ARRI HD D-20 camera test screening

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

I don't see edge enhancement as a major problem for video/HD cameras, as it is controllable as Alvin points out. If you feel the raw image with no in-camera detail added is too soft, you can add some sharpening in post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Detail correction does not "restore" lost detail, it just makes the eye more comfortable with a blurry image.

 

Video Rule #1: You can't put back what wasn't there in the first place!

[Sam Wells]

. It's a bit like an impressionist painting; its looks fine if you don't look too closely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can apply *that* to 35mm, 70mm even.

 

"Don't sit so close"

 

Uh, OK Mom.

 

Vasari talked about this on Cinematography.com in the 16th Century - remember the Luca vs Donatello thread ? (check the archives)

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

Mike - I suppose the gold standard is, you have a modulation transfer that matches the human visual system.

 

Exaggerated high frequency detail would lead to the "cardboard cut-out effect"

 

But I think in practice we may find motion blur covers a multitude of sins :)

 

-Sam

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

You can apply *that* to 35mm, 70mm even.

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes but the degree to which you can apply it is the significant factor.

But in any case, shitehouse true resolution is just one of the many deficiencies of electronic capture.

 

As far as I'm concerned Digital Cinematography is not much of an idea, and its time has not yet come.

"Don't sit so close"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That piece of advice referred to interlaced scan TV sets. and comes from a complete misunderstanding of the work of Dr. Raymond Kell in the 1930s.

[Guest Kai.w]

One of the most endearing things about conspiracy theorists is they way they often refuse to accept the possibility of the existence of conspiracies that are at least theoretically possible!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If anything shooting HD made work on E I/II easier/faster. Lots of the new star wars shots are bluescreen/greenscreen. Uncompressed HD fotage keys very well (I have yet to see those sharpening artifacts you fear, in my last viper footage), cause simply the lack of grain compensates for the lack of resolution. Plus with film you have to stabilize everything! and you get >in the frame movement<.

So, lets for the moment assume there were "sharpening" artifacts... how should they get rid of if? Rotoscoping by hand? Aeh.... So there would only be some automatic filtering solution (whatsoever) which is just a question of computation power and should not cause a sever delay...

Honestly, sounds like a really weird theory to me...

 

Maybe we could sit nearer to an HD projection if we just added some film grain in post to hide those nasty sharpening artifacts ;-)

 

-k

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

If anything shooting HD made work on E I/II easier/faster. Lots of the new star wars shots are bluescreen/greenscreen.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Er, Episode One was shot on FILM! And a lot of the shots on Episode II were just old-fashioned rear projection. Really sh!thouse rear projection.

 

  Uncompressed HD fotage keys very well (I have yet to see those sharpening artifacts you fear, in my last viper footage), cause simply the lack of grain compensates for the lack of resolution. Plus with film you have to stabilize everything!  and you get >in the frame movement<.

So, lets for the moment assume there were "sharpening" artifacts... how should they get rid of if? Rotoscoping by hand? Aeh.... So there would only be some automatic filtering solution (whatsoever) which is just a question of computation power and should not cause a sever delay...

Honestly, sounds like a really weird theory to me...

 

Maybe we could sit nearer to an HD projection if we just added some film grain in post to hide those nasty sharpening artifacts  ;-)

 

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Cool, but could you now explain why all the big CGI blockbusters made AFTER SWII DIDN'T actually use your oh-so-easy-to-use Digital Acquisition?

 

Oh I see, the producers of all those features are all just Luddites and/or morons.

 

Tell us about "your last Viper Footage" We're all ears. Where was this shown? On VHS?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

You don't get nasty sharpening artifacts out of a viper, you get raw CCD data. I've seen Viper footage. It looks like a series of rather nice raw-mode DSLR shots.

