George Lucas has been on the forefront of using digital video. The last two Star Wars films were shot digitally. And it saves a lot in film cost, and gains in flexibility. Still, the cameras were bulky, and they needed cables to big hard disks to handle the data output. Unwieldy. Also the details in the highlights were a problem. Film has a softer, more rounded look. Notice the difference in the look of "West Wing", shot on film, and "Friends", shot on video.
But things move fast in the digital world, as I never stop pointing out or marveling at. (I am not sure whether to pity or envy the kids growing up now, for whom this is not a marvel.) And several mature digital solutions are coming out now for digital cinema. Not just "HD video", we are talking pictures at least as big and sharp as what you see in the cinema. And apparently they have the dynamic range (contrast) problems solved in the past couple of years.
One interesting product is the "Red" digital cinema camera.
Site | video | video | video | video
(The videos all seem to be pretty old (but still informative). The camera should be about ready to ship now, it seems.)
Several things are remarkable about it:
1) The price: $17.500 for the camera. Amazingly cheap for a cinema camera, digital or otherwise.
2) The design, very flexible.
3) The high-end sensor.
4) It's a small, "rogue" company.
Apparently they were not satisfied with the sensors they could buy, so they had to get one made specially! This is astounding. Not even Nikon makes their own sensors. I can't figure out how they fund this, and how they move it along this fast.
When they speak of "4K", they mean a resolution of 4,096 pixels on the horisontal... that's about as much as my Canon 5D still camera! That's totally shocking for a video camera. With a really good lens (and cinema lenses are top flight), the level of detail this can pick up is amazing. You should see the prints I made yesterday from pictures taken with my 100mm fixed-focal-length lens.
Probably I will never use such a camera myself. But I have an affinity for high-end or extraordinary products. And I like this company and how they push for a really wonderful and even affordable camera for the future of cinema. The savings in the camera and even more in not having to buy film and processing are immense, and will mean a continued revolution in independent film making. It's probably now possible to make a Hollywood-quality film for, I don't know, one-fifth of the price of just five years ago. (OK, that's a guesstimate, but the change is huge.)
4 comments:
It's a beauty, isn't it? It looks like some instrument from a science fiction movie.
"Probably I will never use such a camera myself."
How can you keep from buying one? Just think about your DOMAI girls shot in a beautiful location in this resolution! You are betraying your country, heritage, religion and species if you falter here! :-)
I am at least mentally preparing to get one -- as soon as I can afford it, and as soon as I have a project I can use it in.
The product looks extraordinary now but in a few years this resolution will be the norm, even in digicams meant for hobbyists.
I saw an article about how HD is a problem for the porn industry, because every tiny wrinkle or pimple is clearly visible!
I can understand it can be a problem for the Porn Industry[tm].
Porn Industry = uncreative, harshly lit, boring depiction of American scar-breasted, shaved peroxide blonds
But for the last 30-40 years of 35mm cinematography (better than "HD" resolution) I haven't heard anyone complaining about this.
Granted, RED Digital's 4K mode probably gives more resolution than ever before (sample JPG), but one can always use filters to average skin tones if needed.
Is it a problem for you in those hi-res DOMAI photos? Do the girls' scars and tattoos show up too clearly? ;-)
"It's probably now possible to make a Hollywood-quality film for, I don't know, one-fifth of the price of just five years ago."
As Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning proved, it is now possible to make a Hollywod quality movie, rich in special effects, for essentially no money at all. (If you are crazy enough to volunteer your time for free.)
Ok, it took them seven years to do, but still. Using real sets, as opposed to virtual sets, would significantly shorten the production time.
Post a Comment