Jump to content


Photo

Digital "Vista Vision" 1080 is HERE


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 24 October 2008 - 07:33 PM


View on Vimeo

Above link is some footage from the new Canon 5Dm2 DSLR shooting 1080p video. The camera can shoot at ISO 3200 and possibly ISO 6400, with extremely fast full-frame (Vista Vision) still glass, like the 24mm f/1.4 or the 35mm 1.4 or 50mm f/1.2.

Of course, this is only the first camera with specs like these, but you can imagine that MANY more are on the way, including Jannard's DSMC/Scarlet and Canon's 1Ds Mark V, which might incorporate higher framerates and possibly RAW shooting next year.

My main concern is: how the hell do you pull focus on something like this? The form factor is very difficult to deal with.

In terms of audio, obviously you could sync sound with an external recorder for serious projects, or run a good mic into its minijack.

Obviously, there are many questions about the sampling technique being used to create the 5Dm2's 1080p, and obviously, this is only a first crack at something like this.

It does make me wonder, though, how this might change the cinema world.
  • 0

#2 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 October 2008 - 12:23 AM

I don't think this changes much at all in the cinema world.
  • 0

#3 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 October 2008 - 12:54 PM

It is beautiful looking video. Does it pose a threat to film? Maybe more to Red, even though it doesn't shoot RAW.

It is interesting that people in England don't seem to be bothered to be the filmed. Here in the US, you can always count on jerks who demand not to be filmed, despite their being in public areas.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 25 October 2008 - 12:54 PM.

  • 0

#4 David Bradley

David Bradley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Other
  • London UK

Posted 25 October 2008 - 04:25 PM

I don't think Mr Jannard will be shaking in his boots too much. Still, these images are pretty impressive.
  • 0

#5 Joe Giambrone

Joe Giambrone
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Director

Posted 28 October 2008 - 06:55 PM

Is it Vimeo, or is there a problem with the motion?

I keep seeing jumpy motion in that video. Is it the camera or something later in the chain?
  • 0

#6 Tony Brown

Tony Brown
  • Sustaining Members
  • 689 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 29 October 2008 - 09:24 AM

".....Its a 35mm film equivalent cinema system that allows you to film 35mm style cine imagery without the need for any crew......"

You think?
  • 0

#7 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 29 October 2008 - 09:35 AM

".....Its a 35mm film equivalent cinema system that allows you to film 35mm style cine imagery without the need for any crew......"

You think?


Hi Tony,
'
Obviousely being that fast we won't need to use lights anymore :lol:
I think it will have about the same impact on film making as the word processor had on writing.

Stephen
  • 0

#8 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 29 October 2008 - 09:43 AM

What do you think that rolling shutter will do to fast moving subjects? For example, a man running across the frame. Will his legs morph as they move?

As far as lighting, you may not need big cans but you still need intentional light of some kind for aesthetic purposes. It's not enough to just get an exposure.
  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 29 October 2008 - 10:14 AM

As far as lighting, you may not need big cans but you still need intentional light of some kind for aesthetic purposes. It's not enough to just get an exposure.


Hi,

I was joking!

Stephen
  • 0

#10 Tony Brown

Tony Brown
  • Sustaining Members
  • 689 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 29 October 2008 - 10:19 AM

Hi,

I was joking!

Stephen


You should know better Stephen.... aim lower

The thread has left me (almost) speechless
  • 0

#11 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 29 October 2008 - 11:58 AM

I was reading on another forum about people's wish list for another 5D MII upgrade. 24 fps seemed to be a high concern. If theaters are going digital projection, why would you need 24 fps other than a few motion factors. Doesn't a Barco projector system process data at 30 fps?

As I write this, I look across the room at my Frankenmitchell. This is sad. But here it is: affordable CMOS quality imaging at a suitable resolution.

At least I can run my large selection of Nikkies on this thing.

How does Hollywood keep punks like me from being a threat to their ticket sales? I assume they are financing the digital projectors so they can exclude competitors.

Can large scale production value and big names keep their strangle hold on sales?
  • 0

#12 Milo Sekulovich

Milo Sekulovich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 October 2008 - 12:32 PM

Like Tony Brown, I'm speechless also at this thread.

This is something that's my biggest bone of contention with these digital
fanboys and the "revolution." Shoot 35mm quality with no crew, bypass film
and the skill to shoot film at any cost, resort to easier and more ignorant ways to
try to equal film, proclaim the death of film, and so on.

