Jump to content


Photo

Super8 Digital Cinema using Beaulieu lenses?


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 Dan Hudgins

Dan Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco, CA USA

Posted 26 August 2011 - 11:12 PM

As the days of Super8 film get closer to the end, an interesting alternative may be the KineRAW-S8 camera from http://www.kinefinity.com that can use C mount lenses made for the Beaulieu 2008, 4008, 5008 or Fujica ZC1000 etc. cameras

I was wondering if its possable to take the motor part off of the Schneider Optivaron f/1.8 6-66mm with macro lever on the back and still have the macro lever lock so that normal focus works, anyone know if that is so, and how to you get the motor part off without bending the metal lever for the macro focus adjustment?

It seems that the KineRAW-S8 is being shown at booth 2B192 BRITV 2011 trade show in China and that Dan Chung is going to post a video of that on his blog, I wrote Kinefinity.com asking about photos of the camera and got this back in an email,

Quote: [Dan Chung stopped by our booth and made a one-minute video interview which he told us that it would be posted on his website. He is very nice, and he introduced some other foreign guys to visit our machine.]

His blog is at,

http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/

I am interested in getting one of their KineRAW-S8 cameras to use with some Super8 Lenses, like Schneider, Angenieux or Fujica (anyone know how the Fijica f/1.8 7.5-75mm compares to the Optivaron 6-66mm f/1.8 with macro zoom?).

So I may be able to shoot some demo footage myself to check out the results. I'm willing to put up with some rough firmware if I need to because I have a project to do in a remote location and a compact system that shoots uncompressed True RAW 2.5K may fill my needs for transfer to 35mm release print, but we will have to see what the quality of the Super8 lenses is since that sensor should be sharper than even Kodachrome, maybe. I figure I will need to shoot near f/4.5 to f/6.3 with ND filters outdoors to be close to prime stop.

Edited by Dan Hudgins, 26 August 2011 - 11:13 PM.

  • 0

#2 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 August 2011 - 02:05 AM

Who said the days of Super 8 are coming to an end? Wasnt this said in the 80s, the 90s, and even in 2000s? If you want to be taken seriously on this forum then don't make stupid proclamations without any real evidence to back it up.

As far as I'm concerned, everything else you have said has no merit and is not even worth responding to.
  • 0

#3 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 27 August 2011 - 02:39 AM

A "Digital S8" camera makes no sense in any form. I smell spam, or is that Sweet and Sour chicken?
  • 0

#4 Andries Molenaar

Andries Molenaar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Amsterdam

Posted 27 August 2011 - 07:35 AM

A "Digital S8" camera makes no sense in any form. I smell spam, or is that Sweet and Sour chicken?



Yeah, it is spam. This camera showed up all of a sudden somewhere else in a thread too.



Who would want to use these 30 year old lenses on a modern digital thing? While there are so many really good c-mount from Fuji and others.
  • 0

#5 Geoff Howell

Geoff Howell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 August 2011 - 08:19 AM

Despite the fact that this looks like vapourware, I suppose it's supposed to be like a Ikonoskop DII but with a smaller sensor.
  • 0

#6 Dan Hudgins

Dan Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco, CA USA

Posted 27 August 2011 - 08:27 AM

The lenses made for the Beaulieu Super8 cameras are quite good, as are many lenses 30 years old that are in good condition. Many of the Super8 cameras in use are as old as the Beaulieu lenses, and may be in worse shape.

Kowa and Fujinon do make some good lenses in the 10MP range, but at a cost that is quite a bit higher than the Beaulieu lenses current used prices. There are some issues with the thickness of the OLPF filter being thicker than the behind the lens gel used in some Super8 and Single8 cameras.

I am sorry about the remark having to do with the life of Super8, but the production of color movie film is in decline as is the number of labs to process it. Its possable that Fuji in Japan or Lucky film in China will continue to produce color film for 10 to 20 years more that can be slit down to make Super8 out of, but there are a lot of Beaulieu Super8 lenses around and they don't cover a 2/3" sensor.

