Archive for category Digital Cinema
3D camera from Ikonoskop
Posted by gbalaji in Digital Cinema on February 5, 2010
Another camera announcement from Ikonoskop, but still not delivered their 2D Digital Cinema Camera yet. Lets hope for the delivery sooner than Scarlet announcement.
Tech Specs:
2 x 1920 x 1080 pixels stored as individual files in RAW sequences. DNG format
Weight: 2,8 kg incl. memory cartridge and battery.
Distance between optical axis: 91,5 mm
Colour depth: 12 bit
Mount: IMS,PL or C
FPS: 25 or 30
Built on order.
WEB: http://www.ikonoskop.com/blog/a-cam3d/
POLARIZED LIGHT & 3D MOVIES by Lenny Lipton
Posted by gbalaji in Digital Cinema, Stereoscopic 3D on January 16, 2010
The below article is a two part series taken from Lenny Lipton (Real-D Inventor) blog. You can follow his blog here http://lennylipton.wordpress.com/
POLARIZED LIGHT AND 3-D MOVIES, PART 1
By lennylipton
From the time I was kid to my student days as an undergraduate in physics my abiding passion was light and vision. Since my earliest years I have been interested in creating images and in understanding the role that light plays in image creation. As a student no other part of physics engaged me as much as the study of light.
The study of light, and polarized light in particular, turns out to be of great importance in understanding how the most important stereoscopic moving image systems function. It’s a subject of great interest to people in the field or for those who have an intellectual interest in the making and projection of 3D movies. This article is about polarized light and how it is applied to image selection for stereoscopic movies. The term “image selection” means: how one gets the left image to the left eye and blocks the unwanted right image from the left eye, and vice versa. If you have a high school education through trigonometry and physics you have the background to understand a lot of what you need to know about polarized light. If you are motivated to know more I recommend that you look at a basic physics text like Fundamentals of Optics by Jenkins and White. On the other hand, you don’t have to know anything about polarized light to enjoy or make 3D movies. You can consider polarized light image selection to be a black box and stop worrying about it. Since you’re reading this, you probably want to know more. This is not going to be a complete description and I am only going to focus on what I need to sketch in the story about how polarized light works for the stereoscopic cinema.
Physicists use the construct that light phenomena can be explained by considering it to be a longitudinal or transverse wave. From the time of Newton, people who have thought about such things have thought that light could be explained as its being either a particle or a wave, but early on experimental evidence pointed in the direction of light being a wave phenomenon. This idea was cemented along the way by the work of various smart people. A lot of work was done after Newton to explain observed phenomenon in terms of waves without understanding their physic nature but it was Michael Faraday who conceived the idea of electric and magnetic fields. James Maxwell took Faradays’ ideas about fields and used them as the basis for the creation of a set of equations that explains light in terms of it being an electromagnetic phenomenon. He provided a basis for understanding and predicating how light worked in terms of it being a combination of electric and magnetic fields and he predicted the existence of radio waves.
To understand what follows you have to accept the fact that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon and that it behaves like a wave. When I wrote earlier that it’s a longitudinal or transverse wave, I’m talking about the kind of wave that you can produce in a string like so: If you tie a string a few feet long to a doorknob and flick your wrist in an up-and-down motion you will produce a longitudinal wave. You’ll observe that the amplitude or the height of the wave is perpendicular to the direction in which the wave travels – toward the doorknob. That is what is meant by a longitudinal wave. It’s also a plane polarized wave because the wave resides within a plane.
Light can be thought of as being made up of a field with longitudinal waves described by electric and magnetic vectors. These two fields are in phase and at right angles to each other. We are going to forget about the magnetic vector because the eye is sensitive to the electric component and it’s simpler to continue this explanation by ignoring the magnetic component of light. The light that you see reflected from surfaces or emitted by the sun, a candle, or a light bulb is unpolarized. Assuming you could see the structure of the light leaving emissive surfaces or being reflected from many other surfaces, the planes in which the electric vectors reside are randomly oriented so there is no favored direction to their orientation. In plane (sometimes called linear) polarized light (there are other kinds), the wave is restricted to a plane, which is, as noted, exactly what happens when you try the experiment with the string.
