Studying up? If Arri's system prevails there won't be much difference to the end user between the D20 and a 4-35, like you say.

It wouldn't surprise me if it moves in the direction of making digital magazines/backs like some of the high end SLRs that can have a film back or a digital back.

What do you define as long term future? Film acquisition and digital post will surely prevail for quite a while before digital acquisition becomes a major force. I thought that is what was being discussed, not digital intermediates or color correction, which is widely used and accepted. I don't care what's done to it before the final print is struck, if it originated on film, it is film.

quote:

Originally posted by Evan Kubota:
Studying up? If Arri's system prevails there won't be much difference to the end user between the D20 and a 4-35, like you say.

Arri's system won't be that cheap, nor readily available, for a very long time.

quote:

Originally posted by Evan Kubota:
It wouldn't surprise me if it moves in the direction of making digital magazines/backs like some of the high end SLRs that can have a film back or a digital back.

It's quite a bit more difficult to do this with a motion picture camera. Joe Dunton had an HD 2/3" CCD design for the Arri SR series of cameras a couple of years ago, but it never got off the ground to my knowledge.

To my understanding Arri decided that because these things are (And will probablly always be) for high end acquisition only, productions that would want them could rent additional units. Perhaps someone will fill that market in the future, like you say.

quote:

Originally posted by Evan Kubota:
What do you define as long term future? Film acquisition and digital post will surely prevail for quite a while before digital acquisition becomes a major force. I thought that is what was being discussed, not digital intermediates or color correction, which is widely used and accepted. I don't care what's done to it before the final print is struck, if it originated on film, it is film.

Digital intermediate is important in the discussion of acquisition formats because if they become cheap enough, the price difference between digital and film become a bit of a wash.

I know it doesn't seem like it to us student filmmakers, but the cost of negative film stock and processing aren't that much in the grand scheme of things, and there are still going to be a lot of things that film can do that digital can't (Latitude, "Graceful failure" at the toe and the shoulder, and proven archivability to name a few). A lot of the costs that currenlty make film far more expensive than digital are in the post processes.

Nota "Happy to work in any medium" Mono

I recently saw the design for an HD camera that had four (yes, four) HD (yes, HD) CCDs (yes, CC--well, you get the point) edge-butted against each other for a 7680x4320 HD image. Deeee-skusting. It's supposed to be used for medical high resolution imaging, but I can easily imagine its transferrence into Hollywood. And wouldn't a larger CCD open more options for depth of field and 35mm optics? Hmm...

Good gawd! That's 33MP!

Yeah, I got one of those cameras.

... hmm, I can't find the smiley face that has his tongue in his cheek...

There is such thing as a too shallow depth of field. 35-70mm is about optimal, there is two reasons for this... a- the current standards achieve a focus depth extremely close to that of the eye, which is the aim of the game, too shallow and it will go in the oposite direction of what video is at, and would be unnatural. b. can you imagine how hard a focus pullers job would be with any more, a good focus puller needs exceptional skills as it is.

As far as HD goes, the Panavision Genisis, the new HD camera, which is taking over from the failed CineAlta and HDW-900(the HD cameras used on star wars) has 35mm Chips, to achieve 35mm focus depth. It has just been used to film superman.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: the parnell,

They remade Superman? Ah, crap. I hate Superman.