Epic a Phantom Killer?

[Jerrod Cordell]

I brought this up over on the Scarletuser forums, so I thought I'd bring it up over here too. But if Epic can record 100fps at 5K, then how many fps can it record at in 4K, 3K, and 2K. If it's like the Red One where the frame rate doubles at each level of resolution (4K=30fps, 3K=60fps, 2K=120fps) then we could have a Phantom Killer on our hands with Epic. I'm not even interested in buying Epic (way too expensive) but I was just throwing this out there out of personal curiosity.

[Mitch Gross]

We bring on all comers. If it can perform at the actual specs you describe then of course there are a bunch of other specs that begin to come into play. MTF, Dynamic Range, Uncompressed RAW recording, sustained recording via CineMags, etc.

The EPIC sounds like an interesting camera but until there is hard data and not speculation then it's all just a guessing game, right?

[J. Eric Camp]

Phantom killer?

I doubt that. The Phantom has crazy frame rates and is a decent camera. While I am chomping at the bit for Epic, phantom is it's own beast. Just like a 416 or an A-minima.
cheers

[Tom Lowe]

Epic will be the "fill_in_the_blank" Killer. ;)

[Stephen Williams]

Epic will be the "fill_in_the_blank" Killer. ;)

Hi Tom,

Well you were only prepaired to bet a maximium of $100 on that prediction over c@.com.

Doesn't sound to me you are really convinced at all.

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Tom,

Well you were only prepaired to bet a maximium of $100 on that prediction over c@.com.

Doesn't sound to me you are really convinced at all.

Stephen

I didn't want to eviscerate your life-savings. :)

[Jannard]

Hi Tom,

Well you were only prepaired to bet a maximium of $100 on that prediction over c@.com.

Doesn't sound to me you are really convinced at all.

Stephen

I'm curious what you think a "real" bet is... there are higher stakes at my table. :-)

Jim

[Tom Lowe]

I'm curious what you think a "real" bet is... there are higher stakes at my table. :-)

Jim

:w00t: !!!

[JanneJansson]

Go for it Tom!

If you go by the very scientific method of how big data flow will be, and factor in the "genius billionaire" variable, I'll bet the Epic'll handle 2500 fps @ HD720, thus beating the crap out of the Phantom :)

[Stephen Williams]

I'm curious what you think a "real" bet is... there are higher stakes at my table. :-)

Jim

Hey Jim,

Are your interested in a bet based on a percentage on net worth? That would even the stakes!

My best

Stephen

Edit Tom Originally proposed $20, I suggested $500, tom offered $50 that Max also accepted. You can see the rules Max outlined.
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?s=&showtopic=32742&view=findpost&p=246040

[Jannard]

Hey Jim,

Are your interested in a bet based on a percentage on net worth? That would even the stakes!

My best

Stephen

Edit Tom Originally proposed $20, I suggested $500, tom offered $50 that Max also accepted. You can see the rules Max outlined.
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?s=&showtopic=32742&view=findpost&p=246040

I have never heard that strategy at a poker table. Not sure you would find any takers. You are either in or out. :-)

Jim

[laguun]

The Red one is already the undisputed marketleader in the 35mm (and up) space, outselling all arri, aaton, dalsa, sony and vision research mechanical and digital cameras in the 35mm/PL space combined, probably in volume and in revenue. Epic will probably only add to this marketshare.

We have won our 2006&7 bets - we didnt bet for money, but for wine & chapagne.

[Brent J. Craig]

I have never heard that strategy at a poker table.

But we are used to Red changing the rules! :-)

[Omar Saad]

I didn't want to eviscerate your life-savings. :)

lol...nice.

[Darren Orange]

I think its safe to assume it can do 200fps at 2k...but i might be wrong

[Deanan]

How do I get in on the bet? (Jim's side of course)

[Jannard]

How do I get in on the bet? (Jim's side of course)

I'm not exactly sure what the bet is about. I do know that if the bet is big enough, we can probably make whatever it is we are betting... happen. :-)

Jim

[gdv]

I don't know where you get all these Red-Epic ideas but so far the Phantom with its inferior 2K ability get here much much more work than the the Red on commercials.

[Jannard]

I don't know where you get all these Red-Epic ideas but so far the Phantom with its inferior 2K ability get here much much more work than the the Red on commercials.

Just to go on record... we have a great deal of respect for the Phantom. We didn't start this thread. And while we are guilty of poking fun at "others" every once in awhile... never at Vision Research. I love that these guys were brave and built something important to the industry. You will never hear a bad word from RED about the Phantom.

If the "bet" was somehow connected to them, I need to read all the posts... which I haven't done. I thought the bet was a cast-over from another board and not related to the Phantom.

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

Jim,

The bet was about the majority of major Studio features with a budget over 50 million being shot digitaly AND released in the first half 2011.

Films that use a mix of film & digital or are purchased by the studios don't count.

My best,

Stephen

[laguun]

Jim,

The bet was about the majority of major Studio features with a budget over 50 million being shot digitaly AND released in the first half 2011.

Films that use a mix of film & digital or are purchased by the studios don't count.

My best,

Stephen

Do you bet that this will happen before, in 2011 or after 2011?

BTW: The cinema operators organisation in north america estimate 2011/12 to be the crossing line, when mechanical projection will be the minority. IMAX will be there much sooner it seems, as they plan to completly change from mechanics to digital before 2011.

[Stephen Williams]

Do you bet that this will happen before, in 2011 or after 2011?

BTW: The cinema operators organisation in north america estimate 2011/12 to be the crossing line, when mechanical projection will be the minority. IMAX will be there much sooner it seems, as they plan to completly change from mechanics to digital before 2011.

Hi,

The bet is about Major Studio features shot 100% Digitally. (Epic being the ultimate film slayer) My bet is it won't happen by the first half of 2011

As you know many films shot on 35mm go through a DI so are suitable for digital projection.

Stephen

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Epic a Phantom Killer?


EPIC will be the new masta weapon of the Ghost Busters.

Who you gonna call?

:)

[LawrenceDinkins]

Hi,

The bet is about Major Studio features shot 100% Digitally. (Epic being the ultimate film slayer) My bet is it won't happen by the first half of 2011

As you know many films shot on 35mm go through a DI so are suitable for digital projection.

Stephen

A lot of new, unforeseeable developments will occur before 2011 that will alter the movie-making and movie-projection technologies.

It is possible that RED may become de-facto standard in Hollywood by 2011.
It is possible that by 2011, Celluloid film will not be used in movie-making or movie-projection.

A lot will depend on what Sony and other Hollywood powers do in the next few years.

[Chris Pickle]

I always thought that a switch to digital projection would be more difficult than a switch to digital acquisition. Even now, as a function of %, there are only a miniscule amount of digital theaters.

I think that theatre owners have little incentive to switch out 100k film projectors to digital ones. Remember, they don't pay for the prints, so they wouldn't see much savings.

