or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Digital Cinerama? Could we see this?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Digital Cinerama? Could we see this?

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
Okay, here's a wild dream: I wonder if anybody has thought of the feasibility of a revival of Ultra Panavision/Cinerama in digital?

As you probably know, Ultra Panavision 70 used a 1.25x anamorphic lenses which rendered a 2.76 AR 70mm print that was sort of the one-camera/one-projector Cinerama. It was shot at 24fps.

The resolution capability of digital cinema cameras is ramping up fast now. The Red Epic is up to 5K. The new Sony F65 is an 8k sensor. Imagine 8K cameras with 1.25x anamorphics with 4K or 8K releases on a Cinerama-size 2.76 AR screen, and for icing on the cake, shoot at 30fps (like Todd-Ao) or 48fps. Maybe this would be an alternative or competitor to digital IMAX. That I would pay to see!

Would those titles come to the consumer market as 4K or 4K Quad anamorphic requiring either a 1.25x or 1.33x (respectively) A-lens?

That would have some serious wow factor.

Or are we more likely to see a permanent base on the moon first?
post #2 of 31
This might make the Christopher Nolan/Wally Pfisters of the world happy (assuming they ever gave up film).

I guess you'd have to build a special lens for the 1.77 sized sensor of digital cameras. It certainly would be an experience.
post #3 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Or are we more likely to see a permanent base on the moon first?

Whilst it is a good dream, I don't see cinema changing anytime soon. So the moon base might be a reality first.

Digital is replacing film but not really bringing anything new (apart from sound and scratch free images). I can't see anyone breaking ground yet given the D-Cinema specs are workable with existing cinemas.
post #4 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Digital is replacing film but not really bringing anything new (apart from sound and scratch free images). I can't see anyone breaking ground yet given the D-Cinema specs are workable with existing cinemas.

As you can imagine, I have been a film elitist for a long time, but the comparison tests I'm seeing of some of the new digital cameras is revealing that already there are some digital PQ factors that surpass the capability of film. I, like many in that industry who are old film-heads, have been quite shocked by these developments. It's winning us over. I'm really looking forward to seeing footage from the new Sony F65, which I think is really going to be a game changer. There is still room for improvement, but it cause for excitement.

Regarding your second sentence, that is quitle logical. Ultra Panavision was among those handful of special formats that were road show events. I would think that the only venues that would currently support this would be the big IMAX houses.

Cheers.
post #5 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post


The resolution capability of digital cinema cameras is ramping up fast now. The Red Epic is up to 5K. The new Sony F65 is an 8k sensor. Imagine 8K cameras with 1.25x anamorphics with 4K or 8K releases on a Cinerama-size 2.76 AR screen, and for icing on the cake, shoot at 30fps (like Todd-Ao) or 48fps.

The Sony F65 is not a 8K camera even if Sony's regular hyperbole try to claim so.

The F65 has a 20MP CMOS sensor with two green pixels for every red and blue. By regular resolution counting for CMOS, that would make out the camera sensor to be 15-17MP.
The sensor is also turned 45 degrees, which nobody yet have seen the reason for or the eventual image quality of.

The camera can only output 4K from that sensor, and knowing that 8K is in the 30MP+ range. The F65 is not a 8K camera even if Sony want "cook" the specs. somewhat.

As we have learnt with digital motion cameras, they need to shoot at higher resolution than the release resolution and downsample, so here both RED and Sony does the right thing.
For 8K movies to look good, that would mean a camera in the ballpark of 9K resolution.

Sony F65 can do 1-60 fps in 4Kx2K and 120fps in 4Kx1K
The F65 is a big camera which need a big attached SRMASTER field recorder for recording the best quality from the camera.

Why they need such a big camera when a "upstart" like RED can build a small camera like the Epic and record 5K internally is something I don't understand.
RED Epic-X;
1-120 fps 5K, 4.5K
1-150 fps 4K
1-200 fps 3K
1-300 fps 2K

Call me not impressed with Sony's camera development, but I hope it is a camera that gives top notch images.
Quote:


Maybe this would be an alternative or competitor to digital IMAX. That I would pay to see!

