FILM 90% OBSOLETE? <cope@ca.inter.net> <mwsm@panix.com>

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Dr. Jai Maharaj, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. FILM 90% OBSOLETE?

    Forwarded message from MC "Matthew Cope" <> <>

    [ Subject: Film 90% Obsolete?
    [ From: MC <> <>
    [ Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005

    Cinemas set for digital revolution

    Cinema is the last major entertainment industry yet to
    embrace the digital revolution, with movies still shot
    and displayed on celluloid film, but technology is
    finally set to change it.

    In most cinemas today, huge machines spin spools of 35mm
    film, projecting the image on silver screen, more or less
    the way films have been exhibited since the birth of
    cinema in the late 19th Century. The digital revolution,
    which has long since swept the music and home video
    markets, is coming, and is expected to have a huge impact
    on the film industry.

    "The way that films are made, produced and distributed is
    changing almost beyond recognition," Chris Atkins, a
    London-based film producer, told BBC World Service's
    Analysis programme.

    "It's quite similar to the revolution that happened in
    the music industry about 15 years ago, when people
    stopped recording everything on quarter-inch tape and
    releasing it vinyl; everything got recorded to a hard
    disk and released on CD."

    Question of warmth

    Mr Atkins explained that for producers, there are two
    reasons why cinema remains the last vestige of analogue
    technology.

    First, the data storage needed to hold just one frame of
    cinema image is huge, and only recently computer
    technology has advanced to be able to hold these vast
    amounts of data.

    Also, there a "very romanticised love of film - the
    actual celluloid stuff itself - in the film industry."
    This has caused "a lot of people to put the brakes on
    technology, and stop that technology moving forward".

    Atkins' latest film, A Woman In White, directed by
    Richard Jobson, was shot digitally on High-Definition
    (HD) video.

    The format was pioneered by Star Wars director George
    Lucas, and its champions argue it is the first digital
    format that truly replicates traditional film - and at a
    fraction of the cost.

    Jobson shot over 100 hours of material digitally. Atkins
    said the movie's entire $2m budget would have been
    swallowed up by physical film if he had used it,
    something he said happened frequently in the 1980s and
    1990s.

    "Good actors cost money. One of the reasons we've done
    reasonably well is we've saved money on the budget by
    going digital, and spent that money on more expensive and
    better actors," he added.

    Film critics are divided in their views of how digital
    film looks on screen, however.

    While some contend that it lacks warmth, others say it
    looks more beautiful.

    Paul Brett, a former head of exhibition and distribution
    at the British Film Institute (BFI), pointed out that a
    strip of celluloid has black bars dividing each frame.

    Digital film does not have these and, as a result, "in
    layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."

    "It just pops off the screen at you in a luminescent
    fashion."

    Piracy fears

    At the start of 2005, there were around 300 cinemas in
    the world with digital projectors. By January 2006, it
    will be 2,000, and this is anticipated to grow
    exponentially into the future.

    Producers embrace this, pointing out that currently even
    digitally-shot film then has to be put onto 35mm prints
    for screening, which, Atkins said, is "weight for weight
    as expensive as gold."

    A celluloid print run costs around £100,000, while for a
    digital distribution the cost could be cut to one-
    hundredth of that, around £1,000.

    In the UK alone, 200 digital projectors are being
    installed this year by the UK Film Council, which argues
    it will give the public access to a wider variety of
    films.

    But the UK Film Council is funded by public money, and
    their move indicates how cinemas have been slow to adapt
    to the digital revolution. The BFI's Paul Brett said this
    was with good reason. While digital filming cuts the
    distributors' costs, it does nothing for the cinema
    chains. Indeed, it could be more expensive.

    "They don't get any benefit from it," he said.

    "And to make it a double whammy, the cinema has to pay
    for all of this equipment and then upgrade it roughly
    every three years."

    And fears of how easy it could be to pirate digital films
    has also been responsible for the slow uptake, in
    particular where Hollywood is concerned. "There's a huge,
    unspoken fear in Hollywood about digital," Brett said.
    "Once you've got digital, it's very easy to replicate.

    "It's difficult to take six cans of film and put it onto
    a videotape.

