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 :)

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

Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
8,520
Reaction score
1
Points
0
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.
 
OK RED will have 5K D-Camera named EPIC

wait a min.......

Ikegami and NHK had a 7K UHD camera back in 5 years ago.

STRL , a research Labs under NHK.

I was there 5 years ago as a witness of this Camera born.

Cheers,

Stewart
HKG - CHINA
 
So Tom,

You say that most movies from the past century won't hold up at even 1080p.

Does that mean that their real resolution is actually lower than 1080p?
 
I'd agree with Tom on the old film resolution front.

As for Epic, there are a few things I think the camera "needs" in order to be a "film killer" [man I hate that term].

  • Dynamic range well in excess of 11 stops.
  • Higher sensitivity/lower noise, particularly in tungsten-lit conditions.
  • A completely redesigned camera body.

Resolution? Pff. The RED already out-resolves just about every film stock as is. Going to 5K almost seems like overkill... particularly if I pay for sensitivity as a result of the smaller pixels.

That said, the Mysterium sensor design is probably three years old at this point. I'm sure a lot has changed. Just look at the D3's sensor!

Anyway, those are my three big hopes. I wouldn't mind a four-perf sensor, but I'd be willing to bet it's too late in the game for that. I just love the irony of a camera named "Epic" that can't take proper advantage of anamorphic lenses. :)
 
NoahK said:
Also the post workflow will really need to be simple and bullet-proof in order to truly cause a stir.

Noah
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that by the time the camera ships in ~mid 2009, the RED's workflow will be fairly awesome, complete and accepted. The Epic's workflow is just a slightly higher data-rate version of that workflow! I bet it'll be a simple transition.
Jaime Vallés said:
How so?
Click to expand...

I may go into details at some point, but I'll just let it be for now.
 
I second the bullet proof workflow...I like the current workflow, but its far from perfect, and still needs some bugs worked out of it.
 
Think of what happened with P2 cameras. They were scary as all hell to lots of houses at first. Then by the time the 2nd and 3rd P2-based cameras came out... it was bulletproof. Now people don't even think about it.
 
Brook Willard said:
I'd agree with Tom on the old film resolution front.

As for Epic, there are a few things I think the camera "needs" in order to be a "film killer" [man I hate that term].

  • Dynamic range well in excess of 11 stops.
  • Higher sensitivity/lower noise, particularly in tungsten-lit conditions.
  • A completely redesigned camera body.

Resolution? Pff. The RED already out-resolves just about every film stock as is. Going to 5K almost seems like overkill... particularly if I pay for sensitivity as a result of the smaller pixels.

That said, the Mysterium sensor design is probably three years old at this point. I'm sure a lot has changed. Just look at the D3's sensor!

Anyway, those are my three big hopes. I wouldn't mind a four-perf sensor, but I'd be willing to bet it's too late in the game for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you watch Blurays at 1080p, pixel for pixel, you can actually see the film grain all over the place. Some newer movies might hold up at 4K, but not many, and like we have discussed before, a lot of FX shots and DIs are bottlenecked at 2K.

I think the reason that Epic's 5K is exciting is that it will produce a "real" 4K. This below article mentions why...

The reasoning behind the Epic’s 5K sensor becomes clear: If a 4K sensor like the Mysterium yields 3.2K lines of resolution, that’s about 80% “spatial efficiency” (78% if you want to get picky about it). If the Epic’s 5K sensor works the same way, then it should resolve about 4K, allowing Epic shooters to say they’re working with a true 4K system with a reasonably straight face (grin).

LINK
Click to expand...

But like Brook said, if packing more photosites into a s35mm sensor means more noise, that's a tough trade off.

I don't know enough about dynamic range and CMOS sensors to have any idea HOW Red can increase DR, I just think that's really the last hurdle to get over before digital usurps chemical film for motion pictures.
 
Tom said:
Yeah, if you watch Blurays at 1080p, pixel for pixel, you can actually see the film grain all over the place. Some newer movies might hold up at 4K, but not many, and like we have discussed before, a lot of FX shots and DIs are bottlenecked at 2K.

I think the reason that Epic's 5K is exciting is that it will produce a "real" 4K. This below article mentions why...



But like Brook said, if packing more photosites into a s35mm sensor means more noise, that's a tough trade off.

I don't know enough about dynamic range and CMOS sensors to have any idea HOW Red can increase DR, I just think that's really the last hurdle to get over before digital usurps chemical film for motion pictures.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that the films look bad on blu-ray because of a lack of resolution in the original print? It could very well be that the transfer was bad. Some of these 1080p masters were done long ago before the technology was good. And there are still some really poorly done transfers like "Double Indemnity."