Comparative test where done last year at the Moody Gardens Digital Cinema Symposium on a IMAX screen with Barco 4K projector and IMAX film projector, both with 70mm film and scans and 4K Digital Camera material(RED).
The general conclusion is that good 4K material digital projected matches the quality of the 16:9 portion of a IMAX film seen side-by-side.

This year they did more comparative test. This time with Barco 4K DLP Laser projector and 48&60fps. But nobody has written a proper report yet.

48fps movies shot in 5K, released in 4K (both 2D&3D) will have release later this year from Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott. (maybe more titles?)

Only 4K DLP projectors can currently easily be upgraded to show 48&60fps.

Quote:


Or are we more likely to see a permanent base on the moon first?

I hope not.
But be sure that when somebody start to make 8K projectors there will be 8K or higher resolution cameras.
I hope those comes long before a "moon base".
post #6 of 31
Thread Starter 
Coolscan, enjoyed your post. The Sony F65 is an 8K sensor, but for many reasons like and beyond those you mentioned, the cameras don't render the full area. Neither you nor I want to type that much. The short version for those of you following the post, other desireable PQ factors (such as compression and bit depth) have a price on the output resolution. The F65 can deliver 16-bit linear RAW up to 4K. Frame rate also affects available resolution. The design of the pattern of the photosites on the sensore panel also play an important role. There are a ton of variables.

The Red cameras have a wonderful modular design that gives them a ton of flexibility. The Sony camera (F35 and F65) are larger and less modular, but larger is a relative term. I look at an F35/65 and say, "...and compared to a Panaflex or 535?"

My guess is that one of the strongest reasons that The Hobbit is using the Red Epic is because it's small size is a great advantage in configuring compact, effective 3D rigs. That is a good niche and reason to choose it for that show.

The majority of high quality cinema lenses also have a way of negating a good bit of the size advantages of the digital cameras, even if you stick with prime lenses. Cost becomes the driving factor with lenses. Top quality cinema lenses are very expensive regardless of size. To also make them small increases the cost dramatically and begins to have a point of diminishing returns.

The reasons that a given camera is chosen for a production are voluminous. I have not used or tested the Red Epic that is being used on The Hobbit. I don't know if its lattitude and dealing with highlights has improved over the previous Reds. But their predecessors keep you on your toes on dealing with highlights during the shoot. DPs just have to plan and work around that...which is normal. The Sony F35 (and Alexa) are much more forgiving with highlights; much more like film. The F35's weakness was/is it's sensitivity and noise at the low end. I hear that the F65 is now terrific in this area. We'll see.

Coolscan, you may already have seen this, but everyone interested in the evoltuion of digital cinema cameras and how they perform compared to each other and 35mm film should watch this shootout. It is extremely well done (by a lot of my comrades in the industry); very educational for anyone in that filed...or enthusiasts here. Part 1 is quite amazing, but the other parts are very useful, too. Enjoy. http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-came...11/episode-one

My point, though, is that the F65 is taking a step into higher capabilities and is only part of a rapidly progressing evolution. Whether there will ever be a reason to reach for 8K or higher at that bit depth, etc, is unknown. I just suggested a fun fantasy with Ultra Panavision Digital, and grabbed 8K out of thin air as a possible technology.
post #7 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Coolscan, enjoyed your post. The Sony F65 is an 8K sensor, but for many reasons like and beyond those you mentioned, the cameras don't render the full area. Neither you nor I want to type that much. The short version for those of you following the post, other desireable PQ factors (such as compression and bit depth) have a price on the output resolution. The F65 can deliver 16-bit linear RAW up to 4K. Frame rate also affects available resolution. The design of the pattern of the photosites on the sensore panel also play an important role. There are a ton of variables.

I have seen extensive discussions about the F65 8K claim both from DP's, camera manufacturers and people who have tested the camera. And no one can find out really where the 8K numbers comes from.
Maybe one day Sony can explain how they reach those numbers. But for now with conventional resolution counting, the numbers doesn't add up.
If your interested you can see how Graeme Nattress explains the 8K numbers; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...l=1#post894692
Quote:


The Red cameras have a wonderful modular design that gives them a ton of flexibility. The Sony camera (F35 and F65) are larger and less modular, but larger is a relative term. I look at an F35/65 and say, "...and compared to a Panaflex or 535?"

