There is no film stock that lets you shoot both 24fps and then shoot thousands of FPS under the same lighting conditions. I suspect there aren't any film cameras that do 1000+ fps AND 24 with the same motor. You have to have the right tool for the Job. So you switch to a Phantom Flex type camera for your real slowmo stuff.

I've been told the current method for archival is actually just that. They use 3 B&W stocks to separate the color because B&W is far more stable and last longer under ideal conditions.

The only reason film is still used in Hollywood productions is because it's currently cheaper to do so. Their entire workflow from shooting to archival to restoration is based on using film in key spots. The studios are in it to make money. When an all digital workflow becomes cheaper than their current model then you bet your ass they will switch over.

I'm a student film maker in an experimental (focused more on art house than typical Hollywood) film program. There are tons of students here madly in love with film for various reasons. Most of them are purely sentimental and no doubt unable to tell the difference if you put them side by side. I'm not one of them. I prefer the advantages of digital.

However, there are some legitimate reasons to prefer film. Digital workflow has it's downsides. It can be more complicated to get started editing with. Film you can just cut and tape together. You can hold the medium in your hand and see how it all works together. Some people prefer something they can physically touch. It can be a more enjoyable process for them to work with and problem solve with.

Digital can require significantly more complicated just to get your footage to play nice with your NLE software. Also, being able to see your image instantly can give students the impression they can cut corners in planning stages. When you can't see your final image until days/weeks later after processing it really forces you to make sure you plan everything out in more detail. You just have understand everything going on to avoid mistakes that will cost you both in time and money.

You don't need xyz information. The objects data is in a tree structure. The root has some XYZ position and everything else is relative to it. It's organized in a fashion where each level of the tree contains more fine detail. So you can calculate when the detail is smaller than a pixel and stop rendering. Chance are you never need to store the entire object in memory unless you have a very high resolution display.

This engine supposedly doesn't use voxels but I suspect it's something very similar. Check out these videos for a better explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNZtx3ijjpo

It would be a huge time saver. Pulling focus gets complicated quickly. Not having to worry about it is one less thing to have go wrong. You can do less prep work, less takes, and require less staff. Save $$$ and now complicated things become more approachable for a lower budget film.

Also, having that control after the fact in post production would be great. Got a poor performance from an extra in the background? Well, now there's a very simple way to make it less noticeable. A shot is too confusing and the audience gets confused? Well, now you can guide them where to look.

I guess I was trying to say you don't necessarily need grammar for a language used by computers. Grammar for them is just a hack, or addon to allow a language to communicate more than the originally was intended.

Humans don't want to reinvent the wheel every time we need to expand our language and thus grammar works well for this. Computers don't have that issue and so grammar (at least as we know it) isn't important.

I was just trying to point out that having a grammar isn't required for a language.

Well, depending on the number of communications they need to make to each other it's very possible 4 level words could map out every possible communication they could have with it each other. Think of it like Chinese symbols.. They aren't just one word but complex ideas. Grammar exists because we are unable to store such large amounts of data. We can't have 1 word/symbol map to a unique complex concept. A computer might not have such limitations. Especially if their entire universe of ideas/concepts can be enumerated easily.

Same with Aliens from outer space/other dimensions!

We submitted our (The Amateur Monster Movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1717690/ ) zero budget film to be added IMDB a few times in the past while still doing principal photography. They denied it until we released our trailer and started getting more press coverage. We don't have any distribution deal (yet) or submitted it to any festivals.

I think if they just released a trailer and got more press (which Slashdot should fix) they will be added. I think it's a matter of them simply trying to avoid adding films that most likely will never be seen by anybody but the people involved in creating them.


Here is a link to our trailer in case your curious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aZquMQhAmo

My understanding is that the sharpest part of the lens is in the center. So the crop factor actually reduces the vignetting effect of a poor lens.So a crappy lens might become usable when combined with a smaller sensor.. It's all a trade off anyway. Smaller sensor = lower cost to manufacture but lens can potentially be more expensive. You just need to find the sweet spot.

Right now full frame seems like the way to go because it's easy to find cheap but good new and used lens. However, not too many cameras (in video) offer such a solution.

Adapters from C/CS to any other mount are cheap. Going the reverse is expensive.

I've been watching the Apertus/Elphel project for some time now. I too wanted a larger sensor to allow a nice shallow DOF. However, the more research I do the more I realize it can still be achieved. The digital cameras that were used to shoot the Star Wars prequels were 2/3" and they achieved a very cinematic look. The C-mount means you can get lens that are capable of doing this at a fraction of the price.

Really, the only true advantage of a larger sensor is having potentially larger pixels. This allows each photosite to capture more light and thus work better in lower light conditions. Think of a bucket capturing water. The larger the bucket the more water you can get.

Now, right now nobody seems to be manufacturing a full frame sensor that does what you need and is cheap enough. Once they exist I'm sure the Elphel/Apertus team will start using them.

Here is another interesting camera project that seems to debunk many of the perceived size sensor limitations. It' called "Drama" and is designed to be a camera capable of uncompressed video. http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=219424

Finally!!! A news article I can slip in a promo for the zero budget, comedy/horror film I've been working on over the last year. It is called "The Amateur Monster Movie" and was shot in and around Milwaukee Wisconsin. You can view our trailer on Youtube via the link below. Let me know what you guys think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aZquMQhAmo