 

Phil

[nchopp]

...Tell us about "your last Viper Footage" We're all ears. Where was this shown? On VHS?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think most of the individuals here are professionals - let's treat each other with the respect deserved.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

I think most of the individuals here are professionals - let's treat each other with the respect deserved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(Snort!) Actually, I'd say the true figure is closer to zero, given the amount of pseudo-technical drivel that gets posted here. Most of the alleged first-hand experience we read about is just tripe from techno-wannabes that they read on the Internet and elsewhere, written by other ignorant wannabe's. It's the classic Urban Legend generation mechanism - factoids fuelled by dreamers desperate to hang out, not realizing that they're simply hanging out with other dreamers. Rumour rapidly solidifies into fact.

 

Meanwhile the few genuine facts get buried in the pile of factoid garbage.

Edited March 26, 2005 by Jim Murdoch

[nchopp]

(Snort!) Actually, I'd say the true figure is closer to zero, given the amount of pseudo-technical drivel that gets posted here. Most of the alleged first-hand experience we read about is just tripe from techno-wannabes that they read on the Internet and elsewhere, written by other ignorant wannabe's. It's the classic Urban Legend generation mechanism - factoids fuelled by dreamers desperate to hang out, not realizing that they're simply hanging out with other dreamers. Rumour rapidly solidifies into fact.

 

Meanwhile the few genuine facts get buried in the pile of factoid garbage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ok, how about "Let's treat each other with the respect deserved by other adults.". That should be fairly safe, I think.

[nchopp]

...Rumour rapidly solidifies into fact.

 

Meanwhile the few genuine facts get buried in the pile of factoid garbage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually, I'm rather entertained by this quote coming from you, after a short visit to the espanavision site listed in your profile...

[Guest Kai.w]

Er, Episode One was shot on FILM!  And a lot of the shots on Episode II were just old-fashioned rear projection. Really sh!thouse rear projection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I understood, parts of E I were already shot on HD... If you watch the documentaries and making ofs to EII and III you see lots of blue-/greenscreen sets.

 

Tell us about "your last Viper Footage" We're all ears. Where was this shown? On VHS?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, back in kindergarden! I'm sorry if it made the impression I was working on viper footage on a daily basis, as the incorrect use of the words "my last" might have implied. Sorry, but english is not my native language.

 

 

 

This is a cutout of an 1080 frame, kept in log colorspace (plus the viper green cast). Nice focus falloff to show us the edge enhancement artefacts (I did no pixel rescale).

 

 

 

A greenscreen matte from the viper. I went directly into the keyer and chose a green, nothing more.

If you look close the only thing that could pass as video edge is at the right side of her left arm. Could also be a shadow she is casting (she is leaning at a window, hence the reflections), cause I don't see it anywhere else...

 

Cool, but could you now explain why all the big CGI blockbusters made AFTER SWII DIDN'T actually use your oh-so-easy-to-use Digital Acquisition?

 

Oh I see, the producers of all those features are all just Luddites and/or morons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are getting real boring. Could not be for HDs limited contrast range, could not be for its huge DOF, could not be for its practicability problems, especially when shooting uncompressed, could not be for the fact that 35mm has a higher resolution. Hmm... must be cause of edge enhancement

 

Funny you did not even adress the issues I was specificly putting towards greenscreen/comp work. There haven't been so many movies with the amount of greenscreen and comp work as in E II. One I could think of (Sky Captain) was actually shot on, guess what?

I don't know about sin city though...

 

Your lonesome quest against digital cinematography might feel quite romantic, but its getting boring, you know...

 

-k

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Actually, I'm rather entertained by this quote coming from you, after a short visit to the espanavision site listed in your profile...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'd hardly expect anything else from the likes of most of the people who frequent this sort of forum.

 

Naturally I am crushed and hurt by your cruel barbs, but I can take some comfort in the fact that, unlike forums like these, we actually get genuine industry heavyweights writing to us. You know, people who actually matter? <_<

 

Very occasionally we learn something useful here, but it's a bloody painful process most of the time.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Funny you did not even adress the issues I was specificly putting towards greenscreen/comp work. There haven't been so many movies with the amount of greenscreen and comp work as in E II.  One I could think of (Sky Captain) was actually shot on, guess what?