    It's an elaborate process that takes skill and care, and
    is difficult to hide.

    "The whole thing about digital piracy is that it just
    looks like you're playing with your recorder at home.
    It's very easy to hide, and the duplication is very easy
    to do and distribute.

    "So any major leap forward in this field is going to be
    accompanied by belt-and-braces determination to ensure
    the copyright is protected as far as is humanly
    possible."

    Celluloid nostalgia

    For the directors themselves, the coming of the digital
    revolution is a mixed blessing.

    Indian film director Karan Razdan is highly enthusiastic.
    He told Analysis, "it's going to bring about a sea change
    in the subjects, budgeting, and quality of cinema."

    "The budget coming down means that you're going to have
    more experimentation with stories. That kind of
    experimentation is definitely going to bring about a big
    change." he added.

    Razdan also said it will become much easier to shoot
    films, and that in itself would save more money, as the
    amount of time needed to make a film could be reduced.

    But acclaimed British director Shane Meadows confessed to
    being "nostalgic" about celluloid.

    He said that while "film will always exist," it will
    become "80 or 90% obsolete."

    "There will still be some people that won't use anything
    else," he added. "There is a certain nostalgia that goes
    with film. But like everything nowadays, we can't help
    ourselves, and we always want the most modern version of
    whatever's available."

    Story from BBC NEWS:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4681859.stm

    Published: 2005/07/14 11:13:19 GMT

    BBC MMV

    End of forwarded message from MC "Matthew Cope" <> <>

    Jai Maharaj
    http://www.mantra.com/jai
    Om Shanti

    Hindu Holocaust Museum
    http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

    Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
    http://www.hindu.org
    http://www.hindunet.org

    The truth about Islam and Muslims
    http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

    The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
    peace, but a sword.
    "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
    daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
    law.
    "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
    - Matthew 10:34-36.

    o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
    purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
    have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
    poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
    fair use of copyrighted works.
    o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
    considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
    e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
    o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
    not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

    FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
    which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
    owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
    understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
    democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
    that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
    provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
    17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
    profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
    information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
    subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
    go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
    If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
    your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
    copyright owner.

    Since newsgroup posts are being removed
    by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
    this post may be reposted several times.
    Dr. Jai Maharaj, Jul 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dr. Jai Maharaj

    RichA Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:23:19 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
    wrote:

    >FILM 90% OBSOLETE?
    >
    >Forwarded message from MC "Matthew Cope" <> <>
    >
    >[ Subject: Film 90% Obsolete?
    >[ From: MC <> <>
    >[ Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005
    >
    >Cinemas set for digital revolution
    >
    >Cinema is the last major entertainment industry yet to
    >embrace the digital revolution, with movies still shot
    >and displayed on celluloid film, but technology is
    >finally set to change it.
    >
    >In most cinemas today, huge machines spin spools of 35mm
    >film, projecting the image on silver screen, more or less
    >the way films have been exhibited since the birth of
    >cinema in the late 19th Century. The digital revolution,
    >which has long since swept the music and home video
    >markets, is coming, and is expected to have a huge impact
    >on the film industry.
    >
    >"The way that films are made, produced and distributed is
    >changing almost beyond recognition," Chris Atkins, a
    >London-based film producer, told BBC World Service's
    >Analysis programme.
    >
    >"It's quite similar to the revolution that happened in
    >the music industry about 15 years ago, when people
    >stopped recording everything on quarter-inch tape and
    >releasing it vinyl; everything got recorded to a hard
    >disk and released on CD."
    >
    >Question of warmth
    >
    >Mr Atkins explained that for producers, there are two
    >reasons why cinema remains the last vestige of analogue
    >technology.
    >
    >First, the data storage needed to hold just one frame of
    >cinema image is huge, and only recently computer
    >technology has advanced to be able to hold these vast
    >amounts of data.
    >
    >Also, there a "very romanticised love of film - the
    >actual celluloid stuff itself - in the film industry."
    >This has caused "a lot of people to put the brakes on
    >technology, and stop that technology moving forward".
    >
    >Atkins' latest film, A Woman In White, directed by
    >Richard Jobson, was shot digitally on High-Definition
    >(HD) video.
    >
    >The format was pioneered by Star Wars director George
    >Lucas, and its champions argue it is the first digital
    >format that truly replicates traditional film - and at a
    >fraction of the cost.
    >
    >Jobson shot over 100 hours of material digitally. Atkins
    >said the movie's entire $2m budget would have been
    >swallowed up by physical film if he had used it,
    >something he said happened frequently in the 1980s and
    >1990s.
    >
    >"Good actors cost money. One of the reasons we've done
    >reasonably well is we've saved money on the budget by
    >going digital, and spent that money on more expensive and
    >better actors," he added.
    >
    >Film critics are divided in their views of how digital
    >film looks on screen, however.
    >
    >While some contend that it lacks warmth, others say it
    >looks more beautiful.
    >
    >Paul Brett, a former head of exhibition and distribution
    >at the British Film Institute (BFI), pointed out that a
    >strip of celluloid has black bars dividing each frame.
    >
    >Digital film does not have these and, as a result, "in
    >layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."
    >
    >"It just pops off the screen at you in a luminescent
    >fashion."
    >
    >Piracy fears
    >
    >At the start of 2005, there were around 300 cinemas in
    >the world with digital projectors. By January 2006, it
    >will be 2,000, and this is anticipated to grow
    >exponentially into the future.
    >
    >Producers embrace this, pointing out that currently even
    >digitally-shot film then has to be put onto 35mm prints
    >for screening, which, Atkins said, is "weight for weight
    >as expensive as gold."
    >
    >A celluloid print run costs around £100,000, while for a
    >digital distribution the cost could be cut to one-
    >hundredth of that, around £1,000.
    >
    >In the UK alone, 200 digital projectors are being
    >installed this year by the UK Film Council, which argues
    >it will give the public access to a wider variety of
    >films.
    >
    >But the UK Film Council is funded by public money, and
    >their move indicates how cinemas have been slow to adapt
    >to the digital revolution. The BFI's Paul Brett said this
    >was with good reason. While digital filming cuts the
    >distributors' costs, it does nothing for the cinema
    >chains. Indeed, it could be more expensive.
    >
    >"They don't get any benefit from it," he said.
    >
    >"And to make it a double whammy, the cinema has to pay
    >for all of this equipment and then upgrade it roughly
    >every three years."
    >
    >And fears of how easy it could be to pirate digital films
    >has also been responsible for the slow uptake, in
    >particular where Hollywood is concerned. "There's a huge,
    >unspoken fear in Hollywood about digital," Brett said.
    >"Once you've got digital, it's very easy to replicate.
    >
    >"It's difficult to take six cans of film and put it onto
    >a videotape.
    >
    >It's an elaborate process that takes skill and care, and
    >is difficult to hide.
    >
    >"The whole thing about digital piracy is that it just
    >looks like you're playing with your recorder at home.
    >It's very easy to hide, and the duplication is very easy
    >to do and distribute.
    >
    >"So any major leap forward in this field is going to be
    >accompanied by belt-and-braces determination to ensure
    >the copyright is protected as far as is humanly
    >possible."
    >
    >Celluloid nostalgia
    >
    >For the directors themselves, the coming of the digital
    >revolution is a mixed blessing.
    >
    >Indian film director Karan Razdan is highly enthusiastic.
    >He told Analysis, "it's going to bring about a sea change
    >in the subjects, budgeting, and quality of cinema."
    >
    >"The budget coming down means that you're going to have
    >more experimentation with stories. That kind of
    >experimentation is definitely going to bring about a big
    >change." he added.
    >
    >Razdan also said it will become much easier to shoot
    >films, and that in itself would save more money, as the
    >amount of time needed to make a film could be reduced.
    >
    >But acclaimed British director Shane Meadows confessed to
    >being "nostalgic" about celluloid.
    >
    >He said that while "film will always exist," it will
    >become "80 or 90% obsolete."
    >
    >"There will still be some people that won't use anything
    >else," he added. "There is a certain nostalgia that goes
    >with film. But like everything nowadays, we can't help
    >ourselves, and we always want the most modern version of
    >whatever's available."
    >
    >Story from BBC NEWS:
    >
    >http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4681859.stm
    >
    >Published: 2005/07/14 11:13:19 GMT

    This should have happened five years ago.
    People in the photographic community have argued that it wasn't until
    digital still cameras reached about 5 megapixels in size that they
    could do a reasonable job replicating film. In fact, digital has
    surpassed film now, with much greater dynamic range and resolution,
    in the 35mm size. However, moving images do not need this much
    resolution. If you ever look at a 35mm film frame that has any
    movement happening, it looks blurred. It's the stringing together of
    many frames that appears to make the image sharp. Because of this,
    lower resolutions (1-2m) are all that is needed to duplicate and
    surpass 35mm film for projection.
    -Rich
    RichA, Jul 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:23:19 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
    >wrote:


    [Much of the original post snipped - wjv]
    >
    >>FILM 90% OBSOLETE?


    >>Forwarded message from MC "Matthew Cope" <> <>
    >>
    >>[ Subject: Film 90% Obsolete?
    >>[ From: MC <> <>
    >>[ Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005


    >>Cinemas set for digital revolution
    >>
    >>Cinema is the last major entertainment industry yet to
    >>embrace the digital revolution, with movies still shot
    >>and displayed on celluloid film, but technology is
    >>finally set to change it.


    ....

    >>Paul Brett, a former head of exhibition and distribution
    >>at the British Film Institute (BFI), pointed out that a
    >>strip of celluloid has black bars dividing each frame.


    >>Digital film does not have these and, as a result, "in
    >>layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."


    That is a bogus argument. Whomever made that statement doesn't
    realize you can't compare like that.

    >>"It just pops off the screen at you in a luminescent
    >>fashion."

    ....

    >>Story from BBC NEWS:


    >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4681859.stm


    >>Published: 2005/07/14 11:13:19 GMT


    >This should have happened five years ago. People in the
    >photographic community have argued that it wasn't until digital
    >still cameras reached about 5 megapixels in size that they
    >could do a reasonable job replicating film. In fact, digital
    >has surpassed film now, with much greater dynamic range and
    >resolution, in the 35mm size. However, moving images do not need
    >this much resolution. If you ever look at a 35mm film frame that
    >has any movement happening, it looks blurred. It's the stringing
    >together of many frames that appears to make the image sharp.


    Actually you can change the shutter speed independent of film rate
    and the individual pictures will be quite sharp. However when
    projected the film looks jerky, so you have to be careful as to
    how fast you set the shutter to retain the flow.

    >Because of this, lower resolutions (1-2m) are all that is needed
    >to duplicate and surpass 35mm film for projection.


    Not true. Have you seen Collateral. That film is gorgeous - shot
    completely digital and transfered to film for projection. The
    prints didn't look like the typical film with no grain apparent.

    The pin-point colors in the black sky still stayed with the proper
    color. And you would have never done that with only 2K digital.

    Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
    Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
    film projected that really looked great that I had seen.

    The interesting interviews with Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise is that
    they had to work very hard. In film they could should about
    10 minutes maximum before a pause for reload. With the Grass
    Valley units Mann could shoot 56 minutes continuously if he wished,
    but that made for far fewer breaks than the actors were used too.

    It's truly an impressive looking work - but then Mann has alway
    done excellent work.

    Bill



    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
    Bill Vermillion, Jul 16, 2005
    #3
  4. Dr. Jai Maharaj

    Mark Spatny Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:42:30 -0400, RichA <> wrote:

    >>First, the data storage needed to hold just one frame of
    >>cinema image is huge,


    It's about 12MB for a single 2K frame, the current standard compromise
    resolution for doing visual effects and digital intermediates, and
    about 1/4 the actual full resolution of film.

    >>Also, there a "very romanticized love of film - the
    >>actual celluloid stuff itself - in the film industry."
    >>This has caused "a lot of people to put the brakes on
    >>technology, and stop that technology moving forward".
    >>
    >>Atkins' latest film, A Woman In White, directed by
    >>Richard Jobson, was shot digitally on High-Definition
    >>(HD) video.


    The problem with this article is that is talks about benefits of
    digital film making in the theoretical, then dives in to talking about
    HD in particular, without mentioning that HD has severe limitations
    and doesn't live up to all the potential of digital filmmaking.

