ARRI CEO: "We want to have the worlds best digital camera this year".

[laguun]

It seems somebody woke up....
Arri got a new CEO, Mr. Dejan Ilic.
Here are some quotes from recent interviews:

"We have to expand the digital camera offerings strongly. The roadmap is done."
"Our Goal is to have the best digital camera of the world, within 12-14 months." (Nov.2007)
"Our R&D team is on it at full throttle (referring to the "best camera of the world")


Then he indirectly comments RED.
"You can´t get 4K images from a 4k sensor."
"I am certain that digital camera technology will develop much faster than everyone expects"
"We are the marketleader and therefore we are the ones who will show the way".

It might be possible that my basic algebra fails...
...but iirc red has orders for over 3.000 camera - which easily makes red the marketleader in the 35mm segment. photomechanical and digital combined, and i suppose, also by revenue.

[Graeme Nattress]

"You can´t get 4K images from a 4k sensor." is hilarious! Because you can't get 1920x1080 images from 1920x1080 sensor(s) either. And Arri use a 3k sensor to pull off 1920x1080, which is fine, but, you get a better 4k from a 4k sensor than you do scaling up a HD, or 2k or 3k image up to 4k. I guess that's why they have a data mode to access the 3k pixels as that rightly gives you a better 3k image and more flexibility.

Graeme

[Cüneyt Kaya]

probably they will make a better camera, but what will it cost?

[Sanjin Jukic]

It seems somebody woke up....
Arri got a new CEO, Mr. Dejan Ilic.
Here are some quotes from recent interviews:

"We have to expand the digital camera offerings strongly. The roadmap is done."
"Our Goal is to have the best digital camera of the world, within 12-14 months." (Nov.2007)
"Our R&D team is on it at full throttle (referring to the "best camera of the world")


Then he indirectly comments RED.
"You can´t get 4K images from a 4k sensor."
"I am certain that digital camera technology will develop much faster than everyone expects"
"We are the marketleader and therefore we are the ones who will show the way".

It might be possible that my basic algebra fails...
...but iirc red has orders for over 3.000 camera - which easily makes red the marketleader in the 35mm segment. photomechanical and digital combined, and i suppose, also by revenue.

For me it sounds pretty like a Balkan's macho story (Mr. Dejan Ilic),

it's about to make a big dust using a bit of salt to make a VERY LOUD and big bluff.

And then after all (fight) you could fast leave the battlefield as a defeated one :) .

[Hans von Sonntag]

Arri is a great company with great products. They are pricey and worth it. I am sure they will build a great digital camera soon, kind of 235. Just not for 17.5k.

Hans

[Bruce Allen]

This is very funny! If I were the Arri CEO I'm sure I'd *want* to have the best camera too...

Presumably they will unveil something stupidly expensive that does 6K? If you read their newsletters you can see they're already talking about 6K a lot...

Seeing as Clairmont lists the D-20 as $3000 per day (vs the F23 as $3200 per day), I don't think I'll be making much use of an Arri D-30 or whatever they'll call it...

Bruce Allen
www.boaicnema.com

[M.Halsell]

I though film was the future? Oh my bad!

[Simon Blackledge]

I thought the Arri D20 data was still not really up to speed? and thats just HD..

Marketing clap trap? Some said that about Red.

[Sanjin Jukic]

I though film was the future? Oh my bad!

Yes, film is a future.

How?

You shoot 4K digital, make DI and VFX, also confirm in 4K and then print 4K to film for a distribution.

Digital 4K and print to film a real future.

[Mark L. Pederson]

Everybody hurry up and try to catch up with the "vaporware" ....

all very PREDICTABLE.

on another note - here's a letter I just started -

Dear Mr. Dejan Ilic. -

I'd like to discuss the pricing of your matte boxes ...

[Luke Boyce]

Way to wake up sleeping giants, Jim! Too bad Red is already way ahead of them in technology having already released the world's greatest digital camera. And if they expect to release something in 12-14 months, I don't even want to know where Red will be.

[Simon Blackledge]

Everybody hurry up and try to catch up with the "vaporware" ....

all very PREDICTABLE.

on another note - here's a letter I just started -

Dear Mr. Dejan Ilic. -

I'd like to discuss the pricing of your matte boxes ...
:biggrin: :bleh: :biggrin:

[Hans von Sonntag]

This is very funny! If I were the Arri CEO I'm sure I'd *want* to have the best camera too...

Presumably they will unveil something stupidly expensive that does 6K? If you read their newsletters you can see they're already talking about 6K a lot...

Seeing as Clairmont lists the D-20 as $3000 per day (vs the F23 as $3200 per day), I don't think I'll be making much use of an Arri D-30 or whatever they'll call it...

Bruce Allen
www.boaicnema.com

They never produced stupidly expensive products. A 235 is around 60k. I don't recon this as stupidly expensive. Just not cheap and really not aimed at private owners although I know 2 DP who own one. Arris always were very reliable and very thought-out. A standard of its own. The D20 was never sold, it was always meant as a kind of experimental-digital-cinema-camera-ready-for-the-field.

The next generation will be very different and ready for heavy rental and private owners. Just not cheap but surely worth it.

I find Arri bashing funny because most RED owners go for Arri gear. Arri is not a threat for RED owners.

Hans

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I've had a few ARRI guys be very confident in discussions about RED. Indications about something up their sleeves with a new "D20" that I really should see.

So I think they will come up with something interesting. Lets see what it is.

fred

[Andrew M.]

And I thought that Silicon Valley is where all the digital revolution starts.
Europe is not the best place to start such revolution, is it?

Kodak is trying very hard to lead digital revolution but except finding a niche markets is not a best suited to lead. What they say about dinosaurs?
Best and dominating entity has very small chances to adjust to sudden climate changes?
But they have a chance……

[Tom Lowe]

I hate to agree with the guy, but I have always thought you needed a 6K sensor to really get beautiful 4K.

Pixel for pixel, I just really don't think a lot of 4K stuff, whether shot on a DLSR or the RED, will hold up at full res.

[Hans von Sonntag]

Way to wake up sleeping giants, Jim! Too bad Red is already way ahead of them in technology having already released the world's greatest digital camera. And if they expect to release something in 12-14 months, I don't even want to know where Red will be.

Arri is not a giant. Compared to Sony, Panasonic etc. Arri is a little dwarf. And never think that they are sleeping. The had never in mind to arm the indies with digital 35mm - perhaps a nap that they should not have taken...

Lets talk in 1 year or so.

Hans

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Maybe they are gunning for 8K bayer filtered to get a 4:4:4 4K image perhaps?

[Graeme Nattress]

4k from RED has always held up well on the big screen whenever I've seen it. It's always nice to think that downsampling is the "solution", but there's no perfect downsampling filter, which sorta puts a spanner in that idea.

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

8k downscaled to 4k will look great, but it won't look as good as 8k at 8k on the same sized screen.

Graeme

[Chris Nuzzaco]

My big concern with 8K are super tiny photosites and noise, less range, etc..

If Arri can somehow master a 3 chip (35mm size chips) that can take PL lenses already in use... That would be quite the achievement.

But I hear thats not very easily done.

