The Phantom 65

[kunal2]

Hi buddies:biggrin: ,
was curious to know what you guys think about the phantom 65 digitalcine camera,,,this beast has got a 65 mm sensor size shooting up to 125 frm/sec:waaa: and it's little brother has a s35m size sensor shooting up to 1000frm/ sec..::love:
cheez
kunal
Professional Photographer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7645949@N08/556801332/in/photostream/

[David Mullen ASC]

It's interesting, though the Phantom 65 is 4K, so you've got the depth of field of 65mm but the resolution of 35mm. I'd rather have the depth of field of 35mm, which is hard enough to deal with. If the Phantom 65 were 6K or 8K, then it would be worth dealing with the extra large sensor's limited depth of field. But if you have enough light to stop down a little and compensate for the depth of field, it could be an interesting way of getting 4K images.

The Phantom 2K/HD is also interesting -- in this case, if all you want is a 2K image, you can get it with 35mm depth of field, which puts it in a similar category as the Arri-D20 and Panavision Genesis. In some ways, it's sort of the next-generation D20, smaller (or you can call the RED camera the next-generation D20, with more resolution.)

[Dan Blanchett]

I was pretty impressed by what I saw at NAB. But the price... ouch.

[Curran Giddens]

what is the price?

[J. Bernard Vallon]

...if you have enough light to stop down a little and compensate for the depth of field, it could be an interesting way of getting 4K images.



Thats funny, because i always thought the super shallow dop of a medium format sensor was half the fun. yeah its harder to hit focus, but i love shallow depth on wide angle shots.

[Tom Lowe]

Is there onboard recording? compression available in 2K mode?

[Dan Blanchett]

what is the price?

Don't quote me on this, but I thought is was upwards of $200K to buy and over $4K a day to rent (because the camera rents with a laptop and technician attached). But the images are pretty sweet if you need extreme high-speed and can afford it.

I don't expect RED to compete in the 1000FPS category anytime soon but hopefully some day they will have higher FPS options at 2K and 4K at a price that is conducive to indie filmmaking.

[kunal2]

Hi David,
thanks for your reply,to my opinion why they haven't stuff the 65mm sensor with more pixel count is perhaps they want to give better dynamic range to reach film level or may be far better,would love to see what this sensor can give in terms of shallow depth of field and exposure latitude,its so sad they haven't put any footage for us to analyse
thanks and keep it up
Digitalchemist


It's interesting, though the Phantom 65 is 4K, so you've got the depth of field of 65mm but the resolution of 35mm. I'd rather have the depth of field of 35mm, which is hard enough to deal with. If the Phantom 65 were 6K or 8K, then it would be worth dealing with the extra large sensor's limited depth of field. But if you have enough light to stop down a little and compensate for the depth of field, it could be an interesting way of getting 4K images.

The Phantom 2K/HD is also interesting -- in this case, if all you want is a 2K image, you can get it with 35mm depth of field, which puts it in a similar category as the Arri-D20 and Panavision Genesis. In some ways, it's sort of the next-generation D20, smaller (or you can call the RED camera the next-generation D20, with more resolution.)

[David Mullen ASC]

Super-shallow focus looks pretty, but in a narrative feature context, day in and day out, it can be very taxing to deal with and it can drive the actors nuts if they have to do another take for focus problems.

I was just watching the extras on the Mel Gibson/Zeferelli "Hamlet" DVD and Gibson complains about David Watkin shooting the crypt scenes in such low-light that he was giving his big "To be or not to be" performance at f/1.4 where they could barely hold his eyeballs in focus, and having to do the scene a couple of times for focus problems, or have his good takes not usable because of focus. And Watkin apologizes but says that if he could have gotten the light levels higher in the crypt he would have, but it wasn't possible.

That said, I've done four features in 35mm anamorphic and the depth of field problems are not much different than 65mm or the Phantom 65 because the focal lengths used are similar. My solution was to light scenes to an f/4 at minimum when possible. Doubling the focal lengths to maintain a similar FOV (a 40mm lens in anamorphic or 65mm is similar in horizontal view to a 20mm lens in 35mm spherical) is about the equivalent of shooting another two-stops open, so shooting at f/4 on the Phantom 65 would be like shooting at f/2 on the RED camera in 4K mode.

[Michael Ragen]

I'm going to be checking out the Phantom HD tomorrow at my friend's studio. Seems like an awesome camera, but I hear the workflow is pretty weak. And I believe you can only shoot 1000 fps in 2 second bursts. I'm still excited to play with it though.

[Ramesh Jai]

Super-shallow focus looks pretty, but in a narrative feature context, day in and day out, it can be very taxing to deal with and it can drive the actors nuts if they have to do another take for focus problems.

I was just watching the extras on the Mel Gibson/Zeferelli "Hamlet" DVD and Gibson complains about David Watkin shooting the crypt scenes in such low-light that he was giving his big "To be or not to be" performance at f/1.4 where they could barely hold his eyeballs in focus, and having to do the scene a couple of times for focus problems, or have his good takes not usable because of focus. And Watkin apologizes but says that if he could have gotten the light levels higher in the crypt he would have, but it wasn't possible.

That said, I've done four features in 35mm anamorphic and the depth of field problems are not much different than 65mm or the Phantom 65 because the focal lengths used are similar. My solution was to light scenes to an f/4 at minimum when possible. Doubling the focal lengths to maintain a similar FOV (a 40mm lens in anamorphic or 65mm is similar in horizontal view to a 20mm lens in 35mm spherical) is about the equivalent of shooting another two-stops open, so shooting at f/4 on the Phantom 65 would be like shooting at f/2 on the RED camera in 4K mode.
Would you listen to an actor if he insisted you lose the shallow DOF and light to get a deeper DOF just so that he could concentrate on his acting rather then keep wondering if his next move was going to make him go out of focus?

In other words ACTING first or LIGHTING first?

[David Mullen ASC]

An actor would never discuss this with me in advance, what f-stop I was working at, but I try to consider the issue before I light a scene, whether this is a big emotional scene with close-ups as the actor moves around and whether I want to work at a deeper stop to make it easier on the focus-puller.

Just depends, because in some situations, like a night exterior or a candlelight scene, lighting to a higher stop may not be possible, practical, or desirable. In that case, I might warn the director that the focus will be particularly shallow and make sure that the focus-puller gets all the support he needs to pull it off.

[Ramesh Jai]

An actor would never discuss this with me in advance, what f-stop I was working at, but I try to consider the issue before I light a scene, whether this is a big emotional scene with close-ups as the actor moves around and whether I want to work at a deeper stop to make it easier on the focus-puller.

Just depends, because in some situations, like a night exterior or a candlelight scene, lighting to a higher stop may not be possible, practical, or desirable. In that case, I might warn the director that the focus will be particularly shallow and make sure that the focus-puller gets all the support he needs to pull it off.
Thank you David.

[JD Holloway]

The 2k 1000fps system is pretty amazing but with limited potential in narative drama. Amazing slow mo though.
The technician who came out was terrific too.
Work flow is a little painful but then again....have you shot photosonics?
With this system you know you have the shot, on the spot.
Pretty cool IMHO.

[kunal2]

Thanks a lot David,but to your opinion why haven't they raise the pixel count on a such large sensor,,its a shame dn't you think so
cheers
kunal

An actor would never discuss this with me in advance, what f-stop I was working at, but I try to consider the issue before I light a scene, whether this is a big emotional scene with close-ups as the actor moves around and whether I want to work at a deeper stop to make it easier on the focus-puller.

Just depends, because in some situations, like a night exterior or a candlelight scene, lighting to a higher stop may not be possible, practical, or desirable. In that case, I might warn the director that the focus will be particularly shallow and make sure that the focus-puller gets all the support he needs to pull it off.

[David Mullen ASC]

They basically took their 35mm-sized 2K sensor in the Phantom HD camera and doubled it in size to get 4K, hence why it ended up being 65mm-wide. I don't think they wanted to make a 4K camera with a deliberately 65mm-wide sensor, but that was the simplest way of working with the sensor technology that they had. There may be some design benefits from cramming fewer sensor sites into the same sized area too (or spreading them out over a larger sensor area), maybe less noise or heat problems, or better sensitivity. On the other hand, more sensor sites in a smaller area (like the RED camera) has benefits other than resolution, like reducing aliasing problems, probably reproducing better color detail (compared to 2K cameras with 35mm-sized sensors. The only disadvantage to the 65mm-sized 4K sensor that I can see is the lower depth of field and the lack of lens choices, plus lens incompatability with other cameras on your package with 35mm-sized sensors.)