Keep video and film seperate please!

[Graeme_Nattress]

Unfortunately, 24bit audio implies a dynamic range of 144db, which is much greater than the pain threshold of the human ear, especially when you consider background noise levels the music reproduction needs to rise above I can fully understand having a high bit depth while recording to allow you a lot of gain flexibility in setting levels, and in post production - it's like compositing in float, but it's utterly pointless in a distribution medium when you can't even exploit CD's 96db dynamic range in the home. Maybe in an anechoic chamber...... So if you live in one of them, DVD-Audio might come in handy. It's tricky to exploit even the limited ~50db dynamic range of vinyl in the home.....

Graeme

 

[Jarred Land]

Well RED is neither, it's digital. Zeros and Ones.

People aren't looking to emulate film, they are looking for a cinematic quality.

Cinematic quality will mean different things to different people, but that is the standard that a lot of people want to reach.

i like this one... thanks thomas.

 

[Proteus]

Unfortunately, 24bit audio implies a dynamic range of 144db, which is much greater than the pain threshold of the human ear, especially when you consider background noise levels the music reproduction needs to rise above I can fully understand having a high bit depth while recording to allow you a lot of gain flexibility in setting levels, and in post production - it's like compositing in float, but it's utterly pointless in a distribution medium when you can't even exploit CD's 96db dynamic range in the home. Maybe in an anechoic chamber...... So if you live in one of them, DVD-Audio might come in handy. It's tricky to exploit even the limited ~50db dynamic range of vinyl in the home.....

Graeme

Here is why you need a high dynamic range as the one offered by 24bit:

1. First of all, this is not an argument, but if you want to enjoy the highest dynamic range and sound quality possible and you pay the money for the equipment, you should also take care to have the appropriate listening environment in your house –not necessarily an anechoic chamber!

2. Now, to enjoy the highest dynamic range and quality *without* spending a fortune, there is only one way: Buy a good set of electrostatic headphones. This will blow away your mind -and your senses! The feel is simply indescribable until you experience it –especially with good recordings with natural instruments (and vocals) on DVD-AUDIO or Super Audio CD. These headphones have the flattest response exceeding audio spectrum, the highest transient response and accuracy, zero intermodulation distortion, zero phase distortion, and almost zero harmonic distortion (of course they depend on the quality of the specialized amplifier that is needed to drive them). Also the sound is reproduced *simultaneously* by the whole membrane surface because the ES force is applied to the whole surface which is only 5 microns thick -it has less mass than the air!. Of course this will make you (train you to be) far more demanding and if there is some flaw in the sound you will be able to recognize it immediately! So you’ll want to hear only the best recordings because those will make you …ecstatic!

3. You can enjoy a live recording with an average dynamic range of say 60db but with the original brief transients that far exceed this level. This means that you can record and leave the peaks intact. In any other format this is a common problem for sound engineers where they always have to pass the source through a compressor or limiter to avoid digital clipping which will result to audible distortion.

4. A 75 piece orchestra can reach 130db!

5. You can have the original sound recording in RAW format ..and you can guess the advantages! It’s like the RAW capabilities of RED: You can enjoy it the way *you* like it by choosing the sound post process of your choice.

6. A high dynamic range is not only useful to reproduce sounds with high dynamic range differences. It also makes the sound reproduction much smoother, apparently exceeding the quantizing nature of digital. This means that 24bit along with 192Khz sampling are as smooth as a perfect analog recording. The vinyl, although it is noisy (<70db) it is very smooth because the recording is analog or else, continuous. Now digital has reached this (perceived) continued analog characteristic –at least for audio.

7. Having a great dynamic range (along with high frequency response) this ensures that even the subtle details of the sound are reproduced with high fidelity. The human ear can hear, or can be trained to hear, much finer details than most academics are willing to admit. This is because the ear is ..connected to the brain which still is an unexplored territory. When you can’t hear something, you can still feel it. The more complicated the sound is, (e.g. many natural instruments playing simultaneously) the more sensitive you are to the sound quality and the higher the requirement for a better format is.
In these cases you’ll recognize a better recording because you’ll feel the difference rather than hear it.

8. About the background noise, guess what: By using a fine set of electrostatic headphones along with a high-resolution format, you can take advantage of the high fidelity and use noise canceling which will let you enjoy your music outside of your …anechoic chamber!

