I don't believe 3-CCDs are needed anymore.

[Kevin Dooley]

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Silvers : In a few years video people will stop thinking of video as a cheap alternative to film and actually will prefer it. -->>>

You know, I'd be happy if more people would simply quit thinking of film as **THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT RIGHT, HARUMPH, HARUMPH** and simply admit that video is a viable option and has it's merits. I think in the past couple of years we've come a long way, but there's still those few out there that tell us videophiles--"You'd all shoot film if you had the choice and/or money...". The only thing that's gonna change those attitudes is new technology I guess. And while HDV isn't the end all, be all--it's a good start in the right direction. I think trying to take something that has been ridiculously expensive and make it affordable to almost everyone will spawn new innovations and hopefully some really amazing breakthroughs.

Sorry, rant done

[Davi Dortas]

Yeah hopefully, but film still have leg up on digital video is exposure lattitude. Plus you can shoot IMAX which is like equivalent 8000x6000 pixels in the digital world. Japan already developing a Ultra High Definition video standard that will compete with IMAX, but you wont see for at least another 20 years.

[Peter Moore]

The next major advancement is not going to be in resolution - who cares if you can project 8000 x 6000 pixels? The next advancement will be 3D moving holograms.

[Robert Silvers]

My friend invented an overlapping projector system which can seamlessly project more than 8000x6000 pixels. It uses a video camera to adjust itself to reduce distortion and seams.

[Mark Sasahara]

The next big advancement will be me getting laid! :~)

Film and video are tools, each with their own unique qualities. I am an old school film guy and I still prefer film. If I had my drothers when shooting video I'd shoot HD, or DVCPRO50, or some format that doesn't toss out half of the information, like MiniDV. Yet, I did spend a lot of cash on an XL2 package, to help me get jobs and maybe the other thing too:~).

Arri, Panavision and Dalsa all have working digicams. Arri and Panavision are well positioned to dominate, since they own the lions share of the 35mm camera rental/usage market. I believe Arri already has theirs working on a film or two. Panavision says rental in December. Gonna have to go down there and see...

The Arri D-20, oh yeah, it's a CMOS chip. Super 35 aperture gate- not 2/3", takes any Arri PL mount 35mm cine lens, optical viewfinder, variable eShutter, ramping, speeds from 1 to 60FPS. 150 if you smile purty. It can also output raw Bayer data for "film" mode. 4:2:2, or 4:4:4 output. Definite panty magnet.

Go to: arri.com > Products > New Products.

Panavision's Genesis is a joint venture with Sony and will be manufactured in Woodland Hills, CA. Has many similar features of the D-20 with a 1/3 stop increase in sensitivity- ISO 400, to Arri's 300, and capable of "pushing" to 1600 (heh, isn't that the "gain" switch?). "12.4 Mega pixel, true RGB sensor, not Bayer pattern" . Full compatibility with the Panavision system. Looks like it would be pretty nice on a Steadicam. No tools needed to go from full studio mode to handheld, or Steadicam mode, size and ergonomics designed for it. Takes Primo primes and zooms, she won't do anamorphic, though.

http://www.panavision.com/product_detail.php?maincat=1&cat=36&id=338&node=c0,c202,c203


Pretty nifty, I'm too lazy to go to the Dalsa site, but check it out, their rig is pretty sweet too.

May the best marketing team win...(let's hope not)

[Jesse Bekas]

While I agree that we're just about at the point that 3CCD's aren't essential, I think it'll be hard to ween people off of them.

I know that visible results could sell just about any kind of video technology, but do you guys think that users would jump on the single CCD wagon quickly, or would it take a while for everyone to stop equating "3CCD" with "Professional" video anymore?

[Balazs Rozsa]

Actually for professional video 3 CCDs will be better for quite a long time because they have better light sensitivity.

If you build a 1CCD camera and a 3CCD camera using the same CCD chips and put the same lens in front of the cameras, in the case of the 1CCD camera the color filter will block about two third of the light that would go onto the sensors on the CCD. That means that the 3CCD camera will give the same noise and color clarity at about one third the light amount that is required for the 1 CCD camera to give the same noise and color clarity.

This is such a big difference that I don't think it is probable that any professional camera will switch to 1 CCD systems.

Except of course if for example Foveon can decrease the noise from its senser to the same level where CCDs or CMOSes are.

[Mark Sasahara]

The Arri D-20 is a single CMOS chip and has an equivalent ISO of 300, so there goes your argument.

It is also way bigger than a 2/3 inch chip. It's image area is 24.9mm x 18.15mm. Whereas 2/3 inch chips are 9.4mm x 5.3mm. Pixel pitch for 2/3" is 4.9 x 4.9 microns- 1920 x 1080 pixels. The Arriflex pixel pitch is 8.25 x 8.25 microns- 3018 x 2200 pixels.

The Arri will take any PL mount cine lens. So you can use really sweet glass like the Zeiss Super Speeds, or Cooke S4's.

Get's ya hot don't it?

[Balazs Rozsa]

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Sasahara : The Arri D-20 is a single CMOS chip and has an equivalent ISO of 300, so there goes your argument.-->>>

My mistake, I meant professional broadcast cameras will not switch. With the exception of the Lockheed-Martin camera all the ultra megapixel movie cameras use 1 CCD. But even the Arri D-20 could be more sensitive using 3 CMOS chips. Unfortunately then it could not use the existing lenses. When digital movie cameras will prevail, then they may go into the pain of making big prism blocks and special 3CCD lenses to increase sensitivity.

[Mark Sasahara]

I don't know that much about chips, or how they achieve their sensitivity, but why bank on one specific technology? I'm for whatever works, whether it's a single chip, or a chip block, whatever. Things are so up in the air, the technology is changing almost daily.

Besides, I want the option of high sensitivity chips for low light, as well as lower sensitivity for outdoors and high illuminaton situations. With no noise, of course.

It boils down to cost effectiveness. If it is too expensive and complicated to mass produce CMOS chips then, they'll stick with what they've got. Sony is working with Panavision on Panavision's new Genesis camera. Whatever they get from that venture will make it's way into their products.

I don't necessarily want the D-20 to be more sensitive. If I have to shoot outdoors, I don't want to be at T/16 and then have to dump a whole bunch of ND in front of the lens. I want to be at T/2.8, or thereabouts. ISO 300 is fine. If I am shooting Docco and low light situations, yes I would want to have a camera available that can do that and give me lovely pictures.

In a production environment I'll be using lighting, so I don't necessarily need a super sensitive camera.

[Lawrence Bansbach]

<<<-- Originally posted by Balazs Rozsa :
. . . This is such a big difference that I don't think it is probable that any professional camera will switch to 1 CCD systems.

Except of course if for example Foveon can decrease the noise from its senser to the same level where CCDs or CMOSes are. -->>>

There are additional reasons that Foveon's chips aren't ready for HD video (see my Dec 15 post). Chief among them are (1) at sufficiently high resolutions, frame rates are too low, and (2) to increase light sensitivity, pixels are ganged together, reducing resolution.

[Mark Sasahara]

Why are you guys fixated on Foveon? Foveon is for stills only.

Have you been reading what I've written, or followed the links I've provided? The next generation of "Digital Film" cameras all use one chip sensors and have frame rates of:
(in order of top speeds)
Dalsa Origin 36 FPS
Panavision Genesis 50 FPS
Arriflex D-20 60 FPS
And obviously 24, 29.97, 30, etc.

I'm not sure who the chip manufacturers are, but the cameras work and are getting ready for the marketplace. The Dalsa Origin is also a one chipper and they are the manufacturer of their own chip.
http://www.dalsa.com/dc/dc.asp

I don't think everything is going to be one chip, but I'm no expert either. We'll probably have three chip CCD's for a while, until the technology matures and costs come down.

As the old Vermont saying goes: "Hard tellin', not knowin'."

Sorry, the links are not dynamic.

[Ken Hodson]

It strictly depends on what the actual cam can do.

The consumer driven market place has got their fingers in the "3chip" catch phrase. So it is hard now to promote a 1 CCD. JVC brought 1chip back into recognition but market focus has swung back to the 3CCD chant when the FX1 came out.
A major player will have to come out with a $20,000 high end cam with 1CCD to confuse everyone with their $4000 prosumer 3CCD cams so this CCD counting nonsense is forgotten once and for all.

[Balazs Rozsa]

Not easy to do so. Current broadcast lenses are designed for a prism block. You would need to come up with a whole family of new lenses designed for your 1 chipper. Plus your new camera would not be as sensitive to light as its 3 CCD counterpart. Low light sensitivity is one major difference between a 1/4" consumer camera and a 2/3" professional broadcast camera.

[Lawrence Bansbach]

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Sasahara : Why are you guys fixated on Foveon? Foveon is for stills only. -->>>

It's pretty clear from my posts that I'm not fixated on Foveon chips, and I as much said they were unsuitable for HD video.

<<<-- Have you been reading what I've written, or followed the links I've provided? The next generation of "Digital Film" cameras all use one chip sensors . . . -->>>

I have to disagree with you on this one. While it's true that the cameras you mentioned are one-chippers, the notion of "digital film" must apply to all forms of high(er)-definition digitally originated film, not just the high (and extremely expensive) end. Many of the forthcoming HDV cameras, as well as the new Panasonic P2 and DVCPRO-HD models, are sure to be three-chip. Ironically, even though using a single chip is simpler and should be cheaper, chips with sufficient resolution to be used singly seem to be more expensive than comparable three-chip configurations.

<<<-- . . . and have frame rates of:
(in order of top speeds)
Dalsa Origin 36 FPS
Panavision Genesis 50 FPS
Arriflex D-20 60 FPS
And obviously 24, 29.97, 30, etc. -->>>

What, no Kinetta?