The clip looks like video to me. And come on, the screen is small. You can't judge that
accurately. Even well shot MiniDV can look decent at that size. But enlarge it to a computer screen size or
a TV then we'll see what it's made of.

The majority of features are still shot on film. There's a reason why Hollywood is not shooting exclusively RED, HD, and so on.

ARRI HAD RECORD SALES OF THEIR FILM CAMERAS LAST YEAR!

Enough said.

Milo
  • 0

#13 Robert Tagliaferri

Robert Tagliaferri
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 October 2008 - 12:35 PM

Someone needs to transplant the guts of this thing into a film camera form factor, add a PL mount, keep the price tag- and I'm so sold.

Not sure how practical this thing is going to be for full-scale productions though. I could see it becoming extremely popular in the low budget music video world. Seems like an HVX Killer!

H.264 is not suited to theatre-size projection and FX work though is it? Anyone know if the footage could actually hold up on the BIG screen?
  • 0

#14 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 29 October 2008 - 12:58 PM

Like Tony Brown, I'm speechless also at this thread.

This is something that's my biggest bone of contention with these digital
fanboys and the "revolution." Shoot 35mm quality with no crew, bypass film
and the skill to shoot film at any cost, resort to easier and more ignorant ways to
try to equal film, proclaim the death of film, and so on.


So anyone who is interested in or excited by the notion of being able to shoot on full-frame 35mm (Vista Vision) glass at, say, ISO 3200 is a "digital fanboy" who is pursuing "ignorant" ways of capturing moving images?
  • 0

#15 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 29 October 2008 - 01:11 PM

So anyone who is interested in or excited by the notion of being able to shoot on full-frame 35mm (Vista Vision) glass at, say, ISO 3200 is a "digital fanboy" who is pursuing "ignorant" ways of capturing moving images?


Hi Tom,

You sum it up quite well!
So Tom, does this camera spell the death of Epic, Red One, Scarlet & Film in one quick blow?

Stephen
  • 0

#16 Tony Brown

Tony Brown
  • Sustaining Members
  • 689 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 29 October 2008 - 01:19 PM

I suspect what Tom means is that you cant replace the craft with technical competence of the equipment (though I'd also dispute the competence of the equipment based on the film).

And by the way - I see nothing there that probably couldn't be shot on Vision 3 (500asa). Unless you post A/B its impossible to judge levels

I like the narrow DoF, but the rest is awful
  • 0

#17 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 October 2008 - 01:25 PM

Tony

Great avatar, you had me touching the screen, trying to get that insect off!
  • 0

#18 Will Earl

Will Earl
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Other
  • Wellington, NZ

Posted 29 October 2008 - 01:43 PM

Last time I checked one could shoot 35mm film by oneself and acheive 35mm image quality without the need for a crew - probably not the most practical and efficent way to shoot a film, but hey it's possible. While this camera might not have the image quality of 35mm film (digital 'vistavision' is pushing it), it still is an interesting looking camera and if I was a wishing man, I'd ask Santa or LBJ for the guts of this thing in a useable form-factor.

But maybe now with an investment in this camera I can shoot my sci-fi roman epic with one person and two sets, three locations, lit only using the dark side of the moon and make millions of dollars with it, all without showing it to anyone. That would be awesome. <end madness>
  • 0

#19 Ruairi Robinson

Ruairi Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 October 2008 - 01:44 PM

Hi Tom,

You sum it up quite well!
So Tom, does this camera spell the death of Epic, Red One, Scarlet & Film in one quick blow?

Stephen



I don't think you are leaping nearly far enough in your conclusions. I think it spells the end of civilization as we know it. There will be mass suicides, swarms of locusts, the worlds surface will be rendered as smooth as glass by a series of cataclysmic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, 250,000 people will ascend directly to heaven without dying, and those that are left behind will be without film, and will only have digital SLRs. In fact, instead of selling my red one, I'm going to dump it in the ocean, as an anchor, to drag me down with it. I mean whats the point? There's a stills camera that shoots sort-of-good-ish quality video now. It's game over, man.

R.

Edited by Ruairi Robinson, 29 October 2008 - 01:45 PM.

  • 0

#20 Tony Brown

Tony Brown
  • Sustaining Members
  • 689 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 29 October 2008 - 02:07 PM

I can shoot my sci-fi roman epic with one person and two sets, three locations, lit only using the dark side of the moon and make millions of dollars with it, all without showing it to anyone. That would be awesome. <end madness>


Lucas did it....
...or was that your point?
  • 0


CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Opal

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio