Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 The film industry is moving towards larger sensor #Fact ALL 2015 cinema cameras are s35. Alexa, Red epic/weapon, Varicam 35, All digital Panavision cameras (genesis), Sony FS100, FS700, FS7, F5, F55, F35, F65, Kinifinity, Blackmagic cinema cameras, Production, URSA, URSA mini, Aja Cion, Arri Amira, Alexa Mini, all cinema cameras, Phantom cameras,The only experiments in larger sensors are the alexa 65 (which still isn't out or shot anything) and the consumer 5D, A7 series. That's it.What's your argument? 2 cameras (that have not yet been released) out of 20+ cinema cameras are larger than s35 so the cinema industry is moving to FF? That's a pretty weak argument to hashtag as #Fact Unless you have another argument or future information inside hollywood & camera makers, it's not a 3fact, At most, it's your personal prediction based upon a statistically weak (almost non existent) fact about 2 cameras. Just logic. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Hollywood needs to upgrade to bigger than s35mm in order to differenciate itself from the roves of cinematic mcdonalds adverts. Red - Vista vision (2 times the surface area of s35mm)Alexa 65 - 3 times the area of s35mmAlexa Mini - 4:3 sensor - 133% bigger than s35mmA7S - almost twice the area of s35mmKinifinity kinemax + focal reducer = 1.1x crop of full frame - giving almost th elook of full frameFS7 + Speed Booster Ultra = another attempt to get rhe full frame lookQuentin, Nolan, etc = the best film makers are going for big format in order to maintain the aesthetic edge.Me - I've built FORBES70 which dwarfs even the alexa 65 in terms of image capture area. - I get 3 emails a week from dp's asking for quotes. It's only a matter of time before I get an email from someone with the budget to build a unit based around the Alexa mini for a project requiring the big frame look. it happened in the 1950's-1960's where the corps needed to regain the advantage and overshadow tv. they did this with large formats for the epic and visually immersing look.Arri are limiting the availability of the alexa65 for one reason - so they have a system to offer to the proper film makers. The hire rate prevents shit kickers devaluing the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I don't agree going bigger sensors will take the film industry Rich. Yes the consumer market will have a percentage of FF cameras used for video.Current Cinema Cameras:-Sony FS100, FS700, FS7, F5, F55, F35, F65-Canon C100, C100II, C300, C300II, C500 -Arri d21, Alexa, Arri Amira, Alexa mini (s35 for shooting with extra small area for EVF look around and sometimes used for 4:3 anamorphic)-Red One, Epic and scarlet MX, Dragon (Bit larger than s35 but always shot standard at 4K s35 and 6K at slightly bigger than s35 for recropping/stabilization to 4K s35)-Aja Cion, Blackmagic Production camera, URSA, URSA mini, Phantom cameras, Axiom, Genesis, -Panasonic Varicam, JVC LS300, As of now, the cinema industry is 95% s35. The exceptions, the Alexa 65 and red vistavision, the other 5% (or less). This is the "Fact"Whether all these cameras will go to FF and larger in the future is purely speculation but I speculate no based on current cameras the industry is using. Anyone speculates it will go FF, it's fine as long it's a speculation not a fact. We all like predicting future trends, nothing wrong with that but I predict based on actual current information, personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Hollywood needs to upgrade to bigger than s35mm in order to differenciate itself from the roves of cinematic mcdonalds adverts. Pretty sure things like actors, script, directors, sound, lighting, budget etc do just that.I doubt any average movie goer sits and watches a great s35 film and thinks "not bad, but the format choice was a bit too close to that TV advert I saw". We are already about a decade into cinematic TV. Xavier Plagaro Mussard and Don Kotlos 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Pretty sure things like actors, script, directors, sound, lighting, budget etc do just that.I doubt any average movie goer sits and watches a great s35 film and thinks "not bad, but the format choice was a bit too close to that TV advert I saw". We are already about a decade into cinematic TV.Exactly! Cinematic TV is exactly why Hollywood (Theatre movies) need to have something to make it stand out. The 'Average movie goer' does notice the difference - that's why they still pay to watch movies in the theatre. The Average film viewer sees the film for the first time on Netflix. If you think that The Hateful Eight won't receive extra press based on its larger format then you;re ill informed. The Master (large portions shot 65mm), Interstellar, etc. It was widely broadcast that these films were shot in a special way, and as a result had an aesthetic which was different to 'Cinematic TV'. Pulling the actors, script, sound lighting, budget card is null and void in this discussion since it is a given that such things are in place for Hollywood pictures! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utsira Posted June 15, 2015 Author Share Posted June 15, 2015 Exactly! Cinematic TV is exactly why Hollywood (Theatre movies) need to have something to make it stand out. The 'Average movie goer' does notice the difference - that's why they still pay to watch movies in the theatre. The Average film viewer sees the film for the first time on Netflix. If you think that The Hateful Eight won't receive extra press based on its larger format then you;re ill informed. The Master (large portions shot 65mm), Interstellar, etc. It was widely broadcast that these films were shot in a special way, and as a result had an aesthetic which was different to 'Cinematic TV'. Pulling the actors, script, sound lighting, budget card is null and void in this discussion since it is a given that such things are in place for Hollywood pictures! But in terms of large-format projection (slightly off the topic of acquisition, though they are connected), what proportion of theatres projected The Master in 70mm (Or rather, what proportion of theatres in the West have any kind of film projection at all now)? I read that Tarantino is backing a project to get 70mm projection into selected theatres in time for the Hateful Eight, but I reckon it's still going to be hard, particularly outside large metropolitan areas, to find a 70mm screening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Pulling the actors, script, sound lighting, budget card is null and void in this discussion since it is a given that such things are in place for Hollywood pictures!In what world is it null and void? McDonalds could start shooting it's adverts on Arri65 or 8K Dragon... People wont start asking them to make 120 minute McFeatures though.Stick Brad Pitt in front of a 5DII and it will look a million times more "cinematic" to the average joe than some stock actor in a McDonalds ad shot on Alexa65... People are conditioned into what they think the cinematic look is simply because it was released in a cinema, with marketing, with actors they know and done in a certain way that they don't understand (mainly s35, good DP, good grade, good score etc).... even if all those things are applied to a McDonalds ad, they will never connect it with a cinema feature. The human mind doesn't really work like that.You can say that the average joe will say things like "wow, shows on HBO look like films",,,, That is part of the above conditioning... Good actors, DPs etc (and these will also shoot 65mm, if the director/producer desires).... But to say that Hollywood needs to separate itself from tv ads is crazy. People just do not think in this way.The only real clamour towards 65mm, in terms of selling it as a differentiator, will come from the IMAX side of thinks... but the audiences already know about that and, as stated above, it is very much limited to areas with IMAX.Anyway, there will probably be more 65mm shots in the coming years... But is in no way becoming the standard, which is what brought about this conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Exactly! Cinematic TV is exactly why Hollywood (Theatre movies) need to have something to make it stand out. The 'Average movie goer' does notice the difference - that's why they still pay to watch movies in the theatre. The Average film viewer sees the film for the first time on Netflix. If you think that The Hateful Eight won't receive extra press based on its larger format then you;re ill informed. The Master (large portions shot 65mm), Interstellar, etc. It was widely broadcast that these films were shot in a special way, and as a result had an aesthetic which was different to 'Cinematic TV'. Pulling the actors, script, sound lighting, budget card is null and void in this discussion since it is a given that such things are in place for Hollywood pictures! Both of the movies you mentioned were shot on film cameras, not digital. So mentioning them is also null and void. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photographer-at-large Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 about A7rII:rolling shutter is eliminated in s35 mode, and native ISO for slog2 is 800 according to this post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 But in terms of large-format projection (slightly off the topic of acquisition, though they are connected), what proportion of theatres projected The Master in 70mm (Or rather, what proportion of theatres in the West have any kind of film projection at all now)? I read that Tarantino is backing a project to get 70mm projection into selected theatres in time for the Hateful Eight, but I reckon it's still going to be hard, particularly outside large metropolitan areas, to find a 70mm screening.Projection is nothing to do with this discussion. the fact that the master was shot on 65mm film means it has a 'look' different