Yeah, everything is relative and RED has managed to put an impressive lot of power in a small package. Good that technology moves forward.
Strange how RED manages to build such a small camera while the more experienced like Sony and Arri need so much size to process their images.
See comparison between the Alexa and the Epic-X and you see what I mean.
Alexa was released at the same time as the first RED Epic's.
(some specs. might have changed as this is nearly a year old)
Click-able thumbnail


Quote:


My guess is that one of the strongest reasons that The Hobbit is using the Red Epic is because it's small size is a great advantage in configuring compact, effective 3D rigs. That is a good niche and reason to choose it for that show.

Besides the fact that Peter Jackson is a RED fan, the size of the Epic is a good reason.
But it is more to it; At the time of production start it was the only camera with high enough resolution and framerate to "future proof" the movie so it was not stuck in "1080 is good enough" which it would have been with f.ex. the Alexa. The Alexa can only do 30fps in 2K so it can't be used for 48fps. 3D.
My guess that's the same reason Ridley Scott shot "Prometheus", Baz Luhrmann shoots "Gatsby" and John Schwartzman DP's "Spiderman 4" among many other on the Epic.

It is disappointing that the producers of the first digitally shot Bond movie shoots on Alexa just because the DP is an "Arri fanboy" and that they didn't let the resolution advantage and "future proof" the material weight higher.

Quote:


The reasons that a given camera is chosen for a production are voluminous. I have not used or tested the Red Epic that is being used on The Hobbit. I don't know if its lattitude and dealing with highlights has improved over the previous Reds. But their predecessors keep you on your toes on dealing with highlights during the shoot. DPs just have to plan and work around that...which is normal. The Sony F35 (and Alexa) are much more forgiving with highlights; much more like film. The F35's weakness was/is it's sensitivity and noise at the low end. I hear that the F65 is now terrific in this area. We'll see.

The problem with the F35 is that it is CCD, low resolution and hardly resolve more than 1.4K measured on a chart.
The RED one with the "new" sensor (two years old now) has about the same latitude as the Alexa (13-14 stops), ref. the Zacuto shoot-out.
The Epic has about 13.5 stops latitude and 18 stops latitude with HDRx.

Quote:


Coolscan, you may already have seen this, but everyone interested in the evoltuion of digital cinema cameras and how they perform compared to each other and 35mm film should watch this shootout. It is extremely well done (by a lot of my comrades in the industry); very educational for anyone in that filed...or enthusiasts here. Part 1 is quite amazing, but the other parts are very useful, too. Enjoy. http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-came...11/episode-one

I have seen them several times, both the 2010 and the 2011, and all the forum discussions afterwards.
Some criticism is naturally avoidable, but for the 2011 shoot-out went mainly on the fact that some camera resolution measures was higher than the camera sensor resolution which made people mistrust other data in the shoot-out. And that the guy who was the leader of the project was somewhat of a known Arri "fanboy". So when he "had to" re-shoot the Alexa test based on some flimsy excuses, many people started to distrust the whole test scenario.

Will be more interesting this year where each company are invited to select their own crew. Hopefully we will see both the F65 and the Epic-X against Alexa, even tough those two cameras can't display their 4K RAW downsampled advantage in this test against the Alexa.

Quote:


My point, though, is that the F65 is taking a step into higher capabilities and is only part of a rapidly progressing evolution. Whether there will ever be a reason to reach for 8K or higher at that bit depth, etc, is unknown. I just suggested a fun fantasy with Ultra Panavision Digital, and grabbed 8K out of thin air as a possible technology.

Higher resolution is always better in my book, both in cameras and display tech.
What I reacted to was the 8K claim of the F65.
8K in broadcast terms is 7680 x 4320 and 8192x4320 in movie terms, and that is a resolution the F65 can never output even if you "shake it hard".
It just "bugs me a little" when Sony's 8K claim is repeated by people.

JVC has build some 8K CMOS prototype cameras for NHK for their 8K broadcast tests, and Sharp has built them some 85" 8K TV's, so 8K is on its way. JVC also has some kind of 8K projector, but I don't think you can buy it yet.
RED also has a 9K camera on their "road map" but that can take some time.(no point in making them if there are no 8K projectors).

