Offer to telecine 50ft 8/s8mm or 100ft 16mm uncompressed HD

[mattias]

It doesn't really compete with XDCAM or Varicam

sure it does. if this camera isn't the weapon of choice for many news, event and indie film dp's soon i'll eat my hat, and if it does become a hit among the usual hdv buyers i'll eat my short too. whether you happen to think it's as good or not won't change the market, sorry.

XDCAM (at $25,000) codec is really state of the art

hehe, it's actually the same. :-) you can change the bitrate to slightly higher or lower than standard hdv, but it's the same regular 4:2:0 mpeg-2. the camera also uses pixel shift to interpolate progressive frames from interlaced ccd's, just like the h1. the varicam uses dvcpro hd, the same codec as panasonic's consumer hd cam.

the Fujinon lenses for those machines are amazing

exactly and those and more can be put on the xl h1 as well, unlike the hvx200, z1 or whatever.

Of course the variable frame rate of XDCAM

that is a deciding factor for a lot of people i'm sure, but i don't think the $25,000 model has that feature. i've only used the imx model so far but that doesn't.

see, you're making arguments for why you should get the xdcam over the h1. now why would you do that if you didn't think they were competing? :-)

/matt

[mattias]

they take the signal straight off the ccd's before it's compressed and get 10 bit 4:4:4 at greater than 720P

very cool. the ccd's aren't really that hi res though. they use pixel shift so it's really interpolation, just like the h1 does to get 1080p. interestingly the hvx200 does too to get hd from "sd" ccd's, and the reviews that camera gets on sharpness and image quality are stellar. ;-)

/matt

[Will2]

It doesn't really compete with XDCAM or Varicam

see, you're making arguments for why you should get the xdcam over the h1. now why would you do that if you didn't think they were competing?

/matt

Yes you're right, they are competing... just like the XL1 competed with Digibeta cameras. Just like High 8 competed with DV.

I'm not saying anyone should get anything, just get what works for them. I'm sure that camera kicks ass.

From a reviewer (this is addressing the camera section, not the codec):

"Any camera with larger sensors will give more dynamic range. There are other factors as well, but all things being equal, the larger sensors will win. The main reason is that if you put the same number of pixels on a 2/3 as on a 1/2 or 1/3, the pixels have to get smaller and smaller to fit on the smaller ccd. This makes each pixel less sensitive to light and therefore reduces the dynamic range available."

I sat through Sony's road dog and pony show on the XDCAM and was blown away by the codec & camera sections compared to the H1 HDV (yes, they did a side by side); I saw a difference which I couldn't believe I'd be able to detect. There are also amazing benefits to their storage system for news gathering with the drag and drop proxy clips for quick laptop editing.

If Sony felt they needed to do a comparison, you're probably right, people think they are competing, when you see the difference, there's not much of a comparison.[/i]

[cubsfan45]

There's no doubt technology is evolving to where cameras are getting cheaper and producing better quality. Hell, the Red 4k cinema camera might put film out of business with a price tag of only $20,000, just kidding, but still, a kickass new technology. Hmmm, I wonder what Super 8 telecined with the Red 4K camera looks like compared to HD. Anybody order the Red? That'd be neat to see. Oh well, back to work.

[mattias]

Yes you're right, they are competing... just like the XL1 competed with Digibeta cameras. Just like High 8 competed with DV.

yeah, that's what i meant. i wasn't implying that it was as good as those.

I sat through Sony's road dog and pony show on the XDCAM and was blown away by the codec & camera sections compared to the H1 HDV (yes, they did a side by side); I saw a difference which I couldn't believe I'd be able to detect. There are also amazing benefits to their storage system for news gathering with the drag and drop proxy clips for quick laptop editing.

for sure. i love the xdcam imx and i'm sure the hd is just as fantastic. but it is three times as expensive and ultimately delivers "similar" results for many applications. and the codec is the same, which only proves another point that often i like to stress (see previous threads), that the ccd and dsp are more important than the storage format.

/matt

[mattias]

I wonder what Super 8 telecined with the Red 4K camera

i never understood this fascination with resolution. i'll take an sd spirit transfer before a 16k or whatever workprinter transfer any day.

/matt

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

LOL, the RED camera!

