The Great Camera Shootout 2010

[Keegan O'Brien]

You own the T2i and you're saying you can shoot video in RAW? I think your confusing that with being able to shoot RAW in still mode. The T2i will not shoot video in RAW. You're assuming you can with the other Canons?





Experienced pros in that test were saying that there were aspects of the DSLR image where it was difficult to tell the difference. Only looking into the extended highlights was their an apparent difference between 35mm and DSLR. I've been watching film for years, and have been a still photographer for decades with film. It was difficult for me to discern the difference in the middle values between the DSLR and 35mm.

Well, in the menu set up on video mode it says, "Quality: RAW". I don't know, I could be wrong.

DSLR and 35mm both a have completely different and distinct looks. On a 2k projection screen I've seen 35mm footage, and then Genesis footage, and they were easy to tell apart. Why? Both look different.

And here is what I've been waiting for someone to say. 35mm film has been and still is the gold standard of quality. It is unmatched in a number of areas that are important to cinematography...areas like color space, resolution (in most cases), exposure latitude, and highlight protection, to name a few. But there are places where DSLRs are unmatched as well, namely price, size, accessibility, and convenience. The idea with this comparison is to illustrate that a good amount of quality (and if you really watched the test and studied the images, a ridiculously high amount of quality) is retained with a camera that is far and away the cheaper format. I don't think anyone is arguing that the HDSLR rigs beat out 35mm. Personally, I think that I could "feel" the difference between 35mm film and HDSLRs even if I wasn't able to exactly put my finger on why the two images were different.

I too chuckled at the Wally Pfister ASC quote, but for a different reason. I've met Wally a couple times, and I've spoken to him about this issue particularly because so many people use that quote to argue for film in the whole "film vs. digital" argument. He told me that it is being taken out of context in most cases, which I think is true. See, you have to realize that Pfister is speaking about quality from the point of view of an accomplished Hollywood cinematographer. Of course, when you're making movies with enormous budgets, you can afford to use the absolute highest quality there is - 35mm film. But, most of us aren't hugely successful Hollywood cinematographers. And that's what this test is telling us - we can still create gorgeous imagery that is COMPARABLE (read: not better than) to 35mm film.

There are tons of movies out there that are shot 1080p and no one in the audience knows the difference. Look at the second trilogy of Star Wars, Public Enemies, anything Robert Rodriguez does nowdays...most people don't know the difference in the audience. 1080p as a capture format is fine for the cinema if you're a good cinematographer who has composed and lit the shots well, and if you have a good colorist - same as film. I don't know where this notion of "1080p doesn't look good on the bigscreen" came from. Sure, it may not be the best looking thing on screen, but it's fine if you're on a budget.

Now, the REAL test of film vs. digital will be with RED epic/scarlet and Arri Alexa vs. 35mm film. I've heard a number of resounding opinions on the cameras already, with a number of high profile cinematographers declaring that 2010 is the year film died. That sparks some of my interest, especially since I shot on the new RED M-X chip a couple weeks ago and was hugely impressed.

All in all, I think in the end the motto still goes that it's different tools for different projects. All capture formats both film and digital have flaws and strengths, and being a good cinematographer means being able to recognizes both so that you can utilize the camera/format to its greatest potential. I think there are way too many threads like these deliberating essentially what is a moot point in film since it all comes down to art, craft, and the ability to tell stories. Digital technology is progressing fast. What happens when we get to the point where everyone can shoot 5k resolution RAW format 6400 ISO video on their iPhone with no noise? Because eventually that point will come - and the only thing that will matter then is how well you light for effect, and how well you compose your shots, and how well you tell your story. The technology itself never matters, in my opinion. There are too many people who spend their time deliberating numbers and tech specs and all this theoretical crunching but they never actually go out and shoot something and look at it with their eyes. It's kind of taking things in the wrong direction.

I agree. I love DSLR's. But f64manray, seems to think that DSLR's are superior to 35mm film, which simply isn't true.

 

[Ian-T]

I agree. I love DSLR's. But f64manray, seems to think that DSLR's are superior to 35mm film, which simply isn't true.

I don't think that was what he was saying and that was not the point of this DSLR/35mm comparison test.

 

[handsome pete]

Well, in the menu set up on video mode it says, "Quality: RAW". I don't know, I could be wrong.

That only refers to stills, which you can still take while in video mode.

 

[f64manray]

Wow.