I don't know about sin city though...

 

Your lonesome quest against digital cinematography might feel quite romantic, but its getting boring, you know...

 

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Excuse me, but what exactly are you talking about?

Digital acquistion for movies has supposedly been available for over six years, yet despite all its supposed advantages, only a minute percentage of the the industry uses it. Why?

 

I am perfectly well aware of how much easier it is to use video chroma-keying than film-based bluescreeen, since TV studios have been using it since the 1950s! But obviously, most film makers have not found it satisfactory.

 

>>There haven't been so many movies with the amount of greenscreen and comp >>work as in E II.

 

Absolute garbage!

 

>>One I could think of (Sky Captain) was actually shot on, guess what?

 

You want to convert that into some sort of percentage? The number of "serious" cinema release features shot on video could literally be counted on the fingers of one hand. Please tell me why this is. I really would like to know.

 

>>Your lonesome quest against digital cinematography might feel quite romantic, >>but its getting boring, you know...

Not half as boring as some people's lonesome quest against reality :P

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

Jim Murdoch: Hello sir, and good day.

 

With all due respect: My being one of those semi-ignorant pro-digital types you so relish slamming, I'm perplexed as to why you go on so much about it.

 

If I understand you correctly, you believe something like 99.99% of high-end motion picture production utilizes film, and I have no reason to doubt you.

 

However, given real film's popularity among cinema pros, why the defensive attitude? Real film folk are apparently doing alright, their jobs reasonably secure for some time to come. In a sense, film is "winning"; or it's already "won". So why is one of the victors so crabby? Seems odd to me.

 

Although I appreciate your possible desire to warn all the rest of us against our making a horrible, expensive, ill-advised mistake for preferring digital, your campaign seems overly coarse and down-right hostile.

 

You appear to be an intelligent person with lots of experience to share. Since I'm a semi-ignorant, "young" (50!), wanna-be "filmmaker" (in quotes because I don't shoot real film), I humbly request that you instead put your energy into "learning" us. I strongly suspect I could benefit from your experience, and if you care to share, I'd be much obliged.

 

Respectfully, all the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

 

P.S.: I read some of the info on your website. Fun stuff. Of course, I don't know enough to appreciate what percentage of truth it may contain, but I appreciate your efforts!

[Guest Kai.w]

Excuse me, but what exactly are you talking about?

Digital acquistion for movies has supposedly been available for over six years, yet despite all its supposed advantages, only a minute percentage of the the industry uses it. Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What are you talking about

This has not even remotely been the point of the discussion. I did not even deny the superiority of 35mm film. Thats your point, which you bring up out of context again and again.

And even if HD was better than film which it is not, it's funny to believe that a whole huge industry (which was build up over a century) would completely switch its infrastructure within a few years... I mean, sorry but your going on about nobody using it, would not prove anything, however this is rather pointless, cause the whole time I did not even deny HDs weaknesses...

I was just replying to the imho rather ridiculous idea that E II was delayed due to edge enhancement artifacts. I still invite you to point out those artifacts in the stills, cause I might not have such a trained eye for this as you do (not being ironic).

 

I am perfectly well aware of how much easier it is to use video chroma-keying than film-based bluescreeen, since TV studios have been using it since the 1950s! But obviously, most film makers have not found it satisfactory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yeah, as if you can compare Ultimatte hardware keys from YUV SD sources to uncompressed HD footage... any real arguments?

 

 

>>One I could think of (Sky Captain) was actually shot on, guess what?

 

You want to convert that into some sort of percentage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I don't. Why would you? Percentage of what? It was just an indication that in the special case of greenscreen shots HD has a lot of advantages, which you still made no counterargument to other than no "serious" (whatever that is btw.) movies used it, which for that special case as pointed out is just not true...