Remember I told you about some images I had seen in a magazine Mattias? They are trying to make it look like a "badass terminator camera" or something. :lol:

Check out these links: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/6388.html and http://red.com/photo-tour.htm

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

On topic: Are you guys hunting resolution with your digital still cameras too? Going "Ahhh, now I can switch my 9 megapixel camera to a new and better 12 megapixel camera that I can afford soon. Better resolution!"

I don´t see the point in hunting resolution nobody needs for digital still cameras (unless you want to make HUGE prints). I bet the resolution hunt for HD will end up like the hunt for still cameras. It will never stop and people need to upgrade their bluray players and tv sets once every 3 years or so, if they want to keep up with the latest resolutions that are released.

It is a sad hunt in my opinion.

[Scotness]

I don´t see the point in huntingI bet the resolution hunt for HD will end up like the hunt for still cameras. It will never stop and people need to upgrade their bluray players and tv sets once every 3 years or so, if they want to keep up with the latest resolutions that are released.

It is a sad hunt in my opinion.

I think increased resolution is just used by manufacturers as a way to try and get the gullible public to buy more product - because they think it's a great and necessary improvement they have to have.

Some improvements will be useful - like these new laser tv's - but not all of it is needed. I think Matt is right too when he says

another point that often i like to stress (see previous threads), that the ccd and dsp are more important than the storage format.

And of course most important of all - character, story, themes, acting, editing, camera work......

Otherwise with increased resolution and colour etc you're just polishing a turd.....as they say :roll:

Scot

[Will2]

for sure. i love the xdcam imx and i'm sure the hd is just as fantastic. but it is three times as expensive and ultimately delivers "similar" results for many applications. and the codec is the same, which only proves another point that often i like to stress (see previous threads), that the ccd and dsp are more important than the storage format.
/matt

I agree; the differences are getting smaller and smaller and only tech heads like us can notice the difference most of the time unless you do anything in post on the HDV codec where it really falls apart.

But there are plenty of people that "don't get" why we still like film or would go through the trouble of shooting film.

[Justin Lovell]

Eugene - have you seen the Andromeda - it's a hacked DVX100 - where they take the signal straight off the ccd's before it's compressed and get 10 bit 4:4:4 at greater than 720P

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

Scot

That's cool, however doesn't the new DVX have RGB output on it? If that's the case, you might as well spend the extra $$ on buying the newer camera, with newer technology, rather than spending the coin on upgrading old technology..

[npcoombs]

IMO 2K HD is too low-res for cinema prints, looks too soft and noisy.

4K would be a vast improvement as a common standard. Same goes for digital projectors.

[VideoFred]

LOL, the RED camera!

They have a 'mysterious' supplier for their CMOS sensors....
I wonder.... could it be this one?
http://www.vector-international.be/C-Cam/Cindex.html

Can someone take a look at the specs. from these cams?
They have true 12 bits output, high dynamic range etc.
They even have multi slope for even higher dynamic range.

At the bottom of the page is the 35mm model: a resolution monster. :twisted: Do we need a lens with a huge sensor like this? Can we not use it as a small projecting screen? :lol:

But I agree with Kent and Mattias about resolution: I think good color reproduction and color depth is way more important.

And dynamic range.


Fred.

[christoph]

They have a 'mysterious' supplier for their CMOS sensors....
I wonder.... could it be this one?
http://www.vector-international.be/C-Cam/Cindex.html

Can someone take a look at the specs. from these cams?

it's hard to say, but personally i doubt that c-cam makes their own sensors. i think they speciallize on building the camera and software around existing sensors, which is what most companies do. making ccds (or cmos) chips is pretty complicated, like computer cpus

a lot of cameras use sony or kodak chips.

++ christoph ++

ps: oh, and the c-cam monster camera is pretty slow while red claims 60fps

[VideoFred]

it's hard to say, but personally i doubt that c-cam makes their own sensors.

I think these sensors are made in the 'Fill Factory'.
Whatever and where ever this factory may be.
Wait a moment, I found this:
http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/fll/fll000.html

But however...

Christoph, what do you think from these specs?
And how is color reproduction from these CMOS cams?

The problem with these guys is: they are not interested in us, wierd filmfreaks. For them selling one single camera is nothing. And answering all these difficult questions is a waste of time for them.

Fred.