As far as regular movies are concerned, the frame rate will never change. There's something inherent in the motion blur that a 1/48 shutter creates that ingrained in people's subconscious...
Now that we live in the digital world, things could change. But somehow I doubt it will. At the most, we could slowly switch to 30P for digital cinema and HD.
30 FPS display doesn't mean 30 FPS origination. We've been watching 30 FPS NTSC for a long time while looking at 24 FPS originated material (transferred with a cadence to 30 FPS). That in itself is a "look" that people associate with film. Film IS shot at 30 FPS for broadcast to go after a specific look/feel for spots or music videos, but for storytelling with a filmic quality, 24 FPS is the norm.
The look/feel of 30 FPS video is associated with immediacy/news/liveness, etc. Two examples of the power of this look:
--Years ago, when NBC produced a live ER episode it was, of course, video instead of film that viewers saw. The look & feel of the show that viewers were accustomed to was destroyed. It made the whole thing feel odd. To NBC 's credit, they tried to ameliorate this by introducing a documentary angle into the storyline, but it didn't work for me.
--In more recent years, a live awards show (MTV, I think) went to 24P video for the event, giving the show the look of film because of the pull down cadence, the higher resolution, and the filmic look available via the cameras (Panasonic Varicams, maybe?? --or Sonys). The whole thing felt weird; not quite "live". It lost some subconscious immediacy. Again --odd.
These things are ingrained in us as viewers. It will be interesting to see if and when they are overcome by time and technology.
Wow, that's possibly the worst website I've ever seen.
Having every page be a separate fixed-size image - the mind boggles at what they can have been thinking.
They haven't even bothered putting in meta keywords - I'd love to see what Google's spider made of that site. Probably won't even find the word "camera" on there.
It's real. Jim Jannard, founder of Oakley, is the guy behind it, as the web rumors have suspected.
I got a chance to have a long conversation with Jim Jannard and a bunch of his engineers about the RED camera that they're making. After hours of conversation, you can color me a believer in what he's doing, and what he wants this camera to do and be.
.
Check out site for more information. Well NAB 2004 just got a whole lot more interesting. Still color me skeptical. 35mm full frame sensors are expensive and large. However I'll be positive and hope for the best knowing that something like this product "is" going to come from a source that doesn't have legacy product for high end product to trample on.
by 33mm full frame do you mean diagonally like the full framish sensors in say Kodak's 14n and Canon's 1ds etc? If so, I would think while expensive, well, seems to be a smaller protion of the cost of a pro video cam than a still camera, certainly. Certainly not the largest either since there are full frame 645 sensors from Dalsa etc. Granted a MF back cost $10k-$30k, but there you are.
by 33mm full frame do you mean diagonally like the full framish sensors in say Kodak's 14n and Canon's 1ds etc? If so, I would think while expensive, well, seems to be a smaller protion of the cost of a pro video cam than a still camera, certainly. Certainly not the largest either since there are full frame 645 sensors from Dalsa etc. Granted a MF back cost $10k-$30k, but there you are.
Oops 35mm is what I meant. It'll be interesting to find out where that sensor is coming from.
PS, when people refer to 35mm still cameras, they're talking about a 36x24mm roll film frame. This needs a 44mm image circle, considerably larger than any 35mm motion capture format.
Even the red camera lists their size as 23.5 x 13.5mm. This corresponds to 35mm motion camera setups where the film travels vertically through the gate and so can't be wider than 24mm accross.
When Leica invented 35mm still cameras, they took the stock commonly used in cinema; laid it accross the frame horizontally so that it went from 4 perf to 8 perf.
The largest 35mm film format would be Super35 at about 25x18.6, but this is heavily cropped to make widescreen projections. Most cinema uses either this or Cinemascope 2.35:1, which is shot anamorphically onto a 22x18.6mm frame and then streched back out to make wide projections.
The red camera is actually smaller than either of these, but that is incosequential since the process of printing film either makes a smaller frame, crops out large portions, or requires anamorphic correction. The size of the red camera is roughly comparable to spherical 35mm projection frame sizes (21x11 or 21x13).
I think that it will be interesting to see where the practical limits for this sort of cinema. I think we might not see this go too far beyond 4K (4096x2160) for a good while, but we'll see how far the projection technology goes.
