Digital retro: Will it exist?
Posted 29 October 2007 - 11:35 AM
Will we be reminiscing about the camera config menu's and LUT's that exist today?
Will the Digiprimes of today be as interesting to us in the future as say Super Baltar's are today?
Posted 29 October 2007 - 11:57 AM
And I'm not sure the looks are distinctive-enough anyway, especially not the look of a Digi-Prime lens. That would suppose that lens optics will be radically sharper in the future, and I think we've already reached the limits of that.
I think it's more likely that someone will need to recreate the look of a crappy Mini-DV camcorder in some future production for some reason.
It would probably be easy to make some future 4K digital camera image look like it was shot with an "old" HD camcorder -- cut the resolution by a quarter, add some heavy-handed edge sharpening to compensate, stop down the lens and clip the highlights in post... voila, you've got the instant "video" look.
Posted 29 October 2007 - 01:23 PM
Indeed it's hard to imagine that prime lenses will get much better in the future. Already I find that lenses like the Master Primes are so well corrected that they look very neutral, like there is no lens to change the perception of reality. In zoom design on the other hand there very likely is some more wiggle room for development though.
That would suppose that lens optics will be radically sharper in the future, and I think we've already reached the limits of that.
Posted 29 October 2007 - 04:35 PM
If the "look" of an F900 or Viper becomes distinct enough that it evokes a certain point in history, or perhaps a certain film, then maybe. I don't know that that look is really that distinct. I'll just be glad when we can finally become nostalgic for the "bad 2K DI look" with its pasty skin tones, foggy power windows over faces, and soft resolution because it will have become a thing of the past...
Posted 29 October 2007 - 05:29 PM
There are two ways to make sharper pictures: Better lenses, or larger image area.
Indeed it's hard to imagine that prime lenses will get much better in the future.
Lens making is a very mature technology. But what if there's some breakthrough in chip foundry technology that lets us have Imax size imagers for cheap?
Posted 29 October 2007 - 05:58 PM
Posted 30 October 2007 - 09:40 PM
This stuff served (-es) its purpose as an intermediary for something bigger and better yet to come (or as some will say already arrived).
IDK, film just looks glamourous to me, even the oldest, earliest films. THere's a saturation with technicolor, for instance, that is lacking in modern neg films. THere's a look with the old EXR films, with Kodachrome 40, that is gone with newer films. These films all had their faults, but they had their features that met or exceeded current stocks' abilities, at least perceptively. A lot of what some people, even noted cinematographers, perceive as a stock's ability is actually the ability of the DOP who used it to expose for it well. So I'd say a lot of this nostalgic attachment is not necessarily rational, or grounded in a scientifically unachieveable look with current stocks or sensors.
With a few singular exceptions, I dislike the look of HD cameras, just as I am sure many early videographers detested the streaking of their cameras, or many early filmmakers detested the flickering and stuttering inherent in hand-cranked footage along with the excessive halation and unevenness of that early filmstock. Then again, there are a few makers that LIKE scratches, halation, flicker, jitter, and excessive dust (a little dust looks great, right?), so I think there will be a little bit of nostalgia for these times, but I also think it will be misplaced. I think it's like tape right now. Most all digital movie cameras are using it, or at least archiving to it, but everyone seems to hate it and knows it is an intermediary for the age of all solid-state data storage.
Posted 30 October 2007 - 09:50 PM
Also, we are fast approaching the maximal resolution of lenses in terms of what films and sensors can resolve. I'd say that Vision2 50D is probably right at the point where it resolves everything transmitted through the lens as well as any imager or stock can. Due to resolution loss inherent in a lens, there's only so many megapixels of information that can make it through, with the only solution to this problem being in the use of larger and larger lenses and image areas. There are digital SLRs coming out that have 24 megapixel resolutions for a 24x36mm image area. From what I understand, the threshhold with this image area is only about 20 megapixels with the sharpest glass and lens stopped down two to three stops. This would supposedly make the maximum resolution threshhold for a 4-perf Super35mm frame top out around 10 MP. So I am doubtful that any sensor or film stock that claims to resolve to over 3K can actually live up to its manufacturers' claims unless they are using large-format (medium format if you're coming from a still-photography backround) lenses.
Posted 31 October 2007 - 01:42 PM
... just as no one really waxes nostalgic for Scotchchrome 640T or Agfa 3200 color films.
But Scotchchrome 1000D and Agfa 1000... yeah.
& Konica 3200 wasn't all that bad.