Interesting Article about Panavision

[Stephen Williams]

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?

 

Hi Tom,

 

IMHO Yes, 320 pushed 3 stops is 2560. (320,640,1280,2560)

 

Best,

 

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

Okay, smartypants, you win. :P But the point remains. Just because you might need to stop down a FF35 camera to control DOF, that does not automatically mean you need a bigger lighting package. If Red One is rated at 320, for example, I will not be surprised at all if Monstro FF35 offers double, triple, even quadruple the sensitivity. Like I said, I shoot at ISO 3200 5.6K RAW all the time, so I don't see why Jannard would be unable to make very significant gains in this area with his future CMOS cameras.

 

Again, the point is, with this large RAW frame, we should EXPECT significant gains in ASA/ISO performance. It's basically a given.

[Stuart Brereton]

Tom,

 

Once again you fail to answer the question -why bother? if a 35mm film neg is big enough, why suddenly switch to FF35 digital? Why not stick with a s35 sized sensor?

 

Shooting at 2000asa + 'might' be alright on your stills camera, but that's a long way from it being ok on a digital cinema system. The RED shows serious noise after 640asa, as do most of it's peers.

 

If you take cranking up the gain out of the equation, and therefore need to light to t4.5-5.6 rather than 2.8, you are going to need a bigger lighting package. So if you are going to spend extra money just to achieve a usable stop, then why not just stick to industry standards, use a s35mm chip, PL glass and save yourself all the hassle.

 

Being a slave to the latest fashionable technology achieves nothing unless it has demonstrable benefits.

[Tom Lowe]

Once again you fail to answer the question -why bother? if a 35mm film neg is big enough, why suddenly switch to FF35 digital? Why not stick with a s35 sized sensor?

 

Well, why do nearly all serious photographers shoot on full-frame or larger format still cameras? Why don't they shoot on APS-C "cropped" body cameras, which are similar in size to S35? Why you ask? Because of quality.

 

You say S35 is "good enough," but I disagree.

 

If you were to ask most serious cinematographers if they would like to shoot their next big picture on 65mm, I bet nearly all of them would jump at the chance. So now digital is making something similar a possibility, with digital FF35 "Vista Vision." To me, that's a very positive development.

[Tenolian Bell]

They don't have to rack focus during the shot and they expose one frame for longer than 1/24th of a second.

 

 

Well, why do nearly all serious photographers shoot on full-frame or larger format still cameras? Why don't they shoot on APS-C "cropped" body cameras, which are similar in size to S35? Why you ask? Because of quality.

[Tom Lowe]

They don't have to rack focus during the shot and they expose one frame for longer than 1/24th of a second.

 

Afraid you're going to miss focus? :lol:

 

But anyway, isn't 35mm anamorphic even less DOF than FF35 spherical? Somehow, productions manage to deal with anamorphic.

[Stuart Brereton]

If you were to ask most serious cinematographers if they would like to shoot their next big picture on 65mm, I bet nearly all of them would jump at the chance.

 

If you were to offer cinematographers the opportunity to shoot a movie on 6x7 roll film or even bigger, I'm sure they'd love the idea, as long as they didn't have to deal with the practicalities.

 

The fact is that shooting on a FF35 camera will necessitate a larger lighting package to light to deeper stops that are currently used. It will mean DPs having a greatly reduced choice of lenses. It will cause problems for set designers, wardrobe and make-up people, who will have to work harder and spend more money to ensure that their work stands up to scrutiny in this increasingly hi-res cinematic world.

 

Now, sell that to a producer - every department clamouring for more money in order to service a increase in picture quality that virtually no-one can see.

[Tenolian Bell]

I'm just saying still photography frames are not the best justification for how large motion photography frames should be.

 

Plus temporal resolution is multiplied because we are watching 24 fps.

 

 

Afraid you're going to miss focus? :lol:

 

But anyway, isn't 35mm anamorphic even less DOF than FF35 spherical? Somehow, productions manage to deal with anamorphic.

[Tom Lowe]

The fact is that shooting on a FF35 camera will necessitate a larger lighting package to light to deeper stops that are currently used. It will mean DPs having a greatly reduced choice of lenses. It will cause problems for set designers, wardrobe and make-up people, who will have to work harder and spend more money to ensure that their work stands up to scrutiny in this increasingly hi-res cinematic world.

 

Now, sell that to a producer - every department clamouring for more money in order to service a increase in picture quality that virtually no-one can see.

 

Or you could simply increase the ASA of the camera. Why are you not mentioning that?

[John Sprung]

No, 65 for everything doesn't make sense. Slumdog Millionaire? Blair Witch? Maybe even in 15 perf Imax?

 

What I see becoming more common is that DP's will mix shooting formats within a project. You might have a Genesis or F-35 as the "A" camera for objective reality, with S-8 for a flashback, Iconix for the space alien's POV, a cell phone for something a hostage managed to shoot, etc. Post going digital makes that feasible.

