Ahhh...an old and well worn topic....

yet, KODAK has an excellent write-up available at the following site:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/story/fact3.shtml

Clearly,
1)video will likely never look like film, no matter what speed a camera films at, until CCD sensors are built with random pixels.

2)KODAK sounds worried...;-)

I don't think they are worried about consumer video, at least not for a very long time. Some directors like George Lucas are beginning to shoot their movies with digital video instead of film, and that is what I believe is the basis of the argument. Film just can't be duplicated if you ask me, even though great strides have been made in the area of digital video. Just wait until consumer video cameras are just as powerful if not moreso than the one George is using to shoot Star Wars Episode II. Then the cinema industry might need to worry. But hopefully there will be a trick up their sleeve.

Very interesting and informative article, Bill.

Yes, to butcher Bill Shakespere, "Methinks they doth protest too much." Kodak has plenty to worry about these days on nearly every front of their business. The digital still imaging front is the big bogie on their radar screen. In terms of size the professional film business is barely notable in their anual reports.

Thanks for the article.

What you guys may not realize is that Kodak is getting into digital imaging in a big way. I'm not sure of the specifics, but they are assisting in the design of new DLP chips. DLP is what they are using for digital cinema, which the main goal is to replace film projection in todays movie theaters. I can bet that they will have something to do with image acquisition as well, meaning they'll help make the digital cameras better. But don't think that they will ever drop the film stuff. I think there will always be a market for film.

Indeed, KODAK was one of the first manufacturers to introduce the digital still camera. Nevertheless, in my 53 years, I've learned never to say never.....:0)

Indeed, Joe, I have read a bit about their participation with digital projection. But even under the most optimistic outcomes that work could only replace a tiny fraction of their film business losses in the coming 5-10 years. Kodak has lost nearly 1/2 of its market capitalization during the past year and is struggling to manage its shrinking presence in the imaging business. As you note, they will be selling film for a long time; it's still their leading business. But it won't support the Eastman Kodak of yore.

Maybe Kodak need to follow FujiFilms lead and start producing video tapes on a larger scale.

Video will not replace Film!!! George shot episode II on HDTV because effects can be done cheaper and easier and sometimes better with computers. HDTV looks great BUT it still is not film. Film has a softer more appealing look that is more realistic. Even when HDTV hits mainstream, the best programs/films will be shot on film (35mm). Film as an originating will not be replaced by video. HDTV has a long way to go.

Ide say that film has a less realistic look, more fantasy like portrating the story telling feel in cinema. HD, i think in terms of cost reduction can easily replace film. Yet the organical essance isnt nessesarily "exactly" like it, it eliminates time and cost which to some is a key factor in cinema.

Look at the movie "Saving Private Ryan", in most cases this movie couldnt be dupilcated without hte use of film due to its organic appearance of film.

Though less stylized movies like comedies or action thrillers can easily be done or dupilicated with the use of HD due the films un-unique appearance.

If you want something to look "real," shoot it in video. If you want something to look "better than real," shoot it with film.

I think that an HD camera shooting in 24p, with the P+S Technik adapter mounting a Panavision 35mm lens, can look so much like film as to replace it.

I think so, but it remains to be seen.

IMO epsodic TV will switch to 24P quickly ....digital projection will tape over in theaters but movies will still be shot on 35mm for awhile as 24p makes slowly replaces it.... in the future "art projects" will be shot on film... art houses will project FILM ( that will be their draw) ..

remember the BEST doesn't always win ... $$ rules the marketplace ! profits ! capitalism .

soon digital projection will be a advertising/selling point for you to go to certain theaters ( good/bad won't matter)

what ever happen to HD TV ??? where is it ?? 1% of TV's are 16x9 !!!!! no market there yet !

IMO george L is shooting on 24P for more reasons that it's going to save him a million ... he writes his own budgets. it wouldn't make any difference if the budget was 60million ( 24P) or 65million ( 35mm) he would be bankrolled ... in 1979 he spoke at my college and back then he wanted to be able to control distribution and the quality of the projection ( sound, focus, jitter) ..digital projection may bring that to be as security is put into digital code and at any time one can see how many times a day a "print" is projected ...

IMO we have to look at 24P as another medium(tool, brush stroke) true some will choose because fo $$ BUT if that is the difference between making your project and NOT making your project I welcome it ...

