quality is amazing. Times are changing, my friends. Don't resist the future. ;)

Edited July 26, 2009 by Tom Lowe