Polarized light can be produced by a number of means. The way we are concerned with as used in stereoscopic projection is by means of the kinds of sheet polarizers that Land and Bernauer produced in the 1920s and early 1930s. Sheet polarizer is made of a substrate or base of a stretched sheet of plastic, usually polyvinyl alcohol, into which has been infused a dye like iodine, a kind of polymer that has long chains. These long molecular chains are oriented to follow the stretch pattern. The base is stretched, the dye is introduced into the material, and the long chain molecules of the dye line up and follow the direction of the stress of the plastic. This creates a microscopic or molecular structure that favors the passage of light whose waves are oriented in only one plane. (We are not going to talk about how that is accomplished.) That means that the light that is passing through a sheet polarizing filter will have the electric vectors of its waves all having the same parallel orientation.
Since these electric vectors are aligned in a plane that plane can be marked on the sheet polarizer with a straight line and it’s called an axis, in particular it is called the transmission axis. The other axis, at right angles to the transmission axis, is called the absorption axis. If you have a second polarizing filter just like the first one, and you place it on top of the first polarizer and you rotate it (say they are on a light box), what you will see is that the transmission of light goes through maxima and minima every ninety degrees. When the transmission axes of the polarizers are crossed you get a minimum and little light passes through and when these axes are parallel you get a lot of light passing through. The polarizers don’t have to be in contact in order for this work. You can project a beam of polarized light onto a polarization-conserving projection screen (usually painted with aluminum metal) and observe the same phenomenon when looking through a polarizing analyzer. In physics the second polarizer is called the analyzer so the polarizers in stereoscopic eyewear are analyzers.
There are two kinds of materials that we need to think about: conductors and dielectrics (or insulators). Conductors conduct heat and electricity well, and they do this because they have free electrons. Usually conductors are metals. Non-conductors or dielectrics don’t have free electrons. Polarization-conserving screens have a metallic coating or they’re painted with metal, so they have free electrons on the surface. It is these free electrons which reradiate the polarized light or reflect it back in a way that conserves the properties of polarization. That is why a matte screen, which has a dielectric surface, cannot work for polarization image selection: It doesn’t have free electrons.
If you have two projectors, that have linear polarizers over their lenses. whose axes are at right angles to each other – and you project them overlapping on this metallic screen, and you wear eyewear that have analyzers whose axes are lined up just like the ones on the projectors, one eye will see the reflected beam from one projector and the other eye will see the beam from the other projector, but each eye can only see the beam from its projector. That’s perfect for projecting stereoscopic movies, because we can transmit one perspective for one eye and block the unwanted image for that eye, and so on.
POLARIZED LIGHT AND 3-D MOVIES, PART 2
By lennylipton
A large percentage of light passes through when the filter’s axes are parallel and this is called transmission, and a smaller percentage of light passes through when the axes are at right angles and this is called extinction. The ratio of the two is called the contrast ratio or the dynamic range. For good linear (or as I said earlier, some people call it planar) sheet polarizers for stereoscopic applications, the materials used usually have transmission between 30 to 35 percent and the dynamic range is about 3000:1 for the lower transmission material. In other words, only 1/3000th of the light in transmission passes through when the axes of the polarizers are orthogonal (extinction). For circular polarization the dynamic range is about a tenth of that for good linears.
But the specification of the filters is only part of the story. That is because the polarization-conserving metallic painted screens are imperfect; and since they are imperfect, the total dynamic range of the system is reduced. Starting with linear polarizers that are capable of a 3000:1 dynamic range, the final extinction ratio for the light reflected from the screen through the analyzing eyewear filters will be more like 200:1. I have made these measurements a number of times over the years, and although I haven’t done it lately, those are the kinds of numbers I expect we are getting today with standard products (there are specialized screens that have done better). All of this is assuming measurements are taken from the center of the theater pretty much on axis. In other words the measurements are taken pretty much in line with the lens axis of the projector, or at least close to it. Still, with a dynamic range of 200:1 you can have a good picture with low cross talk between the left and right images. Such cross talk is called ghosting in the argot of 3D; or sometimes leakage.
