Star Wars anyone?

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

This is getting ridiculous... So, now we are at film being for eternity or what? If there is one advantage of digital media than its that it does not age (the format might, but thats less problematic). I'd like to remind you of the commonly known fact that film does!

To say that  the information will always be there is simply BS.

 

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Er.... all currently available "digital" imaging systems, whether it's CCD or CMOS cameras or film scanned in a telecine, start out as analog. The "digital" part is the result of converting the analog signals into their digital near-equivalent. There's no such thing as a truly "digital" video camera.

 

With a video camera you get one and only one chance to digitize every frame, and that has to happen inside the camera in one twenty-fourth of a second or less. After that, the slate is wiped clean and the original image is gone forever.

 

On the other hand we still have examples of viewable 35mm movie film that have survived for more than a century, despite the crude conditions under which they was made and stored. In other words, you can still produce a new "digital" copy from the 100+ year old original any time you feel like it!

 

On that basis the longvity of an original negative compared to a CCD sensor is a ratio of 100 years to about 40 milliseconds or about 7.5 billion to one:-)

 

Your argument is pretty absurd anyway: If you're talking about the durability of digital recording, there could hardly be a lot of difference between digitizing the image today in-camera, and digitizing it tomorrow morning at the processing lab.

True, errors can happen in processing, but tapes can also get chewed....

 

At the moment the maximum readily available film scanning resolution is 6K, but if and when 12 or 16K becomes available, your film will still be there to take advantage of it.

 

And when might that be? Well maybe when a significant proportion of living rooms are fitted with large-screen "true HDTV" (1920 x 1080) displays! When you're going to need something better than that to lure people into the cinemas. Just think about THAT when you take on your next 9-figure blockbuster! Or ask Steven Spielberg next time you're having lunch with him :P

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Yoda knows that "there is another," because he was there when she was born.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

<SW nerd mode>

Oho, but in Ep1 when young Anakin was still a tiny tot the other Jedi made mention of some obscure cellular activity that was developing in him, indicative of a person actually having an active "J" gene, so to speak!

 

So while Yoda may have known she was his sister, at the time of her birth he wouldn't have known whether she carried the required genetic wherewithall.

</SW nerd mode>

 

Just another of George's attempts to turn fantasy into "hard" SF I guess :P

[Guest Kai.w]

Er.... all currently available "digital" imaging systems, whether it's CCD or CMOS cameras or film scanned in a telecine, start out as analog. The "digital" part is the result of converting the analog signals into their digital near-equivalent. There's no such thing as a truly "digital" video camera.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I realised, you are great at bending things some way to match your perspective.

I mean you quite often complain about the level of the discussion here but sometimes you bring in new pasterpieces of this low level.

So you are telling me the physical world is not digital. Wow. Glad I came here. Now I really learned something.

I was talking about digital media. You said that information put on film "will always be there" which of course is absolute nonsense.

Film decays, so does the information on it.

Digital information does not decay. The format, the medium might, but since its digital you can make lossless(!) copies to a new medium.

 

On that basis the longvity of an original negative compared to a CCD sensor is a ratio of 100 years to about 40 milliseconds or about 7.5 billion to one:-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly, I've never read a more stupid comparison here ! And I feel like you know this.

 

At the moment  the maximum readily available film scanning resolution is 6K, but if and when 12 or 16K becomes available, your film will still be there to take advantage of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Once again I feel like you mix up things on purpose. Film is an analogue recording of a realworld phenomena. So at a certain point the level of noise in the signal exceeds the information. As I said before, scanning resolution is NOT necessarily the "resolution" of the media. Just because you can scan film at any res you want does not mean anything. At a certain point you'll just get sharper grain.

If your point was that digital cameras have a certain resolution (lets say 1920x1080) and the recorded information will never exceed this.... what news! But film has limits to. Those limits are just of a different nature. They are higher than with HD yet they exist. So to suggest film will always take advantage of higher and higher scanning resolutions is misleading.

 

-k

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Did Phil Rhodes really say that?

 

Yes, he did. I was talking about uncompressed capture, and on a feature set you can deal with hauling around a barrowload of hard disks. Yes, this obviates a lot of on-camera controls as far as the final image is concerned, although you'd clearly still use those for preview. Viper seems to overcomplicate that side of it for some reason.

 

What particularly bothers me is this worrying trend in digital cinematography to remove more or less everything from the camera, make it square and uncomfortable to hold, make it dependent on huge crews and support equipment, etc. Fashion is compromising the usability of these things. The betacam-style layout is fine, just record it uncompressed.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

I keep hoping for a Sony HDCAM-SR camcorder, hopefully a little less long than an F900.