[Kevin Lang]

There is always going to be something better out there. You have to just use the tools you have. This my dad can beat up your dad scenario is lame. All of these cameras will give you a good image.

[Poi Boy]

I wonder what red will have in 14 months ?
-A

[Dj Joofa]

Way to wake up sleeping giants, Jim! Too bad Red is already way ahead of them in technology having already released the world's greatest digital camera. And if they expect to release something in 12-14 months, I don't even want to know where Red will be.

One has to understand the development process in a technical company to realize that initially rapid development is not sustained as a company starts growing for several different reasons -- in fact it is not surprising that many times the whole marketing teams for the initial phase of the company and the phase once successful projects have been launched, are different.

Red has little obligation right now. But once in heavy production mode they may be slowed down as others do, and spend a lot of time in "maintenance" mode vs. "development" mode.

The others companies that you mention, such as Arri, are well-placed in terms of human capital and infrastructure. However, that may not necessarily translate into a commitment to release development resources from other projects and putting into a "Red-centric" project. However, if Arri's CEO has said that, then it may be taken to mean that he is willing to go that route.

[Dj Joofa]

Arri is not a threat for RED owners.

Hans


Actually, that may turn out to be very true. Red and Arri may co-exist easily as they might be targeting different markets.

Arri is an established company, well-entrenched in the film world, and I am sure they have their channels to pull some strings when it comes to a decision making time.

Bottom line is that Red may be suited for independent filmmakers/cinematographers/DPs who can directly buy from Red, where as Arri might like to target established production pipelines at premier places.

[peter roehsler]

All fine with me. I won´t be able to afford it, that´s for sure. Rental it will be anyway and I also don´t fancy a concept that I should end up the least expensive part of such a setup.

[Sanjin Jukic]

"ARRI Utilizes Cypress CMOS Image Sensor for Motion Picture Cinematography

Cypress Semiconductor recently announced that its OSCAR custom CMOS
image sensor is incorporated into the ARRIFLEX D-20 Digital Motion
Picture Camera and ARRISCAN Film Scanner from ARRI GmbH.

The 6-megapixel sensor is the same size as a Super 35-mm film aperture,
enabling the D-20 camera to use the same prime, zoom and specialty
lenses as 35-mm film cameras while shooting in High-Definition (HD).
The resulting digital image has the same depth of field as 35-mm film,
allowing film makers to direct a viewer's attention to a specific part
of an image, a feature that is a highly valued creative storytelling
tool.

The OSCAR CMOS image sensor gives the D-20 camera the ability to read
out high frame-rates despite a high active pixel-count of 2880 x 2160
pixels, as well as the ability to run speed ramps. Additionally, the
OSCAR sensor delivers excellent color fidelity and high dynamic range
for crystal-clear HD footage."

LINK>>> (http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-arri-utilizes-cypress-cmos-image-sensor-motion-picture-/2008/01/12/3207182.htm)

"Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

We build the sensor for your image.

Cypress develops and markets innovative and high-performance CMOS image sensors,
based on patented technologies and know-how built up for more than 15 years.
Our CMOS active pixel sensors are based on innovative design approaches realized in
standard CMOS processing technologies.

We offer standard products as well as custom design of CMOS imager ASICs.
It is our mission to supply our customers with the CMOS image sensors they need,
when they need them, and as long as they need them.

A significant part of our business is the design and production of customized CMOS image sensors.
Cypress delivers custom image sensors according to the agreed specification and planning.
First silicon to spec is our commitment.

With more than 15 years of experience in the field of CMOS active pixel sensors,
we have proven solutions for multi-megapixel digital photography,
large area sensors (w/o stitching), ultra-high-speed, imaging for machine vision,
linear and 2D barcode imaging, medical XRAY imaging, single-chip camera integration,
and radiation-hardened CMOS image sensors for space and nuclear use."

LINK>>> (http://www.cypress.com/products/?gid=12&fid=149&category=All)

[Brent J. Craig]

I have googled all of the quotes in the original post and searched every way I could. Can you provide a link to this Arri interview?

[sparkhope]

I hate to agree with the guy, but I have always thought you needed a 6K sensor to really get beautiful 4K.

Pixel for pixel, I just really don't think a lot of 4K stuff, whether shot on a DLSR or the RED, will hold up at full res.

And yet aren't some film born DI's scanned on 4k scanners while the majority opt for the cheaper 2k variety?

[Dj Joofa]

And yet aren't some film born DI's scanned on 4k scanners while the majority opt for the cheaper 2k variety?

This is true. Because the condition of theater screens does not justify going for more than 2k scans. So why spend money when its not needed.

Also, please note that in a theater there is only one exact distance that a human would have the best response visually. Hence, different rows of a theater will have a different response, and there is no point in going over 2k these days, as this just means that you would have to sit closer to the screen for the best response. Just like the number quoted for a typical NTSC display CRT is that for the best visual response one should be seated away 6 times the picture height and for HDTV 3 times (I don't remember these numbers 6 and 3 exactly, and they are just from the top of my head).

[Tom Lowe]

My big concern with 8K are super tiny photosites and noise, less range, etc..

If Arri can somehow master a 3 chip (35mm size chips) that can take PL lenses already in use... That would be quite the achievement.

But I hear thats not very easily done.

You could probably look at 65mm sized sensors recording at 6K.

8K is not a real spec, whereas 4K actually could replace 1080p as the gold standard of consumer high-def at some point. 4K monitors are on their way.

[Tom Lowe]

And yet aren't some film born DI's scanned on 4k scanners while the majority opt for the cheaper 2k variety?

I suspect plenty of films will not hold up at 4k either. Hell, a lot of blurays look like crap at 1080p, especially stuff 15 years or older.

[martinnoweck]

Dear Mr. Dejan Ilic. -

I'd like to discuss the pricing of your matte boxes ...

LOL
Martin

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Everybody hurry up and try to catch up with the "vaporware" ....

all very PREDICTABLE.

on another note - here's a letter I just started -

Dear Mr. Dejan Ilic. -

I'd like to discuss the pricing of your matte boxes ...

...it is really cheap if you compare it to a NASA rocket.
Dear Mr. Ilic, if you can prove that the astronauts use your mattebox while making some nice pictures of the moon, I´ll understand, but if not...

[J.D. Frey]

my understanding is that there will one day be sensor upgrades, etc. for the red one as well. So really you are buying into a package that should last quite awhile.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

For me it sounds pretty like a Balkan's macho story (Mr. Dejan Ilic),

it's about to make a big dust using a bit of salt to make a VERY LOUD and big bluff.

And then after all (fight) you could fast leave a battlefied defeated :) .

LOL.

Yeah. Dogs that bark usually don't bite... and viceversa. :)

[Dj Joofa]

my understanding is that there will one day be sensor upgrades, etc. for the red one as well. So really you are buying into a package that should last quite awhile.

That could be tricky. As I mentioned in an earlier post that before each camera ships an extensive calibration is done to reverse the effects of dark currents and non-uniform sensor behavior to uniform light exposures. Every sensor has different masks for these. This calibration data has to be some how applied to the signal coming out of the sensor, either in-camera before output, or off-line processing on your computer. I do not know how Red would handle this situation.

[Paris Remillard]

Now if Arri (or RED) could have a single 8K bayer filtered sensor with every other photosite NDed, and give us 4K with much more latitude, that would be okay by me.

[Dj Joofa]

Now if Arri (or RED) could have a single 8K bayer filtered sensor with every other photosite NDed, and give us 4K with much more latitude, that would be okay by me.

It is interesting to see a fixation with higher and higher resolution. I posted some comments on a similar topic on an other post and I repeat them here:

It is an unfortunate consequence of a misconception that is harbored many times that higher resolution say 4K, is necessarily better than a lower one, say 2k. Unfortunately, the dynamic range or the bit depth per pixel (say 12-bit per pixel) and camera sensor resolution (say 4k) are often independently quoted, without ever trying to ask the elusive question that given that particular dynamic range, is the advertised resolution the best one, or vice versa?

For a given micron technology size, the dynamic range increases with making the pixel size larger in terms of signal to noise ratio. However, on the other hand making the pixel size smaller results in higher spatial resolution and better modulation transfer function (MTF). Therefore, given a particular technology, there must exist a pixel size that strikes a compromise between high dynamic range and signal to noise ratio on the one hand and spatial resolution and MTF on the other hand. Though, it is not always immediately clear how to determine that optimal pixel number, and especially how to trade off dynamic range and signal to noise ratio with spatial size and MTF.

Image quality should be the ultimate objective of selecting "optimal" dynamic range and pixel count. Although, the connection is a little fuzzy, it is possible to derive that magical "optimal" pixel count and dynamic range for a given technology under certain constraints.

Marketing would like to throw in those numbers such as 4k, 12 bits per pixel, etc., without satisfying a curious user that for your particular technology:

(1) If I fix bit depth or dynamic range, is the pixel count advertised the most optimal one or a smaller pixel count would have worked better for greater image visual quality?

(2) If I fix pixel count, then is the advertised bit depth the most optimal one or a smaller one would suffice?

[Bruce Allen]

4k from RED has always held up well on the big screen whenever I've seen it. It's always nice to think that downsampling is the "solution", but there's no perfect downsampling filter, which sorta puts a spanner in that idea.

Graeme

So true on both counts...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Paris Remillard]

I guess I should have said that I can't imagine needing more than 4K resolution, Bayer or not. But I would be happy with more exposure latitude. I don't need more pixels, but more highlights would be okay.

[Tom Lowe]

4k from RED has always held up well on the big screen whenever I've seen it. It's always nice to think that downsampling is the "solution", but there's no perfect downsampling filter, which sorta puts a spanner in that idea.

Graeme

Maybe projected you don't notice the noise so much, but pixel for pixel on a 4K LCD monitor, even the best DLSR with 4K sensors do not hold up at full res, pixel for pixel, especially low-light shots.

[M Most]

This is true. Because the condition of theater screens does not justify going for more than 2k scans. So why spend money when its not needed.

That is not the reason for the predominance of 2K in DI work.

DI work, like anything else in this country, is a business. Business needs to be profitable, which in this business means finding a sweet spot for the confluence of quality, speed, and price. There is a good deal of infrastructure support for 2K finishing, distribution, and exhibition. The performance required of centralized storage is usually sufficient for real time use of 2K, and the speed at which 2K files can be recorded to film is sufficiently fast that reels can be recorded in an acceptable time frame, sometimes allowing for multiple printing negatives to be produced, yielding significantly better release print quality. On the digital cinema side, the vast, vast majority of available digital cinema projectors are based on 2K DLP Cinema technology, making them a cost competitive choice. And underlying all of this is the basic topic of cost. Very few DI projects - in fact, really only the largest studio pictures - can really afford a 4K finish. And for many large pictures that make heavy use of visual effects, a 4K finish is a bit of a waste anyway because most of those VFX shots will be created at 2K - once again, because of turnaround time and creative flexibility.

I know people here seem to think this can all change simply because one company says it can. But that's not the case. Very few people here have real experience doing high end finishing, and most don't have a good sense of the complications involved, the time factors involved, the real costs involved, or the level of perfection required to pass studio QC's, among other things. Those are realities that DI companies deal with every day.

[Dj Joofa]

That is not the reason for the predominance of 2K in DI work.

DI work, like anything else in this country, is a business. Business needs to be profitable, which in this business means finding a sweet spot for the confluence of quality, speed, and price. There is a good deal of infrastructure support for 2K finishing, distribution, and exhibition. The performance required of centralized storage is usually sufficient for real time use of 2K, and the speed at which 2K files can be recorded to film is sufficiently fast that reels can be recorded in an acceptable time frame, sometimes allowing for multiple printing negatives to be produced, yielding significantly better release print quality. On the digital cinema side, the vast, vast majority of available digital cinema projectors are based on 2K DLP Cinema technology, making them a cost competitive choice. And underlying all of this is the basic topic of cost. Very few DI projects - in fact, really only the largest studio pictures - can really afford a 4K finish. And for many large pictures that make heavy use of visual effects, a 4K finish is a bit of a waste anyway because most of those VFX shots will be created at 2K - once again, because of turnaround time and creative flexibility.



Fully agree with you. You are right. You just nailed it. I was a little simplistic.

[Brent J. Craig]

... there must exist a pixel size that strikes a compromise between high dynamic range and signal to noise ratio on the one hand and spatial resolution and MTF on the other hand.

I propose that the industry form a study group to create a process that can accurately and impartially measure these parameters and arrive at a standardized Joofa number for any imaging system.

"How many Joofas is that new camera?"

[Dj Joofa]

I propose that the industry form a study group to create a process that can accurately and impartially measure these parameters and arrive at a standardized Joofa number for any imaging system.

"How many Joofas is that new camera?"

That was very funny ;-))))) but, you don't have to do that. If you want I can point you to several research publications that try to determine the "optimal" pixel size / count for a given technology.

[reality]

There is no standard that can be derived that are meaningful. No matter how much you try to quantify picture quality, it's all qualitative and fruitless. it's the picture that counts, not the numbers and every has different means of subjectively judging quality.

[Dj Joofa]

There is no standard that can be derived that are meaningful. No matter how much you try to quantify picture quality, it's all qualitative and fruitless. it's the picture that counts, not the numbers and every has different means of subjectively judging quality.

There are several studies that have been done that incorporate the human visual eye response, the dynamic range and SNR, and the pixel count and MTF, and under some constraints derive the "optimal" picture quality.

I give you an outline of the process. Imagine you have put a camera to image a scene and you get an image that has a relation with the dynamic range and the pixel count of the internal sensor. Now imagine if our human eye was imaging the exact same system. Now making the response of the human eye the base line (you can't rewire photoreceptors in a human eye), you put a different imaging system and sensor with either different dynamic range and / or different pixel count, now you can rank the two sensors subjectively using the human response as the base line.

The above is a simplistic way of describing the efforts that I have mentioned people have adopted to measure such numbers.

[Brent J. Craig]

That was very funny ;-))))) but, you don't have to do that. If you want I can point you to several research publications that try to determine the "optimal" pixel size / count for a given technology.

Sorry. I know I might have a reputation for being sarcastic on here, but I totally agree with what you are saying. Image quality is not just about resolution and many factors need to be taken into consideration.

You said it better than I ever could, so I nominated you for your own unit of measurement. Only the 'joofas' part was meant humorously, I agree with your ideas.

[Matt Gottshalk]

Everybody hurry up and try to catch up with the "vaporware" ....

all very PREDICTABLE.

on another note - here's a letter I just started -

Dear Mr. Dejan Ilic. -

I'd like to discuss the pricing of your matte boxes ...


Ouch....:bleh:

[reality]

There are several studies that have been done that incorporate the human visual eye response, the dynamic range and SNR, and the pixel count and MTF, and under some constraints derive the "optimal" picture quality.

I give you an outline of the process. Imagine you have put a camera to image a scene and you get an image that has a relation with the dynamic range and the pixel count of the internal sensor. Now imagine if our human eye was imaging the exact same system. Now making the response of the human eye the base line (you can't rewire photoreceptors in a human eye), you put a different imaging system and sensor with either different dynamic range and / or different pixel count, now you can rank the two sensors subjectively using the human response as the base line.

The above is a simplistic way of describing the efforts that I have mentioned people have adopted to measure such numbers.


At the end of the day though, no matter what numbers you get people will disagree with the numbers which ends up making the numbers meaningless.

No metric can take into account personal history, cultural differences, aesthetic training, etc. For example, look at the differences between image aestheics between Japan and America.

[Michael Hastings]

Sorry. I know I might have a reputation for being sarcastic on here, but I totally agree with what you are saying. Image quality is not just about resolution and many factors need to be taken into consideration.

You said it better than I ever could, so I nominated you for your own unit of measurement. Only the 'joofas' part was meant humorously, I agree with your ideas.

I second it - "joofas" it is.

[Bruce Allen]

At the end of the day though, no matter what numbers you get people will disagree with the numbers which ends up making the numbers meaningless.

No metric can take into account personal history, cultural differences, aesthetic training, etc. For example, look at the differences between image aestheics between Japan and America.

True. And sometimes they fuse into something magical ;)
http://www.boacinema.com/misc/lucas2.mov

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[mradeck]

Yes, film is a future.

How?

You shoot 4K digital, make DI and VFX, also confirm in 4K and then print 4K to film for a distribution.

Digital 4K and print to film a real future.

your way will provide max 2k or lower in cinema!

shoot in 35mm scan with 8k or 12 k (the next scanner generation!) finish in 4k and project in 4k would be much better and is the Vision of DCI!

[Dj Joofa]

Sorry. I know I might have a reputation for being sarcastic on here, but I totally agree with what you are saying. Image quality is not just about resolution and many factors need to be taken into consideration.

You said it better than I ever could, so I nominated you for your own unit of measurement. Only the 'joofas' part was meant humorously, I agree with your ideas.

Thanks for your appreciation. You don't have to be sorry. I actually thought that the "Joofas" thing was very funny ;-)))))))

[Justin Anderson]

My big concern with 8K are super tiny photosites and noise, less range, etc..

If Arri can somehow master a 3 chip (35mm size chips) that can take PL lenses already in use... That would be quite the achievement.


I'm pretty sure that at the 35mm size it's physically impossible to fit three chips close enough to a beam splitter.

[I Bloom]

http://www.boacinema.com/misc/lucas2.mov


What the heck is that???

[Ace]

What the heck is that???

Its where self dignity goes to die.

What happens in japan stays in japan.

[Justin Anderson]

your way will provide max 2k or lower in cinema!

shoot in 35mm scan with 8k or 12 k (the next scanner generation!) finish in 4k and project in 4k would be much better and is the Vision of DCI!

8K, maybe, and definitely 12K are beyond the maximum resolution for 35mm. What's the point of oversampling?

[laguun]

I have googled all of the quotes in the original post and searched every way I could. Can you provide a link to this Arri interview?

its not online. i translated it from german, one of the sources is a pretty underinformed pr-type magazine called "professional production", issue 11/07.

[laguun]

your way will provide max 2k or lower in cinema!

Foy your information, mr. radeck, any 35mm projection was is and will be below 2k.



shoot in 35mm scan with 8k or 12 k (the next scanner generation!) finish in 4k and project in 4k would be much better and is the Vision of DCI!
mr radeck, i am pretty sure you never saw 65mm or 4k in 4k projection.

if you would have, then you would understand why 2K is the dominating standard.

i recommend that you stay with PAL and wait for the public state broadcasters to go 720p50.

arri lost the marketleadership. i hate that.

but after 8 straight years telling them every single tradeshow that they would have to build a red-style camera, they lost the market. for good reason.

I suppose by the end of the year, there will be more red 1s than 235, 435, studio (lts) etc. combined.

arris mistake.
wrong aquisition medium.

[Bruce Allen]

What the heck is that???

It's Digital Magic, that's what it is!

This one is funnier:
http://www.boacinema.com/misc/lucas.mov

...but the first one seemed more on-topic RE: Western and Eastern aesthetics (and their possible fusion) in the HD camera world ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Finner]

Sometimes I can't believe the shit I get paid to shoot. That stuff takes the cake though Bruce. I guess he hopes the new indy will save him. I would guess his car would have to be in danger of repossesion to take part in that.

[Poi Boy]

wow that is really ugly.
-A

[Gavin Greenwalt]

What's he doing hawking Panasonic Cameras though? He's shot exclusively sony has he not?

Anyway... back on topic:

Hence forth whenever I need to provide feedback on some work that's just lacking that little-certain-something I'm going to ask for "more Joofa". This shot is lacking in Joofa. Gimme more Jooffa! There! Now that's Joofa!

;) OH wait.... that wasn't the topic either... what were we talking about?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

What happens in japan stays in japan.

Uh... That didn't stay in Japan. It should have, but well, it didn't. At least there weren't any Ewoks.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

what were we talking about?

I don't know... The clapping storm troopers made me forget.

[Tom Lowe]

8K, maybe, and definitely 12K are beyond the maximum resolution for 35mm. What's the point of oversampling?

Anything beyond 6K seems very unlikely to me with 35mm, and much 35mm will barely hold up at 4k.

[GlennChan]

you can rank the two sensors subjectively using the human response as the base line.
At a certain level, that makes a lot of sense. And I think for particular applications it would be the way to go (e.g. medical).

But when it comes to filmmaking, part of it is about art. Sometimes we want to shoot at a high frame rate to get those slowmo shots. We want to shoot at some really excessive framerate that is more than enough for human vision... like what people are doing with the Phantom right now.
In terms of color, it is extremely likely that the color will be manipulated in DI. So the ideal imaging system has to stand up to whatever is done in DI... it needs to be better than human vision to be "perfect".

[Dj Joofa]

At a certain level, that makes a lot of sense. And I think for particular applications it would be the way to go (e.g. medical).

But when it comes to filmmaking, part of it is about art. Sometimes we want to shoot at a high frame rate to get those slowmo shots. We want to shoot at some really excessive framerate that is more than enough for human vision... like what people are doing with the Phantom right now.
In terms of color, it is extremely likely that the color will be manipulated in DI. So the ideal imaging system has to stand up to whatever is done in DI... it needs to be better than human vision to be "perfect".

I agree with you on some levels. Human visual response may not be best under some circumstance that you describe. However, given a particular technology, we have to establish a baseline and many people have taken the path of choosing the human visual response as a baseline, as it is good one under many circumstances. But I see your point -- that it is not a definitive approach, is open to interpretation, and one can always establish a better baseline -- hence, I agree with you.

I think I should be a little more specific also. When I said baseline human response, I did not mean sticking a real human or human eye in there. I just meant statistical modeling based upon the perceptual tri-chromatic response of human visual system, that has been well-modeled, and also using a device independent space for distance measurement given a particular metric.

[GlennChan]

"Our Goal is to have the best digital camera of the world, within 12-14 months." (Nov.2007)

In my (speculative) opinion... I think they are up against some very tough competition.

--If they want to make a HD-SDI centric camera (known, fast, real-time workflow) then they're up against the F23.

--If they want to make a data-based camera, they are up against the Red, whatever Sony will come out with, Dalsa, maybe Panavision, etc. etc.
In terms of image quality, of what I've seen, it looks like Red's images are looking the best. The very low noise is huge... it affects how far you can go in DI.

I think there's a gap right now in that not all people know how to use their color tools that well... I'm seeing footage where the skies are clipping out... what I think people should be doing is applying curves-based adjustments so you have highlight handling like film and to avoid that blown-out look. You can even go more advanced and do something like shadow/highlight in AE/Photoshop to bring out shadow detail. Once you start to do these things, noise becomes much more visible so you want the camera to be low-noise to begin with.

--Workflow-wise, I think Red has a leg up on the competition among data-based cameras. (Cineform too, but not in a 4k camera currently AFAIK.) The artifacts from good compression are very negligible, yet they can make the workflow a lot more practical.

So for data-centric digital cinema cameras, I think it will be very hard to compete with Red.
Red has a headstart in data-based workflow, debayering, image processing, etc.
And the Mysterium sensor is very good.
And the price point is extremely good. (Though less of an issue for the very high-end.)

I don't see Arri competing on price or workflow, so they have to really excel in image quality.

[Zack Birlew]

Well, I think the next step is realtime HDRI capture. That automatically takes care of exposure drawbacks and captures a very high resolution image at the same time. All that would need to be done is to have processors fast enough to capture and convert every frame at three different exposures on the fly.

I'm not sure if that's even possible, but I know that idea has been brought up again and again. Anything beyond 4K is just too much I think. Honestly, how much resolution do you need? Already, people are freaking out over 1080p making them look bad. Now the new thing, which I saw for the first time today, is 120hz televisions. The difference really surprised me. So much for 24p! Everything looked like 60i video! There was a Bluray example of "Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest" and the visual effects really stood out in a bad way. Things were clearer as far as movement was concerned, no more motion blur. But it made everything more noticeable, such as the makeup and other small details. Yeesh! Granted, 8K could add a lot for certain things, particularly large epic films, but other than that I just can't see it being all that useful.

It's funny how nobody was really talking about "K" anything until we got a 4K camera making the news and breaking the industry norm (in a good way). Now I think people are just going to get "K crazy" like how they've gotten "HD crazy", "Progressive crazy", "Digital crazy", "Tape crazy", ect. in the past. We've got a great camera here folks, enjoy it! 4K not enough? There's always IMAX!

Now, the only real question is "What about the 3D camera?".

[Dj Joofa]

Well, I think the next step is realtime HDRI capture. That automatically takes care of exposure drawbacks and captures a very high resolution image at the same time. All that would need to be done is to have processors fast enough to capture and convert every frame at three different exposures on the fly.



You are right about realtime HDRI being in demand. There is work going on currently using two approaches:

(1) "Real HDRI" capture where the sensor is able to see a wide range of at least over 20 stops (I believe)

(2) "Simulated HDRI" where using a fast frame rate camera multiple images are derived at several exposures, and then they are collapsed into a single image using some approaches. The drawback in this case is if motion is fast enough, then it gets difficult to collapse different exposures as there is movement between different exposure images.

[Dj Joofa]

Oh, and one more comment on real-time HDRI capture. You do not have to increase the range of your digital sensor ADC to increase its dynamic range. While keeping the fixed range, you have to reduce the noise. Many times the standard deviation of the temporal noise is taken to mean the physical interpretation of bit 1 on a linear digital sensor. Hence, you may keep your Vmax on an ADC fixed, but you increase the resolution of measurement of the minimum signal above noise (i.e., having a sensor with less noise) that you can measure and you have a higher dynamic range for the same fixed range.

An e.g, say your range is 3 volts and your minimum physical measurement is only 1 volt then your dynamic range is 3 / 1 = 3 steps. However, if you are able to decrease the size of your minimum step to 0.5 volts then your dynamic range is 3 / 0.5 = 6 steps, while your range is still 3.

[GlennChan]

When I said baseline human response, I did not mean sticking a real human or human eye in there.
Hmm, I think we really do need to use human eyes for testing.

A lot of the theoretical models about human vision don't work 100%. e.g. I believe that some of the sampling theory out there leads us down the wrong path. Some of the theory considers (approximations of) sinc filters (AKA brickwall) to be the best, but I don't think they are ideal for chroma resampling or upscaling.

Another example: all the Nyquist stuff doesn't work for human vision. Human vision has (vernier) resolution that far exceeds the Nyquist limit. Classic sampling theory only works if you assume that the sampling is not moving / the phase of the sampling is not shifting. Our eyes move... that's probably how our visual system can achieve very good vernier resolution.

Until our theoretical models are very good (they are not), the best thing to do would be to use humans during testing. Subjective testing has some issues (e.g. bias, learning, how good is the sample), but I think these issues are less problematic than objective testing.
And almost all of our theoretical models for how human vision works is derived from human observations anyways (e.g. CIE 1931).

2- The other thing to do is real world testing. How good does something look after it's gone through color grading and so forth?
And in real world viewing situations, surround illumination, ambient light, and the limitations of the display all affect how we perceive an image.

[Dj Joofa]

Hmm, I think we really do need to use human eyes for testing.

A lot of the theoretical models about human vision don't work 100%. e.g. I believe that some of the sampling theory out there leads us down the wrong path. Some of the theory considers (approximations of) sinc filters (AKA brickwall) to be the best, but I don't think they are ideal for chroma resampling or upscaling.

Another example: all the Nyquist stuff doesn't work for human vision. Human vision has (vernier) resolution that far exceeds the Nyquist limit. Classic sampling theory only works if you assume that the sampling is not moving / the phase of the sampling is not shifting. Our eyes move... that's probably how our visual system can achieve very good vernier resolution.

Until our theoretical models are very good (they are not), the best thing to do would be to use humans during testing. Subjective testing has some issues (e.g. bias, learning, how good is the sample), but I think these issues are less problematic than objective testing.
And almost all of our theoretical models for how human vision works is derived from human observations anyways (e.g. CIE 1931).

2- The other thing to do is real world testing. How good does something look after it's gone through color grading and so forth?
And in real world viewing situations, surround illumination, ambient light, and the limitations of the display all affect how we perceive an image.

