[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Eclair Cameras: The Future!

Hi Guys,
Just shot with a Sony 700 hi def..  Very emphasis for video and costs around
$65,000, if I heard right.  It still did not have the film look and I still
can't blow to 35 for theatrical release. Think about how much
film/processing/telecine you could buy with $65,000 and still not have last
years model video camera.  By the way, Star Wars' video footage looked like
a cartoon not like the film segments.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Marks" <ianmarks@lycos.com>
To: <EclairACL@topica.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 7:21 PM
Subject: RE: Eclair Cameras: The Future!

The Panasonic AG DVX-100 24p camera mentioned earlier in this thread
truly is remarkable, even more so when you consider that it is also a
sync audio recording device (with XLR inputs) and that it runs silently
(duh - it's video) out of the box. But remember that you are stuck with
the lens provided and are shooting on a tiny two-thirds inch receptor,
so you have depth of field issues that you won't have with fast, long
lenses and film cameras. The kind of soft backgrounds and selective
focus that I associate with film is hard to achieve on Mini-DV (there
are even diffusing screens available that you can place behind your
actors to achieve the illusion of shallow depth of field). The Panasonic
also has a fixed 4:3 (standard TV) aspect ratio - if you want to shoot
widescreen without sacrificing pixels you have to use an anamorphic
adapter and then "desqueeze" in post.  A s always, the solution to one
problem gives rise to another, and new "work arounds" have to be

Yes, I think that digital will ultimately supplant film, but  for now we
have to make your choices based on what's on the market today. Wouldn't
it be nice if someone would create a 24 fps progressive scan
receptor/recorder module that would attach to the back of our ACLs and
NPRs in place of the mags? We'd just lock the shutters in the open
position and shoot as before, using the same lenses and achieving the
same depth of field characteristics. Still cameras like Hasselblads and
Mamiyas can fit digital backs - why shouldn't we?

Michael Welle wrote:
> Mark: Hi Michael --- Absolutely agreed that everything will eventually
> be digital
> ... but I'll bet that nothing will cost less because of it.
> But doesn't it serve to reason that the new Panasonic camcorder which
> records 24P is only 3 or 4 grand, and twenty years ago an Eclair ACL
> cost 16 grand and inflation was less.  I know that 24P probably doesn't
> look quite as good as the film shot with a 16mm camera (yet).  But if
> that Panasonic camera is any indication, I would hypothesize that the
> cost of video equipment which can equal the quality of film will
> eventually drop to extremely affordable levels.  It's only a matter of
> years, I think before film cameras will be gathering mothballs because
> video will be able to reproduce the quality instantaneously.  However, a
> lot of that depends on the economy, the 2004 election, and the butterfly
> flapping its wings halfway across the world;)
> Michael Welle

- Ian Marks

This email was sent to: elroro@propagandaindustries.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84xYK.bdbHPA.ZWxyb3Jv
Or send an email to: EclairACL-unsubscribe@topica.com

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!