Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

TOPIC: cinema cameras

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174469

  • RWAV
  • Moderator
    Pro User
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 5418
  • 8 months ago
No, I don't think Monsters are an available product - from memory they were dumped from development by GenArts some time ago - kind of replicated in their other range. Here Monsters still work with Fusion - at least up to V7 - after all these years.

Yep, don't see the logic of degrading the source material before manipulating it in Post - that simply limits the choices.
BETA System
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64BIT
HP Z800 Workstation

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174490

  • hugly
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 16437
  • 8 months ago
Would be interesting to hear if the recent version of Davinci Resolve V15 which claims to have Fusion fully integrated supports those plugins.
It's better to travel well than to arrive...

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174491

  • kirk1701
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 68
  • 8 months ago
These are all great points, if a little off topic

I saw an Argentinian film called "La Antena" recently. It was made in 2007, but it was shot with modern and historic methods. Great film. On certain points of emphasis, they used a vintage hand-cranked camera and film stock. The difference was night and day. I, in all my ignorance, could tell the difference. That was likely on purpose. (It's on Netflix at present. Highly recommended.)

youtu.be/l6ATFt4eE30

For me, the two methodologies FEEL different. Feel isn't logical. It's an ineffable, emotional quality.

That said, they used both methods as storytelling devices, which is really the key to the whole thing. Use whichever method suits your project best.

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174493

  • hugly
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 16437
  • 8 months ago
There are still many full feature movies produced on film. I think, that's because equipment, workflows, skills and knowledge exist in the teams and digital capture still looks different from film which some prefer.

From the point of view of an amateur who possibly hasn't the equipment and the knowledge (and the budget), with digital capture costs and invested time to get good looking results are significantly lower. Digital will not look exactly like film, but you can get very close.
It's better to travel well than to arrive...

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174496

  • kirk1701
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 68
  • 8 months ago
I dig.

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174498

  • hugly
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 16437
  • 8 months ago
To assist you digging:

Beside of color characteristics and grain structure of specific types of films (which can be approximated with effects in post to some extend) the most significant differences between digital and film are depth of field (depends on sensor size and aperture of the lenses used) and motion blur (depends on motion and shutter speed). The latter is adjustable on most digital cameras, but narrow depth of field needs large sensors and apertures (read: expensive digital equipment). In my view, Four-Thirds is the smallest sensor size which should be used when trying to create a filmic look.
It's better to travel well than to arrive...
Last Edit: 8 months ago by hugly.

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174499

  • hugly
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 16437
  • 8 months ago
Lumix GH5 seems to be "everybody's darling" on the internet, even used for professional productions.

This image is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Equipped with a fast prime lens (and some ND filters), a good tool to capture for filmic look.
It's better to travel well than to arrive...
Last Edit: 8 months ago by hugly.

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174514

  • Tamerlin
  • Pro User
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 139
  • 8 months ago
I'm really jazzed about the new 4K Pocket cinema camera... even though it's not expected until September. Its price is ridiculously low, and it includes a Resolve license, which is perfect since LightWorks plays so well with Resolve, and Resolve now includes Fusion.

That said, IMO the GH5 is the only other affordable hybrid that I'd consider, because Panasonic does video well.

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174516

  • kirk1701
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 68
  • 8 months ago
I'm hoping the v1 Pocket Cine Camera drops in price now the 4k is out.

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174519

  • hugly
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 16437
  • 8 months ago
Yeah, and with the right mount both can be perfectly used as replacement for a lens hood if the Arriflex is away for the moment.


This image is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it.
It's better to travel well than to arrive...

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174520

  • kirk1701
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 68
  • 8 months ago
Hah!

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174556

  • jwrl
  • Moderator
    Pro User
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 10169
  • 8 months ago
kirk1701 wrote:
On certain points of emphasis, they used a vintage hand-cranked camera and film stock. The difference was night and day.

In 1975 using available analogue technology I had to turn footage shot on a Phillips LDK-5 camera and recorded onto Quadruplex tape into "film". Using a Bosch-Fernseh encoded colourgrade system and an Ampex HS-100 slow motion video disk recorder, the result that I achieved was so convincing that I was called a liar by a very high profile DOP when I told him that it had never been near film.

If I could do it then with those primitive tools, I could certainly do it now.
Last Edit: 8 months ago by jwrl.

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174558

  • hugly
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 16437
  • 8 months ago
Heavy Metal of the past!


Philips LDK5 Television Camera

This image is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it.

AMPEX HS-100 Tape Deck

This image is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it.
It's better to travel well than to arrive...
Last Edit: 8 months ago by hugly.

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174562

  • jwrl
  • Moderator
    Pro User
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 10169
  • 8 months ago
For the longest time I had one of those rhodium plated 16 inch aluminium platters on my wall at home. One of the heads had crashed onto the surface, scratching it and destroying the head, making both unusable. And for what it's worth, no-one in their right minds would ever run their HS-100 in the way that it's shown above. The heads flew a matter of microns above the surface of the disk, and the slightest speck of dirt would cause catastrophic damage.

Ours had a positive pressure enclosure over the drives, and the whole unit was in its own self contained clean air environment. Even then we got failures. The disks weren't cheap to replace. They rotated at field rate, which meant 3000/3600 rpm depending on whether you were working in PAL or NTSC. That meant that they had to be individually accurately balanced - the slightest misbalance would have caused serious physical damage to the machine itself and potentially to anyone nearby. You can see balance holes on the upper disk at the left.

The recording technique was to record each field on its own locked track. The order was upper surface/disk one, lower surface/disk one, upper surface/disk two, lower surface/disk two. The track order was to record fields on odd numbered tracks stepping in to the centre and even numbered tracks stepping out.

And we sold ours immediately broadcast quality helical scan recorders became available. I wonder why.



[EDIT] - and it definitely wasn't a tape deck. Tape didn't figure anywhere in the equation.
Last Edit: 8 months ago by jwrl.

Re: cinema cameras 8 months ago #174573

  • hugly
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 16437
  • 8 months ago
Other heavy weights, Tarantino and Ultra Panavision 70mm, did they really cut film?

It's better to travel well than to arrive...
Last Edit: 8 months ago by hugly.
Time to create page: 0.25 seconds
Scroll To Top