It has been suggested that the distributors would need to somehow share the savings with the theaters to get them to switch.

Chris

[mezmo]

Hi Chris & Lawerence
It's been suggested a major shift away from theatricial exhibition
is in the works anyway. By 2011 we could see many hollywood movies FREE, available for download on the internet with sponsors like Coke, Nike, you name it. Three years is a very long time in the film industry these days.
One things for sure, what films are shot/shown on in the future will become less
of an issue and finding an audience the main consideration.
Mezmo

[Mitch Gross]

Go for it Tom!

If you go by the very scientific method of how big data flow will be, and factor in the "genius billionaire" variable, I'll bet the Epic'll handle 2500 fps @ HD720, thus beating the crap out of the Phantom :)

Of course there's always the new Phantom V12.1, which will go to nearly 7000fps at 1280x720, with a sensor size at that frame rate that is as big as 35mm and an ISO of about 2000.

Horses for courses.

[Mitch Gross]

Just to go on record... we have a great deal of respect for the Phantom. We didn't start this thread. And while we are guilty of poking fun at "others" every once in awhile... never at Vision Research. I love that these guys were brave and built something important to the industry. You will never hear a bad word from RED about the Phantom.

If the "bet" was somehow connected to them, I need to read all the posts... which I haven't done. I thought the bet was a cast-over from another board and not related to the Phantom.

Jim

Whole lotta love. I think the fact that these two cameras are constantly in use together on set shows how well they complement one another.

[JanneJansson]

..but Epic is better looking. The phantom's looks like they came from 1960. ;)

[Jannard]

Hi,

The bet is about Major Studio features shot 100% Digitally. (Epic being the ultimate film slayer) My bet is it won't happen by the first half of 2011

As you know many films shot on 35mm go through a DI so are suitable for digital projection.

Stephen

Stephen... I think that this question/bet even comes up is a miracle. Wasn't long ago we were a less than 2K scam. Now the bet is whether or not our "film alternative" will contribute to a 2011 "digital take-over". Interesting indeed.

I think it will be a close call, but I'd put my money on "yes". Who is the judge?

Jim

[laguun]

Hi,

The bet is about Major Studio features shot 100% Digitally. (Epic being the ultimate film slayer) My bet is it won't happen by the first half of 2011

As you know many films shot on 35mm go through a DI so are suitable for digital projection.

Stephen

I am surprised - that sounds pretty fast. I see mechanical cameras with chemical film being the minority in their last stronghold, cinema, as well soon, but 100%?

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen... I think that this question/bet even comes up is a miracle. Wasn't long ago we were a less than 2K scam. Now the bet is whether or not our "film alternative" will contribute to a 2011 "digital take-over". Interesting indeed.

I think it will be a close call, but I'd put my money on "yes". Who is the judge?

Jim

Hi Jim,

Hardly a Miracle such predictions have been going on for over 50 years, one day if the prediction is made often enough it will eventually become true. The percentage today fullfulling the requirements is rather low.

I proposed David Mullen as judge.

My best,

Stephen

[Roberto B]

too much funny.. see you Jim taking in consideration these guys here or anywhere.. where they're used to bash you.. or where jarred has been so violently shaken.. just because he has the job or partnership you've been offering to.. him.

same job these HATERS would kill for.. one of them, mr williams.. stephen williams has now found a new sport.. deleting all non-political posts.. exactly the same they're used to say about reduser.. or dvxuser before.

[David M]

A lot of new, unforeseeable developments will occur before 2011 that will alter the movie-making and movie-projection technologies.

You know this how?


It is possible that RED may become de-facto standard in Hollywood by 2011.
It is possible that by 2011, Celluloid film will not be used in movie-making or movie-projection.

It's possible martians will land on Jim's front lawn and out of pity for what they see as his technological ineptitude give him the secret to a new technology that will make everything (Film RED, Epic, Scarlet etc) obsolete:sarcasm:

It's possible that some Middle Eastern Sheik will die and due to a clerical error, I will be named as the main beneficiary in his estate of 40 billion dollars and I will go on to develop a new technology that will make everything (Film RED, Epic, Scarlet etc) obsolete:sarcasm:

It's possible martians will land on my front lawn and of course the Army will surround them shoot the first one who comes out before he even gets a chance to say "Take me to your leader" and this big robot will switch all the power off for an hour, crashing all of RED's computers and wiping all their engineering files and we'll be back to square one.:sarcasm:

It's also possible everything will remain pretty much as it is now.

Which is what I would bet.

[LawrenceDinkins]

Many technological advancements in mavie making and distribution and projection, are expected within the next few years.
Quick adoption of new technologies is not guaranteed though.

Even though Sony has no plans to compete with a $17K RED,
their entry into the 4K Camera arena would legitimize the RED revolution.

[Jannard]

After seeing how difficult it is to build a camera in this day and age, I have new found respect for all the players. I especially have respect for Arri and what they have brought to the industry over many years. If digital is to ever replace film, many things have to still have to happen. We are headed down that road, along with a few others. Time will tell if the cross-over point is 2010, 2011 or 2020. But I think everyone knows the day will come.

Jim

[Mark L. Pederson]

My bet is November 20th, 2009.

[Simon Smith]

After seeing how difficult it is to build a camera in this day and age, I have new found respect for all the players. You maybe. Seems obvious not everyone thinks the same. :)

[David M]

I always thought that a switch to digital projection would be more difficult than a switch to digital acquisition. Even now, as a function of %, there are only a miniscule amount of digital theaters.

I think that theatre owners have little incentive to switch out 100k film projectors to digital ones. Remember, they don't pay for the prints, so they wouldn't see much savings.

It has been suggested that the distributors would need to somehow share the savings with the theaters to get them to switch.

Chris
There's nothing to stop them from running digital and film projectors side-by-side, which is exactly what a lot of theaters are doing right now.

Digital projectors are convenient but good ones aren't cheap and the lamp life is not terribly good either. Considering that some luxury cars are now using high-power white LEDs for headlights instead of Halogen or discharge lamps, that might be the tech breakthrough the industry has been needing.

LEDS offer no heat, no UV, no IR, constant color temperature, instant control of brightness for superior blacks, long life, and with mass production, low cost. You could even have separate banks of red, green and blue LEDs to eliminate the first color splitter prism.

So how's that 4K RED Cinema projector coming Jim? :wink:

[David M]

My bet is November 20th, 2009.

Which calendar are YOU using?:umm:

[Jarred Land]

There's nothing to stop them from running digital and film projectors side-by-side, which is exactly what a lot of theaters are doing right now.

Digital projectors are convenient but good ones aren't cheap and the lamp life is not terribly good either. Considering that some luxury cars are now using high-power white LEDs for headlights instead of Halogen or discharge lamps, that might be the tech breakthrough the industry has been needing.