to s35. Same with The Hateful Eight. watch it on a netbook and the look of 65mm acquisition is still there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Both of the movies you mentioned were shot on film cameras, not digital. So mentioning them is also null and void.Ignorant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Anyway, there will probably be more 65mm shots in the coming years... But is in no way becoming the standard, which is what brought about this conversation.It wont be the standard, but will become the benchmark and naturally the first choice for top DP's who want their work to exhibit a look different to the norm. The Master 'looks' better than There Will Be Blood. Both films have the same production values. One is shot on 65mm film. They look drastically different aesthetically and in quality terms. If someone can;t see the difference - even when watching a 480p dvd release, it's likely they'll never understand the point i was making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 . But to say that Hollywood needs to separate itself from tv ads is crazy. People just do not think in this way. Why else would Bob Richardson (currently one of the most in demand and respected DP's) have shot the Hateful Eight on the bigger format? Just for the fun of it? At the top of the game professionals look to the Esoteric in order to differentiate themselves from the norm. Many younger dp's (proper dp's from Hollywood) and colleagues of Mr. Richardson will follow suit. - maybe not shooting 65mm film, but shooting big frame digital in order to get a similar look. I bet my life on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted June 15, 2015 Administrators Share Posted June 15, 2015 It wont be the standard, but will become the benchmark and naturally the first choice for top DP's who want their work to exhibit a look different to the norm. The Master 'looks' better than There Will Be Blood. Both films have the same production values. One is shot on 65mm film. They look drastically different aesthetically and in quality terms. If someone can;t see the difference - even when watching a 480p dvd release, it's likely they'll never understand the point i was making.All else equal it makes sense to shoot on the best looking format available and I agree that 65mm is it at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 The format you choose is a creative choice to tell the story more suitably and effectively. We are lucky to have such choices. You pick your own standard and off you go!Onto topic.... it's a discussion of new 4k cameras from Sony.I've been thinking, it's excellent that these cameras have 4k. General 4k footage looks ridiculous on a 4k monitor. A lot of the consumer 4k camera footage looks "hyper real", so sharp it's actually very distracting. But I also remember HD being very distracting at first. The Sony FS7 (in my opinion) is the "best" camera on the market. (considering price, features and results). These new cameras will make excellent B & C cameras to that. On many shoots an excellent A camera. I like Sony as they give me the features I need. I prefer Canon's imagery but the features are lost in time. Who cares anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I suppose that's Australian dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volker Schmidt Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 here is an interesting article about cine standard size & mount:http://www.fdtimes.com/2015/06/01/new-cine-standard-size-mount/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRenaissanceMan Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I'm not sure why someone would buy an 8-bit 4:2:0 camera for $3200 when they can have a 10-bit 4:2:2/12-bit RAW camera for $500. Even if you want more resolution, I'd take a used BMCC over these compressed convenience cams any day.But hey, I do music videos and narrative in controlled lighting. Horses for courses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf33d Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Great Sony Interview !!! Finally uncompressed RAW. I like all his answers as well including the 4K quality in APSC and that the noise is better than A7R, and that even if 42 is not sexy like Canon 50mpx, they had to do this for the compromise for ISO, and 4K video. Good Sony ! You got it. Canon, you didn't. Sony interview and a good news: They are working on uncompressed RAW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I'm not sure why someone would buy an 8-bit 4:2:0 camera for $3200 when they can have a 10-bit 4:2:2/12-bit RAW camera for $500. Even if you want more resolution, I'd take a used BMCC over these compressed convenience cams any day.But hey, I do music videos and narrative in controlled lighting. Horses for courses.A hybrid camera? Large prints? Fast and accurate AF? FF/35mm look?What more? What about more (and clean) detail? ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.