Some very good points and I agree with them. One comment on sampling though. For a fixed static gaze the human vision at the center of fovea does follow Nyquist -- there are about 120 cone photoreceptors at the center of fovea per degree and that gives the maximum frequency as 60 cycles / degree. The rods are smaller in size than cones, however, several are joined together (are they doing pixel bining ;-))))) and hence, offer blurry image than cones. Though in practice the maximum frequency response seen by the human eye in the opponent color space (luminance, red-green, blue-yellow), is around at 10 cycles per degree, less for blue-yellow than red-green.

[Dj Joofa]

Hence forth whenever I need to provide feedback on some work that's just lacking that little-certain-something I'm going to ask for "more Joofa". This shot is lacking in Joofa. Gimme more Jooffa! There! Now that's Joofa!



I shall have to charge royalty from you for this usage ;-)))))))

[Deanan]

It's also worth noting that what is technically correct is often not desirable. For example, we could increase sharpness but would also impact aliasing, perceptual depth of field (making it really hard to pull focus like some other cameras with a weak low pass), and quality of image (ie. harsher vs more pleasing).

The same can be said for lenses. For example, one the lenses I have is 28mm Leica M mount and is superb from a technical standpoint but lacks beauty and life. Same could be said of Cookes vs UltraPrimes. Lens design is one of the fields where being imperfect in some areas is actually desired.

Another example is framerate or grain. 24fps could easily be considered less than technically advantageous but when compared to technically superior 60p , 24fps is often more desirable. Same for grain.

[GlennChan]

Some very good points and I agree with them. One comment on sampling though. For a fixed static gaze the human vision at the center of fovea does follow Nyquist -- there are about 120 cone photoreceptors at the center of fovea per degree and that gives the maximum frequency as 60 cycles / degree. The rods are smaller in size than cones, however, several are joined together (are they doing pixel bining ;-))))) and hence, offer blurry image than cones. Though in practice the maximum frequency response seen by the human eye in the opponent color space (luminance, red-green, blue-yellow), is around at 10 cycles per degree, less for blue-yellow than red-green.
If you really think about it... I think even there Nyquist has been violated.

At 60 cycles/degree, it doesn't quite seem possible to have zero ringing, little aliasing (*depends on what you're looking at), AND resolve 60 cycles/degree. Theoretically, you can't have all three at once.

In any case it's a moot point... human vision doesn't follow Nyquist.

[GlennChan]

It's also worth noting that what is technically correct is often not desirable.
Holga photography anybody?

[Lauri Kettunen]

"Our Goal is to have the best digital camera of the world, within 12-14 months." (Nov.2007) ... "I am certain that digital camera technology will develop much faster than everyone expects".

Yes, all this makes sense. Companies compete with each other, and in reality the level of knowledge is very much the same all over the world. People know about the same things, and thus knowledge does not make a big difference between various groups. Of course within RED they should feel they are the best, and even far better than the others. That's a good thing but also another issue.

As far as I understand, one of RED's main advantages is a small but dedicated R&D team and also a dedicated net of users. This is something which is difficult to establish, and Jim's timing was also very succesful.

So, don't have any doubts that ARRI were not able to develop a better camera. I expect their challenge will be the costs and marketing the product. This REDUserNet is the first genuine realization of the so call new business relying solely on the web I've seen. Establishing a similar forum of keen people is not easy. For example, can't avoid feeling bit sorry for SI. Technically they have a great product, but for their bad luck RED came out about the same time. A comparison of the number of posts written everyday in these two forums tells a lot. It is easy to imagine how things were different for SI if Jim never decided to develop a camera. So, one needs some luck as well, and one never knows about that.

[Graeme Nattress]

Maybe projected you don't notice the noise so much, but pixel for pixel on a 4K LCD monitor, even the best DLSR with 4K sensors do not hold up at full res, pixel for pixel, especially low-light shots.

Sure, but "video", pixel for pixel on an LCD doesn't stand up either. RED images are about the best I've seen for that level of scrutiny in the motion world.

Graeme

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Sure, but "video", pixel for pixel on an LCD doesn't stand up either. RED images are about the best I've seen for that level of scrutiny in the motion world.

Graeme

Are you implying that movies shot on the genesis won't hold up on a 1080p HDTV?
Maybe I'm reading this statement wrong

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

True. And sometimes they fuse into something magical ;)
http://www.boacinema.com/misc/lucas2.mov

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Did that get him the funding for Star Wars? :biggrin:

[Andrew M.]

Graeme, I was playing with Canon 1Ds MkIII 21MP images
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/eos1dsm3_sample-e.html
and compared it to 4K images from RED on 2K wide scaled down window in CS3.
The test was not conclusive since I do not have RAW from Canon and RED raw I could push and scale with much better result. (mine Mk3 is still on backorder)

I would speculate though that Misterium II with 24MP and good scaling algorithm to 4K would yield much better result on the big screen? How slow scaling will be is yet another question.

I agree with your statement that 8K on 8K screen looks much better then 8K scaled to 4K
I guess our eyes have much better pixel combining capability then the best scaling algorithm.

You were experimenting with 4K to 2K scaling. I see there is a new way to do it in REDAlert.
What is your experience with it?

[M Most]

--If they want to make a HD-SDI centric camera (known, fast, real-time workflow) then they're up against the F23.

--If they want to make a data-based camera, they are up against the Red, whatever Sony will come out with, Dalsa, maybe Panavision, etc. etc.
In terms of image quality, of what I've seen, it looks like Red's images are looking the best. The very low noise is huge... it affects how far you can go in DI.

Glenn, have you worked with any underexposed (intentionally or otherwise) Red footage? Or some footage from the F23 under similar conditions? Because my experience is that the F23 has almost no discernible low level noise regardless of exposure, but the Red has a very significant amount of it - although it's really hard to tell whether it's random sensor noise, fixed pattern noise (there are often obvious vertical stripes), compression artifacts, debayering artifacts (even with full debayer), or a combination of all these things. Now, granted, when color correction is applied, most of this is masked in the blacks. But with any material that you're printing up in DI from an underexposed original, the noise is very, very significant, especially compared to the F23. And I've seen this on both the earlier cameras and one that was delivered only 2 weeks ago.


I think there's a gap right now in that not all people know how to use their color tools that well... I'm seeing footage where the skies are clipping out... what I think people should be doing is applying curves-based adjustments so you have highlight handling like film and to avoid that blown-out look.

While I would basically agree with this, I would also point out that the Red, like any electronic capture device, can and does clip highlights, and clip them hard, if the exposure is not controlled.


Workflow-wise, I think Red has a leg up on the competition among data-based cameras. (Cineform too, but not in a 4k camera currently AFAIK.) The artifacts from good compression are very negligible, yet they can make the workflow a lot more practical.

Well, the only current cameras that I would consider data-based are Red, Dalsa, and Silicon Imaging. Of those, I would say that Silicon Imaging has what is arguably the most complete and finished workflow. It has a built in color management system that allows looks to be created (they even have a built in version of Speedgrade right in the camera software) that are carried through post in metadata (something talked about but thus far not delivered by Red), it has real time debayering and color implementations (thanks to its use of and alliance with Cineform), and it implements in Premiere Pro on the PC everything that Red has promised (but not yet delivered) with Apple - and has done all this for at least a year and a half. I would say that Dalsa has a very complete workflow as well. Although it's not designed for desktop do-it-yourselfers, that doesn't make it any less polished. For the market Dalsa is trying to appeal to, the use of a Codex recording device is not out of line - and it provides raw capture and transcoding to Quicktime and Avid compatible files, as well as viewing copies, right in the box - and almost in real time. That's a pretty sophisticated approach, even if it doesn't happen to run on a MacBook Pro.


So for data-centric digital cinema cameras, I think it will be very hard to compete with Red.

Only if you're talking about the low budget market. I'm not sure I agree with that statement if you're talking about the entire movie-making universe.


I don't see Arri competing on price or workflow, so they have to really excel in image quality.

And they very well might.

[Graeme Nattress]

Are you implying that movies shot on the genesis won't hold up on a 1080p HDTV?
Maybe I'm reading this statement wrong

The only images from the Genesis I've seen on my monitors here were terrible, and probably not representative of the camera's true quality as I saw Panavision project at 2k in their display trailer.

And of course, beauty is the in the eye of the beholder....

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

I agree with your statement that 8K on 8K screen looks much better then 8K scaled to 4K
I guess our eyes have much better pixel combining capability then the best scaling algorithm.

You were experimenting with 4K to 2K scaling. I see there is a new way to do it in REDAlert.
What is your experience with it?

The new scaling direct from 4k works rather well, and also works well with a high OLPF compensation too, to make a very sharp image. The code is still in development, but should be very good / fast indeed when done. I think it's very nice now though...

My issue with scaling down is that you've got to balance three requirements:

lack of aliasing
ringing / halos
resolution

in your filter design. We all know nearest neighbour downscaling makes for very sharp images without halos or ringing, but highly aliased. Gaussian makes for no aliasing, no halos or ringing, but low resolution. All other filters trade that lack of halos or ringing for increased resolution while trying to keep aliasing down.

Graeme

[M Most]

The only images from the Genesis I've seen on my monitors here were terrible, and probably not representative of the camera's true quality as I saw Panavision project at 2k in their display trailer.

And of course, beauty is the in the eye of the beholder....


If you've watched any number of television series (Night Stalker, What About Brian, and currently Samantha Who? and Cashmere Mafia) you've seen Genesis images that "hold up" just fine on any HD monitor. Not to mention the numerous features shot with it (Click, Apocalypto, Flyboys, and Walk Hard are some of the better examples), all of which are just fine in their video releases.

Honestly, Graeme, Red has a great product. But the Genesis has been proven many times over, and its images have been scrutinized by some of the most discerning and demanding eyes in the world. To imply that the images it has thus far created are sub par flies in the face of the evidence. One doesn't have to discredit others to validate one's own product. We already get enough of that with presidential candidates.

[Graeme Nattress]

Nope, never seen any of them. The only Genesis footage I've seen was in Panavisions's trailer at Cinegear, and that looked great. The only DPX (and hence ability to scrutinize here) I've seen was from CML and that was not nice, with awful clipped blacks, but I have no idea how that image was made, and hence my comment that it's unrepresentative.

I have not implied anything at all, other than saying the exact words I have written. I am not discrediting the Genesis, as based upon Panavision's own presentation, the image was great. I am saying that the only DPX I have access to from that camera was not nice, and given my previous, but limited exposure to footage, was totally un-representative.

My comment about beauty is saying that of course I like the way that RED's pixels look given my deep involvement with the RAW development of said pixels - in other words, I'm biassed.

Graeme

[M Most]

I am not discrediting the Genesis, as based upon Panavision's own presentation, the image was great. I am saying that the only DPX I have access to from that camera was not nice, and given my previous, but limited exposure to footage, was totally un-representative.

My comment about beauty is saying that of course I like the way that RED's pixels look given my deep involvement with the RAW development of said pixels - in other words, I'm biassed.


Fair enough. ;-)

[Graeme Nattress]

Thanks for making me explain what I was saying so that it was clear.

Graeme

[Chris Parker]

Well, let's hope that cameras that are over 100 grand, and in some cases approaching 200 grand have better images than a 20-thousand dollar camera. If they don't...it's over.

ARRI, Panavision, etc. are not in this market to sell 4,000 cameras. They want to service the highest end of film production.

I have a sneaking suspicion though that RED has changed the game forever. Sure, ARRI will still be there. So will Panavision. I am just not so sure that many of their previous stongholds will continue to shoot exclusively with their products.

Where I am from, almost ALL commercials were shot with ARRIs 5 years ago. Now, MOST of them are shot with ARRIs. Next year at this time, I bet about HALF of them will be shot with ARRIs. The year after (when ARRI's new 'best-ever camera according to them' comes out), many people may simply be accustomed to making commercials on RED, and they will not pay the extra money needed to go back to ARRI for their digital needs.

RED has turned this business upside down, and I think it's absolutely incredible. As long as the REDs don't have a hidden achilles heel that hasn't surfaced yet, I would say they are well on the road to being the leader (or at least one of the leaders) in the digital cinema camera world.

[Mark L. Pederson]

ARRI, Panavision, etc. are not in this market to sell 4,000 cameras. They want to service the highest end of film production.

I have a sneaking suspicion though that RED has changed the game forever. Sure, ARRI will still be there. So will Panavision. I am just not so sure that many of their previous stongholds will continue to shoot exclusively with their products.

100% agree.

[Steve Sanacore]

This is very funny! If I were the Arri CEO I'm sure I'd *want* to have the best camera too...

Presumably they will unveil something stupidly expensive that does 6K? If you read their newsletters you can see they're already talking about 6K a lot...

Seeing as Clairmont lists the D-20 as $3000 per day (vs the F23 as $3200 per day), I don't think I'll be making much use of an Arri D-30 or whatever they'll call it...

Bruce Allen
www.boaicnema.com

Maybe 6K could replace IMAX, but I thought 4K is already enough resolution for that too. But one thing is for sure, unless ARRI comes up with a super-duper raw compression scheme, what can possibly stream, record and store all that data?

If the industry does go 100% digital, then ARRI will have to come up with a 4K camera at a reasonable price if they want to compete with Sony and Panasonic down the road.

But RED is years ahead of them all right now.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Maybe 6K could replace IMAX, but I thought 4K is already enough resolution for that too. But one thing is for sure, unless ARRI comes up with a super-duper raw compression scheme, what can possibly stream, record and store all that data?

If the industry does go 100% digital, then ARRI will have to come up with a 4K camera at a reasonable price if they want to compete with Sony and Panasonic down the road.

But RED is years ahead of them all right now.

Don't get me wrong I think Red is a great camera but I certainly wouldn't agree that it's years ahead of Panavision, Sony or even ARRI.

[GlennChan]

Glenn, have you worked with any underexposed (intentionally or otherwise) Red footage? Or some footage from the F23 under similar conditions?
Hmm this is based off what I've seen of the stuff posted on cinematography.net. As Graeme points it, it's not necessarily representative. / indicative of what happens in real situations.


Only if you're talking about the low budget market. I'm not sure I agree with that statement if you're talking about the entire movie-making universe.
Hmm perhaps I am a little cynical about how cheap producers are.

In Canada, there are (low-budget) TV series shot on HDV. Sometimes:
A- Producers will try to "save" money.
B- The image quality of HDV is good enough.

Certainly there are many different tiers in the industry... but I think price will be a factor for many segments of the industry. Even on well-funded American TV series, it seems some productions shoot super 16 instead of 35... even there price matters.

[M Most]

Hmm this is based off what I've seen of the stuff posted on cinematography.net. As Graeme points it, it's not necessarily representative. / indicative of what happens in real situations.

I would go further and say it's almost never representative.



Certainly there are many different tiers in the industry... but I think price will be a factor for many segments of the industry. Even on well-funded American TV series, it seems some productions shoot super 16 instead of 35... even there price matters.

True, although there aren't many. And of those, some actually choose 16mm intentionally for either practical (more compact camera size, potentially longer running time per mag) or creative (grittier look) reasons. "Friday Night Lights" is a good example of this.

[Dj Joofa]

If you really think about it... I think even there Nyquist has been violated.

At 60 cycles/degree, it doesn't quite seem possible to have zero ringing, little aliasing (*depends on what you're looking at), AND resolve 60 cycles/degree. Theoretically, you can't have all three at once.

In any case it's a moot point... human vision doesn't follow Nyquist.

The actual resolving power of human eye is quite less than 60 cpd. I don't remember the actual numbers but luminance is about close to 9-10 cpd under normal illumination, red-green less than that, and blue-yellow even further less, perhaps as less as 4 cpd according to some studies (if I remember correctly)

Human vision does suffer from aliasing. You can search on the internet for reference images. The sampling (spatial position) of L,M,S photoreceptors (responsible for red, green, and blue dominant signals) is not uniform -- hence, it is kind of stochastic sampling, that is why eye has such excellent noise immunity. Stochastic sampling results in lowering of several objectionable patterns and noise, which to a uniform sampler such as a CMOS/CCD grid would be visible.

A prime example of aliasing / frequency limitation type mechanism going on the eye is that the photoreceptors responsible for blue-dominant signal are much less in number than the red and green ones, whose numbers are pretty close to each other. It is a great design, because of reasons such as diffraction at blue wavelength, the "blue image" is already very blurry, and there is no reason for over-sampling which would have happened if the number of blue cones were the same as red/green.

In addition, one reason we do not see so much of these low-level image processing issues is that a lot of it is filtered by mid and higher-level vision processes. Cognitive vision and perception is a much-explored area but our understanding of this area of vision is not as good as the lower-level processes going on in immediate neighborhood of the retina, which are responsible for image processing issues such as sampling, noise, aliasing, etc.

[David Birdy]

I do no know of any producer or production company that is NOT constantly trying to reduce costs, (after 20 years of this I wish I did know a few!)

If we can define and refine a good work flow to go along with this camera Producers will embrace this new product...by the thousands..

[Chris Parker]

of course they want to reduce costs....but only to a point. they won't go out and crew up with joe schmo as their keys just to save a few extra thousand ON A SHOOT WHERE THEY CAN AFFORD to hire proper crew.

same goes for gear. they won't rent someone they don't trust for their RED camera just to save a few hundred dollars when they have 50 grand invested invested in art department/talent/fx,etc.

[M Most]

I do no know of any producer or production company that is NOT constantly trying to reduce costs, (after 20 years of this I wish I did know a few!)


Cost reduction is desirable, but for network television programs it is only acceptable if the quality remains the same, production time is not impacted at all, AND:

1. Daily materials are available in a time frame not exceeding that which is currently in place. That means color corrected picture and sync sound for print takes on DVCam (and on occasion, digitized files) for editorial, multiple DVD's for various producers, the director, the DP, and various production company and studio execs, and on occasion, HDCam or DigiBeta tapes for network promo, and Windows Media files for electronic distribution. All of this needs to be ready by about 9 or 10 AM, assuming about 2 hours of material.

2. Assemblies can be done as efficiently as they are now (as little as 6 hours turnaround for a 1 hour show).

3. Color correction can be done in real time, with layoff to tape for deliverable creation. This process should take no more than 10-12 hours for a one hour show.

For television, the only workflow that can accomplish all of what I've listed is an HD videotape based workflow, as it allows most of what is listed above to happen in real time, in the format already needed for the deliverable product. So when and if television series decide to shoot with a camera like the Red, the likely workflow will be to get the material to a high quality video master immediately and proceed with post in exactly the same manner as a show currently shot on film. That's the only thing that really makes sense at the moment.

[Tai Wah Lim]

3. Color correction can be done in real time, with layoff to tape for deliverable creation. This process should take no more than 10-12 hours for a one hour show.

For television, the only workflow that can accomplish all of what I've listed is an HD videotape based workflow, as it allows most of what is listed above to happen in real time, in the format already needed for the deliverable product. So when and if television series decide to shoot with a camera like the Red, the likely workflow will be to get the material to a high quality video master immediately and proceed with post in exactly the same manner as a show currently shot on film. That's the only thing that really makes sense at the moment.

mmost,

I am new in post workflow, how do they do color correction in real time for tape? Or what are the tools needed to do color correction in real time for tape recording? From my limited understanding, most correct correction is now done in DI?

Lim

[Dylan Reeve]

For television a lot of color correction is done with tape-to-tape systems like DiVinci. The corrections are done against images from a tape with an EDL used to store the cut points. Then for output the source tape is played through the system, and the output recorded - the corrections are applied to the video as it passes through and are recorded to the graded master. In other cases there may be a sort of tape/DI hybrid. All the images are captured into a system that can output the captured video, with grade effects, in realtime to a tape with no render delay.

I've worked around both these workflows and they are really good and really quick. For film, where there is more time and money and less finished minutes, there is more luxury to bet more in depth (plus, once you get to 2k or 4k you don't really have realtime tape anyway).

[Petr Dvorak]

"vaporware" fever is here :shiftyph34r: :biggrin:

[Tai Wah Lim]

For television a lot of color correction is done with tape-to-tape systems like DiVinci. The corrections are done against images from a tape with an EDL used to store the cut points. Then for output the source tape is played through the system, and the output recorded - the corrections are applied to the video as it passes through and are recorded to the graded master. In other cases there may be a sort of tape/DI hybrid. All the images are captured into a system that can output the captured video, with grade effects, in realtime to a tape with no render delay.

I've worked around both these workflows and they are really good and really quick. For film, where there is more time and money and less finished minutes, there is more luxury to bet more in depth (plus, once you get to 2k or 4k you don't really have realtime tape anyway).

thanks Dylan.

[J.D. Frey]

That could be tricky. As I mentioned in an earlier post that before each camera ships an extensive calibration is done to reverse the effects of dark currents and non-uniform sensor behavior to uniform light exposures. Every sensor has different masks for these. This calibration data has to be some how applied to the signal coming out of the sensor, either in-camera before output, or off-line processing on your computer. I do not know how Red would handle this situation.

So it's not something they could do in-house. Of course I guess by that time- buying a RED TWO would be the upgrade... and hopefully it would have a similar form factor to the RED ONE.

J.D.

[Dj Joofa]

So it's not something they could do in-house. Of course I guess by that time- buying a RED TWO would be the upgrade... and hopefully it would have a similar form factor to the RED ONE.

J.D.

One way to do this would be as already suggested by somebody on this forum is a full board swap instead of just sensor swap, so that all components required for calibration, clocks, pipelining etc., come with it.