All Activity

seems that baby's chin area, the local dr is really high, yet the highlight rolloff seems nice by my eyes. the details in the highlight area still are kept. there is no clear dead white, no clipping on the right side of the histogram. if this holds true, it is really hard to justify using alexa 35, or even 35mm film rolls. they may be even better in this situation, but 27h is good enough.

I'm still waiting to hear from the big names about it... Guess we'll have a long wait for that. I think they're probably more tied up about being bought by a streamer, than they are about being bought by a fascist.

i think that baby's face is one of the challengest situations, dark shade, interwoven with the sunshine areas. this demonstrates that the 27h has some mojos. my point is that the film rolls may have similar situation like the closing shop arri, 5% improvement vs 10-20 times cost. for the film rolls, the cost may be 100 times more, depending on the final feature's length.

the highlight rolloff and the skin tones of that baby's face are really nice. the low res look may be due to the superzoom. "I used Angenieux zoom B4 lens, but I'm really interested to trying Zeiss Digiprime, cine lens for 2/3"." my experience on even the canon b4 cinema zoom is not so good. no hands on experience on digiprime. i guess the digiprime will be leading a big margin in terms of clearness.

It is and it isn't. A little history reveals otherwise. Honestly, humanity's default mode seems to welcome oppression. And why not? It's intellectually easy. Many peoples don't like trying to be more smarter.

varicam 27 is 3 2/3 inch ccd cam. so the color is good. not sure about the highlight rolloff. i bought mine 10 years ago, used it once or twice, as i am totally unfamiliar with this format and the learning curve is stiff. those two menus are very difficult to go through. and all those terms in the menus are strange words to me. i am still learning. i can verify the color is good. the resolution and the details are not as good as other high quality 1080p or 4k cams that i have, but because i put an old tv zooms in front of my copy of 27h. if i put some digiprime lens on my unit, and if i learn well to set up my own picture profile confidently, i think the resolution and the details should be acceptable. not sure about the highlight rolloff though. i don't have hands on experience with the alexas and the 35mm film rolls. so i don't know the best highlight rolloff. in normal conditions, seems 27h gives good images.

Nikon ZR vs Arri Alexa Mini Color (R3D NE, N-Log, Log C) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgJGK3YpIx0

We need to send a murder of crows to the click weasels doorstep

The effective resolution of properly-exposed modern 35mm film is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5K if I remember right. But as above, a lot of people aren't so likely to care about that. Unless the varicam had some sort of miracle sensor, though, 35mm negative film will have much better dynamic range and much, much more pleasing highlight rolloff. It's still seen as king of rolloff - and on a film with a 20 million dollar budget, the cost of shooting on film vs Arri vs anything else is basically an afterthought.

I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn how many movie theaters are still projecting in 2K. Movie theater projectors are expensive as hell and overall profits for theaters are down compared with 10 years ago. Exhibitors aren't going to rush out to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on anything that doesn't have a direct positive impact on their profits. Being able to count the pores in the lead actor's skin doesn't put asses in seats or sell more candy.

i want to point out that varicam's 720p is probably the best 720p implemented. the title may be more suitable as "best 720p vs 35mm film rolls in terms of resolution". for the organic feeling, it surprises me that varicam's 720p can be better than that of 35mm film rolls. if so, what is the point of shooting with film rolls? maybe because the film rolls are expensive, only exclusive to the big budget films? i guess i am mystery buster. lol.

Bruce Greene, his forum name

i don't see that this dp provides a link to his film.

Got a link to the film (or a trailer)?

although there is argument that 2k projectors can be replaced with 4k projectors or 8k ones, on the other hand, 2k projectors have been there many years and nobody complains about the lack of resolution on the big screen about the movies shot with 35mm film. seems to me that the current trend of shooting with 35mm or 16mm film rolls is just another way trying to differentiate but does not provide real technical advancements.

larry wants to buy the hollywood? then creates a big ai database like oracle and an universal ai language like java? lol.

No, but it turns out that a lot of our guard rails are imaginary.

It's really weird ...

seems to me that the resolution specs have been saturated long time ago.

seems that he thinks the varicam's 720p is about the same resolution as red one on a 2 k projection.

"I guess I'm making these points to say that, detail wise, 720p is darned close to 1080p. And when shooting a movie almost every frame has some amount of motion blur, making the difference insignificant to the eye, even on a very large theatrical screen. The low light advantage of the 720p chips, and the slow motion capability make these cameras a true rival to any of the 1080p cameras that I saw demonstrated in the ASC camera assessment series last month. And while I wasn't able to compare the 720p Varicam directly to the 4k camera named after a color, I would say that after seeing the ASC tests, the 720p Varicam is about equal to or more detailed than that camera on a 2k projection."

"Recently I had the experience of showing a small movie we shot with the 27H tape based varicam on a very large screen in a multiplex projected through Barco DLP 2k projector. The movie was still a work in progress, and so we played it on my MacBook Pro in quicktime and plugged into the projector as a mirrored computer monitor." The earlier paragraph about the large screen.

Of course not, but here we are again.

Just curious ... should a sitting US president be openly influencing the fate of an entire industry, for his own or his family's personal gains? Will he push or influence regulators and law makers to cancel the business deals of everyone else? I read a report that a huge number of US Legislators own shares in Tech, Pharma, Defence Companies etc. But even by that standard, this seems to be much.

Egalitarianism is a lost cause in the USA. It would be nice to strive to be on the correct side of that spectrum, as we've done since WWII, but I ain't holding my breath. We're back to our Gilded Age mode, which I fear is the default. Maybe with the way info moves these days we'll speed run it and it'll swing back the other way somehow? Then again, I look at too many of my own family members, see how they think, and just kind of know in my gut that none of this ends well.