To donatello

<what ever happen to HD TV ??? where is it ?? 1% of TV's are 16x9 !!!!! no market there yet !>

Here's an extract from the LA Times dated April 17th..

"Discovery Communications Inc., owner of the Discovery Channel on cable TV, said it's starting a digital cable network that will offer 24-hour programming with high-definition picture quality. The new network, called Discovery HD Theater, will begin service on June17 on digital cable and satellite-TV systems"

Donatello's projections are a little frightening, but I think they are all in the realm of possibility. I can confirm that episodic TV is moving that way in a hurry. 50% of the pilots being produced this season are being shot on 24p, although many of them that get picked up will still be shot on film--this year.

Chris--I think the setup you described would be impressive. The serious issue that stands in the way of approximating the film look remains contrast ratio, specifically in highlights. If that can be brought towards a film spec, then things could get interesting.

For those of us who grew up with the beauty of film, there is certainly a resistance to the evolution to video. Unfortunately, as some people have pointed out, profit and accountants books are really the driving factor in the majority of American business. How many times have we seen the old quality workmanship replaced by easier, cheaper, faster to manufacture and to reach the market. I don't think Hollywood is exempted from these pressures. Fortunately, I think, the artistic value of film will be with us for quite a while, altho', it may be expressed exclusively by independent film houses, certainly not the huge conglomerate like United Artists. There is a whole digital generation growing up that doesn't have the reference to a beautiful film production that most of us "more mature"(read:old) types have. And so it goes.

I think Charles makes a very crucial point, however. The lower latitude of digitally acquired video media is a significant stumbling block to complete acceptance of digital media for movie production. The KODAK article also points out the depth of field differences that result from the frame size at the image plane. So, perhaps to really achieve "the look" CCD's will also have to be 35mm diagonal.

Until CCD(sensor) technology solves these particular problems, film will always be around for those producers that can afford it and for whom the beauty of film makes a difference. It will be interesting to see what happens to the manufacture of KODAK film as their profit margins get eaten up by digital media. The deciding factor may be the demise of film manufacturing. I hope this doesn't happen.

A couple of interesting curves to the 24 fps = film look debate.

1. With the 20% 35mm Soderburg shot for Full Frontal, the camera ran at 25fps to match the frame rate of the PAL XL1s's. I wonder what that will do to the 'look'.

2. In Australia, where I'm from originally, when something shot on video is transfered to film, that film is then projected at 25 fps. Joe, will that effect the look at all?

I'm interested to see the results of the film being shot at 25fps. I THINK it might add weight to Chris's theory that it takes more than frame rate to achieve a nice look.

I think it would have an effect but I also think you'd have to be pretty anal to notice it. Of course the biggest difference you'd notice is that the source material originated on video.

I agree that it would have a very minimal effect. I can generally spot film footage shot at 30 fps for telecine (if one needs to shoot a scene with a standard TV monitor in the shot playing NTSC, the "easy" way to achieve a sync image on the monitor is to film the shots that feature the monitor at 30 fps and the rest at 24--the better solution being 24 fps playback on the monitor and shooting everything at 24 fps). But I don't really think I could identify 25 fps projected at 25.

donatello:

It would make a difference to George if the film cost jumped 5 million. For his films he likes to pay for things "out of pocket" and he puts every effort into not having to take any money from any outside sources. I've heard this time and time again - George wants to control the films, and in order to do that, he has to bank roll the films himself.

He certainly has a lot more money to play with the second time around, so he has taken advantage of that. But from my experience he doesn't pay a premium for anything. Everything is rock bottom. Just imagine all the talent you have out there willing to work for half, a quarter or even for free just to work on Star Wars. Hell, how do you think he budgeted EP1 at 65 million?

Okay, sorry about that. When the Big L is mentioned the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end...

Okay, just by happenstance I came across this online article on the making of EP2. It's an interview with Rick McCallum.

The full article is on www.directorsworld.com.

-------------------------------
Can you quantify in terms of dollars what working in 24P HD means to your budget?

McCallum: Absolutely, but remember every single shot is a digital shot for us, which has a huge impact in terms of scanning in and scanning out of the computer. For us, the difference is about $1.8 million. We shot the equivalent of 1.2 million feet of film. That's the equivalent of 220 hours. When you take the cost of the negative, developing and printing it, the transfer, the sound transfers, and the telecine it equals a serious amount of money. And if you're shooting in different countries you have that negative shipped out, processed, and shipped back. There's freight agents involved and you risk your negative being lost or destroyed. When you're shooting in the digital arena, 220 hours of hi-def tape is $16,000.