A broader question is what are the reasons for shooting Super8 now:

1) Image quality that is different from compressed video.

2) Cost that is lower than 35mm movie film.

3) More compact and light weight cameras that are more moble than 35mm cameras and use samller batteries.

4) What reasons can you add for shooting Super8?

In many cases now the Super8 gets scanned to make a digital video file, rather than getting printed for projection in a movie projector, so if you use the Beaulieu lens on a digital sensor that is sharper than any film stock and make the same kind of video file (which can be uncompressed AVI, Cineform ™, DCP, MPEG4 etc.) then all you are loosing is some grain and blur. It should be possable to simulate some grain and blur if you need its, but uncompressed digital RAW frames look more like "film" than do compressed video cameras, so its closer to shooting film and as the result is a video file in both cases for the most part, what exactly is the cost of the film and processing adding?

Super8 film has it own esthetic, but some of that is from the lens used, the size and weight of the camera and how it can be used, rather than just the use of film. Uncompressed RAW images can be processed to give many looks, similar to changing film stocks, unlike compressed video cameras, that burn in the look before recording.

I'm not here to start a war about how much longer film will be able to be used, but there are many Beaulieu for sale that were purchased a few years ago, some of which were fixed up by companies that service the Super8 users. Re-use of super8 lenses helps keep the esthetic of Super8 alive in the digital age, at least in part.
  • 0

#7 Dan Hudgins

Dan Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco, CA USA

Posted 27 August 2011 - 08:47 AM

Yeah, it is spam. This camera showed up all of a sudden somewhere else in a thread too.



I was asking about the macro lever on the back of the Optivaron 6-66mm and how to take the motors off without bending the lever and if the macro would still lock for normal focusing.

It might be possable to re-wire the motor part and maybe the power iris in the Optivaron 6-66mm so that they would work on the KineRAW-S8, it takes CS lenses, and as you know the Super8 lenses go back a bit to hide the lens mount on the Beaulieu body. I was thinking that if I use the CS mount on the camera and a 5mm CS to C ring, that I should clear the front of the KineRAW-S8 by maybe 4mm. There might be room enough to put a PCB between the camera face and the contacts on the back of the Optivaron 6-66mm to power the lens's motors for zoom and auto-iris. It might be possable to wire the auto-iris motor in servo to the monitor output of the camera, much like it was in the Beaulieu so that when you push the button on the iris motor the iris would self adjust, then you could manually adjust the iris ring a little if needed to get the histogram or waveform on the monitor where you want it for the selected EI/ISO, K and look LUT.

Does anyone have experence with the Fujica f/1.8 7.5-75mm, vs. Optivaron 6-66mm, in that thread someone was "upgrading" to the Optivaron, so I was wondering if that was for the wider 6mm, or because the Optivaron is sharper. At 2.5K I would want to get the better of the two maybe, so some experence with the look and crispness of the two lenses would be useful information. The Fujica lenses for the ZC1000 seem less common, maybe, at least off a body.
  • 0

#8 Heikki Repo

Heikki Repo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Director
  • Finland

Posted 27 August 2011 - 09:15 AM

I am sorry about the remark having to do with the life of Super8, but the production of color movie film is in decline as is the number of labs to process it. Its possable that Fuji in Japan or Lucky film in China will continue to produce color film for 10 to 20 years more that can be slit down to make Super8 out of, but there are a lot of Beaulieu Super8 lenses around and they don't cover a 2/3" sensor.


By the time super-8 color negative film is gone this KineRAW-S8 has been outdated for years...
  • 0

#9 Dan Hudgins

Dan Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco, CA USA

Posted 27 August 2011 - 09:36 AM

By the time super-8 color negative film is gone this KineRAW-S8 has been outdated for years...



