The limit to video CCD's, right now, is the size of the photolith that they can make to dope the silicon chip. Latest technology in chip manufacturing is about 13 microns...soon to be nanometers. The limit, of course, is the ability to dope a single silicon molecule, then CCD rez density(to coin a term) will beat that of film.

The cost factor is simply set by the non-recurring cost of engineering and the chip yield. Obce the non-recurring is recovered, the price becomes sheer profit and the cost will fall. For this to happen, there has to be quantity manufacture. That's why current HD cams are so expensive...VERY limited production and the non-recurring is still being recovered. Also, as the precision needed for manufacturing goes up, the number of rejected parts goes up. This failure rate gets passed into the purchase price. So, the chip yield has to get much better for prices to drop. Look at whar's happening with LCD screens...price is dropping as manufacturing yield goes up and non-recurring gets paid off.

The marketplace will always respond to demand....so, get out there and start buying those $60K HD cams.

Right, Bill. And a photolith is a film process. (Or am I wrong?) This would mean the the width of the channels is limited by film. Or perhaps you could just say film for movies can be improved.

LOL...well...ummm...errr

yes and no....it is film, but, the photolith image is produced in a very large size, then shrunken down to the micron size. The analogy is like taking a vector graphic design and shrinking it. The limit to how small it can be shrunken is actually determined by the wavelength of light used in the "enlarger" to print the image on the silicon. These days UV light is used to photoetch the silicon because it has the shortest wavelength. Light passing thru a small slit is "diffraction limited", which a a function of wavelength. You know those fringes you get when you stop down too far? Same thing, only on a scale of angstroms.

To me, I don't try to replicate "film" as much as I do "cinema". I love theatrical movies. Why? The quality of the image, the sound, the great experience brought together by the entire production... not what it was shot on.

Why is it so appealing to most? Well you first have to go back and realize that our entire modern society is based on visual quality. Things that look good, do better. From women to food to movies to cars.. people want what looks better to them. The cinematic "image" is appealing to most because of the image quality. Not because it was shot with "35mm 3-perf film" or what-have-you but because of the resulting image caused by the method.

Take "Mr. Deeds" for instance. Great movie. The image quality in that was great. Warm colors, awesome DOF, great lighting, high quality. It's professional. Now you go to any movie, you see the great look&feel produced, and then you go back to see your home movies that look.. well.. MUCH less appealing than that movie you just say... now you know why people want to emulate movies.

I personally, couldn't care less if something I shoot looks like it was shot with film, as long as it impresses those that see it. As long as it looks good, or as long as it looks far from 'home video'

http://www.entityinspiration.com/vous.jpg
an example still from one of the scenes in an upcoming project.

Nice shot Kevin!

That's a beautiful shot, can you tell us more about that shot?