 

The job is creative storytelling. DP's will use the best tools -- plural -- for what they want to achieve.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Or you could simply increase the ASA of the camera. Why are you not mentioning that?

 

Um, maybe because it ain't simple to increase the ASA of a digital camera significantly? I kinda doubt that they'll be able to get two or three stops faster in a year or two.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tom Lowe]

Um, maybe because it ain't simple to increase the ASA of a digital camera significantly? I kinda doubt that they'll be able to get two or three stops faster in a year or two.

-- J.S.

 

Um, with the APS-C Canon 350D DSLR I bought in late 2006, I could shoot at a maximum of ISO 800 before noise became a problem. In late 2008 I bought a full-frame 5D Mark II and can now comfortably shoot at ISO 3200.

 

So there you have it.

[Keith Walters]

Um, maybe because it ain't simple to increase the ASA of a digital camera significantly? I kinda doubt that they'll be able to get two or three stops faster in a year or two.

-- J.S.

If you mean a digital movie camera, it's not possible at all, or at the very least, not anytime soon.

But that won't stop all the endless arguments from ignorance, based on technologically irrelevant comparisons.

Nor it seems, will it stop fast-talking shysters making careers out of convincing the moneyed gullible that THEY at last are the true techno-Messiahs who really can fashion the long sought-after impeccable and undetectable fake Gucci handbag out of a rat's arse.

And with it enable hordes of talentless, illiterate, and generally clueless non-entiities to entice the aloof and haughty Mademoiselle Hollywood into opening the door to her exclusive and private scented boudoir...

[Scott Fritzshall]

Or you could simply increase the ASA of the camera. Why are you not mentioning that?

Because it typically looks like ass unless you do a bunch of noise reduction, which is undesireable, or downsample it significantly, which contradicts the whole point of shooting on a larger format to gain resolution. I actually just looked up the tests of the 5d MKII (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5DMarkII/page21.asp), and it actually does perform reasonably well at higher ISOs, but again this is largely attributable to noise reduction and to the fact that it's got higher resolution which is being downsampled.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Scott Fritzshall

[Stephen Williams]

You say S35 is "good enough," but I disagree.

 

Hi Tom,

 

S35 film seems to look better for motion picture capture than any digital system. Sony's F35 seems to outperform the RED by a considerable margin. Just saying!

 

Stephen

[John Sprung]

Um, with the APS-C Canon 350D DSLR I bought in late 2006, I could shoot at a maximum of ISO 800 before noise became a problem. In late 2008 I bought a full-frame 5D Mark II and can now comfortably shoot at ISO 3200.

 

So why didn't the Red One do 3200, or even 800? Or Genesis, D-21, or F-35? If the technology was really there three years ago, how come nobody used it?

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Keith Walters]

So why didn't the Red One do 3200, or even 800? Or Genesis, D-21, or F-35? If the technology was really there three years ago, how come nobody used it?

-- J.S.

Aside from this, how can you keep calling something "Raw" when the firmware that produces RedRaw is currently on "Build 20", supposedly vastly better than build 1.

(What happened to Builds 18 & 19 by the way).

In the still camera world, "Raw" means whatever came off the sensor, warts and all.

Basically, you interrupt the connection between the sensor and the processing, so you can have more than one go at the de-bayering and so on.

So if the Red One used real RAW, it should look exactly the same, regardless of the "Build", since the sensor hardware is the same.

But if Build 20 is producing "Improved" Raw, well then it's hardlyRAW, is it?

Therefore your arguments are nonsense.

Well, your arguments are nonesense anyway, but that one particularly so.

 

Interesting that as far as 2009 Prime-Time goes, the RED is still getting sand kicked in its face by decade-old 3:1:1 HDCAM machines ...

[Keith Walters]

The above is aimed at Tom, not John of course :lol:

[Tom Lowe]

So why didn't the Red One do 3200, or even 800? Or Genesis, D-21, or F-35? If the technology was really there three years ago, how come nobody used it?

-- J.S.

 

Are you being serious? I just mentioned that in 2006 Canon was redlined at ISO 800, so of course an upstart like Red is not going to match them or beat them by some massive margin right out of the gate.

 

Obviously, there is a reliable and steady a lag between developments with stills vs developments with motion. Isn't that apparent? It's taking longer for the switch to digital. It will take longer for the switch to RAW. It will take longer for the rise in ASA/ISO sensitivity. Everything just take longer with motion, but rest assured, it is all happening slowly but surely.

 

I'm surprised that someone as astute as you are, John, is arguing the opposite.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

But anyway, isn't 35mm anamorphic even less DOF than FF35 spherical? Somehow, productions manage to deal with anamorphic.

 

No. The frame height of 35mm Scope is slightly less than 1.85/1 vistavision: .700/.715" vs. .723".

 

They're practically the same, & prints would have been shown at the same screen height.

For practical purposes they both have the same DOF.

'The Innocents' is full of deep focus CinemaScope shots & was probably shot on Plus-X or an Ilford equivalent.