Perhaps, but how many Super8 cameras will still be running 20 years from now? I have some but they are not working and the gears and movement parts wear out. If you keep taking old movie cameras for parts, at some point getting unused parts is going to be a issue.

From my perspective, its about what is on the screen in the movie theater and how can I manage to shoot what I need to in a way that is within my budget. Working with Super8 style and getting the esthetic is the important aspect. Shooting with Epic is not going to give the same esthetic, because the lenses are not the same and the DOF and FOV are not the same. Not to mention that Epic is costing maybe 25x to 50x the price, and out of my reach.

Acam dII ™ would be maybe an option but it has to issues of its own, 1) It costs too much for my budget right now, and 2) it shoots 1920x1092 and its hard to hide the Bayer artifacts with a 1:1 pixel de-Bayer, 3) the sensor is too large for Super8 lenses to cover in the nromal way. Also the OLPF filter they are using may not be quite enough to reduce the chroma moire levels to get a non-digital looking image at 1:1 pixel size. The 2.5K is closer to ARRI ALEXA 2880x1620 used for 1.5x downsample to 1920x1080, Scarlet uses the same 1.5x downsample, that downsample helps get a more filmlike result.

Edited by Dan Hudgins, 27 August 2011 - 09:39 AM.

  • 0

#10 Dan Hudgins

Dan Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco, CA USA

Posted 27 August 2011 - 01:05 PM

Dan Chung posted some photos of the Kinefinity.com KineRAW-S35 camera, but none of the S8 model, but from what I understand the S8 model is thiner and smaller, it lacks the Cineform ™ compressed option which helps it be smaller since it does not need the extra circuits to compress the images...

http://www.dslrnewss...era-for-us8000/

Hopefully I will be able to get a S8 model for testing before too long, I still don't have an ETA though.

Another reason for using the Beaulieu Super8 lenses are that most are wide range Zoom lenses and are "true" zooms in that they hold focus over their range so you can focus by tape measure to the footage marks on the lens. If you are shooting with 10MP fixed focus lenses, and you have to change them outdoors you can get dust in the camera, but using the Beaulieu lenses the camera is "sealed" so there is less chance of getting dust in the camera and you can set the focal length with the zoom control and use it as a "variable prime" since those lenses were made by first class lens grinders in Europe. Some of the so-called zoom lenses made for TV cameras today are in fact not true zoom lenses, they are a two group lens and the f/ stop and focus change then you zoom and they do not track focus, and do not have focus marks or f/ stop marks on them, unlike the Beaulieu lenses that have real "cinema" T/ stops and focus marks that you can depend on.

Edited by Dan Hudgins, 27 August 2011 - 01:07 PM.

  • 0

#11 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 August 2011 - 03:46 PM

I am sorry about the remark having to do with the life of Super8, but the production of color movie film is in decline as is the number of labs to process it.


Haha, are you serious? During the "golden age" of Super 8, they only had 2 stocks. The Kodachrome 40 and the Ektachrome 160. Now there is V3 200t, V3 500t, Tri-X B&W, Ektachrome 100D, and Fuji makes the Velvia 50D.
  • 0

#12 Dan Hudgins

Dan Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco, CA USA

Posted 27 August 2011 - 05:14 PM

Haha, are you serious? During the "golden age" of Super 8, they only had 2 stocks. The Kodachrome 40 and the Ektachrome 160. Now there is V3 200t, V3 500t, Tri-X B&W, Ektachrome 100D, and Fuji makes the Velvia 50D.


I think you forgot about Agfa, and GAF During the "golden age" of Super 8?

Lets go shoot some GAF and see if we can find a lab that does one day on that?

Where does all the all or nothing about film or digital come from, I did not tell anyone not to shoot film with their C mount Super8 zoom lenses, only that the can unscrew it from their Beaulieu and put it in the KineRAW-S8 and shoot with it if they want to.

What's happened to DuPont and Illford's movie film lines?