A major characteristic of linearly polarized light can be observed if you do the experiment I will describe. You can do this with the 3-D glasses you get from the movies, if you go to an IMAX movie or a theme park where they use linearly polarized light. Take the linear polarizers out of the eyewear (or you can use two pairs of eyewear) and holding them up to the light rotate them. You will see that even a small change in rotation away from maximum extinction rapidly produces a lot of transmission. This rapid change is explained by the Law of Malus. The interesting thing about all this is that when you actually see a 3-D movie at a theme park or in IMAX the law of Malus doesn’t seem to bother anybody. Tipping your head a few degrees this way or that way the image still looks good because you’re starting off with a fairly high dynamic range and with decent photography it works fine. I’ve been deeply interested in the problem of head tipping lately and have gone to a nearby IMAX 70mm theater a couple of times and the projection is superb.
Another kind of polarized light, circularly polarized light, is used in many stereoscopic theaters, and it is created by the ZScreen® electro-optical modulator or by the MasterImage process using a spinning filter wheel.
I turned the ZScreen it into a device for polarization image selection for both monitor viewing and for projection when I ran StereoGraphics, the company that created the electronic stereoscopic industry. The idea was given to me by Jim Fergason, who suggested I could apply his concept for a push-pull phase-shifting modulator to stereoscopic image selection. I worked with Art Berman, who helped with sourcing the parts, the difficult problem of laminating large parts, and with the physics of the device; also with Lhary Meyer, who designed the circuit to drive the parts; and with Bruce Dorworth, who was my lab assistant on the project. It was circa 1985 when we started the work on this development project. Our first OEM deal was selling the device to Evens and Sutherland for their molecular modeling workstations. Later we applied it to projection and it was used by people in engineering and scientific visualization.
How the ZScreen electro-optical modulator works is going to wait for another time but it must be mentioned because the majority of digital stereoscopic projector installations use the ZScreen. So I am going to describe how circularly polarized light works.
If you have been with me this so far you have a pretty good notion of how linearly polarized light works. We need to return to the physics of light. Light, unlike other waves, a water wave or the wave on the rope described earlier, does not require a physical medium. That is because light is propagated by means of a field, the field that Michael Faraday first conceived of and that was described elegantly by Maxwell and his colleagues. When light is propagated in space it travels at its maximum velocity, which everybody knows is C from the famous equation E=MC2.
But when light travels through a medium like water or glass or air (still pretty fast in air), it is slowed down. The ratio of the speed of light in air (or a vacuum) to the speed of light in the material is called the index of refraction. The propagation of the electromagnetic field requires a reradiation of the electrons that are part of the atomic structure of whatever the light is traversing; so it takes a while, let’s say, for those electrons to reradiate the light. For the majority of materials it doesn’t matter what direction light is traveling in – the speed of light will be the same. These materials are described as being isotropic. Air is isotropic. Glass is isotropic. So if we shine linearly polarized light through one of these materials, no matter what the orientation of the plane of polarization, it will be traveling at the same speed.
There are other materials, retarders, that are birefingent (two indices of refraction) and have anisotropic properties (different optical properties in different directions and note that these axes are at right angles). For the purposes of this discussion we are interested in one class of materials made out of plastic. These are sheets similar to the sheets that are stretched and stressed used for making the linear polarizers. You take this plastic and you stretch it – you pull on it, you yank on it. This creates a mechanical stress in the material, and it winds up with two optical axes– a fast and a slow axis. If light travels along the slow axis it travels slower than if it travels along the fast axis. If we shine linearly polarized light so that its axis is parallel to the fast axis, it will pass through the material faster than it would if the axis of the linear polarized light was parallel to the slow axis. It’s the damnedest thing; imagine a piece of plastic that has two values for the speed of light.
Now imagine what would happen if the axis of the linear polarized light bisected the fast and slow axes (remember they are orthogonal) so that it was at 45 degrees to both. You would then have, through vector analysis, two components of the electric vector. (Here’s where you had better go look at Jenkins and White.) Those vector components are orthogonal to each other and lined up with the fast and slow axes respectively. One component is parallel to the fast axis, and one component is parallel to the slow axis. When the wave that is traveling in the fast-axis direction meets the one that is traveling in the slow-axis direction as they emerge from the material into the air, these two orthogonal waves are going to be out of phase and the to be vector sum of these two waves is the heart of the matter.