And if you're simultaneously making a clone, which becomes your safety master, that's another $16,000. And then your down-conversion to put it into an editor is another $16,000. So for $48,000, you're making a movie without any of the cost of processing or transferring negative.

so the difference is 1.8 million. now if you put youself in the shoes of BIG L for a moment. personel worth $600 ? million PLUS... the difference between 65 and 66.8 is SMALL ( compared to the BIG PICTURE it's pocket change OK wallet change ...) i'm not sure why he shot on 24P but i just can't see that it was only the $$ saved . well anyway i do remember that when he stated he would shoot on 24p 2 years ? ago others started to look at 24p ... plus big L seems to always be one of the 1st into a technology that he thinks is GOOD. plus like you say coulkd be a large part of that CONTROL - in house- ( no lab can make dupe negs of any rushes) no bad processing , scratch negative ...

i think we will see big L pushing digital projection in a BIG way SOON , very soon...

Net worth aside, I salute George Lucas for pressing the "film" business into new frontiers. Unlike some of his peers who blather on about "digital revolutions" while they're loading their 1000ft magazines with film stock, Lucas has certainly put his money where his professional convictions are. Now, certainly, the Star Wars material lends itself very naturally to anchoring in a digital format. Nevertheless, a $100mil bet is a nervous proposition and a very big wager. Also, let's not forget the value that his Skywalker Ranch venture has provided for so many "filmmakers" over the years.

donatello:
As for control. It's not just based on digital control, but with regards to total film control (e.g. property, distribution, dvd release etc.).

George doesn't consider $14,000 "pocket change". Believe me on this one. He counts his pennies.

I believe George has valid reasons for shooting in HD 24p. It allows him to expedite the digital process. He likes to take an actors facial expressions from one take and place it on their bodies from different take. To him filmmaking is an organic process. He always plans a re-shoot and sometimes several reshoots at the beginning of a project. He likes to be able to change his mind.

Ken Tanaka:
I think many filmmakers are very excited about new technology. But you have to understand that they are only a small part of the overall industry machine. Any industry loves standards, for good or bad. George is able to do his film the way he wants because he hold a lot of power. Like I said before, there are plenty of people who want to work on a Star Wars film. This includes Sony, Panavision and every distributor and studio. I'm glad he's pushing the limits.

On a more thread related note:
When compositing the digital effects with the HD background shots, they had to code new "digital grain" to match the computer generated image to the HD shot background. This is instead of their normal process of adding "film grain" to the computer generated images to match the background.

i agree..


i think the 24p motive wasnt so much budget reason but more time effeciency
and digital luxuries such as live compositing and so forth.

i think theres a bit of "digital revolution" intertwined with that as well.

anyway, i dig it! and cant wait to see the final outcome. when watching the trailers though, is it me or can you tell its shot in 24p, nothing bad but
i can notice its not done with film in "some" shots.....oh and EP2 will be far more flattering without the kid that played Anikan in EP1.

I have to say that this film vs. video argument leaves me baffled.

It's a little like arguing that paintings done in oils are somehow better/worse than paintings done in watercolor. Such an idea is nonsense, of course.

What matters, at the end of the day, is the skill of the artist. What an artist can make compelling will attract an audience no matter the medium (or what it costs). Some day the next Orsen Welles will shoot something on DV and then everyone will understand -- and be falling down to imitate.

more like finger paints vs acrylics....

film IS a better medium than video, in the "look" aspects.

yet a compelling peice may be composed in video too, just takes more work
and effort.

"Some people are so sincerely wrong"—Walt Whitman

I truly believe this is a preferential thing. Personally I don't know many people who like the look of video over the look of film. In fact most don't really notice the difference. Or if they do, they can't explain why it's different.

I certainly hope someone makes a movie as good as Citizen Kane on video. It would be an accomplishment. Not because of the use of video, but because it takes skill, talent and hard work to make a good movie, let alone Citizen Kane. Plus, I'm always up for a good movie.

Each film has a tone a look that should reflect the theme and the plot the director and the DP strive for. Cinematography enables the story, it can tell it, reflect it, give us point of view and put us in places we have never thought of.

Use what works, what is necessary and make it happen.

?

Im no scientist but film makes a better picture than video, technically and visually.

"And that's the way it is." - Walt Whitman

Though I might agree with you artistically, the case is that a video camera CAN capture very similar images to 35mm.