I have a feeling development may slow down, and cinemas may have to re-tool as the home becomes a greater component of new release material. Theatres may actually go smaller, according to some. Others think they can only remain relevant by going even bigger, and trying to really sell the spectacle -- huge screens, surround, possibly haptics/motion, hyper detailed resolution...
I don't know. Someone I know went through the trouble of setting up a very nice home theatre. He works in the film business (prop master) and has a real fetish for this sort of thing even when he isn't working. Lotsa high-end stuff, furniture, acoustic treatment, the works. I think this most definitely influenced my experience of his home theatre (with heavy emphasis on the "theatre" part). However, at the heart were two really stunning bits of kit, a full 1920x1080 (65") display, and a D-VHS. Even he knows that this is a dead end as far a distribution formats go, but's the only place to shop for high bit-rate HD material at the moment.
Watching an upconverted 1080i source in a living room is simply stunning. True 1080p will be even better, and 4K offers 4X the resolution of that.
While we will always look for more, we may have reached a high plateau that sees some time go by before either professional acquisition/display and/or consumer formats are asked to deliver more...
I bring it up because if home theatre displaces a large amount of movie-theatre's business, many producers may not feel the need for any more aquisition horsepower than they already have available. The focus for the next 20 years might just be making this stuff more convenient, and cheaper...
The exhibitors and distributors are about to make some huge investments across the world and I think they would rather like like to go 4k and be done with it for ten years or so. Sony are in the fortunate position of having the only viable product at this time and like always they are throwing money around like confetti to ensure that nobody else gets a look in.
I never really find the "how much is good enough" question too interesting untill we get to the point where "good enough" really changes the market.
Imagine the kind of access that small/independent/amateur film makers are going to have. While equipment is no replacement for talent, the budgets will come down enough that some people with good ideas just won't have to shop them around anymore.
Today, new writers and directors can really only dream about making a film with the production value of a major studio release. While lighting and sound are still a bear, with a true 1080P recording, I bet most moviegoers would not be able to pick a 35mm film recording from a 1080 (24P) recording.
When we get digital projection in enough theatres, the little guy won't even need to get a print done anymore.
I think that's interesting. While 4K will certainly look even better, once the audience doesn't care about that nth percentile bit of detail, we're getting into an area of diminshing returns. It would create an alternate avenue where production ideas get shopped around in an entirely different way. Not that this doesn't already exist for people not interested (or unable) to make a vehicle for the latest star, but the increasing opportunity to have that product look as good as the popular audience is used to.
I predict an art-house film renaissance within about a decade...
I'd settle for a movie theatre that doesn't blow. Every time I decide I want to see a movie I think to myself?Is the potential experience of the movie worth dealing with the bad experience that is going to the theater, and if so, do I really want to reward such poor behaviour with my money?
I never really find the "how much is good enough" question too interesting untill we get to the point where "good enough" really changes the market.
Imagine the kind of access that small/independent/amateur film makers are going to have. While equipment is no replacement for talent, the budgets will come down enough that some people with good ideas just won't have to shop them around anymore.
Today, new writers and directors can really only dream about making a film with the production value of a major studio release. While lighting and sound are still a bear, with a true 1080P recording, I bet most moviegoers would not be able to pick a 35mm film recording from a 1080 (24P) recording.
When we get digital projection in enough theatres, the little guy won't even need to get a print done anymore.
I think that's interesting. While 4K will certainly look even better, once the audience doesn't care about that nth percentile bit of detail, we're getting into an area of diminshing returns. It would create an alternate avenue where production ideas get shopped around in an entirely different way. Not that this doesn't already exist for people not interested (or unable) to make a vehicle for the latest star, but the increasing opportunity to have that product look as good as the popular audience is used to.
I predict an art-house film renaissance within about a decade...
Like all these things its not the audience that drives the quality but an influential minority. If Cameron insists on 4K for 'Battle Princess' (or whatever its going to be called) in 2007 then its a done deal. The mass audience are benificiaries of people who actually care about this stuff.
If there was to be an art-house renaissance it would be here already. The camera hire is already irrelevant compared to the cost of crew and logistics. If an indy is any good distributors are pretty willing to fund 'film-outs'. The reality is that 95% of the work produced is crap that nobody wants to watch. This is not to devalue it purpose as a tool for learning the craft or carrying out experiments in image and representation it simply means that the ubiquity of digital projection will make little difference to the number of art house film that gain any sort of mass exposure - and quite rightly so.