LEDS offer no heat, no UV, no IR, constant color temperature, instant control of brightness for superior blacks, long life, and with mass production, low cost. You could even have separate banks of red, green and blue LEDs to eliminate the first color splitter prism.

So how's that 4K RED Cinema projector coming Jim? :wink:

High power LED's may not radiate heat, but they sure do conduct heat.. which means you need a big ass heatsink to dissipate that heat... as Heat, as many people do not realize, is like kryptonite to LED's... they will fail extremely fast if exposed to it for too long.

[David M]

High power LED's may not radiate heat, but they sure do conduct heat.. which means you need a big ass heatsink to dissipate that heat... as Heat, as many people do not realize, is like kryptonite to LED's... they will fail extremely fast if exposed to it for too long.
So, you USE a big-ass heatsink. Still a lot cheaper than providing cooling and safety insulation for a discharge lamp.

Yeah, LEDs in conventional plastic packaging don't like heat too much, but ones meant for actual lighting are built somewhat differently

Anyway, heat, UV and IR are like double kryptonite to the LCD light gates, as many a disgruntled rear-projection TV owner has discovered after pitifully few years, (and that's after paying out a shitload of money to get the projector lamp replaced, something the salesman also mysteriously failed to mention).

Even if their life span was limited, LEDS are likely to be much cheaper and easier to replace than a conventional lamp, and their lack of radiant heat means the LCOS light gates will last much longer.

[Cory Schulthies]

I think that Jim showed us what the "real" bet is earlier this year when he sold his ownership in Oakley. more important than the money, to a guy like Jim, he is betting a freaking ton of time on This "scam". His time is very valuable. Jim has a good track record in making bets.

[Cory Schulthies]

High power LED's may not radiate heat, but they sure do conduct heat.. which means you need a big ass heatsink to dissipate that heat... as Heat, as many people do not realize, is like kryptonite to LED's... they will fail extremely fast if exposed to it for too long.

looks like you have been looking into this a lot, Anything else you want to tell us :usd:

[Mike Harrington]

3 color laser DLP.....forget that spinning wheel and LED's
you guys should whip one up Jarred....4k of course

[Stephen Williams]

I am surprised - that sounds pretty fast. I see mechanical cameras with chemical film being the minority in their last stronghold, cinema, as well soon, but 100%?

Hi,

My thoughts Exactly, 100% Digital no film used whatsoever.

Stephen

[Hrvoje Simic]

High power LED's may not radiate heat, but they sure do conduct heat.. which means you need a big ass heatsink to dissipate that heat... as Heat, as many people do not realize, is like kryptonite to LED's... they will fail extremely fast if exposed to it for too long.

Liquid cooling ?

[Tom Lowe]

Just to be clear... the bet in question was:

By January 1, 2011, 51% or more of major American films with budgets over $30 million USD will be shooting digitally, rather than on chemical film.

Stephen pulled that $50 million number and "all digital" stipulation out of thin air here. If the picture is shooting primarily on Genesis or D21 or Epic, with a few shots done with 35mm film, that would still be considered a digital movie.

Stephen sure was talking like a big-hitting, high-rolling gambler, but as soon as Jim stepped up, all we have seen of Stephen on this thread is the back of his heels... :)

[10s]

2012 is when it happens....the Mayan calendar predicted it. In one of their pictoglyphs on top of the great pyramid to the sun there's a guy in a feathered head dress dancing around a sacrificial fire of buring film cameras holding a RED epic.

[Roberto B]

Stephen sure was talking like a big-hitting, high-rolling gambler, but as soon as Jim stepped up, all we have seen of Stephen on this thread is the back of his heels... :)lol

that guy is applying.. ooops.. running for new sj contest.. :clown2:

edit
:poster_oops: meant.. dm contest.. :construction:

[David M]

Hi,

My thoughts Exactly, 100% Digital no film used whatsoever.

Stephen

In two years time?:blink:
I don't know what stuff you guys have been smoking, but could someone kindly PM me as to where I could get some?:greedy:

[David M]

Just to be clear... the bet in question was:

By January 1, 2011, 51% or more of major American films with budgets over $30 million USD will be shooting digitally, rather than on chemical film.



Major US Film for US$30 million?
Are we talking about 2011 or 1981 here?
I'm sure the distributors will be overwhelmed with cheap RED-shot films. The theaters won't though.

[Jannard]

I don't quite get the bet...

Is it:

51% of all major motion pictures, with a budget of over $30M or $50M? that start after Jan 1st, 2011 will be shot primarily on digital? Does that mean 100% digital with no pick up shots on film? Or less than 5% on film? Or 10%? Does it mean shot on film and digital does not count at all? Or it does count and against the digital percentage? Is this US or worldwide? Or US productions shot anywhere in the world?

If... you are saying that 51% of all major motion pictures from US studios shot anywhere in the world with a budget over $30M and begin shooting after January 1st, 2011 need to be 90+% digital (any brand)... what are the stakes? That assumes David Mullen is the judge. And I'm not interested in a small bet. I'm already betting RED development money that this will be the case.

Jim

[Pierce Cook]

I think the bet specifics have muddied, I'm curious myself.

My money is with Jim. Is anyone actually eager to put their money elsewhere?

Not trying to speak blindly here, it just seems reasonable to me, whether it's RED they're shooting or not.

[Emanuel A.]

My money is with Jim. Same thought here, indeed.

[David M]

I don't quite get the bet...

Is it:

51% of all major motion pictures, with a budget of over $30M or $50M? that start after Jan 1st, 2011 will be shot primarily on digital? Does that mean 100% digital with no pick up shots on film? Or less than 5% on film? Or 10%? Does it mean shot on film and digital does not count at all? Or it does count and against the digital percentage? Is this US or worldwide? Or US productions shot anywhere in the world?

If... you are saying that 51% of all major motion pictures from US studios shot anywhere in the world with a budget over $30M and begin shooting after January 1st, 2011 need to be 90+% digital (any brand)... what are the stakes? That assumes David Mullen is the judge. And I'm not interested in a small bet. I'm already betting RED development money that this will be the case.

Jim
What sort of bet are you interested in?

Personally I'm not interested in any sort of bet, because the definition of the terms involved ("major", "film", "etc") are way too elastic for my liking.

But if anything, bets of this sort should be based on the "day fine" principle used in Scandinavian countries, where the size of a court imposed fine is determined as a percentage of your income or net worth. So where I might get fined $200 for a traffic ticket, my boss might have to pay $500 and you might have to pay say $5 million for the exact same offence!:tongue:

Generally, the best approach is some sort of low-cost forfeit, equally humiliating to rich and poor alike.:weight_lift:

[Jannard]

What sort of bet are you interested in?

Personally I'm not interested in any sort of bet, because the definition of the terms involved ("major", "film", "etc") are way too elastic for my liking.