You also might want to check out "Personal Velocity" shot by Ellen Kuras and directed by Rebecca Miller. It won the Sundance Excellence in Cinematography Award. It was shot all on a PD150.

true,

im refering to the quality in an image, its a factor of films comprived grains of
indefinate color to videos limited pixelology. technically speaking ofcourse.

"Tape" is a movie i recently wanted to check out yet havent viewed it,

the specs were that it was shot with a pd-100, amazing picture,
very cinema savvy. I never was into the sony PD series yet i wonder
if the film was shot in progressive scan, due to its un-interlaced look.
does anyone know if this is a capability of the PD cameras, and if
so how does it differ from the XL1's "frame mode".

ive noticed many DV films shot with the PD-100, 150'S

For artistic quality, film is second to none. I don't think even the honorable W. Whitman would disagree. But, things in this world are rarely such absolutes or black and white...excuse the pun. For scientific merit, video provides a very clinical picture....not to mention the position and scale.

Mr. Wiley has a valid point....but then, that's just my opinion.

Film vs. video isn't just a question of quality, resolution or pixels. I work mainly with video, but I also work in 16mm film. Bolex anybody? :)

Video is wonderful at providing "instant gratification". Plus, it's just plain easier to work with. You can see any mistakes easily and correct them while still onsite. Not so easy to do with film. Plus, anybody with a computer and a cheap video editing board can work with it, it's very inexpensive (once you get past the initial equipment costs). Film post production costs are a lot more expensive.

But video also seems more technical than artistic at times. Computers, hard drives, video editing boards, drivers, it's a very technical medium where the quest to have the biggst, baddest, latest equipment is, like the computer industry, an ongoing battle.

Film, however, seems more artisitc to me. It is a very tactile medium. You can physically touch it and cut it. It's almost like sculpting. Film needs really only two things - a camera and a Steinbeck-type device for editing. The Steinbecks at my University where I work are 40 years old - and work perfectly. Unless you are shooting Star Wars, technology really isn't much of an issue with film.

In the end though, it doesn't really matter what you use. You can have the best rig on the planet but, if your script blows, your project will too.

Personally, I mainly use video (Canon XL-1) because it's easiest to work with and still allows you to get your point across. Plus, I spent $3500 for that XL-1 and I'm sure as hell gonna use it :)

Though I admit I do use various techniques to get my video to look like film. What does that say? :)

Im wondering why so many people in this thread have stated the cost effectivness of HD vs. Film.

The HD cameras used by George Lucas cost just as much as a Panavision 35 mm camera. Lets not forget that some of the editing systems that cut HD cost more than most peoples homes!

Right now, there is no way DV or HD can stand up to film. Dark movies like "Seven" would look absolutley horrible on DV because DV just cant handle lowlights and shadows as well as film.

Black on film is beautiful. Black on DV is not. HD is a little better with this, but still doesnt compare to film. However, DV is getting some credit now finally. Some people think film=cinema and DV=cheap amateur. But with people like Soderbergh using DV it gives the medium some credit. Although I highly doubt that Soderbergh is making a full transistion to DV.

In my opinion, the most important factor in why hollywood isnt going to make a DV or HD transistion soon is because of the huge amounts of assets invested in film. Many people who make movies (DPs, Dirs, gaffers, etc.,) probably don't want to "re-learn" how to do their jobs so they can use an "inferior" media. Switching formats is a huge investment and the studios are just waiting until things have settled down, standards have evolved, etc...

It's not that video equipment is cheaper or more expensive than film equipment. In fact, the best 35mm "Hollywood" film cameras run $500,000. I don't think there is a video camera ever made that was that expensive.

I think most people refer to cost of video vs. film as a function of post production. Post production is very expensive in film compared to video. The last 16mm film I did (about 20 minutes worth) cost about $200 to process. You can figure that if a video editing rig costs you $3000 and the average project length is 20 minutes, then after 15 projects, you are caught up price-wise and anything after 15 projects is basically free in video when compared to the cost of processing film.

As far the quality of DV vs. film, I think that if you are good in your techniques - lighting, filters etc - and want to throw some dollars at the right software, then DV can be made to look as good as film. It's all in the technique and how far you are willing to go to make the perfect project.

For George however, his cameras are not costing him anything. I believe he is using them free of charge. Despite that, the rental is probably comparable. His post is pretty much already set up for what he needs, so that cost is minimal.