9. Although the whole dynamic range of this format cannot yet be provided, you always have to give more than needed, to receive just what is needed –and the electronic components are getting better and better…

Whew! That post was too OT and too long… but was On topic to your reply...
Also, on a second thought, this is a good opportunity to ask for high-resolution sound 24bit /192khz (at least stereo) to be a RED feature!

 

[Graeme_Nattress]

Completely OT, as was my post, but a great post none-the-less. I certainly agree that electrostatic headphones are superb for listening. They're open back, so you still need a relatively quiet listening area though to hear the max DR.

I thin your further points re-itterate what I was getting at is that better DR is much more important in the production chain than in the home environment. I'm very cautious about your 6) statement though. Bit depth and DR are directly related. Sampling frequency is another matter, and really, there's no reason why CDs 16bit 44.1khz is not good enough to perfectly reproduce any sound for a home listening environment. It's innadequte for recording and post production, but for the home, I know of no speakers that can approach being good enough to do it justice, and as you point out, really good headphones get you a lot closer, but they're still way behind the microphone in distortion characteristics.

But, as you may know, I'm a vinyl addict, who listens to music via a vintage tube and horn system, so what do I know about sound quality eh?

Graeme

 

[Tom Wills]

Dasonras, I truly actually do understand where you're coming from. Yet, I'm looking at it from a different viewpoint, and so, I hope you'll respect my comments here.

I'm a camera op, learning to be a Steadicam op, and hopefully, I'll end up being a DP in a few years. I know your fears about all those kids coming up who have no talent and daddy's credit card and the best cameras, and no clue how to use them. In fact, I'd say some people, before they've seen what I can do, would put me into that category. Sure, I'm a student. Sure, I shoot only on video. (none of the productions I work on have the money for Film) But, the one thing that keeps coming back again and again is that having newer, bigger, better cameras doesn't make you a better DP. Heck, I see all these ads on Craigslist looking for DPs to work for $250 a day with HD gear (or less in terms of money). But, will the image that somebody who's new enough to take that job be good? Well, not by your standards, not by my standards (most probably, I mean, there are exceptions).

I think what you need to do is to just sit back and think about it this way. Having more people with these cameras can only give you better ACs. Just because somebody's got a good camera, doesn't mean they know how to work it to its fullest potential, and it certainly doesn't mean that they could produce a shot that'll be incredible. I know that there are a lot of people out there who I could make better, more compelling shots than, with a 1 CCD MiniDV, if they have a CineAlta. It's not just about having equipment, it's not just about knowing how to turn on the camera and record, anybody can do that, it's having the eye for it, having the skills to take a script and turn it into something immensely visual, yet not something distracting to the viewer or gaudy.

Yeah, so now to get back off my soapbox and get back to figuring out when some more of my Steadicam parts will be shipped in.

(And to anyone who feels like I'm badmouting them, or people like them here, really, I'm not. I understand that everybody has to start somewhere. Heck, most of my early stuff was shot on little 1CCD cameras. But, it's all about the skills. If you're willing to sit down and learn, and spend years honing your talent, than you could very well end up a good camera op or DP. If you think you've got the "eye for it", then sit down and take some time and learn it. But, don't expect that just because you have a big expensive camera, and a 35mm adapter, and tons of lenses, and a great light kit, that you're an incredible DP. That's the point I'm trying to make.)

 

[mike the beginner]

QUOTE: If you think you've got the "eye for it", then sit down and take some time and learn it. But, don't expect that just because you have a big expensive camera, and a 35mm adapter, and tons of lenses, and a great light kit, that you're an incredible DP. That's the point I'm trying to make
Last edited by tomthemacman : Today at 09:52 PM.
_________________________________

Good point.

I remember being told some years ago the difference between the good shot and the expert shot. The good shot looks at the target and can hit the bulls eye. The expert shot can hit the target the good shot cannot even see!!

Michael

 

[Gibby]

Three essential elements to top-level professional cinematography, videography, and photography: talent, experience, and tools.

Talent you're born with, experience you pay time and dues to acquire, and tools is the easiest by far of the three to get. If you have all three, you'll have a good chance of doing exceptional work. If talent is missing, you should definitely think about choosing a different profession. If experience is the only thing missing, pay your dues and you'll get to your goals. If tools are the only things missing, find ways to get your hands on the tools and you'll get to your goals. Talent is the one critical element that you must have or you're chasing an elusive butterfly that will undoubtedly elude you...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

 

[Haakon]

I believe video is video and film is film, and there shouldn't be any sense in trying to make video emulate film.

Well RED is neither, it's digital. Zeros and Ones.

i like this one... thanks thomas.

Um, standard DV (digital video) is nothing but zeros and ones.

I'm behind Red as much as anyone else on this forum... probably moreso... but their "digital cinema" (a term Dalsa has been using for ages) isn't some huge departure from traditional video technology. Granted, the resolution will be awesome and all of the other features Red boasts is going to make their camera one heck of a product. Personally, I feel that if Red can acheive their goals, their camera is truly going to have an impact on the industry (a feat that my film "purist" friends are quite doubtful of). But that being said, it's not a product we've never seen before. It's just a better one.

 

[Proteus]

Sampling frequency is another matter, and really, there's no reason why CDs 16bit 44.1khz is not good enough to perfectly reproduce any sound for a home listening environment.

Many instruments have harmonics that far exceed the audio spectrum. Reproducing all these harmonics faithfully, give the feeling of "air" to the listener and the whole character of the instrument(s) is enjoyed. In a standard 44.1khz CD system there is also phase distortion and other problems introduced at the high end of the audible spectrum.

It's inadequate for recording and post production, but for the home, I know of no speakers that can approach being good enough to do it justice

You could try electrostatic speakers! (more expensive though).

and as you point out,really good headphones get you a lot closer, but they're still way behind the microphone in distortion characteristics.

Sorry if I was misleading by saying “almost zero distortion”. Electrostatics are considered distortion free and are certainly far better in specs than any microphone! The reason is, microphones are passive systems with a surface of much greater mass for their size, while ES headphones are push-pull active systems with a lower than air mass surface that accepts an equal ES force in *all* of its area from both sides!

Take a look at these affordable ES from Koss (1000$ vs 4000$ from Stax and 10000$ from Sennheiser that has been discontinued).
The specs are: 8hz-35khz, 104db, <0.01% distortion!!! Compare this to speakers with >5% distortion and to good microphones 1-2%.
http://www.koss.com/koss/kossweb.nsf/p?openform&pc%5Ees%5EESP950

But, as you may know, I'm a vinyl addict, who listens to music via a vintage tube and horn system, so what do I know about sound quality eh?

Oh no, if I knew I wouldn’t post it in first place; you have more romantic grey cells than I thought! But if you mean you listen via a horn *speaker* system I consider it a plus, while if you listen via a gramophone’s horn… that’s another story! rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Ok, that was my last OT post…

 

[Graeme_Nattress]

I'd love a pair of the big Quad electrostatics, but I've got nowhere to put them My large horns take up all the room! They're Lowther Acousta horns with PM6A drivers that I built myself. I've developed plans for larger horns, but have to figure out how to build them....

Graeme

 

[Proteus]

I'd love a pair of the big Quad electrostatics, but I've got nowhere to put them My large horns take up all the room! They're Lowther Acousta horns with PM6A drivers that I built myself. I've developed plans for larger horns, but have to figure out how to build them....

Graeme

Very, very good Graeme! I've seen (in photos) horns big as a house...
I understand you must be emotionally (or romantically) connected with their (huge) precense! But you might enjoy music better...
About the Quads, yes these are a very good choice! And famous too!
My experience with ES headphones was with my design incl. an original solid state amp, ultra-low noise, DC-250khz flat (incl. load), direct drive (DC) push-pull@850V, and the quality surpassed a Stax model I heard at that time etc, etc, too long story to post OT….

 

[Proteus]

To return On topic,

Dansonras, if we have convinced you, or if there is something more that we can do about it, let us know!

 

[double_agent_oo2]

I've read this entire thread and, although I'm not a filmmaker but a film enthusiast, I'd like to make some comments.

I like film, actually I love it. The most striking and moving images I've seen in movies have always been on film. Obviously, this is probalby because film has dominated movie making for, um, forever.

I also like the look of digital sometimes (Collateral, An Inconvenient Truth, portions of Sin City). However, usually I abhor the digital images I've seen in cinema (Star Wars, portions of Sin City, most of the stuff posed on DVXUSER).

I think when chosen for their artistic properties, not their convenience or price, both digital and film are valid options. I deplore the comments I've seen made here by zealots saying harsh words about the death of film and how digital will reign king. Presumably, saying things like that makes them feel good about themselves in some sick way. I find it highly alarming when people are so sick that actually celebrate the imminent death of a medium for expression. And for what, so you can have artificial looking clarity, convenience, and cost reduction?