As per digital catching up with film: what film stock are you talking about? Most of the time when people talk about the DR of film they're talking about Vision 2 stock. But Kodak has replaced Vision 2 with Vision 3 which is even better than when it comes to DR and fine grain. Right now digital is working on catching up with last-gen film technology. It's going to be awhile before digital gets good enough to kill film. And digital still cameras still haven't caught up with film in terms of dyanmic range--although that hasn't kept them from taking over the photography market. I'm sure digital could eventually beat film in terms of latitude. But it could be awhile, especially if Kodak continues to come out with new revisions.

davide
 
I think having a rock solid camera that any assistant anywhere trained on Arris and Panaflexes can pick up and run with and not have to re-learn their jobs will bring about the rapid adoption. Producers will love the cost and the old school camera boys won't call bullsh!t. If they can mount their gak the way they want, that's all that really matters. Phat photosites might make the techs giddy, but it's all for nothing if nobody likes shooting with it.
 
I've heard it stated from reliable, film resources, that the average film print in your average cineplex even today is around 800 lines. Maybe even less once gate weave and projectionist focus error are factored in. Remember most movie theaters hire high school kids.
 
More pixels yeilds less image noise

More pixels yeilds less image noise

Brook Willard said:
Resolution? Pff. The RED already out-resolves just about every film stock as is. Going to 5K almost seems like overkill... particularly if I pay for sensitivity as a result of the smaller pixels.
Click to expand...

Tom said:
But like Brook said, if packing more photosites into a s35mm sensor means more noise, that's a tough trade off.
Click to expand...

Lakeview Productions said:
Yeah, smaller photosites don't excite me.
Click to expand...

Actually, one of the best ways to increase sensitivity and reduce noise is to *add* more pixels. In still cameras, the smallest photosites have the highest efficiency; most capture over twice as many photons as the same area of a sensor with larger photosites.

It's easy to see for yourself. Take a 1/1.7"-sized crop of a 12 MP APS-C and resample it next to a G9 using the same raw converter. The digicam will have *less* image noise.

Another example would be to compare a 450D-sized crop of the 5D and resample them to the same size, the smaller, denser photosites result in less image noise.

The DSLR with the lowest image noise right now is the 1Dsm3. It has many more and smaller pixels than the D3 or 1Dm3, but their greater total efficiency results in a higher total number of photons captured.

Add to that the fact that even the *same* amount of noise in a high-resolution image looks much better than a lower-resolution image. This demonstration shows how it more quickly resamples into a fine, smooth grey, whereas noise in a lower number of photosites is more visible.

People think smaller photosites are worse because they make flawed comparisons, such as viewing 100% pixel size instead of correctly resampling to the same resolution with a sinc algorithm (hint: nearest neighbor is evil), comparing different sensor sizes, or using different processing (two different raw conversion methods). For example, chroma desaturation in high ISO D3 make it appear to have lower read noise than it actually does.

So we can already be sure that EPIC will have less image noise than the RED ONE. The more pixels the better!

As for dynamic range, I will hold out hope for another full stop of measurable dynamic range some day. Watching live view on DSLR heat up to a noisy mess in less than an hour at less than 15 FPS really makes me appreciate how great a feat it is to get such low read noise in the RED ONE.
 
That's very interesting. I've never heard that argument before. So you are saying that given two sensors that are the same size and that process images the same way the one with MORE pixels will have LESS noise?

Everything I've experienced myself and have encountered in the work of others seems to work counter to your argument. You state that the 1DsMarkIII has the lowest noise of any DSLR, but isn't the Nikon D3 the current low noise king? It has half the photosites of the 1DsMarkIII and achieves lower noise with less severe noise reduction. I'm just pointing to one comparison here but there are far more on the net with the same conlcusions: http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml

In it Michael Reichman reiterates the point that I thought was common knowledge: "The 1D MKIII's sensor at 10MP is closer to the D3's 12MP than the 1Ds MKIII's 21MP, and the pixels of the Nikon are bigger, so theoretically of lower noise. The D3 is also closer in price to the 1D MKIII than to the 1Ds MKIII."

I thought that sensors with larger and fewer photosites were inherently less noisy than ones that are more denseley packed with smaller photosites. Isn't this why 12mp digicams are far noisier than 6mp digicams at high isos? Isn't this why Pentax had to reengineer the way their sensors worked in order to achieve the same level of noise in their 14mp K20d as they had in the 10mp K10d.

edit: I see that you are a reader of the Luminous Landscape so you are probably already familiar with the article I quoted. So I have a different question for you then: does the D300 have lower noise then the D3 then? You claim that people aren't resizing and resampling images properly when doing these tests. So why not try to compare images from cameras with the same number of photosites but in different sized sensors. I know for a fact that the images I get off my 6mp DSLR are far cleaner than those that I get off of my 6mp Canon Powershot. Would you attribute this to the dslr having heavier noise reduction? I always thought it was because the photosites in the dslr were larger and less densley packed therefore generating less heat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top