I think Rick McCallum clearly stated the cost savings for EP2. Those savings are mainly in prints. dailies and scan times. So there is a savings.

BUT, most people feel that video is also faster on the set than film. With EP2 that's probably not the case (though they say it is) I would imagine it's about the same for a production of that scale. Setting up the video shack is (which is about half the size of a cargo container) a time suck, and you still have to check calibration and spot your hot and low signals. Plus the cameras are HUGE. Loading, prep and gate checking is probably just as time consuming in film.

As for smaller films with miniDV, the process is faster. I know my shoots are.

"In my opinion, the most important factor in why hollywood isnt going to make a DV or HD transistion soon is because of the huge amounts of assets invested in film.

dv is not in hollywood future but it is in no budget projects - .. HD24P is HERE NOW ... studio's RENT ..they don't care if they are paying 1000 day for a arri or 1000 day for 24P ..so it's the rental houses that must make the investment ..and if panavison has 100 cinealta's then other camera rental's will get HD 24p camera's .. they are there to serve the hollywood industry!
the assets that studio's have are their film library's , sound stages , lighting equipment, stage/grip equipment, backlots - ALL can be used today on any format project. they rent it all to anyone that will pay $$$$.

hollywood post production houses will get the equipment to meet the needs of hollywood if they don't they will go under ...

what's the BIG deal ... HD 24P is allowing movies to get made that might NOT have got made. also for many it is giving them better quality then if they had to shoot on a different format ... studio's will be shooting FILM for another decade. enjoy the transition - go with it - .if you got the $$ shoot film - if you don't choose another format ... prosuper 8 is offering shooting film at reasonable cost.


"Many people who make movies (DPs, Dirs, gaffers, etc.,) probably don't want to "re-learn" how to do their jobs so they can use an "inferior" media. "

HEY if the production company is paying big $$$ there is NO problem finding a crew. i would hope that a crew would say NO to a bad script before they say no because it's being shot on 24P ???
there is NO re-learning .. the light set up is the same for any format. KEY , fill, back etc the units may be smaller but you still have 10 ton grip trucks .........

"Switching formats is a huge investment and the studios are just waiting until things have settled down, standards have evolved, etc"

true it is expensive BUT the $$ that will be saved using 24P & digital projection will save BIG $$$$$ in long run and in CAPITALISM $$$ always runs over ART ...

did you see KODAKS financials last week ... kodak is taking hits from all areas. still film , still film processing, photo papers , photo chemicals, 16/35 movie film ALL sales are down. the motion pitcure division is a very small unit of kodak.

for info: panavision does NOT sell their camera's/lens they rent ONLY ...
i saw the new 35mm arricam at NAB - body only 183K ... well that seems to be a GOOD sign if they are bringing out new film camera's they must see making $$ from it in the future ..

>>there is NO re-learning .. the light set up is the same for any format. KEY , fill, back etc the units may be smaller but you still have 10 ton grip

Not so. Lighting ratios are definitely different for film and digital, what looks great on 35mm will likely need alteration to look good on digital (and usually needs the same amount of units!). Today's vogue in cinematography can incorporate radical over-exposures of elements, which of course is not a strong suit on HD. Depth of field changes, color rendition changes (skintones are not predictable at several stops under key, they have a tendency to go grey). Sets that look fine on film suddenly look fake on HD because of the increased detail. Makeup must be re-evaluated.

On-screen results aside, there are practical issues to be dealt with. There are a lot of problems reported with shifting back focus on HD lens mounts; cables are a nightmare; using downconverters for compatibility with NTSC monitors such as on Steadicam or remote heads; etc etc.

None of this is unsurmountable, but it is a trying transition for crews that are used to working with established formats. We all want to keep working so we put our best foot forward, but I can assure you that given a choice, virtually all DP's in LA would opt to keep shooting on film given the current state of the technology.

