EPIC - ARRI, SIDE BY SIDE FACTS.

[Brandon J.F.]

I have to say that this is a dark moment for me.

Jim

This reminds me of conversations I would see online ~10 years ago about how 1080p was just way too much for home viewing and it would never catch on. I could name a couple people, still working today and quite successfully, that swore to me 1080p was going nowhere for home viewing.

People will come around and then it will just seem obvious.

[Deanan]

By which I mean, I'm not fully convinced that all TV shows have to be shot in 4K. I'm sorry, that's just my opinion... and it may change in the coming years. But having just shot three seasons of "United States of Tara" for Showtime on the Genesis camera, I really don't think many people will be screaming to see it in 4K ten years from now - not enough people were screaming to see it now, which is why it has been cancelled. It's a domestic drama-comedy of people talking in kitchens and bedrooms, and half the time, I had diffusion on the lens to flatter the actors. It just wasn't a show that demanded 65mm image quality.

It's easier to say that in hindsight. There's alot people talking in the Sopranos but what if they'd shot the first season on HDcam? In hindsight that would be a mistake. But what we're talking about here is foresight and doing so because it's a viable option.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

It's easier to say that in hindsight. There's alot people talking in the Sopranos but what if they'd shot the first season on HDcam? In hindsight that would be a mistake. But what we're talking about here is foresight and doing so because it's a viable option.

What if they accidentally taped over their master tapes like early episodes of Dr. Who, Lets get our priorities in order here, the fact that much of The Simpsons isn't in HD or 4k doesn't stop me from watching or enjoying them. There are worse things to worry about then oh we should have shot that on Red MX, what happens 30 years from now when 4k is a mistake? Maybe we should all shoot 65mm film for everything.

[paulherrin]

i hate to break it to you jim, but your legacy is a lot bigger than whether or not you were outspoken about 4k+ distribution for the future. you said it yourself, and we all know, it's going to happen. how much should we worry if we don't all see the same timeline right now? you've positively affected a lot of people, that's obvious. and there's probably some that are not so obvious nobody will ever even know about. that's cooler than 4k... and you know that's saying a lot.

[Jannard]

Most compare EPIC with 65mm.

Jim

What if they accidentally taped over their master tapes like early episodes of Dr. Who, Lets get our priorities in order here, the fact that much of The Simpsons isn't in HD or 4k doesn't stop me from watching or enjoying them. There are worse things to worry about then oh we should have shot that on Red MX, what happens 30 years from now when 4k is a mistake? Maybe we should all shoot 65mm film for everything.

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Do you think they'll ever rescan Jurassic Park and re-render the VFX in 4k with improved assets? God bless you, you are dead wrong. ;)

I dunno, using today's computing power, those renders wouldn't take that long, even at 4K. I'm sure a shot that might have taken 36 hours per frame to render in 1993 could be done in a fraction of the time 20 years later. Yes, Jurassic park was made almost 20 years ago...shit.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Are you talking about today or tomorrow? Actually, posts like this really make me think that what we are doing is a waste of time. I just don't think people think in terms of tomorrow.

I am talking about not just tomorrow- but possibly for all time.

Basically I am asking what resolution regular folks can see on what size display.

Frankly Jim - the fact that your cameras can raise this question is a perverse compliment.

"If you can afford it"? What can you shoot that is cheaper? A DSLR?

Jim

Well, yeah!

Look, I love DSLR's because for a pittance you can shoot ... as opposed to not shooting because you can't buy/rent a Red One or Red Epic.

They suck compared to Red's cameras of course- but you guys aren't handing out Epics for $1699.

There are a lot of people who simply can't come up with the extra $56301 for an Epic M kit. (Having worked with Ketch's Epic, I'm constantly angry because I am one of them ... I love that camera.)

I don't know what the final price for Epic S will be, but there will be tons of folks who can't find that money either. Just like people can't afford Sony's F3.

That's why I've asked you to consider building a Scarlet S35 camera. You've read it before ... 3K S35 sensor reusing EPIC mount plates, other wise the same as the Scarlet Cinema.

At this point I'm pretty clear that isn't interesting to you, perhaps because you perceive it as a step backwards. It is actually a huge step forwards for everyone shooting 1080p (or lower resolution!) Rec709 camcorders.

Its entirely possible that, interesting or not, it might not make business sense for any of a thousand reasons.

I do think it would be interesting to LOTS of film makers though. I fundamentally believe that 3K RAW is a good technology that has at least some future. Its not 5K RAW, but its a damn sight better than 1080p h.264!

There is a lot of technology there that ordinary run of the mill film makers need aside from resolution. I truly believe that REDCODE is the best technology you've delivered, followed, but not surpassed, by HDRx.

If you built it, I'd expect to see it sell in volumes a lot like the 7D. ( hundreds of thousands of units I believe, but you are certainly better informed than I am. ) A lot of them would sell into indie markets - people that aren't buying one of your cameras otherwise because price is a dominant factor.

