Jump to content

Star Wars AOTC 2002 only shot in 8 bit 1440x1080


Aussie Ash
 Share

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
25 minutes ago, jonpais said:

how does it stack up today?


Decide yourself?
 

 

Shot with a Sony CineAlta HDW-F900, which has 3x CCD chips of 1920x1080 (one for each of RGB).
 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633399-REG/Sony_HDWF900RPAC1D_HDW_F900R_CineAlta_24P_HDCAM.html
 

Very weirdly enough, you can still buy it??? (well, the "R" version, which is very similar) 

For a sweet $80K

Or you could just buy it secondhand, right now for around $1K or $2K for the body:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=sony f900r&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=4&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

The non-R original version you might even find for sub $1K

Lots and lots of films have been shot on it (for instance "Quantum of Solace" had part of it shot on a Sony HDW-F900R, and that film came out in 2008. Or "Four Lions" which came out in 2010):

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/sony-hdw-f900-camera

Some other discussions on it:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?330231-Sony-hdw-f900-Today
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?7478-How-does-RED-One-compare-with-Sony-HDW-F900

https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/2990-how-george-lucas-pioneered-the-use-of-digital-video-in-feature-films-with-the-sony-hdw-f900

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my dream camera to have at the time. There was a rental house that had 3 of them near where I lived. I got to hold one once LoL. I couldn't hardly justify a weeks rental on one by the time you added a HD B4 lens, extra batteries, tripod base plate, charger, insurance, on and on... It adds up Fast, Yikes.

11 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Well damn ! Still gorgeous ! Really thought george lucas would be shooting with some huge 8k custom made camera or somethin @IronFilm

The first 4k camera was a Dalsa Origin camera and it came out in 2003. Rented for $3000.00 a DAY!! I have never seen one in person. Dalsa made Sensors for Medium Format cameras then.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVrgy1oFaukwAXwMPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTEyNGozbWZ1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjQxMjNfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=dalsa+origin+camera&fr=yhs-iba-1&hspart=iba&hsimp=yhs-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

@webrunner5 3K A DAY ?! HOLY SHIT 

How do you think they got such a low res camera to look so good ? This looks incredible even by today's standards. That THX certification is no joke

I am surprised how you can get 1080p to look good enough on a Movie Theater screen. I mean 1080p only has to be 2 MP. And with the 3 2/3" CCD's in it I bet that was all it is. I think a Sony PMW F3 was only like 3.2 MP. But it had big Pixels for low light. I think my Panny AF100A was like 6 MP. Way more than you need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Internet is a funny place started here and @webrunner5 was talking about the Dalsa Origin... So I do som quick research Seems the Tim Burton/Johnny Depp Alice in wonderland was shot on it.

Then some how I came across this... 

 

This really raised my eyebrows as I used to work in at a Local CBS News station in the late 90's and from time to time the old timers would talk about the legend Christine Chubbuck 

This happend a year before I was born...  Just thought this maybe interesting to any former news jockeys .

The Full Movie is on Netflix (as of 2/12/18) I put it on my watch list. It got a 7+ on IMDB

and now to bring it back to topic in someway shape or form it was shot on a Alexa  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Well damn ! Still gorgeous ! Really thought george lucas would be shooting with some huge 8k custom made camera or somethin @IronFilm


Not in early 2000's!! Heck, not even today in 2018 do many big blockbuster hollywood films use 8K at all

 

10 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

How do you think they got such a low res camera to look so good ? This looks incredible even by today's standards. 

Great lighting / art direction / framing / camera movement / etc

 

 

10 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

@webrunner5 3K A DAY ?! HOLY SHIT 


Doesn't surprise me, as a top end cinema camera package (with lenses etc) could reach a similar kind of figure. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mkabi said:

Now..... For the big question:

Is 4:2:0 better than 3:1:1?

 

Apparently the same --- 25% of the color information available*. But I don't take those numbers as accurate: 3:1:1 is a middle way towards the 4:2:2 from 40% ratio instead.

HDCAM 3:1:1 format is actually 75% from horizontally 1920 pixels (so 1440) and a third chroma sampled (480 for a quarter of 1920), but it is full vertical resolution (1080) rather than a half for 4:2:0 on chroma side, even though with chroma subsampling going with half from full horizontal HD (aka 1920), so here you have for your maths now ;-)

In a line? :D Take a look on this article by Barry Green:

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/colorspace/

 

*

https://wolfcrow.com/blog/chroma-subsampling-numbers-explained/

https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/chroma-subsampling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected for 66,6% if we'd take the native HDCAM 1440x1080 resolution (using non-square pixels with 4:3 storage aspect ratio, reason why there's the same 16:9 display aspect ratio) and my calculation is correct:

Y' 1440x1080 = 1,555,200

Cb 480x1080 = 518,400

Cr 480x1080 = 518,400

1,555,200 / 1,036,800

I bet for some reason Sony wanted to beat the competitor Panasonic used to implement 4:2:2 in their alternative DVCPRO HD system based on 1280x1080 anyways. What do I know though?! ; ) Maybe that 1920 quarter -- that is, 1440 / 3 = 480 (without mention some sources mention some other 640 value as a third of full HD/1920 for HDCAM chroma subsampling), may convert all the math in some other numbers... :D But in one line, better than 4:2:0 indeed.

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Apparently the same --- 25% of the color information available*. But I don't take those numbers as accurate: 3:1:1 is a middle way towards the 4:2:2 from 40% ratio instead.

HDCAM 3:1:1 format is (...)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part II

 

still on topic to @mkabi

 

People tend to misshape 4:2:0 in a intuitive reading from there. Adam Wilt gives a fair explanation on it:

https://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html#colorSampling

So, actually what do we mainly have here?

Color is sampled at half in both ways (horizontal & vertical).

 

And on 3:1:1?

3:1:1 is a third (1440 / 3 = 480) but keeps the full vertical resolution as much as:

4:1:1 where only a quarter and horizontally the chroma is subsampled;

and 4:2:2 for the double half of that quarter above-mentioned in the previous line instead, that is, in a half of the horizontal resolution.

 

So, we still have a midway from 4:2:0 (25%) to 4.2:2 (50%) -- color information in parenthesis for half of that value now without parenthesis:

33% to my math;

but don't forget, like Italians say, math is not opinion ;-) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • EOSHD Pro Color 5 for All Sony cameras
    EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
    EOSHD Dynamic Range Enhancer for H.264/H.265
×
×
  • Create New...