But if anything, bets of this sort should be based on the "day fine" principle used in Scandinavian countries, where the size of a court imposed fine is determined as a percentage of your income or net worth. So where I might get fined $200 for a traffic ticket, my boss might have to pay $500 and you might have to pay say $5 million for the exact same offence!:tongue:

Generally, the best approach is some sort of low-cost forfeit, equally humiliating to rich and poor alike.:weight_lift:

Sounds like something Stephen suggested. Not the way it works here. If you want to bet, you go to the table with the limits you can afford.

I have no interest in betting with anyone really. This was not my idea. I'd prefer to spend my money in a way that benefits everyone (hopefully). Not just the ones that feel the need to prove a point.

Really, how silly is all this? Digital will overtake film. Anyone really doubt that? The only question is when. It seems as certain as gasoline engines going the way of the dinosaur. It just makes sense in the long run.

There are those that had a field day rolling with laughter when we announced what we were going to do. Now, they feel the need to show some sort of lingering disdain by betting against a timetable as a last ditch... "see, we told you that you couldn't do that". I find this exercise a complete waste of time. If you want to really bet and embarrass yourself this way, put up the big bucks. I'll just use it to accelerate the cause.

Really...

Jim

[Daniel Reichenbach]

put up the big bucks. I'll just use it to accelerate the cause.

Really...

Jim

Agree ;-)

[David M]

Sounds like something Stephen suggested. If you want to really bet and embarrass yourself this way, put up the big bucks. I'll just use it to accelerate the cause.

Really...

Jim

I wasn't proposing to bet with anyone. It happens when it happens, not before.

"I'll just use it to accelerate the cause"?

So, are you saying with more money it will happen faster?
So, how much have you spent on this thing already?

[Jannard]

I wasn't proposing to bet with anyone. It happens when it happens, not before.

"I'll just use it to accelerate the cause"?

So, are you saying with more money it will happen faster?
So, how much have you spent on this thing already?

I don't really expect anyone to put up the amount needed to get my attention... but if they did, I could think of many ways to accelerate things around here that I wouldn't normally do.

To your 2nd question... quite a bit. And happy every second about every dollar spent.

My suggestion to those that are considering a bet... give that amount to your favorite charity and consider it the biggest win would could possibly have with that amount of money. Betting on a timeline is adversarial and totally non-productive. You can certainly do that if you feel the need. Just so you have a clear picture.

Jim

[Jannard]

I wasn't proposing to bet with anyone.

BTW... I wasn't responding to you specifically but to all that considered betting against digital (and RED).

Jim

[David M]

BTW... I wasn't responding to you specifically but to all that considered betting against digital (and RED).

Jim
I understand.
The whole thing is pretty pointless anyway. It just opens up too many cans of worms.
What exactly is "Digital"?
What exactly constitutes a "film"?
Who cares? It's not like it's going to change anything.

[Jannard]

Last point... this bet isn't about digital overtaking film as the medium of choice. It is about WHEN it will happen. As long as everyone is clear.

There have been no new still film cameras in development for years. Canon and Nikon still have inventory of some film cameras and list them for sale. They would LOVE to sell their inventory, but they have no film cameras in development and will not have film cameras in development in the future.

From my personal research, there are no new film cameras in development in the cine industry, including Arri. None. If you want a collector's item, buy a new film camera and never take it out of the box.

In contrast, there are plenty of digital cameras in development. Still and cine. From many companies. Several companies, including RED, are planning on combining the two spaces in one camera.

Kodak has discontinued ALL film camera production. Kodak.

Distribution is converting from film projection to digital... not the other way around.

Film, processing and transfer will get more expensive as the demand and competition decreases, accelerating the change to digital.

Digital acquisition is cleaner. It is easier (more every day) and much more versatile. You can shoot several formats with one camera. You can check your footage immediately for problems... not wait for the next day. Film's only main advantage, exposure latitude, is shrinking every year. New sensor development will make this a non-issue within two years time.

The hand-writing is on the wall, whether you like it or not. So all that is left is to bet on the date that "it happens". Make your bet. But know that if you "win", you made a good decision on "when"... not "if".

I remember not too long ago a debate with several top still photographers about the demise of film. They were adamant that the end would never come. Never. Now, all they are worried about is whether or not they will ever be able to dump their film still cameras. They all now own a Canon 1Ds MKIII or Nikon D3.

Bet what you want... but the message is clear. Film, silver processing, and transfer's days are numbered. If you want to bet the date that happens... be my guest.

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

From my personal research, there are no new film cameras in development in the cine industry, including Arri. None.

Hi Jim,

Ever heard of Aaton? http://www.aaton.com/products/film/penelope/index.php

Stephen

[Jannard]

Hi Jim,

Ever heard of Aaton? http://www.aaton.com/products/film/penelope/index.php

Stephen

Sure... I said new in development. Penelope has been in development for some time. It is not new.

What is your bet? $200? For 2011? For 2012? Are you betting against digital replacing film altogether? Take a stand. What exactly are you saying? Questions don't take a position. Let's hear one.

You are quick to respond but with no substance. I have taken a position. What's yours?

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

I don't quite get the bet...

Is it:

51% of all major motion pictures, with a budget of over $30M or $50M? that start after Jan 1st, 2011 will be shot primarily on digital? Does that mean 100% digital with no pick up shots on film? Or less than 5% on film? Or 10%? Does it mean shot on film and digital does not count at all? Or it does count and against the digital percentage? Is this US or worldwide? Or US productions shot anywhere in the world?

If... you are saying that 51% of all major motion pictures from US studios shot anywhere in the world with a budget over $30M and begin shooting after January 1st, 2011 need to be 90+% digital (any brand)... what are the stakes? That assumes David Mullen is the judge. And I'm not interested in a small bet. I'm already betting RED development money that this will be the case.

Jim

Hi Jim

51% of US Studio Features (There are 6 Studios) over 50 Million (Major Feature) In the CINEMA during the first half of 2011. The film has to be produced by the studio not a subsiduary, & not purchased. We are talking 100% film not 90% (Film Slayer). No film whatsoever allowed.

Originally Tom said shot by the end of 2010, we felt that was too difficult to prove so we said in the cinema the first half of 2011.

Stephen

[Jannard]

Hi Jim

51% of US Studio Features (There are 6 Studios) over 50 Million (Major Feature) In the CINEMA during the first half of 2011. The film has to be produced by the studio not a subsiduary, & not purchased. We are talking 100% film not 90% (Film Slayer). No film whatsoever allowed.

Originally Tom said shot by the end of 2010, we felt that was too difficult to prove so we said in the cinema the first half of 2011.

Stephen

So what is your bet? And are you betting on a moment of time or the fact that film will not be replaced by digital ever? What is your position?

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

Sure... I said new in development. Penelope has been in development for some time. It is not new.

What is your bet? $200? For 2011? For 2012? Are you betting against digital replacing film altogether? Take a stand. What exactly are you saying? Questions don't take a position. Let's hear one.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Film cameras take rather a long time to develope, to say Penelope is not new is an interesting point of view.