These people, in my opinion, are not artists in the least. Cost effectiveness and convenience should never override artistic integrity. If someone shoots digital because that's all they can afford, then they by all means should shoot digital. If someone shoots digital because they think it is what is artistically called for to tell the story, then they should by all means shoot digital. However, if somone shoots digital because they were too lazy to do the things necessary for film production, or because film would slice slightly into their profit margins, then that's just wrong, IMHO.

Most of the zealots who morbidly welcome the death of film while quoting Robert Rodriguez (maker of such crappy films as From Dusk Till Dawn and Spy Kids) also cite the death of film in still photography. I have to tell you, most of the photography that really strikes me, with the exception of journalism photos, is shot on film. If you can show me some good digital pictures then please point me in the right direction. But as it stands, I firmly believe that digital still cameras are for loser tech guys, untalented amateurs, and portrait/commercial photographers who care as much about art as they do about dog poo.

What I hope will happen in the future is a coexistence of digital and film, each used when they are needed artictically (or by those that desperately need a medium but cannot afford film). An analogy of this coexistence can be the coexistence of the acoustic guitar and the electric guitar in modern music. Although the electic guitar radically changed our musical landscape, the acoustic guitar never went away and still delights music fans today. Just like an artist must pick an instrument that's right for a song, a cinematographer/director should pick the camera(s) that are right for their film. It's all about the art.

But then what the hell do I know, I'm just a 16 year old kid who really loves the look of film.

 

[Graeme_Nattress]

But as it stands, I firmly believe that digital still cameras are for loser tech guys, untalented amateurs, and portrait/commercial photographers who care as much about art as they do about dog poo.

While I respect your opinion that you like the aesthetic of film (and why not, it's a great aesthetic that's ingrained in the consciousness of everyone who's a cinema goer), I firmly and totally disagree with your statement above. I am an artist who chooses to work with digital stills cameras. Remember, art is not about a medium (oil, acrylic, watercolour, pastel, chalk, pencil, charcoal, film, video, digital stills, sculpture, etc.) but about "intention". It's about seeing, feeling, doing, creating. I am not a looser tech guy (and because someone understands digital technology, it doesn't make them any less an artist, any more than a film photographer who understands chemistry makes them less of a photographer), nor an untalented amatuer, or a portrait or commercial photographer.

Graeme

 

[Greg Lowry]

But then what the hell do I know, I'm just a 16 year old kid who really loves the look of film.

16? Hard to believe. You're a hell of a writer, kid. I might quibble with some of your statements, but mostly I agree.

But time does march on, and the tools change. Digital imaging is in its infancy. Some of end product is bad, some great, most mediocre -- just like with film. For some markets, film is already dead or on life support. I don't celebrate that, but it's a fact. Nobody laments the loss of 70mm film for big-screen narrative filmmaking more than me.

BTW, with your writing skills you should be writing scripts. Have your people call my people.

 

[double_agent_oo2]

While I respect your opinion that you like the aesthetic of film (and why not, it's a great aesthetic that's ingrained in the consciousness of everyone who's a cinema goer), I firmly and totally disagree with your statement above. I am an artist who chooses to work with digital stills cameras. Remember, art is not about a medium (oil, acrylic, watercolour, pastel, chalk, pencil, charcoal, film, video, digital stills, sculpture, etc.) but about "intention". It's about seeing, feeling, doing, creating. I am not a looser tech guy (and because someone understands digital technology, it doesn't make them any less an artist, any more than a film photographer who understands chemistry makes them less of a photographer), nor an untalented amatuer, or a portrait or commercial photographer.

Graeme

Upon review, I think that statement is harsh and unrepresentitive of what I really believe. Digital photography, like digital cinema, is just a form of expression, and it's perfect for certain artistic ambitions. However, what I meant to say is that the claims that film photography is dead are not entirely true because, at least to my knowledge, digital photography has failed to produce superbly striking photography like film has. I don't believe that it's impossible for digital to produce stunning images, I'm just saying that digital hasn't, for the lack of better words, kicked out asses sufficiently to really say that it has killed film. From an artistic standpoint.

Also, when I say techie guys I don't mean people who know the ins and outs of digital photography, but the guys that are more interested in the ins and outs, the cold hard specs, than in the art that those ins and outs can produce.

I guess I just really want to see some good digital photography. Most of the stuff I like is done on 35mm film, medium format, or large format. I need to get me a job so that I can buy a rollieflex or something. If you gave me the choice of either having a totally awesome digital camera, or a totally awesome medium format film camera, I'd take the film camera. But that's just me.