Even as I was writing that, I felt I didn't quite express it right. I have to agree with your criticism. However, I think the question of access to the tools needs more weight. Film-making is highly esoteric to someone like me, and 20 years ago, even ten, even today, would have (or will) remain/ed that way.
It's the same as anything else. Brushes and pencils are pretty cheap, but relatively few people have any proficiency as painters and writers. Film stock, and even digital camera hire is much more expensive, but the cost is falling, and as it falls, a larger mass of people from other areas will be encouraged to dabble, and a younger mass of people will grow up with a gretaer sense of immersion.
As for a renaissance, that I would consider even just 1 or 2 films a year finding the mainstream. (which I think is all that is reasonable to expect) Any more would come from other national/regional cinema communities emerging with their own particularities.
Prepare for the revolution. This thing is looking to be more real everyday. I know I won't be able to afford it but this is far more obtainable than a Varicam for F series Sony. Hell it'll probably be cheaper than a XL1/2 with a Mini35 attachment. Color me excited.
That's quite amusing seeing the CEO of Oakley on a forum (come on Steve! You know you want to). As several people on that forum pointed out there are a number of 'hard points' that make the appearance of such a camera a) two to three years away at least, and b) really not very cheap at all.
At least they have the dollars to throw at it and it would be so amusing to see the marketing ninjas at Panasonic and Sony trying to put the smack on Jannard.
OT....Next indy film favourite camera? Panasonic HVX200. No contest.
Even as I was writing that, I felt I didn't quite express it right. I have to agree with your criticism. However, I think the question of access to the tools needs more weight. Film-making is highly esoteric to someone like me, and 20 years ago, even ten, even today, would have (or will) remain/ed that way.
Undoubtedly there is a democratization effect that in theory encourages the talent to become more visible. I think this has already occured however.
I've heard a lot of skepticism regarding the manufacturing of this camera. I agree with some of it but I also have a sneaking suspicion that todays cameras are dominated by Japanese companies that all seek to push their homegrown technologies.
Sony is already talking about trying to cram Blu Ray down our throuts in the future. Panasonic is pushing flash memory that is horrendously priced.
Oakley sounds like a strange bedfellow but then again if you make sunglasses you are familar with optics moreso than many companies. Jannard has talked about their engineering and design equipment and experienced personnel. I think that Red has the ability to do this more than just about any other company.
Filmmakers are growing frustrated with Sony, Panny and JVC. You continue to get a trickle of innovation and cameras designed for ENG rather than filmmaking. This just might be the shift the industry needs along with Kinetta.
Comments
Originally posted by addabox
Oh, and I can't see it as very reassuring that these guys would elect to name their CMOS sensor "Mysterium".
see: "unobtainium" at wikipedia
GC
Originally posted by Northgate
As far as regular movies are concerned, the frame rate will never change. There's something inherent in the motion blur that a 1/48 shutter creates that ingrained in people's subconscious...
Now that we live in the digital world, things could change. But somehow I doubt it will. At the most, we could slowly switch to 30P for digital cinema and HD.
30 FPS display doesn't mean 30 FPS origination. We've been watching 30 FPS NTSC for a long time while looking at 24 FPS originated material (transferred with a cadence to 30 FPS). That in itself is a "look" that people associate with film. Film IS shot at 30 FPS for broadcast to go after a specific look/feel for spots or music videos, but for storytelling with a filmic quality, 24 FPS is the norm.
The look/feel of 30 FPS video is associated with immediacy/news/liveness, etc. Two examples of the power of this look:
--Years ago, when NBC produced a live ER episode it was, of course, video instead of film that viewers saw. The look & feel of the show that viewers were accustomed to was destroyed. It made the whole thing feel odd. To NBC 's credit, they tried to ameliorate this by introducing a documentary angle into the storyline, but it didn't work for me.
--In more recent years, a live awards show (MTV, I think) went to 24P video for the event, giving the show the look of film because of the pull down cadence, the higher resolution, and the filmic look available via the cameras (Panasonic Varicams, maybe?? --or Sonys). The whole thing felt weird; not quite "live". It lost some subconscious immediacy. Again --odd.
