Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is 2/3" going to be enough?

Alex Mack said:
The miniprimes solution will get you the standard dof look of hollywood films, a 2.8-4 split (on s35).

It won't be the most shallow dof possible. Though this is not a problem. Dp's in fact often struggle to shoot f4, because they want more dof to make focusing easier on the puller.

To be sure, the miniprimes are as good as it gets with shallow dof on 2/3. (there is a c mount schneider optic which is 17mm f.95 for about 1300$) Otherwise to get shallower you will need s35. But consider a unique advantage on the 2/3 miniprime route is that you will have the same dof as a typical film - with two and a half stops more light! Thats 6 times the amount of light, leading to interesting focusing possibilities in darkly lit scenes. And supposedly there will be kit pricing on the 2/3 brain. I am personally interested in this brain for achieving the lightest weight 3d cam around (these things get heavy).
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info!

Next step: Red needs to actually come out with this thing!
 
Michael Olsen said:
To be perfectly accurate, it's 30p in a 60i wrapper (aka PsF). Still not wonderful.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's true, but it's also $2000, gives you shallow DOF, interchangeable lenses, 25-point autofocus, manual focus, etc.

For 2K, do you really think that's not going to eat up some of Scarlet's market?
 
Steve_Cox said:
Yeah, that's true, but it's also $2000, gives you shallow DOF, interchangeable lenses, 25-point autofocus, manual focus, etc.

For 2K, do you really think that's not going to eat up some of Scarlet's market?
Click to expand...

If Scarlet was priced at $2000 they would be at the same market.

And yes, it would eat into Scarlet market because Scarlet is not here yet.

I think the feature-set alone sets these two cameras far apart.
 
I don't think people with the budget for a $2000 camera system are going to be buying Scarlet anyway. Realistically it is 3 times the price.
 
In reply to the original poster...

Is 2/3" "good enough"?

I'll take a stand and say no, personally.
If I want to use my 50mm lens I want a damn 50mm not a 5mm.
I'm just not impressed with the 2/3 inch. sorry.
 
Sure it's good enough -- you've had 2/3" photography nominated for cinematography Oscars already. Anyone who thinks that a no-budget movie shot with a 35mm sensor is automatically going to look better than "Zodiac" or "Benjamin Button" is kidding themselves.
 
Justin Armstrong said:
In reply to the original poster...

Is 2/3" "good enough"?

I'll take a stand and say no, personally.
If I want to use my 50mm lens I want a damn 50mm not a 5mm.
I'm just not impressed with the 2/3 inch. sorry.
Click to expand...

If sensor size is your only criteria for picking a camera, I guess that makes sense. Otherwise... not so much. :001_huh:
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Sure it's good enough -- you've had 2/3" photography nominated for cinematography Oscars already. Anyone who thinks that a no-budget movie shot with a 35mm sensor is automatically going to look better than "Zodiac" or "Benjamin Button" is kidding themselves.
Click to expand...



Why would one with any budget choose 2/3 's ?

was it artistic choice ?
 
Cameras

Cameras

The first generation of digital cinema cameras were all based on 3 chip 2/3" sensors.

And it's still a very valid optical format.
 
chrislancaster said:
Why would one with any budget choose 2/3 's ?

was it artistic choice ?
Click to expand...

Yes. Both Benjamin Button and Zodiac - especially Zodiac - have distinctive night photography with realistic lighting, deep focus and lot of information in the shadows. Another director who has embraced 2/3" digital is Michael Mann. These images were simply not possible on film or large frame digital.

With the RED M-X's higher sensitivity, it is possible to capture the nightscapes and at the same time hold a relatively deep focus.

The idea of shooting deep focus in low light as well as have just enough control for a shallow depth of field makes the 2/3" a very desirable format. Do remember that while most DSLR users crave for shallow depth of field, deep focus is just as important a device. It could also be argued that deep focus is more naturalistic - the human eyes offer a deep depth of field too.
 
chrislancaster said:
Why would one with any budget choose 2/3 's ?

was it artistic choice ?
Click to expand...