My bet would be for shooting completed by 31 December 2010, $200 is fine by me.

Stephen

[Jannard]

If you really want to get my attention, bet something significant. $200 hardly helps me accelerate the program. Are you one of the ones that feels the need to show some sort of lingering disdain by betting against a timetable as a last ditch... "see, we told you that you couldn't do that". ?

Do you believe that film will outlast digital? Or are you just betting a small amount on the timeframe?

If you really want to bet something... step up. You chided Tom for a paltry amount ($100)... but now say $200? My reference to $200 was a joke. Not much of a bet. And you seemed to ignore my terms.

Jim

[Jannard]

Penelope was announced in 2005. The RED ONE was announced (obviously as a joke in 2006). This is hardly a "new" camera development. We'll see if it actually is released. I have to wonder if Aaton would consider another film camera development from this time forward. Actually, I have have heard rumors of it turning into a digital camera.

This is your time to make a statement. Do you believe film will be a part of our future? Do you believe that camera companies will invest in film cameras going forward? What do you believe? I have been very clear what I believe...and what I would bet on. Give me a reason to bet...

Jim

[Bruce Allen]

2011 seems like a reasonably likely change-over point. Although personally I'd bet over 50% of studio films will shoot at least partly on film into 2012.

If Stephen can manage to keep Jim up late at night answering these threads instead of getting enough sleep we may have to wait until 2013 :(

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Jannard]

So Stephen... would you make the same bet if the timeframe was 2012? Are you betting on the concept that digital will not replace film or on the timeframe? Since the amount has no interest to me... I guess we are really down to what you believe. Tell us. I have been very clear on my position. We are all anxious for your opinion.

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

If you really want to bet something... step up. You chided Tom for a paltry amount ($100)... but now say $200? My reference to $200 was a joke. Not much of a bet. And you seemed to ignore my terms.

Jim

Jim,

First some facts!
I offered Tom $500, he only originally wanted to bet $20, that was increased to $50. He has the same bet with Max.

You suggested $200, I am not interested in your terms, thats why I ignored them.

Stephen

[Jannard]

Jim,

First some facts!
I offered Tom $500, he only originally wanted to bet $20, that was increased to $50. He has the same bet with Max.

You suggested $200, I am not interested in your terms, thats why I ignored them.

Stephen

So tell me... my terms are not acceptable. Is that because you think by 2011 digital will have replaced film as the "norm"? You will only bet a paltry $500 because of the timeframe? Would you make the same bet with my terms?

Really what this comes down to is when you think digital will overtake film. When do you think that will happen?

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

So Stephen... would you make the same bet if the timeframe was 2012? Are you betting on the concept that digital will not replace film or on the timeframe? Since the amount has no interest to me... I guess we are really down to what you believe. Tell us. I have been very clear on my position. We are all anxious for your opinion.

Jim

Hi Jim,

No, I am not interested in changing the time frame. I only challenged the bet as I wanted to see how much Tom beleived what he was saying. I don't have an opinion based on technology I have not yet seen. You have an advantage. Let me come and test the 2 new chips you have in developemnet (under NDA) and then I may have an opinion for 2012.

Stephen

[Bob Torrance]

Penelope was announced in 2005. The RED ONE was announced (obviously as a joke in 2006). This is hardly a "new" camera development. We'll see if it actually is released. I have to wonder if Aaton would consider another film camera development from this time forward. Actually, I have have heard rumors of it turning into a digital camera.

Jim

At NAB the nice man from Aaton told me they are developing a digital back for the camera. In fact, they were not showing it because they have not been happy with the sensor they have been testing. He said that would change soon (that's what he said anyway). They have also just announced a high speed film recorder (to print those digital frames?).

bob

[Stephen Williams]

So tell me... my terms are not acceptable. Is that because you think by 2011 digital will have replaced film as the "norm"? You will only bet a paltry $500 because of the timeframe? Would you make the same bet with my terms?

Really what this comes down to is when you think digital will overtake film. When do you think that will happen?

Jim

Hi Jim,

Digital replaced Film as the "norm" for News, TV, & Low budget productions more than 10 years ago. I have no interested in "norm" or "maintaining the status quo".

Digital will replace Film & the highest level when digital cameras outperform film. Digital Still cameras outperformed reversal film with DR, thats why the move happened so quickly.

Stephen

[Jannard]

Hi Jim,

No, I am not interested in changing the time frame. I only challenged the bet as I wanted to see how much Tom beleived what he was saying. I don't have an opinion based on technology I have not yet seen. You have an advantage. Let me come and test the 2 new chips you have in developemnet (under NDA) and then I may have an opinion for 2012.

Stephen

I guess the real question is whether or not you believe that digital will, at some point, replace film. I have gone on record... very clearly... saying that it will. If you believe (or not) that it will, the the only question is "when".

If the bet is "when" and not "if", it would be good for our readers to know your position.

Do you believe that digital will replace film? If so, when? I have given my answer and you probably can't afford my bet. I am spending my money to make sure it happens...

Jim

[Jannard]

Stephen... this is not a bet between Tom and you. This is between you and me. I have given a timeframe for a bet. Over 50% of the US movies starting shooting after Jan 1st, 2011 being shot 90% digital with budgets over $30M and David Mullen is the judge. I'll take whatever amount you say.

What is your bet?

I'll still strongly caution you that you will be better off to take whatever amount you are thinking and donate it to charity. If you do that, I'll match the amount you give to the same charity.

Jim

[Jannard]

It is now 2:50am PST. I need to go to sleep. I'll be anxious for a response when I wake up.

Jim

[JanneJansson]

Say $1M, and split 50-50 with David :)

[Jannard]

Say $1M, and split 50-50 with David :)

What does this mean? Is this a bet? $1M gets my attention...

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen... this is not a bet between Tom and you. This is between you and me. I have given a timeframe for a bet. Over 50% of the US movies starting shooting after Jan 1st, 2011 being shot 90% digital with budgets over $30M and David Mullen is the judge. I'll take whatever amount you say.

What is your bet?

I'll still strongly caution you that you will be better off to take whatever amount you are thinking and donate it to charity. If you do that, I'll match the amount you give to the same charity.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Clearly it will happen one day, Oil will also dry up. Shooting must be completed by 31st December 2010, not starting 1st January. What I am saying is it won't happen before 31st December 2010, thats all.

I am happy with a $500 bet to a charity of your choice, if you win, the choice of mine if you loose.

As for film completly dying from existance, bearing in mind people can make their own film it won't happen in our life times.

Stephen

[Jannard]

Stephen,

My bet is shooting starts after Jan 1st, 2011. Certainly you can do better if this if it is going to charity. How about $10K? What charity are you thinking of? I typically wouldn't do a bet less than $10M, but for you I would make an exception.

