All NEW super duper camera coming.. (yawn)

DLD said:
(I posted the roman numerals, since it's a little easier to respond that way).

(I) Film stock emulations and LUT's are too numerous to be included by the manufacturer. If one wanted to upload them, however, many will allow it. Still, it's best left for post, especially when shooting Raw or Log.


(IV) As cameras load up on features, that is the least likely. What one gets instead is a wireless link to an tablet/laptop with a touch screen, where most menu options can be changed instantly.
Click to expand...

(I) I have yet to see a digital camera able to completely emulate filmstock. Show me a camera that can give me the look of Lawrence of Arabia or Alien or even this https://vimeo.com/9584608 either in post or in camera. Some come close, like the Alexa but most still get the motion characteristics wrong and scream digital. Even the Alexa, for as good as it looks, still looks like Alexa footage and looks more like modern film stock.

(IV) Yeah that's why I want something simplified. Just your basic controls as knobs and switches (ISO, whitebalance, framerate, shutter angle) that's all we really need. We've complicated cameras too much. I'd like to see something that looks the size of an old school 16mm camera with a digital sensor that can emulate film stocks.
 
IV. I'm with you roxics. I would like to defer as much grading as possible to the serenity of the edit suite. No need to clutter my mind with buttons and decisions in the heat of the shoot. Hopefully we'll see more of that as flash memory cheapens, cameras can compress less. Also as log gammas catch on, flexibility increases in post even if you can't record totally uncompressed. Really all you should set while shooting are the things you can't change in post: focus, frame rate, shutter angle, and maybe ISO.

I. I agree that you seldom see footage quite like this, and it's very pleasing. I think the cameras today are able to get this though. I mean, if you think about it, a digital image sensor did get this footage, a digital sensor pointed at projected film. There are at least four features of this footage that you don't normally see in digital footage, though: (1) nice greens, (2) graceful highlight roll-off, (3) soft edges, and (4) grain.

The first, good green, is theoretically possible with the right LUT, as far as I understand things. The rest all take "sacrifices." Graceful highlights take sacrificing two or three stops of highlights, to smoothly roll them off. That usually means boosting the shadows to bring in more dynamic range, which introduces noise. Likewise, soft edges are an anathema to the pixel peepers, and it would take a great deal of willpower for us to fully turn off all artificial sharpening. Finally, grain. I constantly hear people shy away from the slightest hint of grain in their footage. I read that the Canon C300 has the same noise at ISO 12800 as Kodak Vision 500. That's remarkable! But most shooters see that grain and rein it back, telling themselves to stick to the "safer" ISOs of 3200 or so.
 
Last edited:
Well you're right combatentropy. Technically a digital sensor did capture these images. It's just a matter of getting the digital cameras to capture images like this from the start. I also agree with all the other points you make about the film look. But I do think there is still something else going on in footage like this. I want to say it's a slight bit of gateweave. Even in a locked off shot the image has a slight bit of motion in it beyond the grain movement. It may also even be micro flucuations back and forth in the gate as the film moves it may not be completely flat frame to frame. I could be wrong about that. But there is definitely a living quality about celluloid that my brain responds to in a different way than the more clinical digital look most digital cameras capture.

I just think that with most of these film stocks being gone now, current digital technology should allow us to emulate them near perfectly. I'd love to shoot a digital project where the vast majority of people (and I mean pros too) would not be able to tell that it wasn't shot in the mid 70's given the right content on screen that didn't give it away as being later.
 
If you look at the stats for most popular cameras on a site like Flickr you can see how phones are taking over from dedicated still photography cameras in the consumer space. Same thing is now happening for video cameras. Arguably the future for consumer cameras is that they will disappear as separate devices.

Professional cameras are a different story. Although some journalists are now using phones to shoot their reports.
 
combatentropy said:
I think the cameras today are able to get this though. I mean, if you think about it, a digital image sensor did get this footage, a digital sensor pointed at projected film. There are at least four features of this footage that you don't normally see in digital footage, though: (1) nice greens, (2) graceful highlight roll-off, (3) soft edges, and (4) grain.
Click to expand...

I think that's a really interesting thought; however, I’m not sure digital really creates that footage any more than a microphone creates a musician’s performance or a Xerox machine creates an architect’s blueprints. It has the ability to reproduce the source (film) in an acceptable manner but that doesn’t mean bypassing that source in a synthetic manner is easy or even possible with today’s technology.

As for the original post, I don’t feel as limited by today’s technology nearly as much as my own laziness. I still get excited for new products though as they offer more and more ways for me to remain lazy…
 
roxics said:
(I) I have yet to see a digital camera able to completely emulate filmstock...
Click to expand...
FWIW, one could scan the digital footage onto a 35mm film and then back to get the film grain, the highlight roll-off and so on. It's not a very expensive process either, as one is scanning the very final cut onto film.

As of new cameras, that Alexa65 looks pretty awesome and I've always thought that Canon's image (1D C) was close enough.
 
Alexa/Sony F65-style image, ergonomic body made for one person, 2K ProRes, hopefully as much of a complete package as possible (including ND filters and the like). That would be my camera for at least the next 5 years. Time will tell if URSA Mini is that camera.
 