Did you know that people used to re-perforate 16mm double perf film into regular 8mm film. That way they had all kinds of film stocks that mfg did not offer for 8mm use, except that the holes were not to spec and the registration was not very good on some cameras and projectors.

It might be possable to make C-41 process Super8 by way of slitting and perfing, that would make processing easer since there would not be jet backing.

What I was talking about was the volume produced not the variety, Kodachrome processing had to end because Kodak stopped making the water-soluble dye couplers.

The many special chemicals used in color film production will end production when the cost to profit ratio falls to some point. Color film production in small batches is not as easy to get done as making black and white film stocks, was my point.

Sorry that it was not as clear as maybe it could have been, but one thinks that filmmakers are following the money problems at Kodak and such.

http://www.msnbc.msn...plans-job-cuts/

Edited by Dan Hudgins, 27 August 2011 - 05:19 PM.

  • 0

#13 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 August 2011 - 05:58 PM

Dan, let me put this another way. Even if film was gone, I still wouldnt want a camera that utilizes a dumb idea like trying to imitate the aesthetic of Super8. The reasons are that 1) it wouldnt be successful in doing so anyway 2) If I were to go digital, why not get the highest resolution possible? because 3) although not all, many of us shoot S8 because we cant afford to shoot 35. Although we do like the aesthetic, I doubt any of us would shoot S8 if we were given a budget to shoot 35. Therefore, the whole concept of a digital S8 camera is foolish unless it can match the price point of say, a mini-DV camera. Although mini-DV has "higher resolution" in some people's mind than S8, S8 looks better to 11 out of 10 people ;)
  • 0

#14 Dan Hudgins

Dan Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco, CA USA

Posted 28 August 2011 - 01:16 AM

Dan, let me put this another way. Even if film was gone, I still wouldnt want a camera that utilizes a dumb idea like trying to imitate the aesthetic of Super8. The reasons are that 1) it wouldnt be successful in doing so anyway 2) If I were to go digital, why not get the highest resolution possible? because 3) although not all, many of us shoot S8 because we cant afford to shoot 35. Although we do like the aesthetic, I doubt any of us would shoot S8 if we were given a budget to shoot 35. Therefore, the whole concept of a digital S8 camera is foolish unless it can match the price point of say, a mini-DV camera. Although mini-DV has "higher resolution" in some people's mind than S8, S8 looks better to 11 out of 10 people ;)


One reason that S8 looks better than mini-DV is that it is not compressed with lossy compression, another is the wide dynamic range.

KineRAW-S8 uses a uncompressed 12 bit recording, and so gives a tonal range close to the original RED ONE ™ camera, or about 11 1/2 f/ stops. When used with temporal noise reduction the image quality can be quite good because of the 2.5K pixel resolution. Arri Alexa is only 2880 this is 2592, so 2880-2592 = 288 pixels less. That is not so much less than a camera costing much more in terms of pixel count, and much of the digital look has to do with the Bayer filter, and not so much the image size.

I have been talking to both companies, Kinefinity.com and OptimaCine.com and have some samples of their data that I have used for testing while I develop de-Bayer software designed for use with their and other cameras like Acam dII ™, Kinor-2K ™, and SI-2K ™.

My Brother and I have a 35mm movie film scanner made out of an Oxberry optical printer that seems to have been owned by MGM in their special effects department. We purcahsed the optical printer lens that was used to blow up the Zapruder film from the original 8mm for the movie JFK. I know what various film looks like in a 4K scan.

The quality of the 2.5K results going to letter boxed 2.35:1 from the KineRAW-S8 seem to fall between good Super16 and older 35mm movie prints. The grain can be quite a bit less when the exposure and contrast range of the lighting are controlled, its actually quite amazing to me how such a small sensor can produce images that in some ways, but not all, surpass 35mm movie film, and without the gunk, scratches, dust, and un-even processing.

