Hacked Z1, uncompressed, with P+S 35 mm adapter vs. Varicam

HDV wrote on 1/9/2005, 2:01 AM
I know I'll get crucified in comparing Panasonic Varicam and Sony Z1, but let's look at these figures.

Varicam costs $100K, configured. For P+S Pro 35, add $30K, plus 35 mm lenses.

Z1 is $6K.

Add another Z1, hacked with C-mount, by the Italian guy. Le's say that he'll do the mod for $1K; Mini 35 for it will be about $10K. Add 35 mm SLR lenses for $5K and a high definition 1/3" macro C-mount lens for $1K.

You'll end up with T-stop 1.4 macro, and F1.0-F2.8 SLR lenses with superior resolution.

You'll get a 2 camera system for $:
12K two Z1's
2K mod and macro
10K Mini 35
5K 35 mm SLR lenses, prime and zoom
10K small form factor PC with RAID, HDSDI card, plus analog HD to HDSDI convertor for the camera.
1K misc.
_____________
$40K total

You'll shoot CF25 or use DV Film for deinterlacing, creating uncompressed progressive with 1440x540 to 1440x1080 progressive resolution, which is more than Varicam that records at 960x720 pixels, with 6.7:1 compression.

The strobing on Z1 is identical to F900, as described by Michael Brenner on Creative Cow.

Advantage of this system:
1/3" amd 35 mm DOF
full format resolution of 1440x1080 pixels, not degaraded by the Zeiss zoom limited quality.

You get ultra extreme telephoto when using the 35 mm lenses straight on the C-mount, with C-mount to Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Pentax, etc. adapters.

You'll be also able to use 1/3" industrial high def primes, some of which are excellent, and inexpensive, by HD standards.

You will not have the convenience of a true pro system and true cine lenses; you will not have the overcranking that varicam offers, and you will have worse low light capability; you'll be limited by 200' of coax to your small form PC and you'll need power for the PC, which you'll need for your lights anyway. But you'll get better quality picture at a lot lower cost.

I think that this may be the lowest cost digital cinema solution that will provide good enough picture quality for even the largest theater screen.

Less expensive option would be:
7K hacked Z1
3K for 1/3" high definition industrial primes for wide angle to normal, 35 mm SLR primes for telephoto to extreme telephoto, and for all F-stop ranges with the 35 mm adapter
$2K home made 35 mm adapter, as is being developed by some Canadian guy at DVinfo.
___________
$12K

You'll get better glass, better DOF control. It will be compressed but with full format resolution, definitely good enough for theater screen projection.

Comments

farss wrote on 1/9/2005, 2:46 AM
Whilst I kind of like the idea, shooting 16mm still seems a lot simpler and probably cheaper if you're really hooked on the 24p thing. It's been a few decades since I shot 16mm but it did seem a lot simpler and not that expensive. The advantages of film are still pretty compelling, even 16mm. The huge latitude of film is going to take video a long time to come close to I think.

Also I kind of wonder about the merits of hacking into the Z1, you can buy a HD camera head for not that many dollars you know, already with lens mounts etc. That way you're not paying for the transport that you're not going to use. I recall seeing units from JVC and Hitachi at around the $10K-15K range. Oh, and you get a warranty.
Bob.
musman wrote on 1/9/2005, 3:16 AM
This is kind of off the thread, but a while ago I mentioned Citizen Kane and the advantages of film's lattitude. You said that could be done with video. With your experience with HDV so far with the new Sony cameras, can you give us your impression of how they stand up lattitude wise against film, dv (like a dvx100), and so on?
Thanks for any impressions!
HDV wrote on 1/9/2005, 4:58 AM
Of course film is better. Today's Super 16 is about as good as 35 mm used to be, plus it has better colors.

HD does not have grain so it looks very sharp. It does not have the resolution of 35 mm but looks a lot sharper. No matter what is the acuasition resolution, optical projection degarade this resolution to HD level anyway.

Film has a lot better lattitude of course.

The advantage of HDV is low cost, good enough quality for film out. Becuse there are now, or will soon be, hundreds of art houses worldwide with digital projection, in practically all major markets, no film out is necessary, digital print is enough. This can be submitted in 1080i.