 

The height of 1.85 FFdigital would be about the same. If you screwed an iscorama attachment on to

your FFdigital for digital Technirama the extra height ought to give you the about the same DOF as

5-perf 65mm.

[Tom Lowe]

No. The frame height of 35mm Scope is slightly less than 1.85/1 vistavision: .700/.715" vs. .723".

 

They're practically the same, & prints would have been shown at the same screen height.

For practical purposes they both have the same DOF.

'The Innocents' is full of deep focus CinemaScope shots & was probably shot on Plus-X or an Ilford equivalent.

 

The height of 1.85 FFdigital would be about the same. If you screwed an iscorama attachment on to

your FFdigital for digital Technirama the extra height ought to give you the about the same DOF as

5-perf 65mm.

 

Well, even if we assume that FF35 and 35mm anamorphic film are in the same ballpark in terms of DOF, then why are all these people complaining that it will be "impossible" to shoot on FF35 cinema because of the DOF? It seems like a bunch of negative nancies who are just looking for excuses to try to dismiss digital FF35.

 

But believe me, they will not be able to dismiss FF35 for long. In fact, that train has already left the station, though some people here don't seem to understand it or recognize it yet. They will, soon enough.

[Stephen Williams]

But believe me, they will not be able to dismiss FF35 for long. In fact, that train has already left the station, though some people here don't seem to understand it or recognize it yet. They will, soon enough.

 

Hi Tom,

 

You and some fanboys will no doubt buy one, but more than that I don't see FF35 having any real impact at the top end of the market, still second fiddle to film. It seems a shame that you want to eliminate film with something inferior.

 

Best,

 

Stephen

 

Edit Sounds like some people are disappointed with the mega hyped RRP's something to do with focus marks being too close together, history has a habit of repeating itself.

[Francis Kuhn]

Well, even if we assume that FF35 and 35mm anamorphic film are in the same ballpark in terms of DOF, then why are all these people complaining that it will be "impossible" to shoot on FF35 cinema because of the DOF? It seems like a bunch of negative nancies who are just looking for excuses to try to dismiss digital FF35.

 

But believe me, they will not be able to dismiss FF35 for long. In fact, that train has already left the station, though some people here don't seem to understand it or recognize it yet. They will, soon enough.

 

 

Hi Tom,

 

Not trying to be negative, but years of trying to shoot moving subjects with medium format still cameras (even the smallest 645 format and 400 ASA film) was an exercise in utter futility compared to shooting Velvia 50 ASA 35mm stills film at f2.8. It is virtually impossible, in my experience, to get enough DOF even stopped down to 5.6 to keep a suitable area of sharp focus for many subjects with the bigger film.

 

Just go rent a 645 Mamiya, put it on a fluid head and try follow-focus as someone walks in front of the camera, then try it with a 35mm camera. You will throw away 90% of the MF shots because they will not be sharp. Also, my experience with 35mm motion film leads me to believe we're going to see a real shortage of good 1st ACs when these big chips start showing up. It tough to get many shots sharp even on S35, even with a good 1st.

 

BTW maybe you can clarify this for me. My understanding of this move to bigger chips in these cameras like Epic is primarily to compensate for the latitude limitations of electronic capture. One of the medium format still camera manufacturer's reps I've spoken to explained that the bigger chip allows them to use larger photosites that don't overload and "spill over", blooming into the ones crammed next to them on the more densely-packed 35mm-size chips. I think it gives medium format chips more useable range, but I could be wrong about this.

 

One last thing: Thanks for the amazing Terrence Malick tribute. I'm a huge fan of those films. Really astonishing anyone is allowed to shoot something so beautiful. I'm jealous, especially since for myself, the move to digital stills and video seems to be moving in lockstep with a total abandonment of all quality standards, I've shot more crap in the last six months than I did in the previous ten years combined. Amazingly, the clients don't seem to notice. Or care.

 

-Fran

[K Borowski]

If you were to offer cinematographers the opportunity to shoot a movie on 6x7 roll film or even bigger, I'm sure they'd love the idea, as long as they didn't have to deal with the practicalities.

 

Hi, IMAX has the exact same frame dimensions.

[K Borowski]

Hi Tom,

 

IMHO Yes, 320 pushed 3 stops is 2560. (320,640,1280,2560)

 

Best,

 

Stephen

 

No, here is the progression of numbers (which are rounded to avoid obnoxious numbers): 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800.

 

Add a zero (or subtract if you are going in the other direction) and repeat. Unless you guys are talking mathematical speeds measured to a thirtieth of a stop (0.01 log), there are no other numbers.

 

I'm not sure what conventions are for speeds in-between these, but 2560, I assure you, is NOT referring to a precisely-calibrated mathematical test of speed. Rather, it is a certain big gun being chronically under-educated about ISO speed ratings. The number that should have been referred to is 2500. Likewise, 1250 would have been the correct speed for one stop less, not 1,280.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Karl Borowski