Uncompressed recording of HD has only recently become remotely practical (still not is really). So I guess we will see some more usage if it for greenscreen work in the future. I'm sure, that is not too bold a prediction....

 

-k

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Although I appreciate your possible desire to warn all the rest of us against our making a horrible, expensive, ill-advised mistake for preferring digital, your campaign seems overly coarse and down-right hostile.

 

You appear to be an intelligent person with lots of experience to share. Since I'm a semi-ignorant, "young" (50!), wanna-be "filmmaker" (in quotes because I don't shoot real film), I humbly request that you instead put your energy into "learning" us. I strongly suspect I could benefit from your experience, and if you care to share, I'd be much obliged.

 

Respectfully, all the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

 

P.S.: I read some of the info on your website. Fun stuff. Of course, I don't know enough to appreciate what percentage of truth it may contain, but I appreciate your efforts!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trust me, if you're not already a film-maker, "Digital" is not going to make you into one. That's like saying "If only I had a microwave oven, I could be a great French Chef"!

 

The answer to your other question is clearly stated on the website. As far as we're concerned, this whole "digital cinematography" thing was just a scam invented by the Panavision management to convince their owner and his creditors (who they owe around $500 million to!) that they still had some sort of future, but that they "just needed more time to develop the technology".

 

This is just baloney; six years after the George Lucas/Star Wars thing, they're still losing around $10 to $20 million every year, and there's no reason to think the Genesis is going to change anything. It's just Digital Scam Mk II.

 

Why does this piss us off so much? Because most of us work for Panavision's competitors, and we're getting rather tired of constantly losing work to Panavision because they keep undercutting our quotes, when they're not making a profit!

 

The sooner the people they keep conning with this "Digital Cinematography" bullshit realize what nonsense it actually is, the quicker Panavision will go bankrupt, which by rights they should have done several years ago. But the upper management are going to string this out as long as they can.

[Maurizio Tiella]

The Arri D20, Panavision Genesis, and Dalsa Origin use 35mm-sized imagers so the depth of field characteristics are similar to 35mm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually, Arri decribes it, the CMOS of the D20 has the same aperture of ANSI Super 35mm.

As far as the fps the camera is capable of running at 150fps, but to this date that speed cannot be reached due to limitations on data rate to the recording devices AND recording speed of those recording devices (be it throughput in case of a disk recorder, or tape speed/capacity on a tape based recorder).

 

maurizio

[Maurizio Tiella]

I would like to add that respect should be always taken into account when posting on a forum, there are many ways in which to correct a mistake or shed light on a dubious concept. Experience is to be passed down, not slammed on somebody's face. This forum can be a very informative and opinion-sharing place. Would be cool to keep the metal out of it.

 

maurizio

[John Sprung]

The Panavision Genesis active image area is very close to that of 35mm 3 perf.

 

The Arri D-20 is very close to super 35 4 perf. The camera is capable of 150 fps, but the link to the offboard recorder currently tops out at 36 fps. This is one of the things they're working on. We saw some D-20 tests on a DLP projector, looking very good indeed.

 

The Dalsa Origin goes a lot wider, on film it would extend a little beyond the perfs on both sides. They don't say, but guesstimating from the picture they show of it with the perfs superimposed, it looks like about 1.3" wide. VistaVision and 35mm still cameras use an aperture about 1.5" wide, so those lenses would work fine if they were re-packaged for an assistant to use.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Andy84]

a stupid question:how much does it cost? :D

[David Mullen ASC]

a stupid question:how much does it cost? :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know what they say, if you have to ask...

 

Arri is thinking of not selling it, but only leasing it to rental houses so that Arri can upgrade it over time rather than dealing with private Arri-D20 owners complaining about a lack of support and parts as their cameras become quickly outdated by newer technology.