Depending upon where the electric vectors are when they emerge from the material, that is to say their phase relationship, you will get a specific kind of polarized light emerging from the retarder. If the material is a half-wave retarder the two out of phase linear waves will combine to undergo a 90-degree phase shift and by vector summing will be toggled or flipped through 90 degrees. If you have a quarter-wave retarder the result will be circularly polarized light. You will either get left- or right-handed circularly polarized light, depending upon the orientation of the plane polarized light’s axis to the fast and slow axis.
If you could look at the electric vector in a linear polarized light beam that was headed toward you, you would see that the electric vector is traveling in a plane. The amplitude would be changing, that is to say the electric vector is going up and down, but it would be restricted to a plane. If you took a look at circularly polarized light, in the case of one kind of circularly polarized light you would see that the tip of the electric vector describing a circle or corkscrew turning clockwise or counterclockwise as it heads towards you. If the tip of the vector is traveling clockwise it’s called right handed and if it’s going counterclockwise it’s called left handed. Or maybe it’s the other way around because having looked it up in a couple of books I suspect the standard is ambiguous.
Suggestions to overcome Motion Picture Piracy in Post Production
Posted by gbalaji in Digital Cinema on January 9, 2010
Hulk(English, 2003), X-Men Wolverine(English, 2009), Whats your Rashee(Hindi, 2009) & Jaggubhai (Tamil, 2009).
One thing is common in all the above films, were leaked to internet before its prior release and in some cases films not even completed (Unfinished CG & Effects). The reason being lack of security over the content in post production stage.
The practice in motion picture industry so far is to use visible watermark over the image and in above cases almost all the films used visible watermark over the picture. So what is the point in using visible watermark, is just reveal from where the content is stolen.
How to secure your content?
Before this we need to understand how our industry works. Once a film shoot is completed and to be ready for Post production there are various stages in which the data is being travelled.
Current Post Production Workflow practices,
- Negative Processing (LAB).
- Telecine – Converting your negatives to digital video either to Analog / Digital Sources like DigitBeta, Betacam SP or Mini DV in Standard Definition (SD) Telecine for Editorial. Nowadays, In Hollywood High Definition (HD) Telecine to HDCAM SR / D5 are being used.
- Analog / Digital Tapes (without any encryption / security over the content) are then digitized to digital data in a format most non-linear editing systems like Avid Media Composer (MXF) or Final Cut Pro (Quick Time Movies) can understand and work.
- After Cut is locked, the content travels to Dubbing (ADR), Sound FX, Background Score, Sound Mixing, DTS Encoding (for print release), Digital Intermediate (Color Timing), Reverse Telecine (Digital files back to film negative for print), DCP mastering – Both sound and DI files are used to encoded for Digital Cinema Exhibition and Theatrical print release.
- On the above stages except DCP master (Encrypted) & Reverse Telecine (done under secured LAB condition) nothing is secured and data can be easily accessible .
HDCP:
High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) is a form of digital copy protection developed by Intel Corporation to prevent copying of digital audio and video content as it travels across DisplayPort, Digital Visual Interface (DVI), High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), Gigabit Video Interface (GVIF), or Unified Display Interface (UDI) connections.
Solution for Post Production using Encryption are as follows,
- Once Negative processed, HD Telecine should be done to convert the content as digital data and use file based workflow until the end of Post production pipeline.
- HD Telecine – Using HD Telecine, picture is stored in file based using solutions like AJA KI PRO / Wafian, which records as Quick Time / AVI movies.
- Encryption needs to be added to the files and handed over along with public key something like KSV (Key Selection Vector). The main advantage of encryption is to use HDCP secured displays from which the data can only be transmitted and displayed. Non HDCP displays complaint monitors cant display the encrypted data.
- With the use of HDCP displays the content are then used for Editorial and same encryption method can be used for ADR, Sound FX, Background Score & Mixing. For all the above places HDCP secured displays are needed. This makes current system and practice out of context.
The industry needs to accept the above practice of technological implementation to provide greater control over their content.
Detailed description on how this system works in coming posts.
Raw Capture, Linear Gamma & Exposure
Posted by gbalaji in Digital Cinema on November 29, 2009
The below article has been taken from Adobe whitepaper about Raw Capture, Linear Gamma and Exposure.

Raw Capture, Linear Gamma and Exposure” was written by Bruce Fraser. It was adapted from his book Real World Camera Raw, published by Peachpit Press, in August, 2004.
Bruce Fraser
Bruce emigrated from Edinburgh, Scotland where he escaped the dreary Scottish climes only to discover San Francisco’s equally chal- lenging weather. Rumor has it this was the inspiration of Bruce’s lifelong fascination with all things relating to color. Bruce has made a study of human vision and how it relates to reproducible color in photography and photo-mechanical reproduction.
Raw Capture, Linear Gamma, and Exposure
Perhaps the biggest difference between shooting film and shooting digital is the way the two different media respond to light. Film responds to light the same way our eyes do, but silicon does not. If you’re tempted to just file this information away as a mildly interesting factoid, let me point out that you’d be overlooking the important implications the quirks of silicon’s response have on the way we set exposure on digital captures. If you expose digital the way you expose film, you run twin dangers of failing to exploit the camera’s dynamic range, and creating exposures whose shadows are noisier than they need to be.
Film mimics the eye’s response to light, which is highly nonlinear. Most of our human senses display a significant compressive nonlinearity—a built-in compression that lets us function in a wide range of situations without driving our sensory mechanisms into overload.
If you place a golf ball in the palm of your hand, then add another one, it doesn’t feel twice as heavy. If you put two spoonfuls of sugar in your coffee instead of one, it doesn’t taste twice as sweet. If you double the acoustic power going to your stereo speakers, the resulting sound isn’t twice as loud. And if you double the number of photons reaching your eyes, you don’t see the scene as twice as bright—brighter, yes, but not twice as bright.
This built-in compression allows your senses to function over an immense range of stimuli. You can go from subdued room lighting to full daylight without your eyeballs catching fire, even though you may have suddenly increased the stimulus reaching those eyeballs by a factor of 10,000 or so. But the sensors in digital cameras lack the compressive nonlinearity typical of human perception. They just count photons in a linear fashion.
This means that if a camera uses 12 bits to encode the capture into 4,096 levels, then level 2,048 rep-resents half the number of photons recorded at level 4,096. This is the meaning of linear gamma- the levels correspond exactly to the number of photons captured.
Linear capture has important implications for exposure. If a camera captures six stops of dynamic range, half of the 4,096 levels are devoted to the brightest stop, half of the remainder (1,024 levels) are devoted to the next stop, half of the remainder (512 levels) are devoted to the next stop, and so on. The darkest stop, the extreme shadows, is represented by only 64 levels—as shown above.
Linear capture
You may be tempted to underexpose images to avoid blowing out the highlights, but if you do, you’re wasting a lot of the bits the camera can capture, and you’re running a significant risk of introducing noise in the midtones and shadows. If you underexpose in an attempt to hold high- light detail, and then find that you have to open up the shadows in the raw conversion, you have to spread those 64 levels in the darkest stop over a wider tonal range, which exaggerates noise and invites posterization.
Correct exposure is at least as important with digital capture as it is with film, but in the digital realm, correct exposure means keeping the highlights as close as possible to blowing out, without actually doing so. Some photographers refer to this concept as “Expose to the Right” because you want to make sure that your highlights fall as close to the right side of the histogram as possible.
Note that the on-camera histogram shows the histogram of the in-camera conversion to JPEG: a raw histogram would be a rather strange-looking beast, with all the data clumped at the shadow end, so cameras show the histogram of the image after processing using the camera’s default set-tings. Most cameras apply a fairly strong S-curve to the raw data so that the JPEGs have a more film-like response, with the result that the on-camera histogram often tells you that your high- lights are blown when, in fact, they aren’t.
There’s one more important factor that plays into exposure setting when you shoot digital captures. The response of a camera set to ISO 100 may really be more like ISO 125 or even ISO 150 (or, for that matter, ISO 75). It’s well worth spending some time determining your camera’s real sensitivity at different speeds, and learning just how far you can trust the on-board histogram to show highlight clipping. Once you’ve done so, you can dial in an appropriate exposure compensation to make sure that you’re making the best use of the available bits.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention one of the great strengths of Adobe® Camera Raw in this area,the extended highlight recovery feature, which kicks in when you set the Exposure slider to negative values. Most raw converters give up on highlights once a single channel is driven to clipping, but Camera Raw does its best to reconstruct highlight detail from a single channel. Depending on the camera model and the color temperature settings, you may be able to recover as much as one stop of highlight detail, though one-third stop is more typical. If you use Camera Raw, it’s worth spending some time conducting exposure tests to see just how far you can comfortably push the exposure.
Digital Cinema Presentation in KPCA, Kerala
Posted by gbalaji in Digital Cinema on November 15, 2009
Yesterday done presentation about Digital Cinema in Kerala for Kerala Producers Council Association. From Producers to directors to Cinematographer to other Technicians attend the seminar. Especially Cinematographer grilled me with existing Digital Cinema Exhibition and its unhappiness over the projection output and there were healthy discussions and debates.
I putforth my representation to Producers Association members with two points:
- Support from Producers & all other Unions for growth of Digital Cinema in India
- Insurance & Bank finance for Digital Cinema Projects include shoot & Data. The reason is a project of mine was on hold for the same above reason that one of the bank stopped the finance for the project since the project was shot digital. In other case Insurance companies are not ready to cover feature films shot digitally and for data.
You can download and watch the presentation from here
Will Canon ever stop – Canon 1D Mark IV
Posted by gbalaji in Canon, Digital Cinema on October 21, 2009
Check out…
Thanks Vincent, Stu and Nelson for the wonder video.
Myth of Film Look
Posted by gbalaji in Digital Cinema on October 9, 2009
The article below has been taken from digital media online website here.
The film look is a Crock – response and clarification
“Any visual technique used by a filmmaker is simply a tool leveraged for an aesthetic story-telling purpose…. The effectiveness, impact and worth of any given technique a filmmaker employs is derived from its suitability to the context of the film. In simple terms, does the technique match the story..?”
Thus my concern prompting the post is that far too many indie-filmmakers are going for ultra-shallow DOF and using Rack focus NOT because these techniques suit the story or are the right Tools; but simply because they think it ‘looks’ better or will make their film feel more ‘professional’.
The issue is as I then said… “If a single aesthetic choice becomes so dominant and common and ubiquitous across all genre’s of filmmaking, regardless of the creative problems posed by individual films, then it ceases to be grounded technique – it becomes stale, meaningless, banal, a default position rather than a creative choice.”
As a result we have a whole generation of filmmakers who measure their aesthetic mark by how shallow their focus can be and how often they can Rack-Focus their shots. NOT by whether such techniques are the Best or even a Good solution to their creative problems.
Thus I wrote…“the problem is not Shallow and Rack Focus unto themselves as techniques but rather that they are not used as deft Tools and problem solving Options.”
Let me re-iterate to avoid further misguided bile aimed my way… Rack focus and Shallow DoF is great when it’s used for the right reasons. But like any technique, when it’s overused and/or misused without careful consideration of what would service the story best, then we have a problem.
This problem is one I believe to be prevalent across all bands of filmmaking; from indie to big-budget.
This problem is suffocating cinema’s visual language. It’s the equivalent of having a whole dictionary of words but everyone is choosing to use only those that start with ‘A’.
We have let Shallow and Rack-Focus techniques become aspirational ‘ideals’ rather than options and possibilities.
Before you urge yourself to protest once more let me pose you a question… The last time you shot a scene using Shallow / Rack-Focus techniques did you actually consider what other options might be available to you and the shot? Did you try other techniques? Did you experiment with staging and positioning for different effects? Did you ask yourself what would suit best the scene from a character, story or audience perspective…? Or did you just go for Shallow/Rack because it ‘looks cool’…? Because you ‘Like it’ or Because ‘that’s just the way things are done’….?
This is not a disparaging personal comment on you or your films (i havent seen them), it’s just a self-evaluative question for any indie filmmaker to ask.
Indeed might I suggest that the simple questions “How else might I do this…?’ and ‘What other possibilities are there…?” is the very beating soul of all art. If you’re not asking yourself these 2 questions then you are not an artist…
Did you agree with the author. Post on your comments.
Dynamic Range Capabilities of Digital Cinema Camera
Posted by gbalaji in Digital Cinema on September 14, 2009
The below article has been taken from 3cp website for learning purpose only.
“Dynamic Range Capabilities of Digital Cameras”
by Yuri Neyman, ASC (Gamma & Density)
Lately—especially after our RED camera seminar and the entrance of 3cP into the RED One and Panavision Genesis “market”—we’ve received a lot of questions about the claimed 11, 13, or 16 f-stop “capabilities” of certain cameras. Here is our point of view on this contentious subject.
We’re really talking about two separate definitions: Observable Dynamic Range/Latitude and Potential Dynamic Range/Latitude.
Observable Dynamic Range/Latitude (ODR) is what the human eye can see in “spotting” mode when the angle of vision is no greater than 90°, and the observable field of vision is much brighter than the surrounding environment (like a film screen or computer/TV monitor in a darkened room).
In this kind of environment we can see no more than 4.5-5.5 T-stops, which must reflect / include all the variations in our surroundings, which may reach a contrast range of up to 1:2,000,000 contrast range (a landscape with a sun in the frame, or 1:100,00 in a case of a room interior against a daytime window without a fill light).
The physiology of vision in this environment is very different from our vision of nature, when our eye is in scanning and adaptable mode and we are able to perceive very high contrast images in full detail.
Please reference this densitometric measurement of an actual sensitogram of positive (print) film.
Negative film can see around 7 T-stops (see the sensitiogram of the negative film with related markings (white, grey, black, etc ) below. Also it will be helpful for an understanding of the problem to view the combined negative film / positive film curves which result when the negative film is printed onto the positive film for viewing.
Figure 1 – Negative film example:

Figure 2 – Postive film example:

Figure 3 – Combination of the Negative and Positive Curve

(How to reproduce the correct psychological “feeling” of this contrast range inside of the available 5.5 -7 f-stops is a different question and belongs to different discussion, but it was done successfully by many generations of experienced cinematographers and this process continues today.)
Potential Dynamic Range/Latitude (PDR) is what a digital camera can register, but the human eye cannot see it fully due to the limitation of the “spotting” mode of vision.
The best light sensitive digital chips today can be no more than 16-bit depth luminance which can be equated with Potential Latitude/Dynamic Range of no more than 16 T-stops, which cannot be directly perceived by the human eye on the screen, but can be seen only due to “second pass exposure manipulations” similar to “dodging/burning” and other altering and enhancing techniques typically done during the grading process.
But Potential Dynamic Range/Latitude (PDR) can be an important characteristic of the camera/digital light-sensitive element, providing that at least: cameras/digital light-sensitive elements are tested under identical illuminance and optical conditions: 18% (D(r)=0.74) neutral gray reflectance chip represented as .35-.33 mV; and reproduction curve of 5 neutral gray reflectance chips with reflectance of 4.5%, 9%, 18%, 36%, and 72% representing a straight line.
In our opinion, measuring these dual indexes—Observable Dynamic Range/Latitude (ODR) and Potential Dynamic Range/Latitude (PDR)—for each digital camera will satisfy both segments of our industry: practical working cinematographers and R&D enterprises and camera manufacturers.
Starting March 15—when we will release for sale version 3.1 of 3cP for RED Cameras—G&D will start to apply those indexes to all cameras for which 3cP has a “pre-fabricated” digital cinematography workflow, starting with the Panavision Genesis and RED One. Indexing of other cameras will follow, per cinematographer’s and manufacturer’s requests.
Yuri Neyman, ASC<
ARRI unveils new digital cinema camera in IBC 2009
Posted by gbalaji in ARRI, Digital Cinema on September 12, 2009
ARRI unveils new digital cinema camera in this year IBC 2009. 3 Cameras shown as prototype in new ARRI CMOS censor technology named “ALEV III Sensor”. They planned to release mid 2010. Starting price of camera starts from 50000 Euro.
Check out this IBC video to know more about the upcoming digital cinema cameras from ARRI
ArriFlex D21 Recording options and Format
Posted by gbalaji in ARRI, Digital Cinema on September 11, 2009





