[Tig] Is there anybody out there

[mike seymour]

Peter ! Peter ! you knew I would bite. :-) But I type the rest of  
this in the spirit of Good FUN and not religious dogma.

this is a valid technical discussion, but let me take up Peter's  
original intent - which was to get someone to bite over the now  
fairly long standing film vs video debate.

1. Do you honestly think film has something that sooner or later can  
not be emulated by a digital device?
2. Do you honestly think
- much higher shooting ratios (due to lack of load times - longer  
loads - lower cost on set)
- virtually no stock costs,
- no processing costs
- no scanning costs
- immediate full on set playback
wont sooner or later be the tipping point ?

I offer, Sir,  in my defense the following points for your  
consideration:

Point 1: - rushes 35mm daily transfers as measured by feet per day  
per production has risen a lot over the last few years - directors  
are filming more film per day - more dual camera work - less cuttting  
- more MTV video style production techniques - since the directors  
grew up with a Sony handicam and not an 8mm (like me:-) Directors  
want to roll more and cut less - thus shooting 'tape' has its appeal  
since costs are rising - and directors want more. Add to this  
everyone wants a DI now... even super low budget features. Everyone  
wants a experienced colorist to polish their masterpiece lovingly  
(god love 'em) !

Point 2:  While I agree I can spot the HD in Miami Vice a mile away..  
Superman looked REALLY good. No come on it did. And Millions of  
ticket buyers would have not given the genesis footage a second thought.

Point 3: 35mm size CCDs allowing for 'normal' 35mm lens and optics

Point 4: Moore's law - soon people are going to make cameras that  
capture HDR, it will come because it can. Dynamic range will match  
and then pass 35mm.

Point 5: Lighting with LEDs - shooting at 2000 fps. A time will come  
soon (well ok it will come) when it will be easier to not shoot blue  
screen but shoot grey screen with studio lighting as Light stage  
image capture. Then in post 'mix the light' so increase the fill,  
change the rim light - etc all my mixing the actually captured  
performance - or just dial in an exact HDR of the background and have  
the computer do it for you. This will not be us 'colour grading" to  
match the beach shot background plate.. the computer will dial up the  
correct lighting 'exactly' from the 2000 fps combination of LED  
lighting and play the performance back perfectly... oh and allow  
digital make up.
_ Now granted this is a special case of effects work. But it will be  
as common place as mixing an audio album is now - vs recording the  
band live. And it will happen - because it can - and people LOVE  
delaying decisions until later during the film making process. AND  
even if you say this is impossible (which it isn't as it is working  
now - see Siggraph this week) - I say this or something LIKE this -  
as yet unknown will come along that will only be possible with  
digital photography.  If it isn't light stages it will be Digital pin  
hole cameras - already seen as prototypes - these will have an  
infinite depth of field, or something....

Point 6: the massive take up of digital stills photography. You could  
say that the cameras are more expensive - for the longest time the  
results weren't as good... and no one had very good printers to print  
the images - YET Canon, Nikkon etc are now all giving up on film and  
doing only digital... Why ? Because no one ever got rich from  
underestimating connivence plus the PUBLIC didn't care.

I rest my case my old friend, - I love film too - I love grading and  
respect the art - but the science will not keep it as the primary  
capture medium for another 15 years... at least thats just my 2 c.

Mike :-)

PS
Let the flaming begin ! :-)


On 04/08/2006, at 5:36 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:

> the TIG is supported by subscribers.
> see http://tig.colorist.org for donation button interface.  Thanks to
> Scott Klein, Glenn Chan, and Hakan Toptas.
> --
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Micheletti, Bob (NBC Universal) wrote:
>>>
>>> Bits can be used for either or both precision or dynamic range.
>>
>> But not both unless you have a "whole bunch" (technical term) of  
>> them.
>>
>> Now I get to duck...
>
> Duck is right.  Quack, quack.
>
> If you have an HD camera which outputs standard Rec.709 video then  
> the interpretation of the bits is set in stone.  The amount of  
> dynamic range is essentially specified by the standard.  Your  
> presentation device may show you something different (something  
> wrong) if its interpretation of white, black, and gamma curve, are  
> different than the standard.  There is no more juice to be found in  
> that turnip.
>
> If you have a camera which outputs something else (e.g. a log  
> encoding) then there is opportunity to expand the dynamic range to  
> what the camera's sensor is able to support.  This may give you  
> something more to work with in post-production.  If the final  
> result is standard Rec.709 video then the final result is still  
> constrained to the dynamic range supported by that standard.  If  
> your studio monitor is calibrated to Rec.709 but the output is to  
> film, then the result on film is still essentially limited to Rec. 
> 709 since that is all you were able to see during grading.
>
> Bob
> ======================================
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/ 
> bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tig mailing list
> Tig at tig.colorist.org
> http://tig.colorist.org/mailman/listinfo/tig