Much of the image quality depends on the lens used and the OLPF+IR/UV cut filter, as the aliasing and chroma moire are controled my the OLPF filter, there is no good software solution that can replace the OLPF filter. Some OLPF filters use a dichroic filter, others use a green copper doped glass. Because you need to use ND filters to shoot under daylight, the IR/UV cut of the filter has a big impact on the image quality as well.

Transfer to 35mm movie film ends up showing about 1280x720 resolution on the movie screen, even though 4K scans or 4K film recorder are used in the DI. With the movie projector lens a bit out of focus your resolution can fall to closer to 640x360 in a movie theatre without a full time projectionist. That is not a sharp cut off, you can see some fine details in out of focus images.

For making 2.35:1 35mm prints 2K film recorders use 1828x1556 pixels, but for 2.39:1 DCP digital projection the resolution is only 2048x858 pixels, and that is overscanned so you get maybe 1860x778 on the movie screen for wide screen digital projection.

The KineRAW-S8 shoots 2.35:1 2592x1104x12bit@24fps, and has been tested up to 30fps but that is not specified. It supports other resolutions with oversample for 16:9 shooting as well. I have asked them to add some other modes so that anamorphic lenses can be used, but as you can see in the video they look like they are quite bussy so it may be in a later firmware update.

2592x1104 needs to crop and down sample to get to standard 2048x858 DCP projection format. In tests with a not so great lens I was able to see telephone wires that are close to one pixel wide, but its best not to push the anti-OLPF sharpen that high to keep aliasing under noticability. That is a digital issue and not one from the sensor used, all digital images need to have some antialias blur in order not to show "runners" when the camera is panned.

You get more film like results when you have these factors:

1) Pixel oversample, 1.5x is good, 2x is best, this camera is a bit under optimum but better than cameras like Acam dII ™ maybe that have no oversample. Alexa and Scarlet use 1.5x oversample, Sony shoots 8K for 4K results so is 2x oversample. Epic is 5K for 4K so is not up the the 1.5x it should be using,

5/4 = 1.25

2592/1920 = 1.35

So you see that KineRAW-S8 has a HIGHER oversample ratio than Epic, although the end use resolution is lower, if you over sample Epic 5K for 1920 then it has the advantage, obviously, but I wonder if you made 35mm film negatives on the same film recorder from digital frames shot with both cameras, then made release prints on high speed contact printers, the projected both of them in a small "art house" screen a bit out of focus as many of theatres are, and you sit back toward the center rear of the theatre where most people sit, just how much difference would you see? And would it impact the ticket sales one way or the other depending on which camera was used, in fact the film made with the lower cost camera may work out better since rather than pay high rental costs, that money can go into production items and length of production.

Anyone can find fault with anything if you look close enough, but the question is when does the quality become not an issue and what is shot within the frame the main factor.

Since your eyes see about 1280x720 off a 35mm film print as projected, and the camera shoots more than 2x that resolution in image width, then you get a visual 2x oversample, about the minimum usable sensor being 2560 pixels wide for 35mm transfer. SI-2K is only 2048 but Slum dog millionaire got best picture. The sensor in KineRAW-S8 has more pixels in image width than the camera used for a best picture winning film, the bit range is the same, 12bits, and it has full uncompressed recording to reduce "blue noise" better maybe depending on the software used to de-Bayer, I think Slum Dog was shot using Cineform ™ compression.

That is why the issue of lenses comes up, and also the ease of use of Super8 zoom lenses and camera weight and size comes in. I have used 35mm movie cameras, and the noise they make is a real issue, and the weight and size. Getting results that are close enough to 35mm film in terms of tonal range and grain without the cost of film and lab work, can improve your project by giving you "unlimited" shooting ratios, with digital you can re-use the SSD many times for the cost of four minutes of 35mm film, its even lower cost than Super8 for the most part.

