The 1st needed convincing, the grip wasn't sure, everyone else was sold

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Also, sensors for most video cameras have to be designed with mass production in mind; if you're only going to build a hundred D20's or Genesis or Dalsa cameras at the most, you can use more expensive sensors.

I'd agree in the case of the Dalsa or D-20, but I don't think that's the case with the Sony sensor used in the Genesis. It would have made far more sense for them to make it a 1.33:1 sensor like Arri did, but instead they made it 16 x 9, which strongly suggests it was originally designed for HDTV. There is also the unanswered question of why they effectively use a 12 megapixel chip as a 6 megapixel one. Technically there can be no advantage in doing this.

 

Also there would be enormous advantages to the manufacturers if they could mass-produce this technology, since it would eliminate the need for expensive and fragile dichroic prisms in TV cameras

[David Mullen ASC]

Considering the relatively LOW percentage of digital origination for major studio theatrical and TV production, I'd say that most industry people DO recognize 35mm film's superiority compared to current digital technology.

 

I don't really resent manufacturer hype since that's what their marketing departments were hired to do, but it seems that most people in the industry have figured out the truth or else we would have all switched to the F900 years ago if we were really that susceptable to hype.

 

But eventually digital origination WILL supplant 35mm, when the quality is comparable (even if not exactly the same), it gets cheaper, AND it fits better with people's post workflow & distribution schemes. It doesn't necessarily have to equal the quality of film if it gets close enough and it has other advantages. We have had other technological shifts over the history of film that was not driven by the need to improve quality, unfortunately. Otherwise we'd all be shooting in 65mm Super Panavision / Todd-AO today.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> the "front-end" of all current model video cameras is still very much analog...

> ...have to be considerably "massaged" to fit in the 10-bit "window"

 

Huh?

 

It comes off the CCD output amp as an analogue waveform representing in some nonlinear fashion the electron accumulation of each photodiode, and gets thrown into a high-bit-count video ADC. Recording that gives good results, certainly results preferable to what you get after it's been through the camera's DSP and compression electronics. I'm not sure what you mean by "massaged" here. Certainly the output amps on the CCD will be set to present the DAC with a range it can deal with, but that's just a multiplicative function (usually inverted, but we're basically talking linear mathematics, here).

 

> A more realistic alternative might be to provide "straight" RGB analog feeds via something like a VGA

> connector

 

You could do that, but you'd invariably want to record it digitally, so why bother replicating the ADC? Practically every video camera in the world has, internally, 3n pins (where n is the bit count of the ADC) and a clock coming out of the ADC(s), which is really pretty easy to read. What you actually get if you put test clamps on them and read the data into a logic analyser is a low-contrast, generally greenish-brown picture which looks rather like an uncorrected RAW digital stills image and has markedly better dynamic range than the normal recorded output. This is the data you really want if you want to defer your grading operations.

 

> You do realize that film scanned at 4K and then down-sampled to 2K by an intelligent ("sub-

> Nyquist") encoder is going to have twice the effective resolution of any "2K" video camera.

 

This is a completely different discussion, but I question this sort of thinking. Film only has this enormous resolution if you conveniently overlook the grain; there are varieties of 35mm filmstock that produce visible grain when rendered to standard def, but nobody's claiming it has less resolution than that. It's very subjective.

 

As for not putting back what you didn't have, etc, I'm deeply troubled by this current predeliction for single-chip cameras. A three-chip block has three times the theoretical colour resolution, and pixel shifting can make these images look even better than they mathematically should (which is generally how these 500-line prosumer cameras manage to look reasonable.)

 

At the end of the day, with these competing mathematical and technical justifications jostling for consideration, I'm more inclined to sit back and look at a picture of known provenance and evaluate the question "does it look any damn good?"

 

Phil

[Josh Bass]

"but eventually digital origination WILL supplant 35mm, when the quality is comparable (even if not exactly the same), it gets cheaper, AND it fits better with people's post workflow & distribution schemes"

 

 

Uh oh.

 

Whereever Richard Boddington is, you've just pissed him off. And he WILL respond to this thread.

 

I'm gonna go start another thread titled "when digital replaces film, are you film guys gonna have yourselfes euthanized?" and see what happens. Fun times ahead!

[Keith Mottram]

Keith - have you already or could you comment on what brought the choice for D20 vs. Genesis?

 

Basically it came down to two things, firstly we couldn't get a demo of the Genesis and there would not have been any cameras available anyway, secondly we wanted a camera that was simple to use for everyone concerned. We had great support from arri, from pre-productiono all the way through to the end of the shoot. At the end of the day only the D20 has an optical viewfinder, this is very important. Also the fact that it operates in such a simple manner was a deciding factor (we didn't want to waste time with technical guff- just switch on and shoot!) and if it comes down to it I'm perfectly happy to admit that I'm biased towards Arri. Finally for everyone who bangs on about cabling, it's worth mentioning that we only had one cable coming out of the camera, everything else was fed out of our DVcam assist and was for my purpose only (ie on-set edit for effects purposes. Remember that soon there will be no need for cabling as the D20 will record to ram packs - which are the downloaded real time onto SR.

 

Anyway we had the agency here today looking at our (uncompressed full HD) offline and they loved the images.

 

I don't entirely understand why this camera is labled as a video camera by some people, what should we start calling digital still cameras - digital still video cameras?

 

Keith

[Mark Allen]

Anyway we had the agency here today looking at our (uncompressed full HD) offline and they loved the images.

 

I don't entirely understand why this camera is labled as a video camera by some people, what should we start calling digital still cameras - digital still video cameras?

 

For that matter, why does one call an uncompressed HD edit an offline? An "online session" is said quite often meaning when you are at the facility pulling your material from original tapes - but the assumption is you've been looking at lower resolution. :)

 

But - language has a function of conveying information and it naturally evolves when there are words which people agree on to mean whatever they need those words to mean. The nomenclature of film and video is going to change constantly and will always retain legacy words which don't make sense, but that's how language works.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> we didn't want to waste time with technical guff

 

Splutter - and you shoot film regularly? Define irony!

 

> Remember that soon there will be no need for cabling as the D20 will record to ram packs

 

Lots of cameras are available which allow recording without cabling right now. They've been available for years.

 

> I don't entirely understand why this camera is labled as a video camera by some people

 

Because it works - or rather should work - like the devices colloquially referred to as such. I'm not going to argue points of semantics. The point people are trying to make when they bring this up is that these new "digital cinematography" devices are in fact reinvented video cameras; the pictures might be better than something like an F900, but other than that they're different only in that they're physically patterned after something they're not, which can only be a bad idea. The ENG camera layout has been de facto for decades, used very successfully in conditions that are invariably much more trying than the average feature shoot, and suddenly it's wrong? Pull the other one.

 

Devices like D20 are being hamstrung by politics dictating that feature filmmaking cameras have to look like they were designed in 1900. It wouldn't wind me up so much - I am not, and never will be, working at the sort of level that uses that sort of equipment - but for the fact that this situation is being mediated by almost universally snobbish people who, when my field of work intersects with theirs, assume they know best. I would love, I would dearly, dearly love to watch a big feature DP drown with a long, drawn-out gurgle when presented with a typical news OB. Working on feature films does not mean you know everything there is to know about every motion imaging device that has ever existed. It's a long-running, studied insult, and I am offended.

 

Phil

[Stuart Brereton]

Devices like D20 are being hamstrung by politics dictating that feature filmmaking cameras have to look like they were designed in 1900. It wouldn't wind me up so much - I am not, and never will be, working at the sort of level that uses that sort of equipment - but for the fact that this situation is being mediated by almost universally snobbish people who, when my field of work intersects with theirs, assume they know best. I would love, I would dearly, dearly love to watch a big feature DP drown with a long, drawn-out gurgle when presented with a typical news OB. Working on feature films does not mean you know everything there is to know about every motion imaging device that has ever existed.

 

Phil,

 

The reason that camera like the D20 are patterned after film cameras is because they are most likely to be used by people who are used to film cameras. Sure, Arri or Dalsa could have made their cameras look like a DSR 570 or any other ENG camera, but why would they? Film crew are used to working in a certain way, with certain accessories. For the D20 to be a success it has to be popular with crews and rental houses (as well as being a great camera) and the best way to ensure this is to minimise the disruption to working practice and maximise compatibility with existing accessories.

 

Your experience obviously differs, but in the six years that I was an assistant, I never came across a film DP who 'knew everything there was to know about every motion imaging device'. Quite the opposite, most were quite happy to admit their ignorance of video formats, as I am happy to bow to others who have a broader knowledge than me.

 

It's a long-running, studied insult, and I am offended.

 

Don't be ridiculous. It's not. And if you are offended, then I'm sure it's no worse than the offence you give to people when you claim, as you have in another thread, that there is no professional practice amongst British Filmmakers.

[Max Jacoby]

Honestly Phil, give it a rest.

 

I do find your technical contributions very useful, but anytime a subject like this shows up, you just go into your silly 'nobody loves me because I shoot video' mode. Your rants against 'film people' are really getting very tedious, especially since you show complete disregard for the skills that go into these jobs in the first place.

[Robert Sanders]

Also, sensors for most video cameras have to be designed with mass production in mind; if you're only going to build a hundred D20's or Genesis or Dalsa cameras at the most, you can use more expensive sensors. Plus as Phil says, video cameras are designed with video encoding, distribution and monitoring in mind, not for a transfer to film.

 

But I agree with Phil that video cameras these days should have an unprocessed output option.

 

But clearly we live in a gray area where video technology is being applied to traditional film work, just as film has been used for material to be shown on TV for decades, and we all better get used to these crossover issues -- and deal with them -- rather than constantly bemoan the incursion of video into the film world.

 

Thank god. A voice of reason.

[David Mullen ASC]

Phil, you have to remember that technology isn't ultimately the most important aspect of any production. If I'm going to produce an expensive car commercial that for whatever reason is slated to be shot digitally... and I have a choice between an award-winning car commercial DP who has little digital experience, and a DP with a lot of digital experience but who has never shot a car commercial, well, who would YOU hire?

 

Same goes for feature DP's -- the skills they pick up over the years has very little to do with HD versus 35mm versus whatever else comes along. Most of their valuable skills are in visual storytelling on a budget & schedule, and dealing with actors doing dramatic scenes.

 

Sometimes I think the technical aspects of moviemaking are overrated -- I almost agree with Kubrick who felt that the technical side of filmmaking could be learned in a week (but perfected over a lifetime, of course.) No matter what the details are, we're talking about an image-capturing box with a lens stuck on it afterall.

 

And if the experts in feature or commercial filmmaking are more comfortable with a certain camera system or design because they feel that it works more smoothly or enables them to do their job better, whatever, I don't see the problem with a manufacturer actually addressing customer concerns rather than stick them with an unpopular design (even if unfairly unpopular) and tell them to learn to like it.

 

Besides, the arguments for things like an optical viewfinder, for example, have a lot of validity -- although I believe that there are also valid arguments for electronic viewfinders for electronic cameras.

 

I've shot 8 features with the F900 and if you're telling me that the design of that camera cannot be improved for filmmaking, well, let's just say that I disagree. For me and a lot of operators -- and Steadicam people -- it's way too long compared to tall. Most movies are not shot handheld, afterall, which is what the ENG design was meant for. At the minimum, that camera should have a built-in HDSDI out like the Varicam does, so the extra back can be eliminated, it should allow you to stick the battery on the top if necessary, and it should have a larger, sharper color viewfinder -- and it shouldn't need constant back-focus checks. And it shouldn't need so many intake fans, which make it near impossible to seal-up in a duststorm scene, for example.

 

Not to say that every 35mm movie camera is also perfectly designed for filmmaking. But a least it wasn't designed for some other purpose and then retroactively applied to filmmaking.

 

The reasons film crews want a digital camera more designed like a movie camera is not merely due to cosmetic, aesthetic, or mere laziness issues. Some of these Hollywood crews have been dealing practically with the ENG design of the F900 now for five years and many have put in WAY more hours on the thing than you ever have -- or I ever have -- and if they have ideas for design improvements, I think manufacturers should listen. I mean, honestly, why are the sound levels / time code / etc. of the side panel LCD display where the operator's head sits against? Is that REALLY the optimal place for that display? It didn't even make sense to me when I was shooting ENG video for infomercials and EPK's, let alone for features.

[Michael Collier]

Good on you for choosing what looks best, (from what i gathered you almost did a double blind study on the damn thing) not what was most comfortable.

 

HD WILL eventually replace film. I know some diehards want to keep it around, but it will die because of me. I'm young up and comming and love HD. what I gain from shooting HD is so much more than what I get from film (not that film isnt better, it is better now) Young people like me will decide the outcome of this argument, and I started to edit digital video when i was 13, as soon as those all-in-wonder cards came out.

 

assumming I get to a budgetary point where filmstock and proccessing are less of a concern it would be a tough choice for me between film and the Arri.

 

Like I said, film is better than digital.....now. its had over 200 years of development. I think the first CCD circut was designed in the 50s as a memory device. later in the 60s and 70s (i believe, could be wrong on teh date) it was put onto a silicon IC and we got the first CCD images. They looked like crap. look at an old SNL episode to see (not too old, they started on tube cameras)

 

CCDs are in their infancy, and have a lot of room to grow. as demand for ultra-high end chips makes $10k chips lucrative, you will see a huge competition jump and the images will start to resemble film. the only gaps that are out there right now are the following:

 

*bayer. we need chips that are 3-4x resolution of the intended RGB res. that way any bayer aberation wont be seen in teh final output, while maintaining quality.

 

*exposure latitude. I read somewhere most chips handle around 5-6 stops. no where near film. thats why you have to be particularly careful with the highlights.

 

*quantization. 12bit log is beautiful, 10bit lin is acceptable and 8bit is horrible and only for prosumer cameras to be displayed on a home television.

 

*target size. with a 1/3 chip you see everything in focus. with 2/3s your getting closer, but you still have to cheat DOF. we need more cameras in the 1chip/35mm apeture config. Only by using real cine lenses and real cine apeture can you achieve the look of film.

 

we can match a given film stocks toe charecteristics or color space, but i dont think we should. we should aim for surgical precision with respect to aquisision of colors. as nutral of an image as possible. that way you just have to adjust the filters on the front end, and do color correction in post. If your quantization and exposure lat. is good you will not see artifacting (well you will, but I am assuming this hypothetical camera can resolve more in terms of color and pixels than your delivery method.)

 

 

Lastly I take offense to whoever said 'video people are worse than film people'

 

Its a moot point. yes, film is better than most cameras out there right now. yes you probably have more gear than I do. Yes I can use my gear better than you can. Yes I am smarter than you by default. If I had all the exposure latitude in the world and all the equipment in the world I could shut off a part of my brain as well.

 

The reason I take offense to the comment (and why I hope you take offense to my comment, so as to point out the satire its steeped in) is because it really doesnt matter your capture method or equipment list, what matters is the story. If your image can tell your story with passion and sincerity, it doesnt matter that it was shot on a 4000 HDV camera. And as photographers we should strive toward the image and the intent. I know a lot of 'video guys' who are incredibly talented, incredibly knowlegable and quick on their feet. Those are the people I try to emulate, weather they are shooting video or film.

 

In the end we need to work with the format given and do our best. thats the joy of making a movie. fleshing out the visual nature that lie in subtley.

 

and yes. I am better than you.

[Michael Most]

Anyway we had the agency here today looking at our (uncompressed full HD) offline and they loved the images.

 

You previously mentioned that you were recording on HDCam SR in 4:2:2. How does that qualify as "uncompressed?" Mildly compressed, yes. Uncompressed, no.

[David Mullen ASC]

This whole "video people versus film people" argument is starting to get nonsensical since most people entering the business these days switch back and forth between the two all the time. This is why I emphasize the fact for most film artists and many crew people, one's skills on a film set often have little to do with film versus video, or to put it another way, most of their expertise can be applied to either format. If you're a good DP, you can figure out how to handle any number of formats, processes, camera systems, etc. -- most of your mental skills are used to solve problems like lighting a lead actress attractively during a long steadicam move on a real location and somehow do it fast enough to fit in a dozen more set-ups before you break for lunch.

[Brian Wells]

Recovering data at this stage has been shown to work spectacularly well on cameras as basic as a DVX-100 and would obviate devices like Genesis and D20 at a stroke.

This is a bit off topic, but I presume you're referring to the DVX100 modification from Reel Stream. Well, they made available on 10/31 the results of their testing and I thought you might take a look at their findings, Phil.

 

http://www.reel-stream.com/cap_comp

[Keith Mottram]

You previously mentioned that you were recording on HDCam SR in 4:2:2. How does that qualify as "uncompressed?" Mildly compressed, yes. Uncompressed, no.

 

Yeah, well of course you're right on that- I was actually having a bit of fun with that (the idea that we I did the offline at HD etc etc...). I really hate those stupid smiley faces things but I can now see why people use them. I meant uncompressed in capture (in suite- although actually the capture, although called uncompressed infact applies a certain amount of compression as does SR even at 4:4:4 ) rather than recording to SR term. Though we would have liked to have captured 4:4:4 if it had been possible. There is an interesting thing here going on with terminology and what these posts really show is that all the traditional words that we've previously taken for granted are fast becoming pointless. Someone needs to make a new filmmaking dictionary- although by the time its written all the terms will already be confused and obsolete!

 

If anyone's still interested there will be a report about this commercial in the next issue of Arri news.

 

 

Keith

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> http://www.reel-stream.com/cap_comp

 

Yes, seen it before. It's ever so slightly odd looking, and needs proper grading to achieve some degree of "normality", but I think it's the biggest argument yet for that 32-pin, 10-bit output connector we've been talking about.

 

Phil

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

But eventually digital origination WILL supplant 35mm, when the quality is comparable (even if not exactly the same), it gets cheaper, AND it fits better with people's post workflow & distribution schemes. It doesn't necessarily have to equal the quality of film if it gets close enough and it has other advantages.

 

I'm not sure who your post is directed at, but for what it's worth, my only position on this has ever been that while this may indeed happen sometime in the future, it hasn't happened yet. I get rather annoyed with people who keep insisting it has, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (Like is everybody in Hollywood totally inept? I also get rather annoyed with the number of "players" here whose experience with video production obviously stops and starts with a handycam, but that's another story!

 

I don't really understand the almost religious fixation some people here have with the "Film is Dead" notion anyway. I mean what do think that means? Are they just going to march into Hollywood and take over?

[David Mullen ASC]

I pretty much agree with what you just said. I don't understand the hostility of the "film is dead" crowd either, other than a lot of them are people who feel shut out of the industry and think that the barrier is film, and once the industry goes digital, somehow the doors will open up to them. Their resentment is misplaced; they equate film with a whole conservative infrastructure that is barring young, eager minds like theirs from getting "into the game". The truth is that the barriers have little to do with film technology and the same conservative infrastructure will just eventually be shifted towards more digital technology -- and be just as hard for outsiders to penetrate.

 

However, I do feel that cameras like the Genesis, Dalsa, and Arri D20 are a natural evolution, or cross-pollination, whatever you want to call it, and I can't understand the resentment some people seem to have towards these cameras either. No, they aren't obviously perfect designs -- they are fairly new concepts afterall.

 

But some film people feel threatened by digital technology that even further blurs the line between the video world and film world, and some video people feel threatened by the evolution of video cameras towards something that functions more like a film camera. The truth is that these cameras are the future of non-ENG production, so get used to it. I mean, we've got cell phones now that take video and allow internet access... is someone out there that is resentful that phones do more than receive phone calls? The separation between a 35mm Panaflex or Arricam and a 2/3" CCD ENG camcorder is going to get blurred, so get used to it. Things aren't going to stay the same; we can't freeze things at a 1999 level of camera design.

[Chris Fernando]

Sometimes I think the technical aspects of moviemaking are overrated -- I almost agree with Kubrick who felt that the technical side of filmmaking could be learned in a week (but perfected over a lifetime, of course.) No matter what the details are, we're talking about an image-capturing box with a lens stuck on it afterall.

 

 

I'm beginning to think there will never be another Kubrick.

[Mike Brennan]

There is also the unanswered question of why they effectively use a 12 megapixel chip as a 6 megapixel one. Technically there can be no advantage in doing this.

 

What evidence is there that they use 12mega pixel as a 6 megapixel?

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

I pretty much agree with what you just said. I don't understand the hostility of the "film is dead" crowd either, other than a lot of them are people who feel shut out of the industry and think that the barrier is film, and once the industry goes digital, somehow the doors will open up to them. Their resentment is misplaced; they equate film with a whole conservative infrastructure that is barring young, eager minds like theirs from getting "into the game". The truth is that the barriers have little to do with film technology and the same conservative infrastructure will just eventually be shifted towards more digital technology -- and be just as hard for outsiders to penetrate.

I have to say I've never noticed any particular shortage of young people who are able to get access to film production for their student projects. The ones who are likely to succeed usually start out on video and then one way and another find a way to finance a film project. (Usually this becomes possible because they have a number of "players" involved, so one of them writes a script, one directs, one operates the camera and so on, and they share the costs). Someone who succeeds in a group effort like that is far more likely to taken seriously by industry professionals than someone who claims he/she can do it all themselves, "if only the 'right camera' would come along".

 

 

However, I do feel that cameras like the Genesis, Dalsa, and Arri D20 are a natural evolution, or cross-pollination, whatever you want to call it, and I can't understand the resentment some people seem to have towards these cameras either. No, they aren't obviously perfect designs -- they are fairly new concepts afterall.

I do get annoyed, though, at the people who talk as though the death of film is a done deal, purely on the basis of what we've seen so far from these cameras. Which is practical terms amounts amounts to virtually zero when you get right down to it. Can't we at least wait until "Superman Returns" or "Flyboys" actually comes out!

 

I mean, we've got cell phones now that take video and allow internet access... is someone out there that is resentful that phones do more than receive phone calls?

 

I don't know that that's a particularly apt analogy. I have an elderly Aunt in Australia who was always complaining that she had trouble hearing people on modern telephones. At one point someone had given her one of the old-fashioned dial phones which she said always sounded "much clearer". The one day when she was wasn't there, a Phone company technician came round to fix a line fault and while he was at it, replaced her "old" phone with a nice new push-button one! D'oh!

 

Then when I was down there a couple of years ago I found a really ancient phone in a flea market, one of the heavy old Bakelite jobs that date from the 1940s. I thought she might like it just for a decoration as it would go really well with her collection of antique furniture. But amazingly, after an hour's work with a bit of WD-40 and sewing-machine oil, I got the bloody thing working! The carbon microphone was a bit crackly, but I managed to scrounge a new 1970s-era replacement from a radio amateur friend, which was a drop-in replacement.

 

The thing is, the phone exchanges will still work with a rotary dial phone, and you can still access any number (mobile or landline, local or overseas) using it, (although your finger soon gets tired of dailling all the digits:-) You can't access automated services with it of course, but what most people don't know is that if they don't get a tone response after a certain period, they automatically connect you to a human operator!

 

But the most important thing here is that she's right, those old phones definitely do sound louder and clearer.

So here we have an example of a 19th century technology that as far as she's concerned, produces better results than the equivalent 21st century product, at least for what she wants to do. But, despite being at least 60 years old, it still slots more or less seamlessly into the 21st century phone network.

 

Compare that with the case of movie cameras: you've only got to run the negative through a telecine, and after that, everything can proceed exactly the same way as it would with video-derived footage. And the movie camera (or the footage) can also be 60 years old, or even a hundred years old! (OK, if you don't have timecode or keycode it's a litle more complex, but not not that much more!)

 

So while I have no argument with the notion that "all digital" Post Production is going to become the norm before too long, for high-quality productions the actual source of many of the images that go into it is still going to be film for a lot longer than a lot of people seem to think.

 

Actually I liken these sorts of arguments to a lot of alarmist: "the day the oil runs out" scenarios. Of course, it's not going to happen anything like that: all that will happen is that as the most easily accessible oil fields start to run out, people will start exploiting fields that were previously not economically worthwhile. So while oil will gradually start to get more expensive, it will be a very long time before we actually run out of the stuff.

 

I see the same thing happening with film origination. As the digital cameras improve they'll start to move more and more into the lower end of "film" production, but (barring some unexpected and spectacular breakthrough) film will continue to be used for a long time to come. And also like the oil analogy, there will no doubt be improvements in the performance of films, just as people are sure to find new ways to extract more oil from currently flagging fields.

 

 

 

 

Splutter - and you shoot film regularly? Define irony!

 

Phil

All right!!! I will!!!! (Stomps off to find dictionary..... :P )

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

What evidence is there that they use 12mega pixel as a 6 megapixel?

Mike Brennan

Huh? Well, 1,920 x 1080 x 3 = 6,220,800 nicht wahr?

 

Anyway I've seen an e-mail from John Galt about this. He said the 12,440,800 pixels are arranged in square "macropixels" of two red, two green and two blue each. I would have thought they would have been arranged like this:

 

RGB|RGB|RGB

BGR|BGR|BGR

------------------

RGB|RGB|RGB

BGR|BGR|BGR

 

to reduce alaising effects, which is what they do with single-chip standard definition cameras that use this technique, but he said no, they're arranged like this:

 

RGB|RGB|RGB

RGB|RGB|RGB

------------------

RGB|RGB|RGB

RGB|RGB|RGB

 

and he didn't seem to understand why you'd want to do it any other way. He didn't seem to have any answer to the question: "why do they simply average adjacent pairs of pixels, instead of having just one taller pixel (which would give a better signal-to-noise ratio)?" either. He stopped replying after that!

Edited November 2, 2005 by Jim Murdoch

[David Mullen ASC]

The sad thing is that the best technology doesn't always win. There are so many other factors involved.

 

But it seems clear that film origination for feature production (and dramatic TV) is not going away soon, not soon enough to declare it dead or even dying. Videotape will probably be dead long before film will, and even that has been holding on much longer than some people predicted.

 

But I would expect more variations of the Genesis / Dalsa / D20 approach over time.

[Mark Allen]

It is very common for film stock to go overbudget on smaller movies, the idea of this cost being more locked in appeals greatly to the people paying for lower budget films.

 

The ability for the D20/Genesis type of cameras to drop in cost overtime will most likely outpace any drop in film shooting (which I doubt will drop much).

 

Those factors will weigh heavy in favor of seeing more films shot in the digital method. I think the paradigm of the future world of filmmaking will be a lot more product with a lot less budgets. Many films being made for 500k or so hoping to break out. There will still be the huge ventures that are tied into mass corporate marketing - but those will be the event movies.

 

In some ways it will be good news for production people as there will be more jobs - but the jobs will be shorter in time and maybe not union payscale jobs.

 

Conjecture.