The Sphere Big Sky Camera - 18K 120fps RAW

[Zack Birlew]

Alright, another development in the beyond 8K movement! I know they've been working on this "Big Dome" in town here in Las Vegas for a while now so I'm interested to see how it all turns out as they now have their own 18K 120fps RAW camera system to go with it.

Now, this begs the question as to why we haven't seen more action on this front for standard format cameras. I've talked about it in other threads but if it's all about stitching sensors together, that can clearly be done but if, I suppose in this case as it's not clear in the article, it's simply making a larger sensor, why has there been no movement? Why does everything have to be slow trickled down to us when more advanced options are available?

As far as display, we have 8K televisions for $1,000, we have more movies using IMAX distribution and even filming on IMAX film cameras as it's been the only way to get true IMAX perspective and resolution. The Achtel 9x7 has been the closest thing to getting that size being a highly pixel dense sensor but without the perspective being APS-H format while the Alexa 65 is three stitched sensors to get a close 65mm perspective but only at 6K, the Blackmagic URSA 12K reaches 12K but only at Super 35mm, and the RED V-Raptor is two sensors to get 35mm 8K. All of these options are very nice for most productions but when you have the Achtel 9x7 and this Big Sky camera coming out with these ultra high end deliverable specifications, there's clearly a gap with what can be done and what is being done.

Argue about dynamic range and data costs all you want, major productions have been done and done more with less and by even more unwieldy methods, dynamic range can be made up for with lighting and data can be done with rendered proxy workflows and 4TB hard drives are often on sale for less than $100 while 8TB are coming down in price by the day. Granted with 32TB mags, the Big Sky will require extensive RAID setups to film a movie with but as with IMAX, not everything needs to be filmed in IMAX and not everything can be filmed with IMAX.

While there are certain productions that could benefit from an 18K solution today, there are many that would be fine even at 4K. We have the big "Film Look" with larger sensor cameras these days, we are out of the era of "sort-of cinematic" 1/3" SD and HDV 24P videotape, however, the look of those older formats still have their place as we've seen in "Found Footage" Horror films and documentary productions as well as the mobile phone cinema space. I, myself, have been intrigued by the 2/3" format that has been used in various high budget productions, most notably the latter two entries of the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy, and Sony's new HXC-FZ90 4K 2/3" broadcast camera announcement the other day was pretty exciting to hear as I thought 2/3" ultimately topped out at 1080P HD even with Blackmagic Design's broadcast cameras. While I am an advocate for more resolution, until there's a better beyond 4K 2/3" solution, I can already think of a project idea that would actually benefit from a cinematic style 2/3" format as it is over 35mm or even IMAX.

My main problem is that the advancement of progress is clearly being stifled and with RED as an example, I see no reason why they wouldn't already have had their own 65mm or even 70mm+ camera by now and Arri staying stagnant with 4K and 6K as long as they have, despite their innovative designs, is going to be it's own long term technical misfire as we're seeing that more can be done and 8K is not the end of the road. As far as product lines, we've seen it with RED's jumping from sensor design to sensor design and hearing both praise and complaints with comparisons drawn between sensors and generations and Arri has faced the same criticism and scrutiny as they strive for "Film Look" above everything. What I'm saying is, by all means, have your filmic sensors, have your cameras that people can buy if that's a priority, but also have your big special crazy cool 18K resolution models too for people that need or want them. We are at a point where such above board advancements can be used and refined for years to come and clearly there is a need today for specialty cameras and majorly high resolution solutions. If anybody from RED or Arri reads this, take note, the most exciting thing this year should not be the Blackmagic URSA 12K OLPF, Nikon Z8, a potential 8K Fuji GFX camera, a new Sony 4K 2/3" camera, and the Big Sky 18K camera, none of these are Arri or RED but they are all better solutions for what I want to do as a filmmaker.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Interesting. I wonder if the tech comes from manufacturers of astrophotography cameras for large telescopes. Do you know how much this thing costs?

Worth noting is that different film stocks have different looks. Kodak Gold 200 looks better than 5219, which looks better than Portra 400. Digital is, or can be, somewhere in the middle. You don't need to be an exact match for Gold 200 to be considered pleasing. Just let digital imagery be its own thing without forcing it. YMMV.

I think one reason why nobody is really making mainstream 16K cameras is that they will cost too much and might not be worth supporting. Just a guess. I have zero doubt that Red is working on a 12K-16K camera. They just don't need to rush it. Red is thinking more about sustained data rates and ASICS - they already have sensors available, which is the easy part. Optics in this case might not matter, if the aim is to project inside a dome which is basically a hemisphere.

Also, I have a technical objection: there is no such thing as "65mm perspective". I'll add that any project using digital IMAX will also be stopping down as much as they can. Red will never make a 65mm sensor. Their goal is a more flexible format like perhaps 44x33mm or 45x30mm.