If I am able to get a sample camera to shoot with under good lighting conditions, we can then all see what the end quality can be. I have a freeish DI system on my web site anyone can use to make a good uncompressed DI for their feature film, including color correction grading, NLE, and sound mixing, as well as some opticals. My interest in this camera is getting a affordable True RAW camera that looks closer to "film" than camcorders or even HDSLRs do in some ways, for my projects, some other people may also find this of interest, others would like something that is maybe quicker or cheeper or whatever, I never said that there was "one way" of doing anything that fits all needs, but people who might be interested cannot use the camera if they don't know its an option to use with their Super8 lenses, tripods and other filmmaking equipment, its just a camera body change for the most part etc.
  • 0

#15 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 August 2011 - 06:04 AM

Dan, there is so much wrong with your post, I dont know where to begin.

However, I have three huge problems with your statements. 1) You are trying to make digital look like film which is a moot goal because digital should aim to look like digital. It is not film and does not have a physical layering of grain like film does. And those who desire to shoot film will do so as long as its available. 2) You mentioned about shooting ratios being unlimited. Should this even be a goal? Efficient filmmaking should seek to limit ratios anyway so as not to waste the other (often more expensive) resources like cast, crew, locations, etc. which brings me to 3) You assume that film stock, processing, and transfer are the main costs of making movies. Maybe to some they are but when you get above the ultra low budget sector, the costs of the "other stuff" is a bigger issue.

The last and final thing that really pisses me off is you try to come off like you are genuinely enthusiastic about this camera but its obvious that you are a shill. And trying to insult our intelligence by throwing out ridiculous figures like 35mm prints having as low as 640 pixels...man you just gotta stop.
  • 0

#16 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 28 August 2011 - 01:42 PM

Haha, are you serious? During the "golden age" of Super 8, they only had 2 stocks. The Kodachrome 40 and the Ektachrome 160. Now there is V3 200t, V3 500t, Tri-X B&W, Ektachrome 100D, and Fuji makes the Velvia 50D.


There was also 7244 and 7242, which I could get processed at the Leo Diner lab in SF,CA, one of which, while grainy, gave very subtle pastels that contrasted very nicely with the gorgeous low speed Kodachrome (I'd use one of those to show 'heaven and hell' in a film that showed earthbound stuff with K40) ...

And truth to tell, K40 was good enough for damned near everything else I did 1975-1990. Though the regular 160 was a joke, nearly as offensive as the type G they made that was really for idiots who couldn't make the 85 filter work for them.
  • 0

#17 Dan Hudgins

Dan Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco, CA USA

Posted 28 August 2011 - 01:57 PM

Dan, there is so much wrong with your post, I dont know where to begin.

However, I have three huge problems with your statements. 1) You are trying to make digital look like film which is a moot goal because digital should aim to look like digital. It is not film and does not have a physical layering of grain like film does. And those who desire to shoot film will do so as long as its available. 2) You mentioned about shooting ratios being unlimited. Should this even be a goal? Efficient filmmaking should seek to limit ratios anyway so as not to waste the other (often more expensive) resources like cast, crew, locations, etc. which brings me to 3) You assume that film stock, processing, and transfer are the main costs of making movies. Maybe to some they are but when you get above the ultra low budget sector, the costs of the "other stuff" is a bigger issue.

The last and final thing that really pisses me off is you try to come off like you are genuinely enthusiastic about this camera but its obvious that you are a shill. And trying to insult our intelligence by throwing out ridiculous figures like 35mm prints having as low as 640 pixels...man you just gotta stop.


I am sorry that I was unclear, I was talking about 35mm projection, not the print viewed under a microscope. Respected tests show that 35mm projection from generational prints under normal projection conditions falls around 720 lines per image height plus or minus about 150 lines. Additional focus errors can reduce the resolution at 80% MTF quite a bit, and since many theatres today do not have projectionist to re-adjust the focus on reel changes any longer, the focus can be off or drift. Today theatres that still show 35mm prints use platters for the most part. I have been at many shows where the focus was way off duing the length of the picture, if you have had better luck, then thats great since no filmmaker wants his film shown with soft focus in the projector. You can stil see some theatres using older lenses that may not have the quality of focus that some newer projection lenses have. The 35mm 1.85:1 is 0.447" (camera) with 10% projection mask you get 0.402" or 10.2mm, with the fast older projection lens giving about between 40 lp/mm and 20 lp/mm depending on the state of the focus you get about 816 to 408 lines per image height at 80% MTF, not including the black bleed in the print stock.