I think that "TV" and other properly funded shows are more likely to buy into Epic.

2k is not sufficient once we get to wall sized displays.
2k has always been the bare MINIMUM for theatrical experience.

By the same token, why bother shooting 35mm or 65mm if 16mm is passable?

Whose wall are you talking about!

2K is a good theatrical experience for most film goers ... and even small theatrical screens are much larger than any wall in my house!

This brings me back to my question - can the audience appreciate the difference? I think everyone here can, so its almost pointless to argue amongst ourselves. The question is what they can see, not what we can see.

Secondly, using your own logic, why shoot 35mm when 65mm is clearly better? Heck, why shoot 65mm when IMAX is better than that? By your reasoning, every film should be shot in IMAX.

As to why you would shoot 35mm or 65mm if 16mm works ... well sometimes you shoot 16mm! Sometimes 35mm is what doesn't work.

Traditionally one reason is that the production needs a smaller camera package ... well Epic answers that, so now I think that shows that need a small package won't have to resort to 16mm- I can use a 35mm digital system.

In some cases though, the show is after a look. 16, 35 and 65 look different. To some degree you can fiddle with these formats in post and make one look more like another ... but if you want it to look like 16mm then shooting 35mm and fiddling in post is silly when you could just shoot 16mm.

[Jannard]

If 4K ends up being a mistake... 1080P will be terminal.

Jim

What if they accidentally taped over their master tapes like early episodes of Dr. Who, Lets get our priorities in order here, the fact that much of The Simpsons isn't in HD or 4k doesn't stop me from watching or enjoying them. There are worse things to worry about then oh we should have shot that on Red MX, what happens 30 years from now when 4k is a mistake? Maybe we should all shoot 65mm film for everything.

[Jannard]

Don't bother getting an EPIC. Buy a DSLR and suffer the consequences.

Jim

I am talking about not just tomorrow- but possibly for all time.

Basically I am asking what resolution regular folks can see on what size display.

Frankly Jim - the fact that your cameras can raise this question is a perverse compliment.




Well, yeah!

Look, I love DSLR's because for a pittance you can shoot ... as opposed to not shooting because you can't buy/rent a Red One or Red Epic.

They suck compared to Red's cameras of course- but you guys aren't handing out Epics for $1699.

There are a lot of people who simply can't come up with the extra $56301 for an Epic M kit. (Having worked with Ketch's Epic, I'm constantly angry because I am one of them ... I love that camera.)

I don't know what the final price for Epic S will be, but there will be tons of folks who can't find that money either. Just like people can't afford Sony's F3.

That's why I've asked you to consider building a Scarlet S35 camera. You've read it before ... 3K S35 sensor reusing EPIC mount plates, other wise the same as the Scarlet Cinema.

At this point I'm pretty clear that isn't interesting to you, perhaps because you perceive it as a step backwards. It is actually a huge step forwards for everyone shooting 1080p (or lower resolution!) Rec709 camcorders.

Its entirely possible that, interesting or not, it might not make business sense for any of a thousand reasons.

I do think it would be interesting to LOTS of film makers though. I fundamentally believe that 3K RAW is a good technology that has at least some future. Its not 5K RAW, but its a damn sight better than 1080p h.264!

There is a lot of technology there that ordinary run of the mill film makers need aside from resolution. I truly believe that REDCODE is the best technology you've delivered, followed, but not surpassed, by HDRx.

If you built it, I'd expect to see it sell in volumes a lot like the 7D. ( hundreds of thousands of units I believe, but you are certainly better informed than I am. ) A lot of them would sell into indie markets - people that aren't buying one of your cameras otherwise because price is a dominant factor.

I think that "TV" and other properly funded shows are more likely to buy into Epic.



Whose wall are you talking about!

2K is a good theatrical experience for most film goers ... and even small theatrical screens are much larger than any wall in my house!

This brings me back to my question - can the audience appreciate the difference? I think everyone here can, so its almost pointless to argue amongst ourselves. The question is what they can see, not what we can see.

Secondly, using your own logic, why shoot 35mm when 65mm is clearly better? Heck, why shoot 65mm when IMAX is better than that? By your reasoning, every film should be shot in IMAX.

As to why you would shoot 35mm or 65mm if 16mm works ... well sometimes you shoot 16mm! Sometimes 35mm is what doesn't work.

Traditionally one reason is that the production needs a smaller camera package ... well Epic answers that, so now I think that shows that need a small package won't have to resort to 16mm- I can use a 35mm digital system.

In some cases though, the show is after a look. 16, 35 and 65 look different. To some degree you can fiddle with these formats in post and make one look more like another ... but if you want it to look like 16mm then shooting 35mm and fiddling in post is silly when you could just shoot 16mm.

[paulherrin]

there's your side by side.