 

Trouble with all the newer cameras except for the Panavision Genesis is the need for external recorders (I fully understand the reason why: more quality = more data). Even if you can now use an attachable flash memory device like the Venom on a Arri D-20 or Viper, you still need a separate recorder on-set for transferring the data off of the Venom onto, unless you carry enough Venoms to basically dump some off at a post house every evening like a film load to the lab, so your on-set budget does not include renting a large-volume data recording device.

 

On a bigger show, that does not concern me (extra recorders, crew person to empty or transfer data, etc.) but on a small indie shoot, the only thing that is going to make sense is an all-in-one camera & recorder, so for anything better-quality than the F900, you're looking at the Panavision Genesis, unless Sony makes an HDCAM-SR camcorder.

 

Now in terms of using something like a Panavision Genesis, I don't see why the shoot would be any more complicated or require more crew people than an F900 shoot. You've got a camera with a tape drive and a cable going to a monitor either way. You can make it more complicated than that if you want to of course... And with the tape deck mounted at the rear, I don't see it being less ergonomic for handholding than an F900 (which is not all THAT ergonomic...)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Until five minutes ago, I'd never set eyes on the Genesis, but.... just look at it! They've gone miles and miles out of their way to make it look exactly like a Panaflex! Is this some kind of practical joke or something?

 

"Look, look, it's just like a Panaflex... nothing scary... come now, little people, hire our digicam..."

 

For God's sake!

 

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

Speaking of the Genesis....does anyone know why it runs off of 24V and all the accessories run off of 12V? I forgot to ask at Cinegear. I'm not sure what advantage this would have. It's certainly a hinderance for steadicam.

[Tenolian Bell]

Hi,

 

Until five minutes ago, I'd never set eyes on the Genesis, but.... just look at it! They've gone miles and miles out of their way to make it look exactly like a Panaflex! Is this some kind of practical joke or something?

 

"Look, look, it's just like a Panaflex... nothing scary... come now, little people, hire our digicam..."

 

For God's sake!

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's the Phil we know.

 

I would say the betacam design does not fit every production model. Stick a zoom lens on the camera is too long.

 

The Genesis is pretty compact, and the deck can sit on top of the camera or on the back. The Genesis easily slips into the current production model and use Panavision's current accessories.

 

I'll ask you this. If digital manufacturers want film DP's to shoot video. Why do feel film DP's have switch the way they work, just to adhere to traditional video designs and work habits?

[David Mullen ASC]

It seems to me that a camera design that allows the deck to be top or back mounted to change the profile of the camera for different shooting situations makes more sense than the camcorder design, especially when it gets as long as the F900 with an HDSDI adaptor on the back and a battery stuck on that, plus a zoom lens in front. No one should think this is some sort of optimal camera design!

 

The camcorder design is primarily made for handholding in ENG situations; how many features are primarily handheld? How many need to have audio & TC controls where the operator's side of their face rests against?

 

Complaining about Panavision IMPROVING the design of a camcorder for feature-style shooting hardly makes sense!

 

If the F900 were as small overall as a DSR500, the camcorder design would be a little less problematic for non-handheld shots... but it isn't, and currently it is simply too long in profile in a number of shooting situations. Many times, backed into small corners of a room, I've wished I could take a third of that camera and chop it off and slap it on top of the camera...

 

Besides, if you want something longer to rest on your shoulder in a handheld shot, back-mounting the SR deck on the Genesis gets you that, so it seems to me the best of both worlds, rather than something permanently designed for handholding. So what's the problem? Why is a camcorder design optimal for some feature, let's say, mainly shot on a tripod head?

[Stas Tagios]

Briefly saw the Genesis at this year's Cine Gear and was impressed at its compactness, especially in comparison to Dalsa's behemoth Origin.

[Jordan Brade]

Jordan I find your theory about Liea & Luke similarities Ghanima & Leto interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It would've completely passed me by if I didn't read somewhere that Frank Herbert was utterly pissed after seeing Star Wars. I believe he even formed an organization along the lines of "SF writers against Star Wars." Truth be told though, every SF writer is guilty of plagerism in some form.

 

Jim, I'll need to watch Episode I again. I think you got me there.

 

Rik, everyone knows that Kit Fisto's ethnicity is Greensquidorian :P

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Star Wars, Dune, The Matrix and the Bible are all messiah stories. It's one of the seven or is it eight storylines that exist?

 

Phil

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Just to change the subject, this is the website from one of the ads that appeared at the top of my forums page:

 

 

Download Episode III

 

Download Episode III? For free? Are they kidding?

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

They accomplished what they set out to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't seem to matter how crap-a$$ a film looks, the people who made it always manage to claim that: "they accomplished what they set out to do".

 

In so many cases I'm left wondering: "Oh yes, and exactly WHY did you set out to do that?"