10.2*(40*2) = 816

10.2*(20*2) = 408

Depending on where you sit the perceived resolution is lower because your eyes add additional losses, and in small art house theatres they tend to be split older theatres where the seating is long and narrow.

In brief clarification,

1) Yes anything digital will not be film, but having good grading range from shooting 12bit uncompressed is different from shooting video compressed where the look is burned in before the image is recorded. One thing uncompressed gives you is that you can reduce the exposure to decrease the "blown out" clipped highlight that are "un-film-like", and although some people may want their digital shoots to have the clipped highlight look of clasic video, I an in general not one who does.

2) Unlimited, that means if you need 20 takes to get the performance you can let the camera run and do it, whereas shooting film you might not be able to do the number of takes needed to get the performance because you would run out of film within your budget before you had all the shots you need. At least its more of an option to get the take that works if you are not going to run out of film that day and you are away from a store to buy more because the actor or others are not getting it right in four takes that day.

3) Yes, the cost of the camera and film don't matter for some. For myself they are an issue, but more so is the cost and weight of using 35mm movie equipment as I can work with a Super8 size camera and some actors myself, and that is not the case with 35mm film. For myself the freedom of using the Super8 size camera with a lens that has a real focus ring and shoots with uncompressed is something that should make some projects I have been planning come true that I cannot physically do by myself with 35mm equipment, and that is not just the theory. I have posted around and asked various people if they would be interested in making a 35mm film if they would help me with the stuff in front of the camera and I could take the costs for the film and post production and we could work together to make a good 35mm feature film, and so far I have not be able to find anyone that is willing to get real about the work involved with the heavy hardware and tight shooting ratios.

4) I am genuinely enthusiastic about this camera, I have spent almost every day for the last two years writing special de-Bayer code to process the uncompressed RAW data from such cameras to get the type of results that I think would look good on a movie screen in my own projects. I just posted that de-Bayer program on my web site for filmmakers around the world to use without charge if they want to so that they can have "total" manual control over how the image data is processed and what "look" they are going for. I have put our in-house DI system on my web site for filmmakers around the world to make their own uncompressed DI with to reduce their post production budget and get "studio quality" printing master or DCP. I have DIY film recorder software on my web site so that people can make their own film recorder to print the digital frames direct to 35mm print stock to make release prints without the cost of making a printing negative and get maybe a sharper print also because its 1st generation.
I do not have direct financial gain from talking about the camera, and I do hope to be able to get one for my own use, to help in my projects, based on what I know so far about the results. My support for various uncompressed Digital Cinema Cameras from various makers is part of my interest in filmmaking. The camera's planned sync option for 3D Stereo shooting is another interest as I have a long standing interest in 3D and have published papers on autostereoscopic television. My primary interest is in micro budget filmmaking with light weight equipment that can still get results that look useful. I am interested in what information and experience other filmmakers have with the Super8 C mount lenses, because of my budget and the need to buy the ones that fit my needs.

I have replied to clarify my intended meaning as I am able.
  • 0

#18 Dan Hudgins

Dan Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco, CA USA

Posted 21 December 2011 - 07:50 AM

I was able to shoot some tests with a KineRAW-S8p ™. These shots were made using a Schneider Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 16mm lens and a Computar-Ganz 5mm f/1.4 1/2" format lens. Some previous shots made with the Fujica 5.5mm f/1.8 for the ZC1000 were not sharp enough in the corners at the 2592x1104x12bit @ 24fps resolution. Although the Fujica 5.5mm f/1.8 Single8 lens might be useful for the resolutions that use a smaller sensor area, it is sharp near the center of the image at about f/5.6 and does not have barrel distortion.

