New NAB HD Camera Introductions

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Sony and Panasonic are losing their ability to dominate the HD camera market. Their monopoly on camera recording is over. One TB hard drive costs nearly nothing and you can put 5 hrs of CinaAlta recording on it, at 24p. The blue laser burners will soon be available to every manufacturer. Signal processing is getting inexpensive, physically small and low power consuming. No one has monopoly on that. Sony and Panasonic no longer have CCD sensor monopoly. New CMOS is just as good. By NAB 2005 there will be megapixel CCDs available for still magapixel cameras that will also output 720/30p. So unless Sony comes out with some propriatery format that takes off soon, and which will become a standard, they will lose their competitive edge in this field. So will Matsushita.

 

I think that the majors are under a serious pressure to come out with quality affordable HD cameras soon. If they do not, Samsung will soon OEM to Sony not only flat panel displays but also lisense them their HD camera technology that I'm sure they are developing.

 

I think that Sony and Matsushita are seeing the writing on the wall and will act. I'm sure that XDCAM is made in such a manner, as to convert it to HD the easiest way. I'm sure that they can double the heads on HDV, double the tape speed, and get 50 Mbps stream on it. No big deal.

 

Will they offer 4:2:2 on HDV? I don't think so. Not even their CineAlta camcorder is 4:2:2. It's 3:1:1. That camera head's uncompressed output can now plug into the new SR VTR, via MPEG4 encoder, so it just moved into a different class.

 

So I think that Sony will spread itself in the following way by NAB 2005. How much of that will be available this year is to be seen:

 

- F1000, 4:4:4, with 35 mm CMOS chips, available at NAB 2006 $300K

- F950 camcorder, MPEG4, 4:4:4 available at NAB 2005, $200K

- F950 with SR VTR, MPEG4, 4:4:4 available now, approx. $200K now

- F900 with SR VTR, MPEG4, 4:2:2 available now, approx. $200K now

- F900 3:1:1 has been available for several years $100K

- 2/3" HXDCAM, 144 Mbps max, MPEG2 or 4, 4:2:2, available at NAB2005, $50K

- 1/2" HXDCAM, 72 Mbps max, MPEG2 or 4, 4:2:2, available at NAB2005, $25K

- 1/2" HDVCAM, 25 or 50 Mbps, 4:2:0, MPEG2, available at NAB 2004, $12K

- 1/3" HDVCAM, 25 or 50 Mbps, 4:2:0, MPEG2, available at NAB 2004, $6K

- 1/3" HDV, 25 Mbps, MPEG2, 4:2:0, available at 2004 Summer CES, $4K

 

These are just some very rough estimates. Of course there may be more versions of HDVCAM, etc.

 

With 50 Mbps and MPEG2 encoder you can make pretty decent low end indie digital cinema camera.

[Filip Plesha]

Last friday i saw an indie documentary in cinema shot on 24P video.

I don't know what camera was it,but it was SD resolution.

 

I must say that i was suprized how acceptable it looked in some situations.

It was a small screen (maybe 5-6 meters wide) though.

You could clearly see that the image reached it's limit in resolution,

and it shower classical artifacts like jagged lines,moire etc. and

of course it looked like when you watch DVD fullscreen on a computer.

 

but all that was not so much noticable as i expected.

And the colors were very flat looking,sort of like Star Wars episode 2.

 

but all that can be conpensated with carefull planing and experimenting.

some scenes looked better than others,so all you have to do is

avoid situations where video reveals its true nature.

Exterior scenes looked worse. Magic hour-evening shots looked

very good. Interior scenes varied depending on the composition and light

in the shots.

 

Of course the highlights were blown up because of small latitude

and on high contrast situations you could see edge artifacts.

 

But for people that can't affoard 16mm film,or HD this is a good

choice,it can be projected in small theaters with acceptable results.

 

But the most disapointing thing in the movie was that some old archival 16mm shots were edited in the same format as the video footage.I really wanted

to see how some 70's 16mm would hold on a brand new 35mm print.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Digital cinema is so much harder to work with. I saw a French movie about a year ago. It was about a French student who who went to study for a year to Spain. I can't remember the name. It was the worst possible picture quality. It seemed like they have not used any diffusion filters. Well made Super 8 would look better. Then I saw Once Upon a Time in Mexico. It was like night and day; and both films were shot with the same CineAlta cameras.

 

Then look at 28 Days Later and Blair Witch Project. Both shot with prosumer DV cameras.

[Fredrik Backar FSF]

Yes it´s all very sad.....

btw. Windman! Would u agree with me on episode 2 beeing the worst looking film ever? :)

Saw it in the odeon leiscester square london digitally projected and also as a print later. Christ man!! :)

[Guest Ultra Definition]

and that main character, the young guy; his acting was the worst. Lucas is using a little better camera on the new film, but will do again letterboxing, is using 2/3" Fujinon lenses, etc. With the budget he has; what is he doing? It all just shows you how little does quality matter. Now, if he shot in 65 mm, used the best actors, had someone assist him in directing the actors, etc., would the box office return be higher? A little bit.

 

So if the guy makes killing on the film while playing with some first generation HD video camera, ... The DP's are shaking their heads. Should Lucas worry? No, he thinks he's a pioneer and goes on to do almost the same thing the next time around.

[Filip Plesha]

I wouldn't call it worse ever but it was one of the worse in my personal opinion,it had some nice shots though,

but they were literally shots (not scenes or anything longer)

 

And besides how do you judge the cinemeatography of a film

that barely uses live action photography.

Most of the stuff on screen was lit,shot or animated by many different authors

each trying to blend its part with the other parts of the screen.

That ain't much of a cinematography.

 

I think that the original star wars and empire strikes back were

shot very nice.

[Fredrik Backar FSF]

True.... Most was cgi... But the sequences that were of a "natural" nature looked very poor. Remember one shot in front of a waterfall where the cgi background looked better than the live action in the foreground...:)

 

Lucas truly has lost all sense of quality and respect for his other filmmaker fellows.

With his money he can dictate the world of dp:ing he seems to think... Sad....

 

Profit or not with whatever equipment Ultra, quality fore oneself should be main objective. Tomeet one´s own vision in quality that is.

Too bad lucas has a subdural hematoma in the quality region....

 

Loved the first films btw:)

[Mitch Gross]

It all just shows you how little does quality matter.

By that thinking we should all just give up and become hacks because it all matters so little. Bullshit. I couldn't get out of bed in the morning if I didn't believe that striving for the best was an end unto itself.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Of course you've got to strive for the best. I'm with you 100%. It's just a lot of the low end independent stuff is being shot in SD and the new lower cost HD technology will allow them to show their film on a bigger screen, for the same budget. That is wonderful.

 

If the bean counters figure out 10% savings and project 5% less box office return, which way will the producer pressure the director? As soon as the HD technology becomes good enough, and I'm repeating it again "good enough" and will make the profit rise by 5%, there goes the art argumet out of the window, on most Hollywood trash.

 

Do I like it? No? But it's the reality. Why no one is shooting in 65 mm, except IMAX? Now I'm sure someone will come out with some guy in Saudi Arabia that shoots 65 mm home videos. What does it prove?

[Fredrik Backar FSF]

terrence malllics "che" has been rumored to shoot 65.....

Best is too what I strive for. Have said no to many a production that doesn´t care about quality....

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> new lower cost HD technology will allow them to show their film on a bigger

> screen, for the same budget. That is wonderful.

 

Well yes and no. More res doesn't necessarily make films look better; "Luminal" is the film that Panasonic peddled to me as a demo of their hi def camera system, but what was wrong with it wasn't resolution, it was the same things as every other little indie feature.

 

As a side note I was going to say "low budget indie feature," but Luminal, despite its ineffable crappiness, cost a fortune. And so the world turns.

 

Phil