    It's not about "romanticized love of film". You are NOT going to get
    the color depth and dynamic range of film when you shoot HD. Shooting
    HD is always going to be a compromise. The only reason it works is
    because the average viewer's untrained eye won't notice the difference
    unless you have a side by side comparison. But once you know what to
    look for, the difference is HUGE. 4:2:2 compression seriously degrades
    the image.

    >>The format was pioneered by Star Wars director George
    >>Lucas, and its champions argue it is the first digital
    >>format that truly replicates traditional film - and at a
    >>fraction of the cost.


    What these type of articles always fail to mention is that by the time
    the HD elements were mixed in with matte paintings and CG, very little
    of the original image is intact. And the result is that Lucas' most
    recent movies look more like video games than film. You want to see
    the difference? Play "Snow Falling on Cedars" side by side with
    "Phantom Menace", and see if HD looks as good as film.

    >>Digital film does not have these and, as a result, "in
    >>layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."


    This is the first clue that the writer doesn't know what he is talking
    about. There's no such thing as "digital film". If that's his way of
    saying "tape", he's clueless.

    >>"It just pops off the screen at you in a luminescent
    >>fashion."


    The other problem with this article is that is doesn't seem to
    distinguish the difference between shooting and projecting the image,
    and how the current technological limits impact these two areas
    completely differently. For example, this discussion of the "black
    bars" between frames could only potentially be in issue in projection.
    It has nothing to do with how the frames are capured in the first
    place.

    >On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:23:19 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
    >wrote:


    >This should have happened five years ago.
    >People in the photographic community have argued that it wasn't until
    >digital still cameras reached about 5 megapixels in size that they
    >could do a reasonable job replicating film. In fact, digital has
    >surpassed film now, with much greater dynamic range and resolution,
    >in the 35mm size.


    This is misleading. While true for still cameras, there are only a
    couple of platforms that can capture digital images at film resolution
    continuously at motion picture speed. These systems, while great for
    specialized applications, particularly in visual effects, are still
    rather cumbersome for using to make an entire full length motion
    picture, and using them is more expensive than film at this point.
    They are not going to replace film cameras for the bulk of movie
    making until the logistics surrounding their use becomes a little
    easier to deal with.

    > However, moving images do not need this much
    >resolution. If you ever look at a 35mm film frame that has any
    >movement happening, it looks blurred. It's the stringing together of
    >many frames that appears to make the image sharp. Because of this,
    >lower resolutions (1-2m) are all that is needed to duplicate and
    >surpass 35mm film for projection.


    This isn't just misleading, it is plain wrong. The minimum resolution
    needed to capture all the detail of a full apurature 35mm frame is
    4096x3112 pixels, or 12.7 megapixels. The more common half-resolution
    2K scan (2048x1556) is 3.2 megapixels, but there is a very noticeable
    difference in quality between the two when both resolutions are
    compared on a projection screen using moving footage. I've seen it
    myself running tests for a major studio's investigation of the digital
    intermediate process. The 2K scan is visibly softer than a 4K scan. If
    what you were implying about motion blur requiring less resolution
    were true, you wouldn't be able to see such a quantifiable difference
    with the naked eye.

    Your statement also doesn't take into effect the shutter angle used in
    the cinematography, which can cause the image to look more or less
    sharp.

    HD has the 2 megapixel resolution you claim is enough, but the reason
    it isn't used for most films yet is because it simply doesn't hold up
    as well when projected on a full size screen. And the studios still
    like shooting film to protect themselves for the next format that is
    going to be higher resolution than HD. The only reason the slightly
    better 2K scans have become a standard in film post production is
    because of the massive storage required for 4K scans, and the immense
    rendering time needed when 4K frames are processed for color
    corrections or visual effects.

