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

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.
 
Spiff said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, I've contributed enough to the delinquency of this thread.
 
Tom said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
mezmo said:
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
Click to expand...

Lol, yes, I have my badge, pepper spray and official arm band. :)
 
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.
 
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
 
Well, the sad truth is that ultimately, the economics of film are more likely to see its demise than its picture quality, which are unique and lovely. Right now, the main technical advantage that film has over digital is dynamic range -- and the fact that it is an "analog" imaging system, which has certain advantages and disadvantages in post workflows.

Now that I'm shooting a RED feature, I'm realizing that the whole RAW workflow is different that either film or videotape, and while it allows greater image quality than any HD videotape system (I think), the processing time for full 4K debayering means that most of the time in post until the final finishing (I'm talking about feature work where you may shoot twenty or forty hours of material for a 2-hour movie) everyone is working with lower-rez quicker debayered conversions which do not show off the ultimate quality. Now maybe that's similar to shooting in 35mm where you see DVD dailies until six months later when you do the final D.I. or neg cut, but I find that telecine transfers of 35mm, though expensive (especially if done to HD), still look better than some of the quick and dirty lower-rez conversions I'm seeing from RED RAW files. So I'm sort of trusting that since the image looks great on the set on an HD monitor (despite being a somewhat noisy & quick 720P debayered signal), and look great in the still frames I pull up from the RAW recordings, that they will look great when I do the final work in post. Sort of like when shooting features in 35mm...

Having just finished one 35mm feature before beginning this RED feature, all I can say is that both seem to produce lovely images but I certainly want to be able to shoot 35mm for a long time...
 
David how does that workflow... work? Can't you basically archive the files, then give dupes to some kid at a PC or MAC and tell him, "Process these files at 1080p with roughly these color settings..."

Are you finishing 4K for filmout? or 2K?
 
Glazarus said:
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.
Click to expand...
People still listen to vinyl records, too, and whether or not you wish to call that a "dead" format, it is far from the mainstream. So, then, when people say that film is going to "die," I think that what they mean is that the majority of people won't be shooting on it - in their independent work or on large-budget feature shows. Film probably won't truly be "dead" (as in, one won't have the ability to shoot on it at ALL) for decades, but I don't think that's what most people mean when they say things like digital technologies are in the process of killing film. Perhaps a better way to look at it would be to say that digital capture will unquestionably become the standard in our lifetime - whether or not you believe that means that film is "dead."

Brook Willard said:
Alright, Epic would be the """ultimate film slayer""" if...

It has a 4:3 sensor.
Click to expand...
If you're shooting with anamorphic lenses, yes. But the majority of productions are not shot that way, and any sensor ratio different than your shooting ratio means that you are throwing away resolution for no reason. Obviously people shoot in different resolutions so there is no one chip size which would be perfect for all - but a chip with a 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 ratio would better serve the community at large than a 4:3 one.

David Mullen ASC said:
So I'm sort of trusting that since the image looks great on the set on an HD monitor (despite being a somewhat noisy & quick 720P debayered signal), and look great in the still frames I pull up from the RAW recordings, that they will look great when I do the final work in post. Sort of like when shooting features in 35mm...
Click to expand...
I think it's just a workflow difference you have to get used to. I rather like it, because if you can get things looking great on those proxies, you realize they look nothing short of stellar when you relink them to their 4K counterparts. :-)
 
The other solution would be to have 16x9 sensors and make high-quality 1.34X anamorphic lenses for 2.40 without cropping. They could also be used on 3-perf movies.

I think the quality would be higher than 2X anamorphic and yet retain some of the optical characteristics of anamorphic, if front anamorphic elements are used, not rear-adaptors.

But I have a hard time convincing most companies of the need for 1.34X anamorphic lenses.
 
Now ya talkin David,
3 Perf Anamorphic or Digital Anamophic @ 2.40, I'm in.
Maybe some Russian glassmakers would be interested?
Mezmo
 
David Mullen ASC said:
But I have a hard time convincing most companies of the need for 1.34X anamorphic lenses.
Click to expand...
It's not a bad idea, but then you have to take a step back and ask yourself why you'd make the choice to shoot anamorphically in the first place. With the resolution of these cameras getting higher and higher each year, the original purpose behind shooting with such lenses (retaining maximum quality from the fixed size of the film negative) is rendered next to irrelevant. Indeed, the only reason to shoot anamorphically with digital technologies from this point forward is because of the resulting aesthetic that some find pleasing (elongated bokeh, distinctive flaring).

With that in mind, if you're using lenses which only distort the image by 1.34x instead of 2.0x, such effects are minimized (and thus, you defeat the purpose of shooting this way). So while I certainly agree that these kinds of lenses would help you squeeze every bit of resolution from your chip if your desired aspect ratio is "wider" than the native aspect of the sensor itself, I would argue that the resolution difference is not enough to warrant such a use, that you lose the ability to crop/reframe your image with such a strategy, and the more severe effects of shooting with traditional 2.0x anamorphic lenses are minimized, which is the reason you'd make such a choice in the first place. I think these are reasons why there would be little demand for such lenses.
 
Brook Willard said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would also add that the sensor should be balanced for 32K. That would make it "play nice" with more of the interior lit world.
 
Häakon said:
It's not a bad idea, but then you have to take a step back and ask yourself why you'd make the choice to shoot anamorphically in the first place. With the resolution of these cameras getting higher and higher each year, the original purpose behind shooting with such lenses (retaining maximum quality from the fixed size of the film negative) is rendered next to irrelevant. Indeed, the only reason to shoot anamorphically with digital technologies from this point forward is because of the resulting aesthetic that some find pleasing (elongated bokeh, distinctive flaring).

With that in mind, if you're using lenses which only distort the image by 1.34x instead of 2.0x, such effects are minimized (and thus, you defeat the purpose of shooting this way). So while I certainly agree that these kinds of lenses would help you squeeze every bit of resolution from your chip if your desired aspect ratio is "wider" than the native aspect of the sensor itself, I would argue that the resolution difference is not enough to warrant such a use, that you lose the ability to crop/reframe your image with such a strategy, and the more severe effects of shooting with traditional 2.0x anamorphic lenses are minimized, which is the reason you'd make such a choice in the first place. I think these are reasons why there would be little demand for such lenses.
Click to expand...

Hi Haakon,
Shooting 3 perf Anamorphic is very attractive in my view with a camera
like the Aaton Penolope, this camera will also have a 'slap on' 6K Digital
back slated for production next year. Shoot Film or Digital, the choice is yours, just change the Mag. (optical viewfinder included)
Also high quality wide screen acquisition is of great interest to
many people using Film or Digital and well worth looking into.
The main reason for shooting Anamorphic is more to do with image quality
and less to do with bokeh and vertical flaring.
The use of ALL Film and Digital's celluloid or sensor real estate without cropping is the order of the day here. In fact a 1.34x Anamorphic bottle could produce less bokeh/flaring
and max quality on 3 perf(film) or RED 2.40/16x9 sensor without the use of 4 perf (film)
or a D20/Dalsa full height sensor.
Cheers Mezmo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top