The Arricam is a bit of a surprise but until the writing is on the wall for real as far as film emulsion is concerned, they have to keep moving forward and stay competitive with Panavision. I went to the Arricam product rollout a few months ago where they screened a (somewhat biased) comparison of 35mm and 24p which was intended to bolster their film acquisition division. That was immediately followed by a great looking trailer from "Attack of the Clones" which was promoting the filmout from the Arrilaser system. It's a snapshot of the industry right now that they are simultaneously embracing and decrying digital filmmaking, even in the same breath.

also on the otherside to consider:

TRUE lighting ratio's will be different BUT the basic lighting steup remains the same ..KEY , fill, back light , sidelight etc. flags,nets scrims, cable still need to be set - the electric's and grips do the same JOB .. the DP will decide the lighting ratio's not the crew. shooting FILM the lighting ratio's is slightly different depending on the film stock you use, so a DP either put in more/less fill - BUT it is NOT the basic crew deciding the ratio's.

all the back focus/ cables etc all solved everyday . AND there are always problems to be solved on sets doesn't matter what format is being shot something always pops up ... whatever the problem you look for a solution -that's why we get paid the BIG $$$ .... you pay my day rate i'll shoot on any format -pixel vision, super8 , 35mm - before 2000 one could choose to shoot only FILM ( FILM DP from 82-97 refused to shoot video even if they offered day rate ). but now in 2000 a DP must be able to switch between film, HD , video - UNLESS you can afford not to ..

"None of this is unsurmountable, but it is a trying transition for crews that are used to working with established formats. We all want to keep working so we put our best foot forward, "

bottom line is it doesn't matter what crews want/prefer - they are not going to decide ... the $$$ people will decide - crews either adapt to the new equipment/technology or they don't work... how many sound cutters are cutting MAG these days? if they didn't change to digital they aren't working as sound cutters today.

"but I can assure you that given a choice, virtually all DP's in LA would opt to keep shooting on film given the current state of the technology"

agree with you 95% ....... the other 5% thinks that there are Dp's that look at 24P as another tool and would choose it based on the look they want for a project is the 24P look? ...

"Dark movies like "Seven" would look absolutley horrible on DV because DV just cant handle lowlights and shadows as well as film. "

I agree with this, and thus goes a list of films from the top pf my head to name with the same attributes.

if you look at some films such as seven, or saving private ryan..you can see the artistic and organic "feel" the film gets by defualt.

this however will be harder to duplicate on video, though possible with
the right post editing. For me this would be a draw back if you were a distinctive film maker like Spielberg or Fincher.

On the other hand, you can get a quite distinct look with video as well,
good videography and post editing can get you not only a "film like"
look but a distincitve touch which makes for good video.

"...because DV just cant handle lowlights and shadows as well as film. "


I disagree, completely!! DV may not have the latitude of film, but it's certainly got MORE low light sensitivity. You will sacrifice detail in the highlights, hell you'll blow the highlights out...but, you WILL have great shadows!!

Yes. BBC dramatic video productions, which are often quite good, have had a unique, crisp, look for years, one that rises to a "style" in my view.

yeh,

true, yet you do suffer in picture under low light situations(hence low light not staged light). Maybe you have more creative balance when using film.

damn, im starting to sound like a Kodak spokesperson.

Im a true video connoisseur, believe me!

...LOL.....

sure...sure....

Just Kidding, redone.

Well, you've got some limited options with GAIN....just turn it up....;o) well, at least a little. It's easier than changing to faster film or push processing slow film, eh?

Famous quote:

"If God had intended man to fly, he'd have given him wings." - ?

I'd be careful about saying video will NEVER look like film. Just look at that computer equipment sitting in front of you as you read this and think how improbable it was 20 years ago that something like it would ever exist.

I say give it 5 years...10 years tops. Then, we'll be recording with new technology that we don't even know about now. And I'll wager that the film-look problem will be finally taken addressed in that new technology.

BTW - another unrelated quote:

"I drank what?" - Socrates

Yes, sooner than one thinks.

Take a look at this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/11/technology/11FOVE.html

On new CCD technology said to rival film. See also www.foveon.com.

Great info link, Peter. Thanks!

The sample images on the Foveon site are incredibly rich in color. And the comparison between images from a standard digital camera and one with a Foveon chip are night and day in quality. Maybe a bit too night and day, really. I wish they'd let us know what "standard" digital camera they used for the comparison test. I'd have to argue that there are other cameras out there that don't have Foveon chips that produce a much higher quality than the samples they've posted. The Canon EOS 1D, for instance.

Still...considering it's good for both photography and videography, and has that color and clarity is pretty darn interesting.

well on that subject, i think video may "excell" film one day,
it may not be HD but some sort of other medium we may not know about yet,
like John said. Im thinking it may just be a straight to digital format maybe with a hard drive or something, rather than a "tape" of some sort.

Im waiting for an HD 24p prosumer handheld, that will be nice!