Furthermore, great majority of indepedent films never get shown in theaters, so film out is needed only if wide distribuution ever becomes necessary. Festivals accept digital prints.

So advantage of HDV is basically low cost production and postproduction. If 1080p with 1440x1080 resolution is good enough for Lucas and Rodriguez, 1080i, deinterlaced to 1080p with 720p image quality is good enough for nearly everyone else.
farss wrote on 1/9/2005, 5:24 AM
Having last year seen a 2K projection of a well shot movie, probably straight from a DI I have problem saying the days of film as a delivery medium to be drawing to a close. Having seen the Star Wars stuff off a 35mm rpint which look horrid by comparison I'm far from convinced that film is dead as an acquistion medium. Sine then though Sony have raised the bar on digital projection to 4K lines, that's better than a lot of DIs so I really don't think anyone seriously doubts the end of film is near. I'll also add the 2K projection looked way better than anything I've seen projected from film, there's a world of difference between what films capable of and how it ends up on the ecreen.
However I wasn't suggesting going out to film. Now I don't know how the numbers stack up, so I'm doing a bit of kite flying here. I would have thought shooting 16mm (or even Pro8) gives you all the resolution and latitude, then transfer it to HiDef. That gives you a lot of room for tweaking the image during the transfer. Still distribute digital, that saves you a lot of the big costs of prints, transport etc. The other plus is it's easier to go out to PAL or NTSC from film than having to convert the video.
As I understand it that's the way a lot of US TV productions are done and for much the same reasons.
I'd also again question the overall impact of the acquisition system on the total project budget. From what I know, even if the cameras were the same price as an SD camera, once you commit to HiDef all your other costs go up pretty steeply.
Bob.
apit34356 wrote on 1/9/2005, 5:38 AM
The hacked Z1 will be great for the lens market. The 35mm market has been slow with the electronic fixed len cameras replacing the low and mid ranges SLR cameras. I expect the SLR lens market is rethinking marketing for the future hacks in video. the BBC had a hack for sound for the sony 150 and 2000, will be interesting what the market will do with this camera.
HDV wrote on 1/9/2005, 6:28 AM
I could not have believed that the guy did it in something like couple days. I hope Sony does not mess up the Z1 so that it could not be done. The only problem is that 1/3" is someting like 8mm, so even extreme W/A 35 mm lenses become telephoto. You need to hack some 35 mm adaptor on this for couple thousand dollars and you have a serious beast to shoot film with at a toy price compared to pro HD cameras. Toy price with pro performance.

The day is here that some no name guy or a girl, 1000 miles from Hollywood will wake up one day, will film his or her wild dream and will win an Oscar. Art will return to the cinemas. Until now it's been too expensive and I'm tired of the junk Hollywood is putting out.

As to TV show acuisition, it's pretty much moved now, or is about all to be moved from 35 mm to 1080/24p, using mainly Sony F900 cameras. 24p is used because it converts fine to both PAL and NTSC. In Europe 25p is used.

Digital acuisition has an adge over film because you see right there what you've shot; no guessing; no need to wait for dailies. You do digital post with film anyway; with HD there is no cost associated with making expensive DI.

Everyone thinks that film will live forever. Most of us have witnessed 2K digital projection quality. New digital cameras, like F950 or the Genesis are fine for acquisition. Digital acquisition is more efficient. The same thing will happen with film as happened with pro still cameras. They are all on ebay. Why? Film is still so much better. The pro needs a tool to get his job done efficiently and better. That's where comes the digital advantage. Hollywood is slow, the new cameras are just now becoming available, the DP's are not good enough, at least great majority of them, to take full use of the new tools. I estimate couple years and it will start to be a landslide; it will all migrate to digital acquisition, just like in 35 mm photography. By the end of decade film will be pretty much dead and Kodak will be making agent orange, pesticides or something, instead of film.

As to the last Star Wars shot with F900's. It was awful. See Once Upon a Time in Mexico. It's an example of a well made film, with basic F900's, all done by one man, the directing, Steadycam work, postproduction, and he even owns his equipment.

This is the advantage in owning your equipment. You learn everything about it. It is the advantage of owning a hacked Z1. I should get paid by that Italian hacker for promoting his stuff.