Aaton and S8--Never Happen?

[Nigel]

Here is some info from an Aaton owner/operator and lover.

While Aaton makes the best cameras in the world--My opinion only--and the folks at AbelCine are the best people--Again Opinion only. Aaton will not go into the S8 market.

This is my logic--
Aaton is already to heavy in the small format market with S16. Their 35mm camera is wonderful but loud. And not well liked by the big dogs that shoot 35 day in and day out--I would still love to have one.

They have so much time and money in the
XTR Prod and A-Minima that they need to sell tons of units to make up for the R&D. And while film is far better than any HD video format out there HD is giving S16 a run for its money right now.

Aaton is still trying to push their 24mm film format that may be the dying fishes last flop on the dock. 24mm is the same film used in APS and has the same aspect ratio as HD which 35mm and S16 don't.

I love Aaton and I will die shooting Aatons but I am not going to hold my breath that they are going to get on the S8 "bandwagon" if you can call it that anytime soon.

By the way I am buying another Aaton and would like to sell me old one. Email me if you are interested in getting detail.

[Alex]

If Aaton were smart, they would hook up with the makers of the Canon 1014XLS and simply change the side panels to a module design, different modules would give the camera person different filming options.

Then, Aaton would go into the film transfer business to support their investment.
One Super-8 Rank Cintel can generate $1,000-2,500 a day in income....

Not too shabby.

-Alex

[Nigel]

Aaton is already in the film Xfer business any posthouse that is worth their salt will have an AatonCode reader on their RANK and Spirit machines along with Aaton's software. Hell, they basically invented Timecode and are the industry leader at it.

I still think that they will never even look at S8. I hate to admit it.

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
Aaton is already in the film Xfer business any posthouse that is worth their salt will have an AatonCode reader on their RANK and Spirit machines along with Aaton's software. Hell, they basically invented Timecode and are the industry leader at it.

I still think that they will never even look at S8. I hate to admit it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that is not the same thing, the basic rank cintel billing charge is based on an hourly charge whether or not you do time-code.

Sometimes the time-code is an add on additional charge, sometimes it is not..depending on how busy the rank transfer facility is.

My point is the ratio of post production expenses to initial camera investment is highest for Super-8!

Since more money is made in post-production, Super-8 becomes a logical fulcrum point for increasing revenue for the post production industry.

Camera shops should be invested in post production area, in which case Super-8 becomes a wise investment.

Alex

[MovieStuff]

Previously, Alex offered:

"Since more money is made in post-production, Super-8 becomes a logical fulcrum point for increasing revenue for the post production industry. Camera shops should be invested in post production area, in which case Super-8 becomes a wise investment."

I respectfully disagree. In the context of "post production" as defined as film to video transfer, all the post houses I talk to are holding their breath and trying to make it to film's bitter end without having to invest millions in upgrades.

Basically, it is a race to see if HD video will "trickle down" in cost fast enough for the average 16mm producer see it as viable BEFORE the needs of the average 16mm producer encompases demands of higher resolution that most transfer houses can't handle right now. Therefore, the transfer houses aren't too keen on spending mucho bucks to update their equipment just in time to see it abandoned en masse by the people that once used it all the time for their 16mm sessions; by far the biggest customer base for transfer houses to date.

So, I disagree that investment in transfer related post production would be a wise investment. Likewise, any investment for camera shops in film gear is expected to meet a similar fate as more and more people divest themselves of shooting on film of any format. I already see this in out still photography business as more and more REALLY sharp digital cameras come out. They can't yet handle the contrast range that neg can, but they are coming on strong. In that respect, the camera shops aren't too keen on buying into the newest film still cameras, either.

Roger

[Alex]

I think your assessment is correct, but I also think it's wrong thinking by the post houses.

The better video becomes, the better film transferred to the higher resolution video will look.

It's the one thing the Hi-Def people don't like to talk about.

That their Hi-Resolution video will actually ENHANCE the look of film that much more.

So while I agree with you that many in the industry may not want to invest in new film transfer technology...it's simply the people who lack conviction (aka have a backbone) that believe that way.

Just the way people left Super-8 to die......20 years ago!

-Alex

------------------


[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 25, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

The real turning point will be when the contrast range of digital becomes greater than the contrast range of film. When that happens, it won't make film look any better at all since, already, a transfer off of negative looks way better than a print off the same negative ever will, in terms of shadow or highlite detail retention.

When digital can perform like film, film will simply be redundant. No amount of "backbone" can overcome economics, I'm afraid. As it stands, people that never considered using something as unforgiving as reversal are flocking to digital cameras by the millions, even though they don't have the contrast range of negative and are, ironically, much like shooting reversal where detail lost is gone forever. I must confess, my wife and I have been kicking the tires on a new Fuji because we do so MUCH 35mm publication work and we can use our Nikon lenses on the digital body. Oh well. Guess I'm just a digi-head in the making....

Wasn't there a movie called "Invasion of the Camera Body Snatchers"?

Roger

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
The real turning point will be when the contrast range of digital becomes greater than the contrast range of film. When that happens, it won't make film look any better at all since, already, a transfer off of negative looks way better than a print off the same negative ever will, in terms of shadow or highlite detail retention.

When digital can perform like film, film will simply be redundant. No amount of "backbone" can overcome economics, I'm afraid. As it stands, people that never considered using something as unforgiving as reversal are flocking to digital cameras by the millions, even though they don't have the contrast range of negative and are, ironically, much like shooting reversal where detail lost is gone forever. I must confess, my wife and I have been kicking the tires on a new Fuji because we do so MUCH 35mm publication work and we can use our Nikon lenses on the digital body. Oh well. Guess I'm just a digi-head in the making....