I am all for a "Ultra Panavision" kind of experience, but it seems like (despite my scepticism) than one can have that with higher than 4K resolution digital camera material projected with 4K DLP projectors.

If you havn't read it already, I just added the text from a report from last year to a thread where the link to the original report is dead;http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post21602311

You will also find a link to a thread with a report from Cineramax's in the same thread.

Link to the only report I have found from this years shoot out is here; http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post21520872
post #8 of 31
Thread Starter 
Another fun post! I will catch up on responding.

My only comment for the moment is that I believe that the Alexa and Sonys intentionally make their cameras a little beefier at requests from guys like me. There is a significant downside to a camera being too small and light. The lack of mass/inertia is a downside to stability. I still think the Red is fine because we can always make it heavier/beefier so that it is inherently more stable...but you can't make a larger camera any smaller. Clearly the Alexa and Sonys are built to be different, and I don't find that a disadvantage. All other factors being equal, I would rather "handle" an Alexa Studio with its optical viewing system, or the Sonys. The Red has been ergonomically a bit wanky IMO, but its supporting systems are now maturing enough to improve this quite well.

We used to have the same criticisms of the Arriflex and Moviecam film cameras. They used to not be well standardized in their systems. In other words, at one rental house you would get a certain type of follow focus, and maybe an entirely different one if you ordered a backup. Often the parts would not be interchangable on different camera bodies. Panavision had all this down to a fine art by the mid-80s, and many a camera assistant preferred Panavision because the excellent standardization saved frustration and time. The gear being "panavised" was a good thing. Red will eventually be the same way...I hope.

Quote:
Some criticism is naturally avoidable, but for the 2011 shoot-out went mainly on the fact that some camera resolution measures was higher than the camera sensor resolution which made people mistrust other data in the shoot-out.

Are you referring to the discussion of "perceived sharpness" that comes up in the 2011 shootout?

The reason that Bob Primes and some others are big Alexa fans is that the camera does make sexy looking pictures, and a number of those guys work in TV where they don't need any more than 2K. I can't speak for Deakins' affection for the Alexa.

Quote:
Will be more interesting this year where each company are invited to select their own crew. Hopefully we will see both the F65 and the Epic-X against Alexa, even tough those two cameras can't display their 4K RAW downsampled advantage in this test against the Alexa.

Yes, and I'd like to see the follow-up program they promised to do next to see how each DP utilized/worked around the strengths and weaknesses of each camera; shooting subjectively rather than objectively in the 2011 shoot out.

Thank you for those links to other info. I'll chase those down as soon as I can.

Thanks for the informative posts and chat.
post #9 of 31
This might make the Christopher Nolan/Wally Pfisters of the world happy (assuming they ever gave up film).

I guess you'd have to build a special lens for the 1.77 sized sensor of digital cameras. It certainly would be an experience.[img]http://www.******************/zhaojh.jpg[/img][img]http://www.******************/zhaoht.jpg[/img][img]http://www.******************/zhaogd.jpg[/img]
post #10 of 31
While we still at it, no single chip camera can produce the chip resolution in the final output.

Quote:
The reason that Bob Primes and some others are big Alexa fans is that the camera does make sexy looking pictures, and a number of those guys work in TV where they don't need any more than 2K.

And that should be the nr 1 reason when you pick your cam. Yes specifications and testcharts are fun to play with. But in the end its subjective quality of the image that counts.
post #11 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

48fps movies shot in 5K, released in 4K (both 2D&3D) will have release later this year from Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott. (maybe more titles?)

Is Prometheus being shot at 48 fps for projection at that rate? I had not heard that claimed before. I thought that The Hobbit and Avatar 2 were the only movies in production (or development, in Avatar's case) with higher-than-24-fps frame rates.

Quote:


It is disappointing that the producers of the first digitally shot Bond movie shoots on Alexa just because the DP is an "Arri fanboy" and that they didn't let the resolution advantage and "future proof" the material weight higher.

