I bet his visa limit is too low for that too.. :)
I know mine is!

About Time!
 

I was wondering when somebody would develop a 35mm sized CCD! I always thought it could be done, I just couldn't understand why it wasn't done sooner!

Oh and by the way...
 

I thought all of the better cameras need 3 CCDs? Has Panavision's new 1 CCD camera come up with a new invention which precludes the need for 3 CCDs?

There have been several innovations in recent years that allow single sensors to perform as well as --or even better than-- multiple sensors. In the case of HD, the resolution is so high that getting three sensors to align is very difficult, probably very costly. If you have the money for a giant sensor, you can have enough pixels on it to heavily oversample the target resolution. All in all, a single chip is a more elegant solution. The best digital still cams use a single sensor, not to mention our eyes :-)

Simple answer to why it didn't come earlier: cost and technical possabilities

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : There have been several innovations in recent years that allow single sensors to perform as well as --or even better than-- multiple sensors. ... -->>>

One thing where 3 CCDs are better than 1 CCD is light sensitivity. If you have got a 1 CCD camera and build a 3CCD camera with the same sensor, to give the same noise you will need about three times as much lighting for the 1 CCD camera as opposed to what you would need for the 3CCD camera (of course with the same DOF). As lighting is a big issue when shooting a movie, this is a strong reason for 3 CCDs.

Now when the new digital cameras appear it is very important to make them compatible with current 35mm lenses and for this the only option is 1 CCD. But when digital wins and the question will only be which digital camera has the best picture quality, maybe then they will go into the pain of putting a prism into the camera and make separate prism lenses for these cameras.

Balazs

-------------->
The camera's 35mm sensor size is critical because most digital cameras are built on 2/3-inch chips and cinematographers are invariably hampered by depth of field and dynamic range issues.
<----------------

And we get slammed for bitching about our 1/3" chips having crap DoF ;)

Aaron

Is this camera going to be available in August?

Any ideas how much would renting cost on this one?

Thanks!

At least as much as a normal panavision, but probably more.
Don't forget you will also need all the additional film style
accessories like lensen, lighting package, focus pulling equipment
etc. etc. etc. And you will need a way to store the digital signal
*and* edit it.

I highly doubt you could affort it.

Hey Rob,

You're probably right, this is going to be unbelievably expensive. I was asking because I have won a HBO award of $10,000 for my thesis film. I'm a Graduate film student at Columbia. I am looking into different options. I wasn't really seriously considering this one since it's so new, but why not find more about this camera. (and I know that 10,000 is very little money)

Editing is indeed going to be a problem, but as far as storing the digital signal, isn't there a recording unit on this camera? I guess you are talking about transfering and storing it to a computer, hard drives etc.

Do you think this particular camera is the first step to replacing Panavision film cameras?

As Charles (who has done some serious movie shooting, check
his IMDB listing) pointed out above it is in a form factor that
film people understand and can handle. So yes I do believe this
might be the first big step. Ofcourse a couple of movies have
been shot with Sony Cine Alta already (Star Wars, Once Upon A
Time In Mexico and Vidocq come to mind), but this is the first
that really seems to be targated solely for solid film work.

And with a company like panavision behind it I have no doubt
it is an excellent camera. Charles also has hold one so I hope
he will chime in with some thoughts on this, since he is much
more knowledgable in this field than myself.

I assume you can spend your money when and how you like?
If so I would seriously sit on it till you know exactly what you
want and how you want to use it. New camera's come out
very day. For $10,000 you probably can't even buy a serious
lens for such a camera for example. Again I have no idea what
rentel price will be, but it ain't cheap.

As usual the most important for any movie is story. Content
truly is king. With a budget like that you can probably invest
a bit more in some serious acting as well and you should be
able to rent or buy some much needed tools like audio and
lighting equipment. Or perhaps even pay a cinematographer
and/or audio guy to come in with their own equipment which
(if they are good) should result in a much higher quality of the
final product.

Anyway I would make some serious plans and really think about
it before spending such a large amount of cash that someone
else handed to you. I'm not saying you are not, but just wanted
to say that to you.

I checked a few rental facilities and most had the Sony F900
Cine Alta for rent for at least $1200 (I assume excluding tax) a
DAY (!!). So that would be 8 days of use and bye bye to the
$10K without any other expenses. I'm not sure everything
you need was included in the package (like recorder). Just to
give you an idea! Even film camera's easily where in the $500
range (incomplete).

Thanks for the advice.

I will be shooting in Romania this winter. So, I will be looking to renting a film camera probably, either super16 or even 35, of course with a DP handling all aspects. As I said, I was just checking other possible options...

By the way, a Dutch girl is going to help with producing this one...