    When shooting 4K digital (12 megapixel) becomes more practical, it
    will be used and probably replace film fairly quickly. Until then,
    most directors and DPs won't settle for 1 or 2 megapixels unless
    budgets or time dictate that requirement. Yes, there are exceptions
    (Rodriguez, Lucas, Cameron), but they are few and far between.
    Mark Spatny, Jul 17, 2005
    #4

  5. >Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
    >Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
    >film projected that really looked great that I had seen.
    >
    >
    >

    The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
    so far with a
    digital camera.
    Michel Hafner, Jul 17, 2005
    #5
  6. Dr. Jai Maharaj

    Mark Spatny Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:15:57 +0200, Michel Hafner <>
    wrote:

    >
    >>Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
    >>Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
    >>film projected that really looked great that I had seen.
    >>


    >The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
    >so far with a
    >digital camera.


    For those interested:


    http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/cameras/viper/pdf/viper_ds.pdf
    Mark Spatny, Jul 17, 2005
    #6
  7. Dr. Jai Maharaj

    Alpha Guest

    "Mark Spatny" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:15:57 +0200, Michel Hafner <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>>Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
    >>>Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
    >>>film projected that really looked great that I had seen.
    >>>

    >
    >>The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
    >>so far with a
    >>digital camera.

    >
    > For those interested:
    >
    >
    > http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/cameras/viper/pdf/viper_ds.pdf


    Copyright 2003....nothing more recent?
    Alpha, Jul 17, 2005
    #7
  8. Dr. Jai Maharaj

    Mark Spatny Guest

    Mark Spatny, Jul 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Alpha wrote:

    >"Mark Spatny" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    >
    >>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:15:57 +0200, Michel Hafner <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
    >>>>Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
    >>>>film projected that really looked great that I had seen.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
    >>>so far with a
    >>>digital camera.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>For those interested:
    >>
    >>
    >>http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/cameras/viper/pdf/viper_ds.pdf
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Copyright 2003....nothing more recent?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Dalsa makes a 4K camera but no feature film has been shot with it so far.
    http://www.dalsa.com/dc/origin/origin.asp
    Michel Hafner, Jul 19, 2005
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Michel Hafner <> wrote:
    >
    >>Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
    >>Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
    >>film projected that really looked great that I had seen.


    >The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
    >so far with a
    >digital camera.


    The article I read was in an issue of Millimeter last fall. Part
    was done on the new Vipers - and part on Sony 900?

    From the article and the sidebar ISTR there were 9 post-production
    facilites, and I >think< there was also an adverstising insert
    about this in the same issue.

    As I recall when the DP basically said the 4Ks were new and untried
    - Michael Mann said something like "then we'll use them".

    They were ecstatic about the night shots keeping the color.

    So it's was not full 4K but a combination for the original
    shooting, and since they had no 4K editing suites everything was
    converted [I assume].

    I don't recall the exact issue but it came out last year near fall
    - so it was probably near the time frame of the theatrical release.

    Bill


    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
    Bill Vermillion, Jul 20, 2005
    #10
  11. Bill Vermillion wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >Michel Hafner <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
    >>>Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
    >>>film projected that really looked great that I had seen.
    >>>
    >>>

    >
    >
    >
    >>The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
    >>so far with a
    >>digital camera.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >The article I read was in an issue of Millimeter last fall. Part
    >was done on the new Vipers - and part on Sony 900?
    >
    >From the article and the sidebar ISTR there were 9 post-production
    >facilites, and I >think< there was also an adverstising insert
    >about this in the same issue.
    >
    >As I recall when the DP basically said the 4Ks were new and untried
    >- Michael Mann said something like "then we'll use them".
    >
    >They were ecstatic about the night shots keeping the color.
    >
    >So it's was not full 4K but a combination for the original
    >shooting, and since they had no 4K editing suites everything was
    >converted [I assume].
    >
    >
    >

    The Viper is 2K! Not 3K, not 4K. The sensor is more than 2K, but what
    you can
    get out of the camera is 1080p. Period.
    Michel Hafner, Jul 21, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DVDfanatico

    Will the Net make DVD's obsolete?

    DVDfanatico, Feb 8, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    792
    Ryan E.
    Feb 9, 2004
  2. NYC XYZ
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,487
    Mike Kruger
    Mar 7, 2006
  3. nobody nowhere

    is there a prosumer printer which can cope with the reds?

    nobody nowhere, Aug 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    377
    Roland Karlsson
    Aug 6, 2004
  4. Leonard
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,343
    Hermit Dave
    Jan 20, 2004
  5. Lynn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    395
Loading...

Share This Page