The color balance was part of my 'film look' experiments for movie film replacement, sometimes more accurate color balance gives a bit of a camcorder look to the results, likewise with the amount of anti-OLPF sharpen, I tried to avoid ringing and get a softer film like edge. There are adjustments for the various software filters used to get additional looks.



I have a bunch of other shots archived to process, and some additional shooting modes to test so I may post additional test videos later on my Vimeo page. The sample is meant to played 1:1 pixel on a 1920 wide monitor, not re-sized which would degrade the image quality more than the compression already has. If you want to see some of the uncompressed frames used to make that video you can email me and put 'cinematography.com user uncompressed frame request' in the subject line so I know its not junk mail, thanks.

I still have to test the Super8 Zoom lenses to see how they cover as the image diagonal should be close to Super8. I don't see any dark corners just looking on the 1280x720 HDMI viewfinder output, but to gauge the results I need to process the 2.5K frames and look at them in finish de-Bayer mode.
  • 0

#19 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 December 2011 - 08:56 AM

What will this little camera cost? That is the primary question. If it is even half the cost of a Scarlet, you might sell two worldwide.

The T3i is so decent with magic lantern and so damn cheap that this puppy will have to be near a grand. If it is not, no one will pay attention.

Now, I hope that the price point is near the DSLR level. Should it be, I might be game. higher? not gonna happen.
  • 0

#20 Dan Hudgins

Dan Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco, CA USA

Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:58 AM

What will this little camera cost? That is the primary question. If it is even half the cost of a Scarlet, you might sell two worldwide.

The T3i is so decent with magic lantern and so damn cheap that this puppy will have to be near a grand. If it is not, no one will pay attention.

Now, I hope that the price point is near the DSLR level. Should it be, I might be game. higher? not gonna happen.


A Scarlet outfit is what maybe $20000? And PL lenses another $20000?

You can't really get an impression of the image quality from the compressed video, its something that you can see more on a large screen like in a movie theater maybe from projection of the uncompressed TIF frames.

When work started on the cameras there were no HDSLR at 23.976fps, but that is what happens when there is a need, at some point other people see the market as well.

I understand the price point issues and have pointed them out to them. There are costs in making short run items, so there are some advantages over HDSLR in the lack of banding and block noise and such, which you can't see in the video since it was compressed H.264 to get it up for people to have something to look at. If someone wants to try to see the uncompressed AVI they can contact me, but its not easy to play as you need a very fast computer.

The question people need to ask if they are going for theatrical release is HDSLR good enough for their needs, do they like the look they get?

With a True RAW DNG based camera you can have more grading range in POST so you do not need to get the exposure so exactly right in the camera. Since the HDSLR only record 8 bit data, there is NO grading range before histogram gaps show up if you adjust curves and such. And 8 bits is making banding all the time as your eyes can see 9 bits. When you do the DCP or 35mm filmout you want to use at least 10bit DPX frames. 5DtoRGB ™ can make DPX files, but I don't think it can make up for the lack of data in the H.264 recordings.

The last price guess I got was about 1/4 the price of the S35 model. Maybe that is a bit high for volume sales, but not so high that people who like DNG based cameras could not afford one. It has nice features like live waveforms and SMPTE time code support etc. that make it maybe more like using a movie camera.

I don't think Acam dII ™ has visions of competing with the HDSLR market as well, but I do think that its good to have a choice not to have images degraded by compression artifacts. If people have to pay a few hundred dollars more to get that, maybe there will be some that will, time will tell.

The S16 and S35 models plan to support Cineform ™ compression as well, so that is another advantage over HDSLR as far as ease of use and end quality.

Edited by Dan Hudgins, 21 December 2011 - 09:59 AM.

  • 0


Visual Products

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Visual Products

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets