Epic is the Ultimate "Film Slayer".... IF

[Steve White]

Yeah. So when a photosite gets smaller, the total charge it can hold is also reduced, decreasing the dynamic range of the individual site. However, the decreased area also decreases the intensity, so this shouldn't be too much of a problem.

The other thing to keep in mind, especially with regards to CMOS sensors, is that there are a number of transistors on each photo-site, which decrease the fill factor (photosensitive area)/(total photosite area).

Moore's law has largely been successful due to the shrinking of transistor sizes. Just because you shrink a photo-site doesn't mean you actually shrunk the photosensitive area. In fact, if your transistor sizes shrunk significantly, it may be possible to actually decrease the total photosite area, but increase the photosensitive area.

Not only would the chip have a higher fill factor, but it could also have higher dynamic range per photosite.

[Brook Willard]

Graeme... save us...

[Steven Caesare]

Yeah. So when a photosite gets smaller, the total charge it can hold is also reduced, decreasing the dynamic range of the individual site. However, the decreased area also decreases the intensity, so this shouldn't be too much of a problem.

The other thing to keep in mind, especially with regards to CMOS sensors, is that there are a number of transistors on each photo-site, which decrease the fill factor (photosensitive area)/(total photosite area).

Moore's law has largely been successful due to the shrinking of transistor sizes. Just because you shrink a photo-site doesn't mean you actually shrunk the photosensitive area. In fact, if your transistor sizes shrunk significantly, it may be possible to actually decrease the total photosite area, but increase the photosensitive area.

Not only would the chip have a higher fill factor, but it could also have higher dynamic range per photosite.

Ok, I've contributed enough to the delinquency of this thread.

[Steve White]

Apparently I'm embarrassing myself? Never mind then.

[mezmo]

It seems to me that Epic is the perfect storm to finally put chemical film out to pasture, in much the same way that high-end DSLRs did over the last few years for stills. It will shoot a "real" 4K, RAW, s35mm, cine glass, overcranking onboard, solid-state or harddrive recording, etc.

The ONE THING Epic needs to do in order to fulfill it's destiny, though, is match (or come close to) chemical film's dynamic range. Aside from nostalgia, DR is really the last leg film is standing on right now, IMO.

Similar to Clinton '92's precept "It's the economy, stupid," the Epic team should have a poster on the wall reading, "It's the dynamic range, stupid." :weight_lift:

With a sensor upgrade next year, I think Red One will do the same.

Hi Tom,
It's important to remember that EPIC like RED will be Digital camera,
not a Film camera, it will have an EPIC look, not a film look.
Film is Film and Digital is Digtal. EPIC will never achieve a Film look
because it does not have Film running thru it.
People who want to shoot Film will not use EPIC they will use film for
that film look. For many reasons, not just DR.
I don't know why Digital has to replace film? Would the only reason be
that YOU happen to own a Digital Camera called RED?
I shoot Stills on Film and Stills on Digital and I shoot Films on Film
and Films on Digital. And heaven forbit, on odd occasions I mix and match. So please don't inform the Digital Police, cause I'm sure your a member.
Mezmo

[Harry Clark]

I thought Red One was the Ultimate Film Slayer?
Oh well...
Cheers,
Harry

[Christoffer Glans]

I thought Red One was the Ultimate Film Slayer?

The characteristics of film will be a feature people will want even after digital cinema surpass it's dynamic range and quality.
Why do some keep shooting with 16mm or even 8mm? Because of it's unique quality, even if it's technicaly worse then most digital cinema cameras.

People need to realize that there is a difference between reaching the same quality of 35mm film and slay it's format. 35mm will not die for at least another 20 years, even if digital cameras gets better and better.
It will not die with a bang but with a whimper... when the labs stop making 35mm stock.

[Tom Lowe]

And heaven forbit, on odd occasions I mix and match. So please don't inform the Digital Police, cause I'm sure your a member.
Mezmo

Lol, yes, I have my badge, pepper spray and official arm band. :)

[Brook Willard]

Alright, Epic would be the """ultimate film slayer""" if...

It has a usable dynamic range in excess of 15 stops.
It has a 4:3 sensor.
It has a true metered rating of 500 ASA.
It resolves a true 4K from the 5K RAW file [which I expect it to].
It is capable of 180fps onboard using the full sensor [though 100fps is nothing to sneeze at... I'm excited].
It is designed to ergonomically match or exceed the Arri 235.

I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting about. The thing is, this is the reality. Until a digital camera can claim all of these features, there will always be distinct measurable advantages to shooting film. There will also be disadvantages. Even when a digital camera gets to this level, most productions will continue to shoot film.

There is no critical threshold that a camera's features/abilities can pass that will suddenly cause everybody to abandon film for it.

Ultimately, even if the Epic doesn't have these features [and I'll admit that some of them are downright ridiculous requests to make in 2008], it will not "fail". It will succeed in ways beyond that of the RED ONE. It'll be another great new tool that will do great new things. And when RED introduces the 6K 8 months after the Epic ships, we'll all be arguing about whether or not that camera will finally put film to bed.

Film will outlive everybody on these boards. It doesn't matter what "everybody" shoots, it doesn't matter what Storaro or Soderbergh shoot, it matters what you and/or your clients shoot.

[mezmo]

Hi Brook,
Even if Digital puts Film to bed, people like me
will wake it up again when we want to shoot film. It's a matter of choice and I alone make that descision on films I shoot and produce. As do 90%
of DP's working in the industry today. If they don't, they are not DP's IMHO.

A lot of film bashing comments on this forum do the RED camera system a huge damage when Pro DP's visit here for info and tech comments on RED ONE and new products in the pipeline like EPIC

There is a negative attitude towards the established film community on this
forum and it's obvious to these guys as they visit reduser. net.
Most I know log off as fast as they log on, or just don't bother with the site
after reading some of the many sub standard threads posted here.

RED's fast getting a reputation as the 'camera for kids' or the 'camera for
wankers' as fanboys spew out the usual 'film is dead', or other assorted film
slayer comments on a regular basis.
The small handfull of well known DP's with the courage to post here is evidence of this. And that's a pity as many here could benefit if more people from the established community were to contribute
with serious technicial discusssion and suggestions on things like design
and building of a new higher spec RED camera system like EPIC.

I was hoping we could get away from some of the digital vs film discussion
for a moment at least on EPIC threads.
Alas, I'm here again making the same old points, over and over.
I'm tired of all this and hey, it's time to put me to bed.
Nighty nite. Mezmo