You think David Mullen is anti-digital ??? You do realise how much digital he's been shooting right ? How about we give credit to cynical cinematographers choosing the best tool for the job within the budget constraints imposed on them ?



jb

Hold on there, cowboy. I don't think Mullen is anti-digital. He's a mod on Red forum for god's sake. But he is certainly not pro DSLR for anything more than a quick shot to bridge to another shot in a scene. He has a T2i and has talked about its inadequacies. Not sure why he didn't spring for a 5DII but whatever. He has mentioned he doesn't know how Hurlbut is doing what he's doing. They should get together and talk. I would love to hear the conversation. Other DPs can give their opinion all they want but after that, I think I'll listen to the guy who has done extensive film outs and worked with this tool in post extensively and that ASC DP is Hurlbut ....and Charters.

This discussion is really starting to sound like the audio engineers that decried digital recording as brittle, not warm, it only records up to 44.1-48K, analoge tape captures so much more, don't you see!! It's gotta be 2inch tape 30ips or it ain't sh#t! Where are those engineers now? Most are now recording digitally. The industry doesn't care about their purist arguments anymore.

Granted, the film vs digital thing is much more concrete because we can point at the screen and prove the point. Film has more latitude, but yet we hear from ASC DPs and colorists like Neil at Hdi that the DSLR holds up spectacularly on the big screen. And then on the forums we get people with no experience really, that are in disagreement with that view even though the pros are saying the opposite, stating what they see with their own eyes. It's comical at best and direspectful at least.

Film is the standard, all their saying is look how close the DSLR has come to the bulls eye. Pretty damn close, and the kicker is, Canon wasn't even trying. But yet there is debate adnausium comparing the 5DII to Red camera. Just the fact that there is so much debate says alot about the outcome of the discussion. $2,000 vs $20-30,000. You decide.

The state of the current technology has crossed the threshhold where it's good enough to say yes to, now. It's only going to get better from here and very quickly.

The imagery looks great from the DSLR, and I've been a film purist for many years in the still realm. I only deamed the DSLR good enough for my still purposes just a couple of years ago. Man, I was a real snob about it, almost as enterenched as those audio engineers from yesteryear.

I'm saying yes and moving on from all that toxic BS that comes with film. Getting away from the image aspect for a moment. You people do know about the toxic chemistry that comes with the whole film process from manufacturing film to processing it, right? Saying yes to digital is the evirionmentally right thing to do without too much sacrifice technically and zero sacrifice to your vision. The camera is the least of your worries if you're embarking the movie making experience. Good discussion, though. Cheers!

God, let's get to episode 2 already.

 

[f64manray]

That only refers to stills, which you can still take while in video mode.

Thanks, I didn't really want to say to much more about it. God, if only we could shoot RAW in video mode on the T2i, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Anybody know how much recording time you would have if you could stream data to a 8 gig card from an 18MP sensor in a RAW video mode?

 

[daveswan]

The imagery looks great from the DSLR, and I've been a film purist for many years in the still realm. I only deamed the DSLR good enough for my still purposes just a couple of years ago. Man, I was a real snob about it, almost as enterenched as those audio engineers from yesteryear.

I'm saying yes and moving on from all that toxic BS that comes with film. Getting away from the image aspect for a moment. You people do know about the toxic chemistry that comes with the whole film process from manufacturing film to processing it, right? Saying yes to digital is the evirionmentally right thing to do without too much sacrifice technically and zero sacrifice to your vision. The camera is the least of your worries if you're embarking the movie making experience. Good discussion, though. Cheers!

God, let's get to episode 2 already.

Oh man, I know just how you feel (I think) been there done that even to hauling a 10x8 around and developing in home-brew pyro (Don't unless you're a trained chemist ), real Weston / Adams!rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
As for toxicity, Pyro and Selenium toner are pretty high on the list!

Now I'm thinking of selling up my LF kit to help fund a 5DII kit, not made any decisions yet, but....

Dave

 

[daveswan]

Thanks, I didn't really want to say to much more about it. God, if only we could shoot RAW in video mode on the T2i, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Anybody know how much recording time you would have if you could stream data to a 8 gig card from an 18MP sensor in a RAW video mode?

Assuming roughly 24 MB per RAW file (May be a bit much) I get about 13-14 sec depending on how you round.

Dave

 

[f64manray]

Oh man, I know just how you feel (I think) been there done that even to hauling a 10x8 around and developing in home-brew pyro (Don't unless you're a trained chemist ), real Weston / Adams!rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
As for toxicity, Pyro and Selenium toner are pretty high on the list!

Now I'm thinking of selling up my LF kit to help fund a 5DII kit, not made any decisions yet, but....

Dave

I'll never forget when I was an instructer for a university photo lab, I thought it would be cute if I told this girl to put her nose up to a open container of concentrated acetic acid and take a wiff (this is hard to even talk about, I was young and stupid) Usually, you're not even going to get your nose that close without knowing something is up. It must have been my winning smile and charm because she went right in and took a good snort of that odor. I've never seen anyone hit the ground so fast. Very bad scene. You would have thought, I gave her strong right hook if you had just looked a split second after she took a wiff. Never trust your teachers, kids.

 

[f64manray]

Assuming roughly 24 MB per RAW file (May be a bit much) I get about 13-14 sec depending on how you round.

Dave

Wow, that's longer than I thought.

 

[daveswan]

Using very rough rounding....
8000 /24 MB = 333.3 rec frames
333 / 24 fps = 13.875 sec.

Which is why I said 13-14 sec. I think I may have overestimated the file size, so thinking.....my old 5D gives roughly 12.5 MB RAWs from a 12.8 mp sensor, but that's 12 bit, so for 14 bit and 18 mp,

I get roughly 22 MB.

Putting that into the equation,

8000/22=363.6
363 frames / 24 fps = 15
so perhaps 15 sec.

And , yes conc Acetic Acid is very ouch! which is why I went to an odorless stop-bath sometime ago.

I remember, a long time ago being on a photography course at uni, making colour prints in a darkroom with several others, using chemistry at 38 deg, in open dishes and coming out after 3 hours, sort of .... floating lol.

Mind you Selenium toner in a dish, in summer has it's own, um, characterrogar-KnockedOut(D
Dave

 

[f64manray]

Using very rough rounding....
8000 /24 MB = 333.3 rec frames
333 / 24 fps = 13.875 sec.

Which is why I said 13-14 sec. I think I may have overestimated the file size, so thinking.....my old 5D gives roughly 12.5 MB RAWs from a 12.8 mp sensor, but that's 12 bit, so for 14 bit and 18 mp,

I get roughly 22 MB.

Putting that into the equation,

8000/22=363.6
363 frames / 24 fps = 15
so perhaps 15 sec.

And , yes conc Acetic Acid is very ouch! which is why I went to an odorless stop-bath sometime ago.

I remember, a long time ago being on a photography course at uni, making colour prints in a darkroom with several others, using chemistry at 38 deg, in open dishes and coming out after 3 hours, sort of .... floating lol.

Mind you Selenium toner in a dish, in summer has it's own, um, characterrogar-KnockedOut(D
Dave

If you ever think you may need a Beseler MXT 4x5 motorized chassis, 4x5 Zone VI cold light head with stabilizer, Shneider glass and Zone VI archival print washer, let me know. I can hook you up for a price. It's all getting kind of dusty down there.

Are you looking to get into RAW video when Scarlet comes out. Post seems kinda mind boggling. I'm just going to learn the craft with DSLR and go from there.

 

[Gary Huff]

I think one of the potential downfalls with Scarlet might be that fixed lens. With everyone getting into having a set of primes for their DSLRs, can they go back to a fixed lens system no matter what the rest of the specs are on that camera?

 

[f64manray]

I think one of the potential downfalls with Scarlet might be that fixed lens. With everyone getting into having a set of primes for their DSLRs, can they go back to a fixed lens system no matter what the rest of the specs are on that camera?

Well, to hear them talk, it's all about the RAW codec and the tremendous flexibility it gives in post. It's kind of reminscent of the great RAW vs JPEG debate in still photography. If you come from a film background which would be more disciplined when it comes to previsualization and exposure, you might be okay with JPEG, or shooting a set look in video with just minor adjustments in post (akin to shooting chrome film). You better know what you want before hand. Ironically, I wish I had a RAW feature when shooting chrome film. With the instant feed back, I can deal with JPEG or in the case of DSLR, the h.264.

RAW? Very nice. Necessary? Maybe not so much.

What I think Scarlet users won't put up with is shooting on that small sensor and going back to the light sucking Letus adapter for shallow DOF. They're going to want that S35 sensor which will push their whole package well in exceess of 10K. At that point, they're looking back out of the corner of their eye at 5D/7D and thinking "Tiny Furniture" did it. What the hell? Buy a Scarlet fixed for your brick walls, tweed jackets and roof shingles and a T2i for everything else.

 

[daveswan]

You know, I've been going round and round in circles over Scarlet.
Yes I like the potential RAW quality, though I'd have to get a new workstation to handle it, but I don't like the fixed lens's slow speed cf Primes.
Anything more than the 2/3" fixed is out of my budget (The fixed may be too), but the 2/3 is too low res in stills to be my do-it-all camera.
I'm leaning towards a 5DII, but don't want to get involved in dealing with moire and artifacts. The GH1 supposedly has a good image, but the sensor is too small after my 5D.
Aargh!

Oh, and I have an ancient DeVere 54 with Ilford Multigrade head bolted to my darkroom wall, last used for making 10x8 contact prints. Nearly blew £2000 or so on a DeVere 10x8 dropbed with Ilford 500 head a couple of years sgo. Glad I didn't in hindsight!
Dave

 

[f64manray]

You know, I've been going round and round in circles over Scarlet.
Yes I like the potential RAW quality, though I'd have to get a new workstation to handle it, but I don't like the fixed lens's slow speed cf Primes.
Anything more than the 2/3" fixed is out of my budget (The fixed may be too), but the 2/3 is too low res in stills to be my do-it-all camera.
I'm leaning towards a 5DII, but don't want to get involved in dealing with moire and artifacts. The GH1 supposedly has a good image, but the sensor is too small after my 5D.
Aargh!

Oh, and I have an ancient DeVere 54 with Ilford Multigrade head bolted to my darkroom wall, last used for making 10x8 contact prints. Nearly blew £2000 or so on a DeVere 10x8 dropbed with Ilford 500 head a couple of years sgo. Glad I didn't in hindsight!
Dave

You're making a very good point here with the 8x10 contact print. Well, not really a point, but you mentioned it.

We large format photographers could easliy make the argument that the 8x10 contact print is most optimal viewing experience that can be had from a negative. It just doesn't get any better than that in viewing a positive. There is no enlargment there. Once you do any enlargement, you start losing resolution and quality. End of debate. All enlargment is a compromise. 4x5 projected onto a 16x20 is still most excellent, but now let's talk about projecting a S35 frame of film on to a 40ft screen which is even smaller than FF 35mm! It's not only a severe compromise, it's almost too rediculous to talk about. Next time anyone here goes to a movie, walk up to the screen and look at this tremendous quality people here are talking about whe it comes to film. 35mm projection on to that size of a screen is the worst compromise imaginable. Ask anyone that's done any darkroom work. It's sh%^y period. The movie industry doesn't have high standards. They have minimum standards. Standards just barely able to cross a threshhold and charge 10 bucks a ticket.

The viewing experience of a motion picture is only satisfactory because of the viewing distance from the sh*%y enlarged projected image on the screen. Got a problem with my photo, stand across the street, it will look better. This is the severe compromise of the movie exhibition business. Film sucks for this, especially 35mm film and people need to get off their high horse about the precious 35mm frame of film. Until they start projecting 8x10 frames of film on the movie screen, I don't want to hear anymore about it. I toldja I can get pretty snobby about this.

Yes, DSLR is a compromise and S35mm is a crap load of compromise already. Not sure where we draw the line on how much we compromise. As soon as you project an image, we've compromised. Just sit further away, you probably won't notice. It's all about viewing distance, people. If you download mp3s from the net, sit in the front row, you won't notice any difference. Of course, you're probably texting your friend and not looking at the screen anyway.

I have to sit near the back for projected 35mm to even be remotely acceptable to me, but I've spent a couple of decades under an enlarger with a grain magnifier. Your milage may vary.

 

[daveswan]

People talk about "film grain" as if it's something desirable, well folks take a look at a 10x8 contact print and you won't see any. At all. Period. Just a liquid tonality that draws you in and in until you get lost in the picture! You wont find that in enlarged / projected 35mm.
Mind you I did spent a memorable afternoon in the V&A print room Just round the corner from where I work) going through box-after-box of vintage Ansell Adams 16x20 prints up close and personal! bliss!
Dave

 

[PastePotPete]

We large format photographers could easliy make the argument that the 8x10 contact print is most optimal viewing experience that can be had from a negative. It just doesn't get any better than that in viewing a positive. There is no enlargment there. Once you do any enlargement, you start losing resolution and quality. End of debate. All enlargment is a compromise. 4x5 projected onto a 16x20 is still most excellent, but now let's talk about projecting a S35 frame of film on to a 40ft screen which is even smaller than FF 35mm! It's not only a severe compromise, it's almost too rediculous to talk about. Next time anyone here goes to a movie, walk up to the screen and look at this tremendous quality people here are talking about whe it comes to film. 35mm projection on to that size of a screen is the worst compromise imaginable. Ask anyone that's done any darkroom work. It's sh%^y period. The movie industry doesn't have high standards. They have minimum standards. Standards just barely able to cross a threshhold and charge 10 bucks a ticket.

The viewing experience of a motion picture is only satisfactory because of the viewing distance from the sh*%y enlarged projected image on the screen. Got a problem with my photo, stand across the street, it will look better. This is the severe compromise of the movie exhibition business. Film sucks for this, especially 35mm film and people need to get off their high horse about the precious 35mm frame of film. Until they start projecting 8x10 frames of film on the movie screen, I don't want to hear anymore about it. I toldja I can get pretty snobby about this.

Yes, DSLR is a compromise and S35mm is a crap load of compromise already. Not sure where we draw the line on how much we compromise. As soon as you project an image, we've compromised. Just sit further away, you probably won't notice. It's all about viewing distance, people. If you download mp3s from the net, sit in the front row, you won't notice any difference.

This is a very good point I haven't seen brought up here before. The entire history of film as a medium is riddled with compromises and a "good enough" attitude. Hell, even 24 frames a second is a compromise - they could easily(though not cheaply) shift the industry towards higher frame rates, which would result in far clearer imagery. Instead the industry is opting for 3D, which is riddled with problems. And it ain't cheap.

Basically we're arguing over which compromises are the least upsetting. 24p with a decent range of DOF for $800-1700 is worth some even fairly significant compromises, imo.

 

[John Brawley]

4x5 projected onto a 16x20 is still most excellent, but now let's talk about projecting a S35 frame of film on to a 40ft screen which is even smaller than FF 35mm! It's not only a severe compromise, it's almost too rediculous to talk about.

Yeah except it's a mature, low cost and low-tech technology that so primitive and full of compromise that people have been enjoying for over 100 years and it still exceeds digital projection in terms of screen brightness, colour gamut and contrast range.

What's your alternative WORKING suggestion ?

How big are D-Cinema projection chips (that have fixed pattern pixels)?

People talk about "film grain" as if it's something desirable, well folks take a look at a 10x8 contact print and you won't see any.

There's no point comparing stills to motion pictures. We're talking about motion pictures. The perception of grain and sharpness (or noise for that matter) TOTALLY changes once images are in motion.

I admire Wally Pfister's work but I'd be much more interested if he and and Christopher Nolan announced they were using Douglas Trumbull's Showscan system for the next Batman movie, instead of just using more IMAX. Now THAT would be a game changer.

Even Trumbull came to acknowledge that showscan wasn't the most appropriate way for dramatic stories to be told and it just gets in the way of storytelling. Showscan ended up as a ride film format and even then they went bust some time ago.

No one has made a 100% IMAX dramatic feature film either and even then, IMAX is still only 24 FPS.


jb

 

[f64manray]

Yeah except it's a mature, low cost and low-tech technology that so primitive and full of compromise that people have been enjoying for over 100 years and it still exceeds digital projection in terms of screen brightness, colour gamut and contrast range.

What's your alternative WORKING suggestion ?

I can only say what I've done for myself, as the movie theatre experience where I live is so substandard, not to mention the constant texting which causes distracting glowing orbs throughout the viewing experience as well as the very good possibility that the film may be out of focus etc. We're done with it.

I've bought a 52" LCD Samsung and some very nice seating with a decent sound system and have gone the Net Flix route. I've really found that the viewing experience on that screen with Bluray is just very, very nice. Not as big as the theatre, but the picture sharpness, resolution etc surpasses the theatre experience in so many ways. I wouldn't say it's a home theatre, but it is a very nice screening room.

I bought a commercial grade popcorn popper and movie popcorn. The experience is complete. Also no more soft drinks that aren't mixed right ie; no carbonation or just carbonation and no syrup. There really is no place like home. My experience is reliable and consistant each and every time.

As for everybody else going to the theater:

AMC Entertainment, Cinemark Holdings and Regal Entertainment Group just secured 660 million to overhaul about 14,000 movie screens to digital. That was the news as of Feb 2010

The overhaul means movies can be transmitted into the theaters over fiber-optic cables rather than shipped in the film canisters used in celluloid film projectors that date back to the age of Thomas Edison.

It did take longer than anticipated, but there was an industry standard that needed to be established before vendors could produce the [digital] projectors in volume. That was the first reason. The other factor is that it takes a long time to get six studios, and eight PE firms, which own the different movie exhibitors, all on the same page. You have a lot of cooks in the kitchen. The last factor was the financing market. We were ready to go in early 2008, but then the securitization market collapsed. We then got a leveraged loan, but then a bank called Lehman collapsed, and we had to wait until the summer of 2009 when there was a market again.

This will save the movie industry between 600-800 million a year. No more film prints. This is under way now. Not 10 years from now, but now. I'm not sure how long it takes from getting the funding to actually plugging in the projector.
The times are a changing.

It would be interesting to know what the domino effect of this will be. What does that mean to Fuji and Kodak when there is no more film prints ordered in the thousands for each release. That's going to put a squeeze on them a bit, and if film prices start to rise for films in production, that might force a change to digital over film for production purposes. It's simple economics. production companies aren't going to lament in some purist rant "What will we ever do now" They'll just simply shoot in digital, and those purist directors can either work ...or not.

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/02/26/movie-theaters-go-digital-what-took-them-so-long/tab/article/

 

[John Brawley]

, I think I'll listen to the guy who has done extensive film outs and worked with this tool in post extensively and that ASC DP is Hurlbut ....and Charters.

So the 150 odd other ASC dp's who choose not to shoot with HDSLR's don't count.

You're obviously hearing what you want to hear.

There really is no place like home. My experience is reliable and consistant each and every time.

Your best alternative after slagging off cinema / exhibition is to stay at home. Check.

This will save the movie industry between 600-800 million a year. No more film prints. This is under way now. Not 10 years from now, but now. I'm not sure how long it takes from getting the funding to actually plugging in the projector.
The times are a changing.

Well Id' suggest that getting a loan for $600 odd million points to the real reason cinemas STILL haven't gone digital. No one wants to pay the plant costs. And why should cinema owners pay for new projectors every 5 years so distributors can save money ?

The only reason that digital projection is FINALLY taking off is because of 3D. It means they can charge MORE for each ticket and all of a sudden there's a financial driver from the customers who want to watch a film in 3D and are prepared to pay a premium to do so....yeah, all those people out there that don't just stay home to watch movies...

There was no reason for a cinema owner to spend more on projectors that have a 5 year operating life to give distributors a saving on print costs.

And of course, your complaints about screens being out of focus and bad popcorn don't get fixed by a digital projector. You'll still get bad projection if the sparkling new digital cinema isn't on-game.

It would be interesting to know what the domino effect of this will be. What does that mean to Fuji and Kodak when there is no more film prints ordered in the thousands for each release.

Although it hasn't been smooth sailing for them of late, you seem ignorant of Kodak's business and history in digital imaging. Kodak have lead the charge to digital projection, make some of the worlds best digital photo sensors (Pentax 645, hasselbald, leica's), as well as supplying sensors in the Spirit Film datacines, not to mention inventing the cineon file format and literally have thousands of digital imaging patents. Oh yeah, they built the first megapixel camaera sensor and made the first commercial digital camera. (a modified Nikon F3)

Suffice to say Kodak (and fuji) are in the digital imaging business as well and have been for a long time.

Let's move on from this debate which has a long and boring history. It is so tedious. Let's not talk of film being dead anymore and talk instead about the what the current cameras can actually do and how to get the most of them.

Film is dead 1982 (read the first para under new gear at NAB...nearly 30 years before the F35..there was the little known ikegami / CP EC 35 !!)

1982 was a big year for Panavision too with their forerunner to the Genesis...the Panacam (see page 5)


Film is dead 2009

[URL="http://www.lostmag.com/issue13/cinematography.php"]Film is dead 2007

Film is dead 2005

Film is dead 2002

Film is dead 2001

[/URL]
Film is dead 2000

Of course, the first reference to film being dead was from about 1956 when Daily Variety apparently had a banner that screamed "Film is dead!" in response to ampex inventing videotape. (yeah the 2" quad version)

jb