James Cameron and HD

[Landon D. Parks]

James Cameron seems to be a BIG supporter of HD! maybe more than our good friends that brought us Spy kids, lol.

 

Although they are not the only ones who are taking to the whole HD craze, I hear a few people claiming that HD will rain supreme.

 

I copied an artical of a statement that Camern made about the use of HD to 35mm:

 

Asked whether HD was good enough to replace 35mm, Cameron is unequivocal; ?I think we?ve soundly and quietly passed that mark, and it?s so far in our rear-view mirror that it?s not really an issue of whether it?s the equivalent to 35mm. It?s an issue of ?Is it the equivalent to 65 original negative, or beyond that?? because that?s the kind of data that you?re getting.?

Taken from http://www.sonybiz.net/cinealta5E/template....jsp&OID=105536

 

Now thats a pretty powerful statement. To say that not only has HD passed 35mm, but also passed 65mm!

 

Please post your comments... I'm interested in hearing peoples comments on this.

[Landon D. Parks]

I got to say, I can't argue with the ease of use on HD. People try to tell me that HD is much more complicated to work with than film, and requires more "on-Set" stuff.

 

As fare as the on-set argument that there is to much stuff to deal with, on a regulare film set you'll have just as many monitors and recorders going as on an HD set.

 

As for it being more easy to work with, really comes in more in the post production process, where film has to be scanned and scanned and color corrected and prints made from that and so on, where as digital bypasses the who "Scan" arena, and in most cases the print arena too. I can see there argument of working with HD being easier.

 

My biggest complain with HD now is not the highlights or the way it handles color, but the resolution. If your doing a 2k on film, they are VERY similare. But when printed from the negative and bypassing the whole "D.I" stage, resolution tends to be a little higher, although it hurts then in the area of grain.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> People try to tell me that HD is much more complicated to work with than film, and

> requires more "on-Set" stuff.

 

That's probably because they're film people who are incompetent to work with video.

 

This isn't even the case when you choose to add a lot more features than film can give you, like full picture monitoring (as opposed to just watching an SD low-quality transmitted image) and single-system sound (saving dubbing fees.) And, if you just choose to use the facilities that film would have given you anyway, it's hugely simpler to use.

 

Phil

[Filip Plesha]

I laughed when I first read that, here is why:

 

quote from 1992 interview with Cameron about super35:

 

"

JM: Have you seen any HDTV system that approaches what you can do with 35mm film?

 

JC: You mean in terms of resolution?

 

JM: Sure.

 

JC: No. No... they'd like to have you think it does, but it's about half as good as 35mm film. It's about half the resolution of a release print, right now, comparing the print to an 1125-line HDTV system. To approach film resolution, you need somewhere in the neighborhood of about 3000 lines, somewhere between 2000 and 3000 lines, depending on a lot of factors... such as how critical you are. 11

 

JM: I've seen Francis Ford Coppola quoted on how all of the proposed HDTV systems fall short of where he would like them to be, to at least be somewhat able to approach film. He finds them all unsatisfactory as replacements for film. He wishes we would develop a video system that can truly compete with 35mm film, and there's nothing out there now that satisfies him.

 

JM: I've argued against people endlessly who are convinced that it is every bit as good as 35mm film.

 

JC: HDTV?

 

JM: Yes.

 

JC: Absolutely not. These are people that have clearly never taken a release print and A/B'd it with an HDTV image.

"

 

So now HD comes nowhere near 35mm , but HD is better than both 35mm and 65mm at the same time. That makes perfect sense!!

 

talk about being consistent

[Landon D. Parks]

This was also a 1992 interview, a lot has changed in HD since then, that was 13 years ago.

 

Maybee he changed his mind? lol

[Filip Plesha]

First of all HD as a video standard has not changed in its resolution (in specs), HD is still 1080, progressive or not, and he is specifically criticising that specific resolution, by saying you need 2000 or 3000 lines. Sure cameras have changed and bot sharper and better, but they still record the same old 1080 lines.

 

And even if it did change to double resolution even, by his definition it would then barely reach 35mm, and yet now he is saying that thios same old 1080P is better than 65mm film.

 

I don't see how you can change your mind about such numbers. You can change your subjective impression on differences between HD and film, but you can't change your mind about such things as measured resolution. If you are once aware of the specs, you are always aware of them, they are not subjective.

 

It would be one thing if he wasn't the type who pays attention to technical numbers, but it is obvious it was his main argument against HD, and now

suddenly for every line of resolution in HD you need to have 3 lines in film to

have a match <_< :huh:

[John Pytlak RIP]

Today, Kodak sells "bottom of the line" 3 megapixel digital still cameras for less than $100.

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US

 

Why isn't a 2K digital video camera seen as the low resolution device it really is?

[Filip Plesha]

Probably because a lot of people have no idea of the actual quality standard that a well exposed frame of film sets.

[Guest Peter Waal]

Today, Kodak sells "bottom of the line" 3 megapixel digital still cameras for less than $100.

 

Why isn't a 2K digital video camera seen as the low resolution device it really is?

 

I agree with you, John, and I take back my nasty comments about you earlier. You're a good egg.

 

But here's a question: Why doesn't Kodak make a top of the line video camera that sells for $100,000, one that could compete with Genesis? You have the sensor technology. You have the manufacturing capability. You have the R&D muscle. You have the brand awareness. You seem to have everything but a strategy. I don't get what you're waiting for. Some people say you guys have something miraculous up your sleeve relating to 4K digital capture for motion pictures. If that's so, I don't see what you have to gain by sitting around and watching other companies, like Dalsa and Panavision, be first to market. Furthermore, why not get in on the game and make something on the pro-sumer level that can whoop Sony's HDV camera? I don't expect you to divulge corporate strategy here, but what gives, man?

[Tenolian Bell]

That's probably because they're film people who are incompetent to work with video.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does that mean Sony should quit pushing video onto film people?

[Rik Andino]

Although they are not the only ones who are taking to the whole HD craze, I hear a few people claiming that HD will RAIN supreme.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Technically it's REIGN supreme :)

But don't worry about that...this ain't a spelling class.

 

What I wanna know is why is there always someone

Trying to spark the great HD vs 35mm debate

Do you get some pleasure outta seeing filmmakers going fist-to-cuffs

Over arguments on resolution?

 

Film is Film and Digital is Digital

Both are different formats that function differently and have different characteristic

They're used to accomplish the same goals but a different animals.

Probably for the next 20 the industry will be working with both mediums

(although video guys think it'll be less than that--because video will reign supreme)

So why don't we stop arguing and just learn to live with & use both formats :)

Edited March 13, 2005 by Rik Andino

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Does that mean Sony should quit pushing video onto film people?

 

I'd have thought it was more appropriate for the studios to stop using film people to shoot video.

 

Phil

[Elhanan Matos]

Oh my god I think I'm going to throw up! I haven't seen so much ignorance in one thread before!

 

Filip,

 

Do you know anything about HD, ANYTHING AT ALL! How about video? How about common sense? Do you really think that there has not been any advancements in HD since 1992? This is like saying, "gee theres absolutely no difference between Umatic and Digital Betacam, because they are both standard def formats"

 

Today, Kodak sells "bottom of the line" 3 megapixel digital still cameras for less than $100.

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US

 

Why isn't a 2K digital video camera seen as the low resolution device it really is?

 

John,

 

You have to be kidding. Why do you even bother posting in HD related topics if you don't really have anything informative or helpful to say.

 

 

What I wanna know is why is there always someone

Trying to spark the great HD vs 35mm debate

Do you get some pleasure outta seeing filmmakers going fist-to-cuffs

Over arguments on resolution?

 

I'm so glad to see that I'm not the only one getting tired of hearing this endless and futile debate.

[Max Jacoby]

I'd have thought it was more appropriate for the studios to stop using film people to shoot video.

 

And come knocking at the door of video people? There is a reason why some people are shooting video and some are shooting film.

[Filip Plesha]

Oh my god I think I'm going to throw up!  I haven't seen so much ignorance in one thread before!

 

Filip,

 

Do you know anything about HD, ANYTHING AT ALL!  How about video? How about common sense?  Do you really think that there has not been any advancements in HD since 1992?  This is like saying, "gee theres absolutely no difference between Umatic and Digital Betacam, because they are both standard def formats"

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Umatic is worse than digital betacam, but they are both limited to SD resolution, and can't go pass that...

 

The IDEAL of HD does not come close to film, reality of HD is even worse.

 

The limit of HD, the cocnept of HD, the ideal of HD, the theory of HD has not changed, it is still limited by 1080 lines. No matter how good those lines are, they are still 1080 and they are never going to be more than 1080 unless a new standard is introduced.

 

Common sense? Well I'd call this common sense, so what will it be, your common sense or mine?

 

Did you hear what that man said?

He said 1000 lines is not enough for him. No development will make those 1000

lines more than 1000 lines.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Filip Plesha

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> And come knocking at the door of video people?

 

What, and use people who understand the technology? My God! What a thought! How terrible - how could they? My word, the world will come to an end. Think of the children!

 

> There is a reason why some people are shooting video and some are shooting

> film.

 

Yeah, usually because the latter people's great aunt was best friends with the DP.

 

Phil

[Guest Kai.w]

The limit of HD, the cocnept of HD, the ideal of HD, the theory of HD has not changed, it is still limited by 1080 lines. No matter how good those lines are, they are still 1080 and they are never going to be more than 1080 unless a new standard is introduced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the limits of film, the concept of the film an the ideal of film has an even wider range.

3000 pixel vertically? With the film you can scan at which res you want but that does not say anything about the sharpness you get. Plus, don't forget the grain.

 

-k

[Landon D. Parks]

I actually was not trying t start a "Film v. Digital" debate, but more or less trying to get people opinion on James Cameron saying that HD has passed 65mm film.

 

Although it appear it is turning into a Film v. HD debate.

[Max Jacoby]

Yeah, usually because the latter people's great aunt was best friends with the DP.

 

Of course skill has nothing to do with it. Otherwise you'd be responsible for your own career. So let's blame it on the other people...

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Of course skill has nothing to do with it.

 

Sorry, I thought I was advocating putting the right people on the right equipment, I'm sorry if it didn't come off that way.

 

The odd thing I find is that if something bad happens on a video shoot, the equipment gets blamed for not conforming to the skills of the people.

 

Phil

[Filip Plesha]

Well, the limits of film, the concept of the film an the ideal of film has an even wider range.

3000 pixel vertically? With the film you can scan at which res you want but that does not say anything about the sharpness you get.  Plus, don't forget the grain.

 

  -k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey, I'm the first one to admit that. Film has much potential, but there sure are ways to screw up the image.

[Tenolian Bell]

  Plus, don't forget the grain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah the often maligned and demonized film grain.

 

There really can be no one definition of film grain. As at times it may be artistic grain (there on purpose) as well as underexposure (there on accident) and has different characteristics from film stock to film stock.

[Filip Plesha]

Ah the often maligned and demonized film grain.

 

There really can be no one definition of film grain. As at times it may be artistic grain (there on purpose) as well as underexposure (there on accident) and has different characteristics from film stock to film stock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not to mention that not every film has the classical form of grain. Some slide films

will just go blurry as you enlarge them and will not show grain, at least not in the traditional way.

[Guest Peter Waal]

I actually was not trying t start a "Film v. Digital" debate, but more or less trying to get people opinion on James Cameron saying that HD has passed 65mm film.

 

Although it appear it is turning into a Film v. HD debate.

 

It's pretty easy to spark an HD v 35 debate, all you have to do is mention HD in film circles and sooner or later someone will start throwing things at you. (Not always without justification, either.)

 

Anyway, it's possible Cameron is just being provocative here. He's been known to do that. It's also possible he's using the term "HD" as a catchall for digital capture, which has made big strides lately, with Dalsa's Origin, Panavision's Genesis and the Arri D-20.

 

In a couple of years, three at the most, I'm betting we're going to see a 4K digital movie camera with an onboard recording system capable of storing those 4K images. That'll be another major advancement. Panavision's Genesis camera has a 12-megapixel sensor, but the minaturized onboard deck is a "2K" Sony HD SR device, which is capable of recording only a fraction of what the sensor is capable of capturing. So the real advancement digital capture needs to make is in the portable "cable-free" recording area. The sensor technology is already light years beyond what even the best medium format film can resolve, courtesy of decades-worth of satellite imaging R&D. The big challenge now is in the portable recording systems. Dalsa's 4K Origin camera comes with cables to a hard-drive. Personally, I don't want cabled recording, and neither does any DP that I've spoken with, but if you're comfortable with it, Dalsa will tell you that 4K capture is here today. Call Dalsa and take one for a spin.

 

Is 4K as good as 65mm? I don't know. But here's something for you to chew on: when Panavision shot their Genesis v Panaflex test, they also had a 65 mm camera shoot the same footage. I've heard that the 65 mm footage blew both the 35 mm Panaflex and the Genesis material right out of the water. From that, it would seem digital capture's got a long way to go before it reaches 65mm quality. Again, it's probably not a sensor issue, it's a storage issue. How do you make all that info fit into a recording device that docks onto your camera? If there are any engineers listening in, I'd love to hear some theories.

[Tenolian Bell]

It's pretty easy to spark an HD v 35 debate, all you have to do is mention HD in film circles and sooner or later someone will start throwing things at you.

 

Film will be dead in five years is often used phrase to start a debate.

 

In a couple of years, three at the most, I'm betting we're going to see a 4K digital movie camera with an onboard recording system capable of storing those 4K images.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really?