Giriki said:
Ursa Mini 4.6K is probably one of those cameras (well maybe it should have internal ND). I can see it being more than enough for the next 5 years. I hope it forces other companies to compete. Not holding my breath, though.
Click to expand...

When Ursa mini drops the other companies will not have a choice but to compete. In terms of "Cinema cameras" why would you even consider anything else in the price range. It's miles ahead of the competition in everything from build quality, to Lcd size, on board codecs, dynamic range, connect ability, frame rates, global shutter mode, I can go on but you get the point. I will boldly say, it literally destroys anything in it's price range.

Content is King, I have a story to tell!

After fiddling with Ursa mini, then walking over to the JVC booth and picking up the Ls300, it felt like a Hello Kitty toy cam. I asked the JVC rep if he saw the "bomb" Black magic just dropped, he said, " I heard" I said, "why are you still here embarrassing yourself ", He said," your right, I'm getting the F*ck outa here before Ursa comes over and busts my ass. (By the way, Ursa is a 300lbs. Female bodybuilder that works for Zeiss, The first time I saw her she was bench pressing Steve from Zacuto! True story:-)))))
 
starcentral said:
Ok let's say this was actually TRUE – that a "new" camera has been developed and will be releasing soon. As in tomorrow!

Have we reached the point yet where we can all agree and say, "who gives a s*%t"? Are we all finally happy with what's out there yet?

Interested in perspectives.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

Well Star... All I can say is that if I ever invented something where I could sell it off and make billions like Elon Musk, I would, and this I promise, develop a camera that had everything that we want in that perfect camera, and I would price it not to make tons of money, but to make filming more fun for everyone; say... below 17.000 dollars.

My personal idea for that price would be:

- 1-240fps on ALL resolutions
- 6K
- raw and prores on ALL resolutions
- Global shutter
- Native iso 800, but "useable" iso up to 12800 with the ability to go beyond that if really needed.
- 15 stop real world DR
- Would try to achieve Arri highlight roll off.
- Removable lens mount to suit the customers needs, but you should get all most popular mounts included in the price.
- Full HD viewfinder with high brightness is included in the price, but removable.
- Should be useable as a shouldermounted camera.
- V-lock or AB mount selectable on purchase, but inluded in the price.
- All the usual needed outputs and inputs etc. I would think that there should be outputs, so you could use a recorder of your own choice with the camera without having to buy proprietary units or adapters.
- Build-in reference mic, but also 2 xlr ports if you want better or for use on smaller jobs.
- Build-in ND filter, these can be made digital now right? So wouldn't affect size too much I reckon.
- Choice of medium for the camera would obviously be the best one in terms of price vs reliability and should not be a proprietary medium but one you could buy anywhere.
- Proper customer service that actually listens to users.

If I had the money to develope something like that, I would have no issue what so ever if it didn't make me a millionaire or if I ended up just breaking even..... The reward would be giving all you good people something that actually didn't pull your legs in some obscure way through the need of buying more than you need or getting less than what you pay for.
 
roxics said:
(I) I have yet to see a digital camera able to completely emulate filmstock. Show me a camera that can give me the look of Lawrence of Arabia or Alien or even this https://vimeo.com/9584608 either in post or in camera. Some come close, like the Alexa but most still get the motion characteristics wrong and scream digital. Even the Alexa, for as good as it looks, still looks like Alexa footage and looks more like modern film stock.

(IV) Yeah that's why I want something simplified. Just your basic controls as knobs and switches (ISO, whitebalance, framerate, shutter angle) that's all we really need. We've complicated cameras too much. I'd like to see something that looks the size of an old school 16mm camera with a digital sensor that can emulate film stocks.
Click to expand...


if you are shooting alien or Lawrence of Arabia you have the budget to shoot film if you want to. Most. Directors would probably choose Alexa today but you could use film.
 
maranfilms said:
When Ursa mini drops the other companies will not have a choice but to compete. In terms of "Cinema cameras" why would you even consider anything else in the price range. It's miles ahead of the competition in everything from build quality, to Lcd size, on board codecs, dynamic range, connect ability, frame rates, global shutter mode, I can go on but you get the point. I will boldly say, it literally destroys anything in it's price range.

Content is King, I have a story to tell!

After fiddling with Ursa mini, then walking over to the JVC booth and picking up the Ls300, it felt like a Hello Kitty toy cam. I asked the JVC rep if he saw the "bomb" Black magic just dropped, he said, " I heard" I said, "why are you still here embarrassing yourself ", He said," your right, I'm getting the F*ck outa here before Ursa comes over and busts my ass. (By the way, Ursa is a 300lbs. Female bodybuilder that works for Zeiss, The first time I saw her she was bench pressing Steve from Zacuto! True story:-)))))
Click to expand...

Well, personally my vote is for the next camera that can bench press both Steve and Jens at the same time.
 
Gillvane said:
if you are shooting alien or Lawrence of Arabia you have the budget to shoot film if you want to. Most. Directors would probably choose Alexa today but you could use film.
Click to expand...


shoot on film...here in L.A. is cheaper than an Alexa..(savings on post and rental)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top