Deeper focus in low-light
Smaller cameras
Smaller & faster zoom lenses

And compared to film cameras, longer recording times.

Keep in mind that a smaller sensor allows a smaller camera body with smaller optics. There are a lot of T/2.0 zooms for 2/3" cameras that are smaller and have a longer zoom range than any 35mm cine zoom. Not a lot of fast handholdable T/2.0 20:1 zooms made for 35mm movie cameras.
 
chrislancaster said:
Why would one with any budget choose 2/3 's ?

was it artistic choice ?
Click to expand...

It's absolutely a valid format. Even in mid 2010. I'm in pre-production on a feature right now and it's being shot on 2/3" cameras. This is a large production with a matching budget and 100% of the images for the film will be taken in on 2/3" cameras.

They could have realistically chose any camera format they wanted.

Most recently, I think Avatar reminded everyone, once again, how capable and versatile this format is. I predict a bit more life for this format.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Deeper focus in low-light
Smaller cameras
Smaller & faster zoom lenses

And compared to film cameras, longer recording times.
Click to expand...

One should also keep in mind that at the time "Zodiac" was made, the Viper was the best and, to some degree, the only camera of its kind available. It offered unprocessed (I won't call it raw, but at the time it was the closest thing to that) video, unmatched dynamic range (better than even some present day digital cinema cameras) and a proven track record. One must always consider the time frame when looking at things like digital camera choices because the landscape changes so rapidly. If the products available today, things like Red, F35, and Alexa had been available at the time of production of both Zodiac and Button, I'm not sure that the same choices would have been made. Personally, What surprised me was that Fincher and Harrris Savides (well, mostly Fincher from what I've been told) didn't shoot Zodiac on film. I've yet to understand what was really gained by shooting that particular picture on video.
 
chrislancaster said:
Why would one with any budget choose 2/3 's ?

was it artistic choice ?
Click to expand...

When Vidicon and Plumbicon tube cameras were the staple of TV production, there were 1" and 1-1/4" (s35 sized) cameras available but the 2/3" format predominated as a more practical and versatile all around production format. 16mm and later S16mm film were often the preferred choice for field production too until the introduction of Betacam and later digital formats.
2/3" is still by far the most predominant broadcast TV production format out there for everything from local news to live sports and dramatic series.
Even in feature films for theatrical release, S16mm film and 2/3" digital are valid, practical and aesthetically suitable choices for many productions. The Hurt Locker which won best picture and director Oscar this year is a perfect example, shot on S16mm film and 2/3" Phantom high speed cameras. AVATAR won best cinematography, with live action and motion capture elements shot on 2/3" digital cameras.

To have a 2/3" small form factor digital cinema camera with Scarlet's performance potential available for less than $10k is major step forward in my book. It is my preferred format for general motion production for all the reasons that David Mcmullen listed above.
 
M Most said:
One should also keep in mind that at the time "Zodiac" was made, the Viper was the best and, to some degree, the only camera of its kind available. It offered unprocessed (I won't call it raw, but at the time it was the closest thing to that) video, unmatched dynamic range (better than even some present day digital cinema cameras) and a proven track record. One must always consider the time frame when looking at things like digital camera choices because the landscape changes so rapidly. If the products available today, things like Red, F35, and Alexa had been available at the time of production of both Zodiac and Button, I'm not sure that the same choices would have been made. Personally, What surprised me was that Fincher and Harrris Savides (well, mostly Fincher from what I've been told) didn't shoot Zodiac on film. I've yet to understand what was really gained by shooting that particular picture on video.
Click to expand...

My guess is because digital typically captures more information in the shadows. Film is far superior when it comes to highlights (at least at the time), but digital is the choice for low-light photography. It allowed the likes of Fincher and Mann to film cities at night without additional lighting. Compared to film-shot nightscapes, this allowed for a distinctive, lively image. The 2/3" sensor also allowed for (relatively) deep focus at night. This was essential to the success of Zodiac and Collateral, which had night photography like no one had ever seen before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top