 

[double_agent_oo2]

16? Hard to believe. You're a hell of a writer, kid. I might quibble with some of your statements, but mostly I agree.

But time does march on, and the tools change. Digital imaging is in its infancy. Some of end product is bad, some great, most mediocre -- just like with film. For some markets, film is already dead or on life support. I don't celebrate that, but it's a fact. Nobody laments the loss of 70mm film for big-screen narrative filmmaking more than me.

BTW, with your writing skills you should be writing scripts. Have your people call my people.

Thanks. I did get a 5 on my Advanced Placement English test, which is the highest possible score.

I was going to mention 70mm film too, what a perfect way for film enthusiasts to combat the claims of film inferiority. I'd love to see Aronofsky use that for his next film. Fat chance, though.

I can't wait to see extraordinary digital cinematography, but I still wish that mediums were used as a palette instead of a way to cut costs and increase convenience. That seems greed and sloth motivated to me. Although, these things too have the ability to artistically focus a film, so that's an argument too. I really wish 70mm was part of the palette, I guess we'll have to keep dreaming though.

I don't know if I'm well suited for script writing, at least not yet. I need more experiences in life and I need to view more films and read more literature in order to prepare myself for that kind of thing.

 

[Greg Lowry]

Well so far digital isn't really that much cheaper for feature film work except at the low end of the production scale. And greed and sloth is rarely found at the production level where everyone strives for the best possible product, whether film or digital. I think you'll change your mind when the digital medium matures a little more. Everything takes time. The introduction of sound and color went through similar phases. Everything has to start somewhere. Feel fortunate that you'll be able to see motion picture imaging go places beyond the wildest dreams of those who invented and developed the medium.

The quality of 70mm will be back in neighborhood cinemas eventually, but it won't be on film.

 

[Graeme_Nattress]

Upon review, I think that statement is harsh and unrepresentitive of what I really believe.

Thanks! Just remember on the forum that it's not the same as speaking in conversation when you can easily and rapidly correct something you didn't really mean. I must admit there's been many a time I've written a post on a forum just to delete it all after reading what I've written.

Digital photography, like digital cinema, is just a form of expression, and it's perfect for certain artistic ambitions. However, what I meant to say is that the claims that film photography is dead are not entirely true because, at least to my knowledge, digital photography has failed to produce superbly striking photography like film has.

No, film is not dea by any means and probably won't die entirely for an awful long while yet. I think when people say "film is dead" they mean it more like "vinyl is dead", in that it's gone from 100% of the market to 5% of the market, or is heading in that direction rather rapidly. We've seen it happen not just in distribution formats - VHS is dead, but to audio recording where analogue is dead, etc. So, it is certainly a slipperly slope argumental falacy to say that today, motion picture film is dead, but I think the writing is certainly on the wall.

I think that for digital stills photography, you've just not looked hard enough There are plenty of photographers shooting both 35mm and medium format digital producing fantastic works of art. Michael Reichmann at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ is a good friend of mine, and is one of those photographers who still shoots medium format film when he feels like it, but has also fully embraced digital 35mm and medium format and produces stunning images with both. He also fully understands the digital imaging process and how to get the best out of digital imagaging, and he also takes a very practical - "this is how it looks in practise" approach which I find refreshing. He's not a pixel-peeper.

I'm printing my digital stills on a dye sub printer, and really, I can't say whether it looks film or digital when you view the print. It just looks like a good image. I don't think anyone who's seen my prints would say - haha - that's digital not film - they just see the image as I the photographer intended them to see! And really, whether digital or film, that's all we really want.

Graeme

 

[acrochordon]

to Graeme

to Graeme

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/asian_portfolio.shtml

Thanks for the link to luminous.
Here is a quote from his site. I hope he doesn't mind.
"Condensation
A nasty reality of shooting in the tropics is condensation on equipment when moving from air-conditioned spaces to the hot and humid outdoors. This applies to cars, but mostly overnight when the gear has been "cold soaked and freeze dried" in an air-conditioned hotel room, while outside it's 90F + degrees with 100% humidity.

The only solution is to take the camera outdoors a good 20 minutes before shooting, open the bag, remove lens caps (front & rear), and just let it all sit there and warm up. Don't try wiping the lenses dry. Just like your bathroom mirror at home, they'll just fog-up again immediately. Finally, if possible, leave your gear in the trunk of the car rather than in the passenger compartment if you're going to be going frequently back and forth between the air-conditioned car and the outdoors."