H1 as 35 mm Replacement

[Petr Marusek]

HDCAM looks sharper than 35 mm because of lack of grain, although the resolution is lower. Have you seen Once upon a Time in Mexico? The sharpness was more like 70 mm. HDCAM has been used over and over on major motion productions as 35 mm replacement.

H1 1080p sent over HDSDI to Wafian HDD recorder is likely, from what I am gathering here, to produce similar quality as HDCAM. This is especially if P+S 35 mm adapter is used.

You may buy the H1 camera setup for less than renting HDCAM setup for one 35 mm film production. Isn't it likely that some DP's will use this potion?

Even the P+S adapter is cheaper for the Canon. H1 35 mm adapter costs 8,000 euros. HDCAM 35 mm adapter costs 25,000 euros. H1 costs 15x less than HDCAM with lens, etc. Wafian is now available for about $10K. The adapter will need lenses, but DP's normally own all kinds of lenses that could be used with the adapter.

The DVX was often considered to be a 16 mm replacemnt. Becuse it letterboxed to 16:9, some 1/4 million pixels were used. H1 over HDSDI uses about 2 million pixels. DVX recorded about 20 Mbps at 24p. It is because only 24 of the 30 frames were in reallity truly used. The color space was 4:2:0. Wafian can record about 200 Mbps with 4:2:2 color space. That is better than HDCAM and about 10x better than DVX.

35 mm projectors have registration problems. They have relativaly low resolution. Taking everything into effect, IMHO, the H1 could be considered a 35 mm replacement, although film, no matter if 16 or 35 mm, has a different quality to it.

[Graeme Nattress]

One word - "Lattitude".

Graeme

[Pete Tomov]

My opinion is that while this camera is not better than film you can still "pull off" the same look with much more setup and post.

But then again, I won't know that for sure 'till I get the camera in a mounth.

[Petr Marusek]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

One word - "Lattitude".

Graeme

Of course, the very wide lattitude of the negative stock, no matter if it's 16 or 35 mm. (There is a thread that H1 is 16 mm replacement.) Then you burn it at the end into a lot lower lattitude reversal stock. The negative stock is very forgiving, of course. With video you have to control the scene differently.

[Petr Marusek]

Originally Posted by Pete Tomov

My opinion is that while this camera is not better than film you still "pull off" the same look with much more setup and post.

Of course. The question is, do you want to? Do you have to? Rodriguez in Once upon a Time in Mexico did not attempt to. The result was a pristine, super sharp, grainless image that would be hard to create with film.

Film directors in the past always wanted sharp grainless images that Kodak's 35 mm negative stock could not provide. This is one of the reasons for the 65/70 mm format. Another reason was higher than 24 fps film speed, that the directors also wanted. Now that HD offers it, why not look at it as the digital advantage?

The new digital cinema standard calls for 48 fps speed as an option. It is also one of the IMAX' film speeds. It's hard/expensive to achieve with film. It is not so with digital cinema. With H1 you could even shoot 1080-50i and from that create 24-25p for film out, 48p for future film out and 50i, 720-50p, 60i, and 720-60p for HDTV. Try that with film.

[Steve Connor]

I like this attitude, I'm fed up with our newest technology having to try and copy an antiquated frame rate that is only a standard because it saved on film stock.

Let's embrace the new technology and create something new with it.

[Martin Costa]

Let's embrace the new technology and create something new with it.[/QUOTE]


Hear hear.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Steve Connor

I like this attitude, I'm fed up with our newest technology having to try and copy an antiquated frame rate that is only a standard because it saved on film stock.

Let's embrace the new technology and create something new with it.

The thing is that audiences still expect to see the filmic "jerky" motion... although they don't know what it is!

I am sure if we had all been wheened on 50p or 60p, we would laugh at the idea of 24p!

[Petr Marusek]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

The thing is that audiences still expect to see the filmic "jerky" motion... although they don't know what it is!

I am sure if we had all been wheened on 50p or 60p, we would laugh at the idea of 24p!

It's a myth that the 24 fps industry is creating and propagating. Why would the best directors shoot or attempt to shoot, every time they had a chance, films in 30 (65/70 mm) and 48 fps (IMAX)?

H1 is the first high quality low cost camera that can satisfy today's antiquities and future's trnends. It could even be the core of a perfect production tool for 3D work, which also awaits us around the corner; that and 48 fps is the cinema future. 2D 24 fps is no longer profitable enough. With HDTV spreading, theaters need to bring us again something a lot better better than we can get at home.

As the digital projectors can now project 4K, or about 8 MP images and over 48 fps rates, and Disney is equipping theaters with 3D projection systems, we are about to enter a new cinema revolution. I would be surprised if we would not see at least one 3D HD camera at NAB. Sony already makes 1080/24-60p cameras and ARI and Dalsa make 4K (8MP) cameras. 3D conversions exist. As Disney and the industry demands 3D cameras, to increase profits, they must be getting ready for production somewhere. H1 could become the basis of a low end 3D system that will be embraced by the indies.

Canon already developed a 3D prototype XL1 lens in the past, which was not produced due to technology limitations. It would be a pleasant surprise, if Canon would introduce such a lens for H1 in 2006. The porn industry would then soon switch to Canon H1 cameras, a lot of Canon cameras. The lens would leave Canon without competition, unless someone beats them to it.

Just imagine dirty potbelly old men, with hairpieces and on Viagra, loving pretty teenage girls, in 3D. It's just the next step in virtual reality that the porn industry needs. Add 3D Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. The format that would support the extensive porn industry first may win the format war.

HDCAM SR recorder that is used with the Genesis camera can record 880 Mbps, with each frame encoded separately in MPEG4. The camera has a 12 MP CCD. Panavision, which was at on time partially owned by Sony, has this Sony-designed and made Genesis camera, and as soon as Sony ads better processor, with true GOP compression, to the portable HDCAM-SR recorder, could upgrade the camera from 2K (2 MP) to 4K (8 MP), or convert it to high quality 3D cam, etc.

Let's see how Panasonic will surprise us at NAB. They just brought their top camera HD codec to a 10x lower price point. That means that they are getting ready to introduce high end cameras with higher performance, hopefully going head on against top Sony cameras.

[Alister Chapman]

I already have a 3D lens system that works great with my Sony HC1. The Nu-View field switching lens uses a mirror system and LCD shutters to provide alternate left/right images on each field.

[Petr Marusek]

Is there any link to this company? Someone should probably bug them to produce this product for larger lenses; they may have more and better payng customers in the pro marketplace.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Petr...an H1 replacing 35? You're joking right?

[Petr Marusek]

Of course it is not replacing 35, but there was a thread that it is replacing 16 mm, so why not 35. Actually it is just another tool to supplement the others. It is not replacing anything.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Petr, your title to this thread reads "H1 as 35 mm Replacement." That's all I'm saying. The H1 is a great looking camera but nowhere in the field of 35 of any sort. If it is on par with anything I'd say some old super 16.

[Ashley Hosking]

I think alternative is a much better word.