Regardless of the pixel count, RED cameras have a certain "look" that some DPs (and viewers) don't care for.
post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Is Prometheus being shot at 48 fps for projection at that rate? I had not heard that claimed before. I thought that The Hobbit and Avatar 2 were the only movies in production (or development, in Avatar's case) with higher-than-24-fps frame rates.

I shall not swear that Prometheus is shot in 48fps. It is certainly not announced or confirmed. But in an short interview with Ridley Scott I saw last year he talked enthusiastic about shooting Prometheus in 3D and how good high framerate 3D was.
If he shot it in 48fps. it is not sure he will release it in 48fps. as there is not many places that can show 48fps. yet, at least not in 4K or 3D.

Barco 4K DLP can show 48fps., but new Series-2 projectors might need a new inputboard, and the speed is also lacking on the server side. Both parts are announced like the Qube Xi server, but I wouldn't think enough screens would be upgraded before the summer in any meaningful numbers.
We can just hope The Hobbit will be a more "high profile" release so cinema owners speed up the upgrade. The Cinemark chain is supposedly 100% digital now with Barco DLP on 3,400 screens. Should be a possibility there in December.
Quote:


Regardless of the pixel count, RED cameras have a certain "look" that some DPs (and viewers) don't care for.

I am aware of those claims. The problem is the lack of technical understanding by those DP's and the post houses of how to work with RAW.
The RED cameras can look exactly how you want them to look, that's the beauty of RAW.
Many DP's test cameras against each other in a workflow where everything is converted to Apple Pro-res. That means the settings are baked in.
Good when shooting the Alexa because it outputs beautiful pro-res straight from the camera, not so good when people don't know how to treat RED RAW files.
On RED RAW, the grading and color correction has to be done on the RAW files with the metadata intact.
Most people just debayer the RAW files, convert to another format, grade on the converted files and then get stuck on less flexible material.

I have seen all kind of RED videos over the years, see new ones posted every week, and nobody can say they have any similarity or a specific "look".
All depends on the DP and how it is treated in post. It is easier to spot Alexa material than RED material.
post #13 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:


I am aware of those claims. The problem is the lack of technical understanding by those DP's and the post houses of how to work with RAW.
The RED cameras can look exactly how you want them to look, that's the beauty of RAW.
Many DP's test cameras against each other in a workflow where everything is converted to Apple Pro-res. That means the settings are baked in.
Good when shooting the Alexa because it outputs beautiful pro-res straight from the camera, not so good when people don't know how to treat RED RAW files.
On RED RAW, the grading and color correction has to be done on the RAW files with the metadata intact.
Most people just debayer the RAW files, convert to another format, grade on the converted files and then get stuck on less flexible material.

I have seen all kind of RED videos over the years, see new ones posted every week, and nobody can say they have any similarity or a specific "look".
All depends on the DP and how it is treated in post. It is easier to spot Alexa material than RED material.

And this may well be an obstacle (or at least a slow down) to broader utilization of the RED. What you explained was a convenient, easy work-flow path for the Alexa and for the Red. DPs aren't lazy (for the most part ), but they are busy guys. And the experienced film guys are coming from a format that is really quite reliable and, once experienced, very simple to utilize with consistent results. They know exactly how the chemicals are going to react to the light they are exposed to, what will happen in the lab, and in post. It is no surprise that those DPs will gravitate to the path of least resistance that gives them pleasing results in the new digital world.

Guys like Peter Jackson, Scott, and Cameron have the leisure time due to their previous successes to tinker, learn, and perfect their ability to manipulate the Red. I think the other guys are a bit more mainstream and need to get on to paying the bills on the next show. There is a learning curve and most of us are only part of the way on the journey up that curve. That's my theory, anyway.
post #14 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

I am aware of those claims. The problem is the lack of technical understanding by those DP's and the post houses of how to work with RAW.
The RED cameras can look exactly how you want them to look, that's the beauty of RAW.

Its not that easy, it does give us fantastic post options that otherwise would have been needed to been tweaked in the camera.

But its not like the combination of bayer filter and cmos sensor cant effect an image to a point were adjusting the RAW data will not help.

Both a filter and a sensor destroys information (light) that passes trough the lens of the camera. Some combination are of course worse then others. But its not 100% perfect on any camera.