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen,

My bet is shooting starts after Jan 1st, 2011. Certainly you can do better if this is going to charity. How about $10K? What charity are you thinking of?

Jim

Jim,

I won't take your bet, been hammered by the stock market recently.

www.arkschools.org
The no 1 priority for admissions is "children who are in public care "

Stephen

Edit
http://www.arkonline.org/?p=63
ARK is an international charity, whose purpose is to transform children’s lives

ARK’s Board of Trustees and Patrons ensure that all central administrative costs are covered so that 100% of all donations go directly to deliver its programmes for children. So when you donate to ARK you are really helping to transform children’s lives.

[Jannard]

I understand... then just tell us what your belief is. No bet. I'll donate to the charity anyway.

Jim

[Gunleik Groven]

Well, Jim - I ain't gonna bet against you.
I'm sorta betting my business on that in Norway most productions will be fully digital from end to end in 2010, much due to RED.

I have no spare cash to bet against others, but I put all I have into that bet... :)

[Paul Hazlett]

this is getting good, does anyone have an historic perspective on this?

At what point did digital surpass film for stills as the defacto format?

I cannot believe anyone would doubt the changeover will happen, but when is a
big question.

CD's were introduced in the 80's and took a while to replace vinyl as the majority of sales, and digital still photography replaced film even faster so the rate of change is constantly accelerating.

in 2 and a half years if digital replaces film, it would be the fastes format change to date. I don't think it will happen that fast but it will happen.

[JohnF]

What's the bet that despite a switch to digital projection, with all the cost savings and ease that brings to the film distribution business, it will still be a massive pain in the arse to get ones film distributed...?

My money is on the "still a massive pain in the arse" if you hadn't already figured it out.

JohnF

[Stephen Williams]

I understand... then just tell us what your belief is. No bet. I'll donate to the charity anyway.

Jim

Hi Jim,

I would have thought the medium term 5-15 years, it may fluctuate for a couple of years as digital is 'trendy'. I don't believe that film will completly die, like vinal records, there will always be a small specialist market.

Thank you in advance for any donation you make.

Best,

Stephen

[Jerry Nichols]

WOW, can’t believe how much fun I just had reading this thread. Anyone who can get and hold the attention of a Billionaire for that long and get them to donate to the charity of your choice.... Wow. Ever since I first read about the RED I knew it would be the choice of filmmakers (that will be an archaic term soon! We are storytellers, or will it be digital storytellers? This is another thread!) And after having the chance to shake Jim's hand at NAB'08 and hearing him talk - My money is on him and RDC. IMHO
btw - my charity of choice is Worthmore Academy (Where every child is worth-more) in Indianapolis. An alternative school for autistic and learning disabled children. :biggrin:

[Emery Wells]

This thread is hilarious :)

[laguun]

Hi Stephen,


Hi Jim,
I would have thought the medium term 5-15 years

15 years? That is much to slow. By then every canon, casio, sony and nikon will record way more than 4K with way more than 60P for $$$.

In the 35mm camera space, the majority of cameras sold is digital since 2007, since 2008 the delivery of 35mm cameras is mainly digital.

For new 35mm camera sales, mechanical cameras will probably have less than 25% already this year.



, it may fluctuate for a couple of years as digital is 'trendy'. I don't believe that film will completly die, like vinal records, there will always be a small specialist market.

Digital is not only trendy. Its reducing mechanics to the niche when its better/similar and faster&more ergonomic&cheaper&allows more creativity.

no matter if
multitrack tape->harddisc recorder
analogue console->DAW system
editing table->NLE system
optical copier->Compositing system
chemical lab->DI
typewriter->word processor
abacus->spreadsheet
mechanical camera->DSLR
vinly->CD
super 8/vhs->VHS/blu ray

etc.

[Gunleik Groven]

All cinemas in Norway are 2k end of next year. Here Digital is definitely now...

[James T Mather]

There is definietely a chance that this will kill off the polaroid land camera by 2011.

Maybe also the Atari games console. And even the sinclair C5...but I doubt it. That was one cool car. Yes Siree.

[Mitch Gross]

Anyone care to make their bet donation to the Mitch Gross Tahitian Vacation Fund?

This was an entertaining thread; Stephen really got Jims attention. I don' think there is another thread on reduser with as high a percentage of Jannard posts.

I think the timeline of 2011 may be a little bit premature, but really just a little bit.

[Peter Majtan]

Stephen,

My bet is shooting starts after Jan 1st, 2011. Certainly you can do better if this if it is going to charity. How about $10K? What charity are you thinking of? I typically wouldn't do a bet less than $10M, but for you I would make an exception.

Jim

Jim be careful... Someone can bet $100M, take $50M out of it and pay to all those productions costs associated with renting film cameras and buying, processing and scanning the film to make sure You lose. Even if they donate the left-overs out of the $50M (which would be a lot) to those productions as an additional motivation - they will still pocket $50M themselves...

:greedy:

[Jannard]

Jim be careful... Someone can bet $100M, take $50M out of it and pay to all those productions costs associated with renting film cameras and buying, processing and scanning the film to make sure You lose. Even if they donate the left-overs out of the $50M (which would be a lot) to those productions as an additional motivation - they will still pocket $50M themselves...

:greedy:

1st off... no one has the balls to do it. 2nd off- I would take ALL $100M and "encourage" a rapid transition.

The donation has been made. All I ask is that Tom's $100 bet is not disrespected. He stepped up.

Jim

[Jay A. Kelley]

I wonder if that charity will ever be able to understand or comprehend the WHACKED-OUT way they have suddenly ended up with all that money.

:)

Wonderful thread

jay

[laguun]

All cinemas in Norway are 2k end of next year. Here Digital is definitely now...

The USA is predicted to have the majority of cinemas digital 2011/12.

Austria biggest chain converts completly until 2009, Germany however is, so far, *very* slow.

IMAX wants to convert all cinemas in less than 36 months, however i dont think that they can convince all their franchise cinemas, even by stopping largeformat film production completly.

the digital cinema rollout, now in its 3hrd year, is at an average speed of 400-500 screens converted a month worldwide.

Important to know and to understand is: Film which isnt postprocessed mechanical/chemical but by DI must be projected digitally to show its full quality. A Film copy of an DI is always worse than the digital original - by design.

[laguun]

There is definietely a chance that this will kill off the polaroid land camera by 2011.
Polaroid ends all filmproduction this year.

[laguun]

Anyone care to make their bet donation to the Mitch Gross Tahitian Vacation Fund?

I would rather encourage donations to Laguuns Polynesian Lagoon Protection Plan :)



I think the timeline of 2011 may be a little bit premature, but really just a little bit.
same guesstimate here.
i think while in camera sales and production, digital cinema cameras won 10 to 85% marketshare within 24 months, for production rather progressive 10~15% loss of marketshare per year would be a realistic estimation.

[Peter Majtan]

1st off... no one has the balls to do it.


I don't think it is a question of balls, rather then $2B sitting in a account... :innocent:

Having said that - if I had that kind of money - I would spend it on Your side of the equation... :)



2nd off- I would take ALL $100M and "encourage" a rapid transition.


This is what I like about You... :)
(not that there aren't any other things to like...)

[Roberto B]

This thread is hilarious :)on the spot.. there's someone.. now pretending to be millionaire.. who feels more important since a billionaire knows him by his name..

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?s=&showtopic=17069&view=findpost&p=127249

"Stephen. I am sorry. I don't remember all the people I met at IBC by name.." jim jannard

[Don King]

Absolutely. This type of people suck.

Sorry to say it.

[Benni Diez]

What's with you rich guys and the betting anyway... Don't you have a camera to build? :)

[Simon Smith]

I've loved the way Jim is dealing with one of his detractors. Ironic, almost perfect.

[Gordon Prince]

Do you want to say 'just perfect'?

[Simon Smith]

Or that. ;)

[Jim Stewart]

The whole conversation between the boss and the other one is just a hit. The boss is very clever. As most commonly occurs.

[Gordon Prince]

The most funny was this one, before Jim's reply:

Hi Jim,

We met and exchanged business cards, you know I was as IBC!

[Cory Schulthies]

Hmmm, making high stakes bets, AND moving to Vegas...Jim, This is an intervention, we are here because we care about you...

[David M]

Hmmm, making high stakes bets, AND moving to Vegas...Jim, This is an intervention, we are here because we care about you...

Hang on, I've lost the plot here.
How much did Jim donate, and to who exactly?
And is there still a bet still going, or not?
I figure he hasn't had time to lose yet.
2011? NFW!

[JanneJansson]

Please wait. Jim have gone back to the future for more plutonium.
1.21 gigawatts? Great Scott!:nuke:

[Jared Caldwell]

I think I'm going to be making a very good bet. $3k...on a Scarlet that says digital will be used on more productions than film in Hollywood in the next 3-5 years...:) Those are the kind of bets I make!

The thing is that almost every other aspect of filmmaking today is digital. It seems silly to me that people are fighting against the digital acquisition aspect. To me, the most logical place to go digital is in the acquisition...

[Stephen Williams]

Hang on, I've lost the plot here.
How much did Jim donate, and to who exactly?
And is there still a bet still going, or not?
I figure he hasn't had time to lose yet.
2011? NFW!

Hi,

No bet has taken place between myself & Jim, however Jim has made a substanial donation to "ARK" Absolute Return for Kids http://www.arkonline.org/?p=63 This is the charity I would have paid any winnings to had I won the bet.

Jim I am personally extreamly grateful to you for your kindness.

Best

Stephen

[Andrew Benz]

This is a happy ending for everyone.

Great Charity Stephen.

[Roberto B]

Hi,

No bet has taken place between myself & Jim, however Jim has made a substanial donation to "ARK" Absolute Return for Kids http://www.arkonline.org/?p=63 This is the charity I would have paid any winnings to had I won the bet.

Jim I am personally extreamly grateful to you for your kindness.

Best

Stephenpost of the year.. pardon me.. two last years.. :)

[David M]

Hi,

No bet has taken place between myself & Jim,
Best

Stephen

OK.

FWIW I can accept maybe 2012 or thereabouts for origination, but I think there will still be lots of film projected by 2020, unless there is some major breakthrough in video projector price/performance.
That's why I really think RED should be seriously looking at what they can do about this.
Ideally they need to offer a complete affordable lens-to-lens package:
Camera, easy edit chain, crack-resistant proprietary distrbution media, projector.
RED theoretically allows anybody to be a film maker
What about something that would allow anybody to become an film exhibitor?
Anyway, I'll shut up now....

[Nova Invicta]

Firstly digital has been replacing film gradually for years so it comes as no surprise, digital however is NOT a panacea and has plenty of its own issues for starter if anyone thinks MPEG4 AVC / .264 for instance is without faults think again. What strikes me always about Reduser is the sheer arrogance displayed by so many and ignorance to what contribution Sony, Panasonic, Panavision, Arri, Aaton, Cooke, Zeiss etc have made to making films, TV or commercials. The day we have one manufacturer supplying this industry will be the day to get out of it. The very reason great movies have been made are because so many talented people in backrooms gave us good cameras, lenses, post-production tools, sound etc.
Will digital shoot big budget movies? It already has from Star Wars, Superman etc etc so its a pretty easy bet to asume this will continue and become the bulk of production, it already is in TV and going that way in commercials. Red has moved the game on but it didnt start the game and hopefully plenty of other players will continue because thats what drives innovation without it you get monoplies like Microsoft.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Wow, what a thread...

[Jared Caldwell]

Firstly digital has been replacing film gradually for years so it comes as no surprise, digital however is NOT a panacea and has plenty of its own issues for starter if anyone thinks MPEG4 AVC / .264 for instance is without faults think again. What strikes me always about Reduser is the sheer arrogance displayed by so many and ignorance to what contribution Sony, Panasonic, Panavision, Arri, Aaton, Cooke, Zeiss etc have made to making films, TV or commercials. The day we have one manufacturer supplying this industry will be the day to get out of it. The very reason great movies have been made are because so many talented people in backrooms gave us good cameras, lenses, post-production tools, sound etc.
Will digital shoot big budget movies? It already has from Star Wars, Superman etc etc so its a pretty easy bet to asume this will continue and become the bulk of production, it already is in TV and going that way in commercials. Red has moved the game on but it didnt start the game and hopefully plenty of other players will continue because thats what drives innovation without it you get monoplies like Microsoft.

I wouldn't really place all of the digital talk as arrogance. There is just a lot of excitement and passion about these products, and people like to show it.

You are 100% correct about all of the other players. They definitely were here first, and what we had before RED was in large part due to them. The main issue with those companies is competition. You are correct that with all of these different companies, we don't have a monopoly. The problem lies in the stagnating competition. In a healthy, competitive market, the price of the product goes down, while the quality of the product goes up (as a generalization).

If you look at the cost of these pro tools created by "Sony, Panasonic, Panavision, Arri, Aaton, Cooke, Zeiss etc", they have not dropped dramatically in price whatsoever. Also, though nobody wants to release a camera that is worse than the previous model, the quality has only risen in small increments. A ceiling has been created that keeps these tools out of the hands of those with less money.

RED has thrown a monkey wrench into the market. They are making the very best product for the absolute lowest price they can. When you have a 4k monster that costs less than a new car, companies that make 1080p cameras for the cost of a house are going to have to rethink some things. These other companies are going to have to make the very best products they can for the cheapest price to catch up. Not only does this lower costs and raise quality (the consumer is the winner here), but in the cinema market, it is speeding up the switch from film to digital.

And people are very excited about this. And passionate. And we like to talk about it. So even though this may not speak for everyone, I feel that generally people aren't being arrogant or aren't paying homage to the other companies who have helped build this industry, we are just excited about what has been going on! :biggrin:

[Robert Sanders]

Well said Jared.

While it can get a little bombastic around here and little closed-minded...criticizing the enthusiasm as "arrogance" is a bit extreme. That would be like expecting a Democratic Convention to honor the contributions of Republicans to government. Ummm. No. And a REDUser forum is no different than a convention. It's where RED Users and RED Dreamers come to get pumped and excited about all things RED.

Are there displays of over-exuberance at times? Sure. Put they get smacked around by others too.

[Tom Lowe]

Stephen... this is not a bet between Tom and you. This is between you and me. I have given a timeframe for a bet. Over 50% of the US movies starting shooting after Jan 1st, 2011 being shot 90% digital with budgets over $30M and David Mullen is the judge. I'll take whatever amount you say.
What is your bet?

I'll still strongly caution you that you will be better off to take whatever amount you are thinking and donate it to charity. If you do that, I'll match the amount you give to the same charity.

Jim

Jim, these are in fact the terms of the original bet as I last left it at c.com. Stephen was trying to pull a fast one with this "100% digital" and "no studio subsidiary" technicality stuff. The bet was basically that "as of" Dec 31, 2010/Jan1 2011, 51% or more of American films with budgets over $30 million would be shooting digital rather than on film - that means shooting in the months of Dec and Jan. (Your "90% digital" number sounds reasonable, Jim, allowing for a few shots on film for specialty stuff.)

The thing that a lot of people don't consider is how exponential trends work. 90% of the human genome project's senquencing was done in the last 10% of the project's timeline. Exponential trends start slowly and then gain a huge amount of momentum, ending with a near vertical trendline. We saw this happen with digital SLRs.

I think Jim proved his point on this thread.

Thanks, Jim. :)

[Roberto B]

jim this.. thanks jim.. wth of new are you bringing unless you can show you're typing jim twice in successive lines?

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen was trying to pull a fast one with this "100% digital" and "no studio subsidiary" technicality stuff. :)

Hi Tom,

I thought Max's points from his post were included in the terms of the bet?, we later agreed $30 Million rather than $50 Million budget at your request. Re Reading film would be allowed in very limited quantities.

Do you think it will actually make any difference to the outcome?

Max wrote"
Sounds easier to prove, but remember, only films that have been produced by the studios themselves, not their subsidies or acquired later count. Your initial challenge was 'major-studio films', so I want to be absolutely clear on that. The average budget of those is probably around 70M or 80M I think, so 10M is a useless figure, I bet there won't be a major studio release that is under that. I think we should put the limit on 50M, after all the purpose of your bet is to prove that acceptance of digital by major studios, not by low budget films

Films that feature a mix of digital and film (think Collateral) won't be counted, unless one of the formats was used in a very limited capacity (highspeed or background elements, etc...)

There are six major studios by the way: Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal, Warner & Disney.

Oh and we'll simply COUNT the films of each format and the one with the highest number determines the winner, there's no need for you to try to get your head around percentages."

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Tom,

I will pay regardless however after I had accepted your bet you wrote:-

"
How about $30 million USD (that's major), and we don't concern ourselves with what combination of studio/production company/distributor actually greenlights the film. Those matters are all tangled up half the time anyway, because of financing, overseas rights, etc. $30 million is a big, legit movie, any way you look at it. That would actually cause films like the The New World and The Fountain to barely make the cut. If you went 40 million, they would not make the cut"

Stephen

[laguun]

No matter if +/- 12 or 24 months, no matter if +/- 10%, mechanical acquisition is set to be the minority soon.

The market share of mechanical 35mm cameras sales is already irrelevant in comparison to sensor-basing 35mm cameras.

Probably no one will develop another 35mm mechanical cameras, maybe one or two last models, but nothing relevant.

Projection is also converted from mechanics to digital at full steed ahead.

The postproduction area was the pioneer, and is already nearly completely digital.

And all of this is nothing new anymore - it was crystal clear since 2006 that the red one would become the new 35mm market leader, no longer arris lineup.

[Stephen Williams]

Probably no one will develop another 35mm mechanical cameras, maybe one or two last models, but nothing relevant.

.

Hi,

That's correct, the fact that majority of 35mm cameras built in the last 90 years still work & many are used today in high end productions. There is not the same need to bring out a new model or upgrade every year. The pictures produced by an old camera are identical to a new camera if you us the same film & lens. I know RED RENDERS OBSOLESCENCE OBSOLETE, but Mitchell did the similar thing 90 years ago, produced a cameras that could not be bettered for 50 years. It's mechanical steadiness has never been bettered.

Stephen

Stephen

[David M]

Drat: Steven has beaten me to the punch ;)


No matter if +/- 12 or 24 months, no matter if +/- 10%, mechanical acquisition is set to be the minority soon.

The market share of mechanical 35mm cameras sales is already irrelevant in comparison to sensor-basing 35mm cameras.

Probably no one will develop another 35mm mechanical cameras, maybe one or two last models, but nothing relevant.


Excuse me?
Sales of 35mm film cameras is already "irrelevant" but
"Probably" no one will develop another 35mm mechanical cameras, maybe one or two last models, but nothing relevant.

I would have thought if the above case were really true no (0) more new models would now be developed. In any case, what further development is really NEEDED in film cameras?

I'd say that if "mechanical acquisition is set to be the minority soon" that might be because nobody really needs any more mechanical cameras, and there were never all that many sold per year anyway.
Just about all of todays 35mm film rental requirements are being met by existing cameras, some dating back to the 1920s, (Mr Redrentals Arri IIc):) . Some are stoneage, some are computer controlled, all shoot film made in 2008, which is all that matters.
If you want to be able to rent out 35mm format digital cameras, yeah, you need to buy a RED or something like it, because there's no existing 80 year inventory of 35mm format digital cameras.
Sure, digital still cameras have been outselling 35mm film cameras for several years, but that's not from people needing a new film camera and buying digital instead, it's just people wanting to have a digital camera because it allows them to easily do things that you can't do wth a film camera. Maybe they'll never use their perfectly good film cameras again. But they mostly aren't buying a digital camera because their film camera is broken.

[laguun]

i can report first hand that our vintage arri IIs are not *so* popular as the red ones or an cool 435 :)

But one point is indeed perfectly correct: An 35mm *film* camera updates itself to each new "sensor" generation with the stock, and the images are nearly identical with an arricam and an IIx.

However the many advantages of digital outweigh the few remaining advantages of mechanical so much meanwhile, in quality, ergonomics, economics, speed, production security, control etc that the fade out of mechanical as majority is completely logical as well from the business and the artistic POV.

Its an old hat.
The same story happened to almost any creative toolkit already, and our smaller industry now is one of the last to complete the transition.