These things are ingrained in us as viewers. It will be interesting to see if and when they are overcome by time and technology.
GC
Having every page be a separate fixed-size image - the mind boggles at what they can have been thinking.
They haven't even bothered putting in meta keywords - I'd love to see what Google's spider made of that site. Probably won't even find the word "camera" on there.
Update:
It's real. Jim Jannard, founder of Oakley, is the guy behind it, as the web rumors have suspected.
I got a chance to have a long conversation with Jim Jannard and a bunch of his engineers about the RED camera that they're making. After hours of conversation, you can color me a believer in what he's doing, and what he wants this camera to do and be.
.
Check out site for more information. Well NAB 2004 just got a whole lot more interesting. Still color me skeptical. 35mm full frame sensors are expensive and large. However I'll be positive and hope for the best knowing that something like this product "is" going to come from a source that doesn't have legacy product for high end product to trample on.
by 33mm full frame do you mean diagonally like the full framish sensors in say Kodak's 14n and Canon's 1ds etc? If so, I would think while expensive, well, seems to be a smaller protion of the cost of a pro video cam than a still camera, certainly. Certainly not the largest either since there are full frame 645 sensors from Dalsa etc. Granted a MF back cost $10k-$30k, but there you are.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Hmurchison,
by 33mm full frame do you mean diagonally like the full framish sensors in say Kodak's 14n and Canon's 1ds etc? If so, I would think while expensive, well, seems to be a smaller protion of the cost of a pro video cam than a still camera, certainly. Certainly not the largest either since there are full frame 645 sensors from Dalsa etc. Granted a MF back cost $10k-$30k, but there you are.
Oops 35mm is what I meant. It'll be interesting to find out where that sensor is coming from.
Even the red camera lists their size as 23.5 x 13.5mm. This corresponds to 35mm motion camera setups where the film travels vertically through the gate and so can't be wider than 24mm accross.
When Leica invented 35mm still cameras, they took the stock commonly used in cinema; laid it accross the frame horizontally so that it went from 4 perf to 8 perf.
The largest 35mm film format would be Super35 at about 25x18.6, but this is heavily cropped to make widescreen projections. Most cinema uses either this or Cinemascope 2.35:1, which is shot anamorphically onto a 22x18.6mm frame and then streched back out to make wide projections.
The red camera is actually smaller than either of these, but that is incosequential since the process of printing film either makes a smaller frame, crops out large portions, or requires anamorphic correction. The size of the red camera is roughly comparable to spherical 35mm projection frame sizes (21x11 or 21x13).
I have a feeling development may slow down, and cinemas may have to re-tool as the home becomes a greater component of new release material. Theatres may actually go smaller, according to some. Others think they can only remain relevant by going even bigger, and trying to really sell the spectacle -- huge screens, surround, possibly haptics/motion, hyper detailed resolution...
I don't know. Someone I know went through the trouble of setting up a very nice home theatre. He works in the film business (prop master) and has a real fetish for this sort of thing even when he isn't working. Lotsa high-end stuff, furniture, acoustic treatment, the works. I think this most definitely influenced my experience of his home theatre (with heavy emphasis on the "theatre" part). However, at the heart were two really stunning bits of kit, a full 1920x1080 (65") display, and a D-VHS. Even he knows that this is a dead end as far a distribution formats go, but's the only place to shop for high bit-rate HD material at the moment.
Watching an upconverted 1080i source in a living room is simply stunning. True 1080p will be even better, and 4K offers 4X the resolution of that.
While we will always look for more, we may have reached a high plateau that sees some time go by before either professional acquisition/display and/or consumer formats are asked to deliver more...
I bring it up because if home theatre displaces a large amount of movie-theatre's business, many producers may not feel the need for any more aquisition horsepower than they already have available. The focus for the next 20 years might just be making this stuff more convenient, and cheaper...
Imagine the kind of access that small/independent/amateur film makers are going to have. While equipment is no replacement for talent, the budgets will come down enough that some people with good ideas just won't have to shop them around anymore.
Today, new writers and directors can really only dream about making a film with the production value of a major studio release. While lighting and sound are still a bear, with a true 1080P recording, I bet most moviegoers would not be able to pick a 35mm film recording from a 1080 (24P) recording.
When we get digital projection in enough theatres, the little guy won't even need to get a print done anymore.
I think that's interesting. While 4K will certainly look even better, once the audience doesn't care about that nth percentile bit of detail, we're getting into an area of diminshing returns. It would create an alternate avenue where production ideas get shopped around in an entirely different way. Not that this doesn't already exist for people not interested (or unable) to make a vehicle for the latest star, but the increasing opportunity to have that product look as good as the popular audience is used to.
I predict an art-house film renaissance within about a decade...
I haven't been going to many movies lately.
Originally posted by Matsu
I never really find the "how much is good enough" question too interesting untill we get to the point where "good enough" really changes the market.
Imagine the kind of access that small/independent/amateur film makers are going to have. While equipment is no replacement for talent, the budgets will come down enough that some people with good ideas just won't have to shop them around anymore.
Today, new writers and directors can really only dream about making a film with the production value of a major studio release. While lighting and sound are still a bear, with a true 1080P recording, I bet most moviegoers would not be able to pick a 35mm film recording from a 1080 (24P) recording.
When we get digital projection in enough theatres, the little guy won't even need to get a print done anymore.
I think that's interesting. While 4K will certainly look even better, once the audience doesn't care about that nth percentile bit of detail, we're getting into an area of diminshing returns. It would create an alternate avenue where production ideas get shopped around in an entirely different way. Not that this doesn't already exist for people not interested (or unable) to make a vehicle for the latest star, but the increasing opportunity to have that product look as good as the popular audience is used to.
I predict an art-house film renaissance within about a decade...
Like all these things its not the audience that drives the quality but an influential minority. If Cameron insists on 4K for 'Battle Princess' (or whatever its going to be called) in 2007 then its a done deal. The mass audience are benificiaries of people who actually care about this stuff.
If there was to be an art-house renaissance it would be here already. The camera hire is already irrelevant compared to the cost of crew and logistics. If an indy is any good distributors are pretty willing to fund 'film-outs'. The reality is that 95% of the work produced is crap that nobody wants to watch. This is not to devalue it purpose as a tool for learning the craft or carrying out experiments in image and representation it simply means that the ubiquity of digital projection will make little difference to the number of art house film that gain any sort of mass exposure - and quite rightly so.
It's the same as anything else. Brushes and pencils are pretty cheap, but relatively few people have any proficiency as painters and writers. Film stock, and even digital camera hire is much more expensive, but the cost is falling, and as it falls, a larger mass of people from other areas will be encouraged to dabble, and a younger mass of people will grow up with a gretaer sense of immersion.
As for a renaissance, that I would consider even just 1 or 2 films a year finding the mainstream. (which I think is all that is reasonable to expect) Any more would come from other national/regional cinema communities emerging with their own particularities.
At NAB 2006 they'll have a NON-working prototype made by machining or Liquid Laser. Here's more info
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=41360
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisp...ysprune=&f=110
Prepare for the revolution. This thing is looking to be more real everyday. I know I won't be able to afford it but this is far more obtainable than a Varicam for F series Sony. Hell it'll probably be cheaper than a XL1/2 with a Mini35 attachment. Color me excited.
At least they have the dollars to throw at it and it would be so amusing to see the marketing ninjas at Panasonic and Sony trying to put the smack on Jannard.
OT....Next indy film favourite camera? Panasonic HVX200. No contest.
Originally posted by Matsu
Even as I was writing that, I felt I didn't quite express it right. I have to agree with your criticism. However, I think the question of access to the tools needs more weight. Film-making is highly esoteric to someone like me, and 20 years ago, even ten, even today, would have (or will) remain/ed that way.
Undoubtedly there is a democratization effect that in theory encourages the talent to become more visible. I think this has already occured however.
Sony is already talking about trying to cram Blu Ray down our throuts in the future. Panasonic is pushing flash memory that is horrendously priced.
Oakley sounds like a strange bedfellow but then again if you make sunglasses you are familar with optics moreso than many companies. Jannard has talked about their engineering and design equipment and experienced personnel. I think that Red has the ability to do this more than just about any other company.
Filmmakers are growing frustrated with Sony, Panny and JVC. You continue to get a trickle of innovation and cameras designed for ENG rather than filmmaking. This just might be the shift the industry needs along with Kinetta.