<<---Nope, not at all, and neither is Thomson (maker of the Thomson Viper
>"Filmstream" camera) neither is anyone. The problem is one of workflow.
>These cameras output so much raw data that, without some form of
>compression, the Dalsa can fill a 1.5 terabyte drive in FIFTEEN SECONDS.
>Nothing has enough storage at that RATE OF THROUGHPUT to deal with it, so
>compression of some sort of necessary.>>
<<<<Very interesting post. I saw you mention the Viper a long time ago and
always wanted to ask you about it because I deleted that message, but now I
remember, I will check out the link.
As for high data rate, why don't they compress then, using M-JPEG or
MPEG2/4? And why don't they go down with resolution a little? TV has about
700 x 500 pixels, so going to 1000 x 700 would already be a big
improvement. Or is it because the Viper etc are meant for shooting material
that is going to be projected on large screen in cinema?>>>>
---Digital cinematography resolution of 4096 X 2240 is necessary if you want
pristine data which can be introduced into a true "digital intermediate"
workflow for color correction, grading and effects. This resolution and
color depth ("color space") is known as 4:4:4 and needs to be uncompressed
or else you will find yourself cursing in the color grading and related
intermediate processes. Compression introduces artifacting there is no way
around it, and also loss of color information. Digital film is projected AS
FILM in ninety-five per cent of the theaters at this time and even after
digital projection takes over it will still be necessary to maintain an
uncompressed workflow in order to guarantee perfect results.
I think this is why the folks at the movie studios snicker when we bicker
about "Mac versus PC".....all the while they are working with "the BIG
iron".
<<<<Then again, I would be very happy with lower resolution because at the
moment I don't shoot anything for cinema, and that goes for most
video-producers I assume. Most produce for DVD, TV or online
distribution.>>>>
----This is true, but since so much of HDTV material is always slated for
some sort of upscale distro at some point in the future, it NEEDS to be
treated as FILM anyway, despite the fact that it currently gets down-rezzed
and beaten all to hell for NTSC/PAL.
<<<< I must also say that they may come with better "video" cameras, at the
same
time the quality of TV and cinema keeps going down. Who wants to see CRAP
like MTV's jackass or Baywatch or Rambo 12 in super high resolution?>>>
---Reini, that's why I dont believe that an occasional discussion on this
subject is "off-topic" per se......
It's up to us to provide the forward thinking needed and other like-minded
folks in related fields should always be aware of what is happening in the
neighboring specialties. Just as an eye surgeon should keep abreast of
developments in eyeglasses, so a video shooter and editor should stay
current on cinematography issues.
With regard to the state of the art in technology as it applies to the
material being aired......"all ties with television as we know it must be
cut forever".....this not only applies to the technical end of the art form,
it also makes for a good mind set if one plans to make a departure toward
the upper end of the ARTISTIC side as well.
No one wants to watch "Jackass" in HD, but they might not really know WHAT
to expect either.......folks like us can always lend a few pieces to help
them make up their minds.....can't we??? :-)
Thanks for listening,
JeffH
Ch.S.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/2005
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
