HOW long is it going to take to produce a cheap 35 MM HD-cam?

[Jose di Cani]

HI,

We live in 2005, people! WHy on earth didn't they invent the HD version of a 35 cam. SO much technology and still we have to deal with lousy and bad DOF's and video-like pictures. NObody gots the guts to take the risk now. Tons of indies wanting to buy that solution. The solution to get profesional quality. Is it so hard to get narrow DOF's????? Is it so hard in 2005? BUt I Guess Panasonic, Sony, JVC and the rest want to make money by having us wait and begg. It is all about money. They don't care about the real indies anymore. :(

It goes from HD to SUper-HD...then it goes to DIG-HD, then to TRILIAN HD, then to XXL-HD.....THEY are fooling you guys with names and markering!!

It is time for a 35 MM simulator cam for everybody to buy.

[Marco Leavitt]

My guess would be never.

[Filip Kovcin]

next year - 1st of april!

[Richard Alvarez]

Fot ten thousand dollars you can buy a real 35mm camera system. Of course, then you would be shooting on film, and all it's costs.

I don't think a 'cheap' HD solution that can compete with 35mm film will ever exist. The lenses alone are worth more than any prosumer camera.

(Assuming by cheap, you mean a sub ten thousand dollar solution)

[Glenn Chan]

It's expensive to produce larger CCDs (for 35mm film-like DOF), unless there are economies of scale behind it.

2- A camera with larger CCDs also has to be marketable. I suppose if enough people request it, the manufacturers will listen and make such a camera.

3- There are technology barriers that prevent a video camera from producing images like 35mm film does. Two important differences are:
Film has much greater exposure latitude.
When video overexposes, it experiences color shifts.

4- Manufacturers ARE trying to invent the video equivalent of 35mm film cameras... look at cameras like the Thomson Viper.
http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/pr...cameras/viper/

[Matt Irwin]

The Viper is awesome, though it looks like Arri may take the cake with the D20. (click: Cameras > Cameras > Arriflex D20)

No it's not cheap, but it has a 35mm chip among other things.

There's also the Panavision Genesis.

It's highly unlikely that there will ever be a system that produces results like the above AND has anywhere close to a prosumer price tag.

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

Of course we all dream with a giant sensor, however it is not really required. All that is needed is a camera with very simple optics and a built-in ground glass, with some 35mm photo lens mount in front. That's it. Should be about as expensive to make as an FX1/XL2/DVX100, if not less.

But using 35mm optics is not the biggest problem for HD. Unfortunately writing a 1920x1080 picture to tape would probably mean lugging around a laptop. Even high-end current HD camcorders write lower resolutions to the onboard tape. So does HDV for that matter.

[Rob Lohman]

Moved the thread to our "speculation" forum....

[Jose di Cani]

Thanks for the replies. I apreciate. Sometimes it makes me mad, cause if we look at the the way Internet changed the music industry, why not change the video-at-home- with some new killer cheap 35mm-like solution (under 2000 dollar). I read things about the agust simulator and I also know tons of people willing to coff up the money for a system. So there is a huge market. We need a smart investor who can put these things into business. I have 2 left hands really so if I would make a agust-35 mm thing, I would make a ice-machine instead. I am that stupid in these things.

If it about chips and we see pentiums and athlons compete with each other like maniacs, I guess The market for cam-chips is not competetive. Sad. You can compared with the Technics turntable market. SAd, sad, oh so sad.

[Rob Lohman]

How has the internet changed the music industry (other then them
being terrified of it for pirating reasons)?

[Charles Papert]

Jose, an inexpensive 35mm sized sensor will not revolutionize the industry nor transform "video-like pictures" into anything other than the same pictures with shallow focus. It's one element amongst many that go into creating a "film look", and not nearly the most important as far as I'm concerned--the emulation of the 24p 3:2 pulldown was far more ground-breaking. (Don't believe me? Try watching the same scene as shot with a Mini35 at 60i vs a stock-lensed DVX100 or XL2 at 24p--I think it quite sure that the majority of viewers will consider the latter far more "filmic").

Rather than be frustrated by not being able to own a 35mm optical path for your DV camera, focus on your lighting, composition and storytelling abilities and how you can improve them. All of those are far more important than a shallow DOF. It sounds boring and trite, but I absolutely stand by it.

I own a Mini35 myself, but I don't always use it. In fact, I'm shooting a short this weekend and the director decided he doesn't want to bother with it, so it's just a bare DVX. I'll still work hard and make it look great.

[Jose di Cani]

Thanks Charles. I apreciate your answer. WE want to much, huh? I thought 35 mm cams was all amout shallow DOFs. I guess I should complain so much and just make the best of it with standard technology(HD). I really hope you the best of the best.

And ROB>>>the internet has revolutionized home-based pc musicians. Thanks to the internet , I got to know wonderful musicians willing to interchange ideas and musical proyects, not only learning from them but also enjoying new things. The Internet made music universal now......more universal. And not to forget about people downloading your stuff for free...that is great publicty and how it shoul dbe. NO multinationals telling us what we should do. They only thing about money. Thanks to the internet, we don't have to listen to micheal jackson's and MAdonnas and other popular comerrcial garbage.

[Rob Lohman]

Exactly Jose, but you said " Internet changed the music industry".

What you are talking about is NOT the "industry". The internet
has changed a lot in the music landscape for sure, by connecting
people and talent etc. But that doesn't have much to do with the
"industry" (since that is, like the movie business, quite elite as I
see it)

[Jose di Cani]

It did change the industry ( the way people do business). Record companies are in pain now. even Madonna said that. Some artist do offer their songs in mp3 format, because they see that as a change of industry standards. The thing ' mp3' is huge. It changed us, it changed me.....offering me to put my music online.

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

The 'net is very much changing the music industry industry. It used to be that record labels controlled the flow of music and money to and from artists and the public. That is not how it works anymore, the network has deintermidiated the business. Record labels in their traditional form only continue to exist as such because the change has not finished happening yet. The music business is now about media, advertizing and events, not about albums, and that is a BIG change. Musucians today are shifting from a more passive role, in whuch they worked under the umbrella of the label, into a more active rol, producing their own albums and working more live gigs, which is for many the only way to make some money with music nowadays.

Can a similar thing happen for motion pictures? I think so. But bandwidth constraints mean it will take longer than with music. What does this have to do with this thread? Not much... but we could speculate that the change will help "anybody" distribute a movie on the 'net, and that this will perhaps drive the market to a wider demand and availablity of large-sensor cameras. The wannabe digital film makers by now are saavy enough to know that they have to compete with the old school (read: Hollywood) not just with compelling storytelling but also with better technique, and larger sensor can surely be part of such a trend.