At the moment, most films are shot on film. Film has many advantages over digital video--not the least of which are dynamic range (the difference between the brightest whites and darkest blacks) and resolution. This is part of what gives film its inherent warmth.
Of course, film is still costly and bulky and needs chemical developing, which is a pain. But what if you could accomplish the best parts of film-making with a video camera, while still holding onto film's advantages? That would be a pretty powerful tool. Which is what a new line of video cameras from "Red" is. There's still a little vaporware promise here, but at least the first models are on the street.
From the company:
Typical high-end HD camcorders have 2.1-megapixel pixel sensors and record with 3:1:1 color sub-sampled video at up to 30 fps. RED offers the Mysterium Super 35mm cine-sized (24.4×13.7mm) sensor, which provides 4K (up to 30 fps), 3K (up to 60 fps) and 2K (up to 120 fps) capture, and all this with wide dynamic range and color space in 12 bit native RAW. At 4K, that's more than 5 times the amount of information available every second and a vastly superior recording quality. In addition, you get the same breathtaking Depth of Field and selective focus as found in film cameras using equivalent 35mm P/L mount lenses. Mysterium boasts greater than 66db Dynamic Range thanks to its large 29 sq. micron pixels. And 12,065,000 pixels deliver resolution that can only be called Ultra High Definition.
Let me cut through the jargon. Very high resolution. Higher, by far, than any video you've ever seen. And, the ability to shoot very high resolution slo-mo. All with a look akin to a 35mm camera.
The best I can do now is show you samples from Red on your computer screen, but that's like judging Jessica Alba based on her SATs. Just not the right test to find out what you want to know.
You will drool when you see what this camera can deliver and then regret every HDTV dime you've ever spent. In fact, this line already has indie film producers drooling. With the 'starter' camera body under $20,000 and individual lenses costing 'only' $5,000 to $10,000 apiece, movie making has been democratized.
Yes, this is out of the range of most amateurs. No one is saying it's cheap. But, it's reasonable enough to allow some potential filmmakers now on the sideline to jump in. And, it will change how movies are shot going forward.
Stumble
Digg
del.icio.us
Slashdot
May 26, 2008 1:43 PM
I think i've seen some other articles about this.
If i ever win the lottery, i'm there.
May 27, 2008 1:30 PM
If it can truly live up to its promises and for the price mentioned, this could truly change filmmaking, particularly "indie" filmmaking. Productions could literally buy the cameras rather than rent them which could save them thousands of dollars in the long run plus it gives them a tax break by buying them.
Previously, the digital cameras that tried to achieve this, even the one Sony and Panavision created several years ago that George Lucas used for the last two Star Wars films, just couldn't pass the test. The Sony camera and Panavision lenses did produce a great looking image and by capturing it at 24P (24 fps progressive rather than the normal approach of multiple fields per frame) with lenses Panavision designed specifically for the camera and based on their 35mm lenses used on their popular Panaflex 35mm motion picture cameras, it further enhanced the image. But I saw one of the films blown up on an iMax screen and that's where the true weaknesses showed their ugly heads.
As mentioned in the above article, the lack of dynamic range in particular was the most notable. When going from a bright exterior into a dark interior (all in one continuous camera move), the image became pixellated in various parts of the image. While it wasn't as noticeable on a regular movie screen, blown up at 70mm or iMax, it was very noticeable. And the lack of higher resolution only enhanced the problems.
If this camera does as promised, those issues would go away. And that would be amazing. Not only that but, with that price tag, everyone would be able to shoot with a camera like that. And, no longer, would a director have to worry about how many takes he's taking on each scene, worrying about how much film he's burning through on each take.
Or having to go through the hassles of shooting the footage for the day then carting it off to the processing plant and wait until the next day to see the dailies to see how each shot turned out and then have to go through all the costs and time to have most of the shots then transferred to video so it can be imported into whatever editing software the editors use to cut the film and then worrying about the cost and technical worries surrounding the process of cutting the film negative based on the video edit and then having more prints and more video transfers made in order to adjust color and stuff like that.
We would finally have the dream come true of actually being able to shoot as much footage as we want without worrying about the cost (to an extent, it didn't say what type of tape it records on or what it costs), and be able to import it directly into our favorite editing software, cut it any way we like, apply filters, adjust the colors, apply visual effects, titles, etc., and then when we're finally happy with everything, simply export it to whatever formats we want for exhibition and we're done!
I really hope this camera is as advertised and for the price it's as advertised for. It just sounds a little too good to be true, you know?
Mike