Red One had several problems with its colors, I dont think I seen any clip from that camera were I couldnt see an issue. That is not the same to say that I didnt see footage that I liked, just that there were technical issues on the image. So It wasnt just bad RAW tweaking because then we would have seen better footage.

I dont really care about 4K, 48fps or 3D, but can someone deliver a digital camera that gives me the PQ of POTC2 or Star Trek (2009), we would have a winner.
post #15 of 31
coolscan,

I'm curious how you come by all your information on this subject. What is your background, if I may ask?

Cheers,

Rich H
post #16 of 31
^^ Just interested in technology like most people here, with particular interest in emerging technologies.
Following discussion on film forums and techno bloggs for knowledge of all that is happening on the acquisition side and mostly here on AVS for the display side.
post #17 of 31
Got it, thanks.
post #18 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

^^ Just interested in technology like most people here, with particular interest in emerging technologies.
Following discussion on film forums and techno bloggs for knowledge of all that is happening on the acquisition side and mostly here on AVS for the display side.

You clearly spend a lot of time doing your "interest" homework.
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

^^ Just interested in technology like most people here, with particular interest in emerging technologies.
Following discussion on film forums and techno bloggs for knowledge of all that is happening on the acquisition side and mostly here on AVS for the display side.

I don't care about where you learned all this stuff from...Keep discussing what you and Cam Man were talking about! I'm LEARNING! Lol!

Which films have been shot with sony cameras vs the red?
post #20 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

I don't care about where you learned all this stuff from...Keep discussing what you and Cam Man were talking about! I'm LEARNING! Lol!

Which films have been shot with sony cameras vs the red?

Lol, indeed. Answering your question is a little tough since both camera platforms have been evolving quickly. The Sony lineage kind of goes Panavision Genesis>F23>F35>F65, with more movies from left to right, obviously. Off the top of my head, the only F35 feature I can think of at this moment is Captain America. The F65 is so new as to just now being delivered sparingly to rental houses and to sales.

The Red has had several evolutionary iterations. You can find some of their credits on their site.
post #21 of 31
Here are some, of course most productions uses several different cameras.

Red One: Knowing (2009)

Red Epic: Girl with the Dragon Tatoo (2011), Underworld: Awakening (2012), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Genesis: Deja Vu (2006), Superman Returns (2006)

F23: Avatar (2009) Public Enemies (2009)

F35: Tron Legacy (2010)
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Here are some, of course most productions uses several different cameras.

Red One: Knowing (2009)

Red Epic: Girl with the Dragon Tatoo (2011), Underworld: Awakening (2012), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Genesis: Deja Vu (2006), Superman Returns (2006)

F23: Avatar (2009) Public Enemies (2009)

F35: Tron Legacy (2010)


Was the F35 used to film the non cgi scenes? ALso does anyone know what Danny Boyle's Sunshine was filmed with? I thought that film looked spectacular as I use it for my demos. Would've been great if it was made for IMAX too...

Edit: looks like it was filmed with Arri
post #23 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

ALso does anyone know what Danny Boyle's Sunshine was filmed with? I thought that film looked spectacular as I use it for my demos. Would've been great if it was made for IMAX too...

Edit: looks like it was filmed with Arri

That a movie looks great has alot to do with how its was filmed then what it was filmed on. Sure, a bad camera can of course effect the image in a not so good way. But to make material demo quality you need a good light setup.

No matter what you shoot with, without good lights the image will look dull and flat.

And one other factor is that resolution is more needed on arial shoots then it is on closeups. 2K is plenty on someone face.
post #24 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

That a movie looks great has alot to do with how its was filmed then what it was filmed on.

Indeed!

Quote:


But to make material demo quality you need a good light setup. No matter what you shoot with, without good lights the image will look dull and flat.

I'm sure that the point is lost in translation, but I'm sure you also meant that "No matter what light you shoot with, without good lighting, the image will look dull and flat."
post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

I'm sure that the point is lost in translation, but I'm sure you also meant that "No matter what light you shoot with, without good lighting, the image will look dull and flat."

Yes, something like that.
post #26 of 31
The idea of Digital Cinerama is very intriguing. You can now shoot with relatively lightweight 3D rigs and two Red Epics, so why wouldn't build some crazy "Digi-rama" rig for 3 Epics? I've seen some experimental shots guys did with Red Ones couple years back (wasn't for cinerama, but for a 4k video stitching tests). It looked seamless as far as I could see, with correct lenses obviously. In the next year once 4K Sony F55 (+recorder) and 6K Red Dragon (though, full-frame sensor could be even better suited than that) are out you'd have some hi-res choice for not-terribly-heavy D-Cinerama rig. I wonder if three Epic cameras with (infamous) 100% fan speed will be as loud as the good ol' three film heads back in analog Cinerama days, wouldn't it? I guess there's only one way to find out, heh smile.gif
Edited by Vadim Bobkovsky - 11/21/12 at 4:28pm
post #27 of 31
Why would you buy a RED camera, or rent a Panavision one, when for a quarter the price you can own this?

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/

Purchase price is less than the daily rental of a Panavision. Cheap enough to buy one then throw it in the trash can at the end of the shoot.

Faced with the problem of color grading, they bought Da Vinci, the company, lock stock and barrel, and put Da Vinci software on-board.

Classy.

(And it's 2.5k scope out of the box!)
post #28 of 31
From Philip Bloom's review of the BMD Camera (which to my knowledge still hasn't shipped).
Quote:
Canon lens mount not ideal for this size sensor

Micro four thirds mount is passive so no iris control

Bad rolling shutter issues, not as bad as DSRLS but worse than FS100/ C300

Terrible ergonomics

Needs a rig

Screen too reflective (fixable with same stuff you use on iPad)

Cinema DNG eats up a lot of SSD space

Needs Cinemform RAW. Uncompressed raw Cinema DNG is overkill and not needed. Please license!

No XLRs, 1/4 inch jacks

No Phantom Power

No meters on screen (firmware fixable?)

No exposure aids other than zebras (firmware fixable?)

Low light good but not great

No IS support currently (firmware fixable?)

No F-Stop display on screen (firmware fixable?)

No HDMI

Pink highlights in ProRes currently.

There's a reason why Alexa and RED are the cameras of choice out there.
post #29 of 31
Quote:
There's a reason why Alexa and RED are the cameras of choice out there.

$3k per unit buys a lot of forgiveness.

More quotes from Phillip Bloom:
Quote:
obviously it’s not the best camera in the world…how can it be for such a low price…but it is incredibly impressive.... This camera brings huge quality to the lower end of the market, something which can only be a good thing. The big boys will see this, see the incredible features on offer and will HAVE to respond…

Edited by Aussie Bob II - 11/29/12 at 1:33pm
post #30 of 31
Yes but the big boy cinematographers aren't actually going to use it by and large, except maybe for some insert work. That's the point. Blackmagic isn't trying to be a competitor to the EPIC or Alexa. Not at a $3,000 price point. They're trying to hop into the Canon 5D, C300/500 market which is not where feature films are made (the handful of features made on 5D like "I Melt With You" are mostly experimental works when the technology was new. Red Tails had some 5D work in it as did Black Swan but again, it didn't carry the lion's share of the work). Most commercial jobs I've been involved with its either a choice of RED or Alexa, (perhaps some of the bigger Sony cameras or film in some cases) or the company already owns a 5DmKII or something like this that they use when they don't want to spend any money. But people at the feature level are much more demanding and have a lot more at stake than the videographer level who BMD is aiming at.

It's actually really interesting all these low-mid range cameras that keep coming out, because they are all competing for the same market share. Wedding movies, low budget commercials and music videos, some reality TV work (at best), insert work, universities, colleges and churches, and small production companies, etc. In the feature realm though, it became quickly apparent once the Alexa came out that it was going to be the standard bearer (partially because of the reputation of Arri) and RED has managed to create a product that people like David Fincher, Rob Marshall and Ridley Scott have become comfortable with. Both are standards on network TV shows. The other elephant in the room is that as a result the workflows for RED and Alexa are pretty well established for post-production, DI and VFX houses, which becomes a cost-saver down the road (you don't have to spend money doing tests and making sure the DI house can properly handle the footage and if the footage will hold up for DCP, etc).

Here's Roger Deakins
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Digital Cinerama? Could we see this?