Wasn't there a movie called "Invasion of the Camera Body Snatchers"?

Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe digital becoming better than film is a two step process at least...

First it needs to be equal....

Then it needs to be better.

I don't feel the need to financially contribute to new technologies that are just coming in and stomping over what already exists, it makes the designers of the new digital formats REAL ARROGANT, CONDESCENDING AND DISRESPECTFUL of what came before them...and I don't want to give them my money until they have really earned it, or show respect to what has become before them.

Keep in mind...film still is a 3 Dimensional or multi-dimensonial organic component...digital video is compromised of 1's and 0's.

It may be still a ways off before digital video captures the great 3 dimensional outdoors the way organic 3 dimensional film does, especially when you throw in motion dynamics into the equation.

Digital still photography promotes instant disposability to the unitiated...so besides the issue of will digital be better than film....

....when people shoot film, they understand what they are shooting should have some significance...when they shoot digital for the first time, they may e-mail the photo to a friend, or they may just re-record over it by accident.

Perhaps once the learning curve of digital is mastered by all, it can be a better tool than film because you can always reshoot
"photos" that did not come out well...but in the meantime, a whole lot of people are losing once in a lifetime shots because they miscalculated the proper way to save a digital picture, or how much memory to bring for their trip...or how to properly download the data without losing it.

And when you factor in people who don't shoot as much or travel as much, film is still considered more reliable than a new fangled digital technology, not because of the technology, but because of the people using it.

Film is pretty simple to grasp..."I've got a roll of 36 pictures, I'll plan accordingly".

I just don't want to lead the pack embracing digital, the smugness factor is going to really wreak as it makes further inroads...

.....and besides, film is still is beautiful to boot no matter how good digital is....

I look forward to seeing pristine 35mm on the highest resolution digital video offered...more so than viewing camera origination high resolution digital video.

And I would like to see super-8 transferred on the highest resolution digital video.

If the digiheads are nice and peaceful folk, they will welcome and encourage (my casa es su casa) the transfer of Super-8, 16mm, and 35mm Film to High Resolution Digital Video.

The more likely scenario will be the RAMMING of High-Resolution Digital Video all of the time, film none of the time, down everyones throat, and ramming it as soon as possible...

....which is why I don't want to encourage the self-absorbed digi-head arseholes.

Everytime a new DIGITAL format comes along, the jugheads who design it go on and on how it is so superior to existing technologies...bla bla bla....

Just once I'd love to hear a marketeer say "This new digital technology will complement existing technologies and formats while creating new avenues of expressions"...

Until I hear and see a new technology be nice...I say, make em really, really, earn it before you give em a buck.

-Alex





------------------


[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 25, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

Well, pigs will surely rain from the sky, but I agree with you on this subject. My wife and I were shooting a large group of musicians for a photo session and one expressed surprise that we weren't shooting digital and were shooting color neg, instead. I explained the problems with contrast and lost detail in shadows and highlights on digital photos, even though the resolution is acceptable for 35mm.

He, being a fully converted digi-head with no hope of redemption, countered,"Yeah, but with digital, that is totally avoidable".

I asked how.

He replied,"Duh. Because you can see immediately if you are having problems and can adjust the lighting to compensate between each shot."

I replied that what is a "problem" for digital isn't a problem for film, with its wider latitude and ability to take a hit in terms of over or under exposure.

Again, just sure that they had hired total amatures for the shoot (he writes the checks, you see), he smugly informed me that all I had to do with digital was shoot a test shot and adjust the lighting for each set up to fine tune any contrast problems that might be present for the digital medium. I mean, how STUPID could I be? Right?

I smiled and replied,"Well, sure. That sounds GREAT to me. Then I can spend for even MORE time per shot than I do now with negative. After billing you for the additional labor of adjusting the lights between every shot, that should just about pay for the new digital camera that you seem to think I should be shooting with!"

Suddenly, negative seemed just fine to him.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 25, 2001).]

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Well, pigs will surely rain from the sky, but I agree with you on this subject. My wife and I were shooting a large group of musicians for a photo session and one expressed surprise that we weren't shooting digital and were shooting color neg, instead. I explained the problems with contrast and lost detail in shadows and highlights on digital photos, even though the resolution is acceptable for 35mm.

He, being a fully converted digi-head with no hope of redemption, countered,"Yeah, but with digital, that is totally avoidable".

I asked how.

He replied,"Duh. Because you can see immediately if you are having problems and can adjust the lighting to compensate between each shot."

I replied that what is a "problem" for digital isn't a problem for film, with its wider latitude and ability to take a hit in terms of over or under exposure.

Again, just sure that they had hired total amatures for the shoot (he writes the checks, you see), he smugly informed me that all I had to do with digital was shoot a test shot and adjust the lighting for each set up to fine tune any contrast problems that might be present for the digital medium. I mean, how STUPID could I be? Right?

I smiled and replied,"Well, sure. That sounds GREAT to me. Then I can spend for even MORE time per shot than I do now with negative. After billing you for the additional labor of adjusting the lights between every shot, that should just about pay for the new digital camera that you seem to think I should be shooting with!"

Suddenly, negative seemed just fine to him.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 25, 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's a very interesting story about how clients influence choices that a cameraperson makes...

I've recently discovered that I shoot the OPPOSITE way of practically every DP who shoots video, and I think it has to do with the fact that I edit what I shoot.

I've mentioned to different cinematographers that I like to raise the set-up level when I shoot to ensure all the darker black information reads...the picture actually looks fogged.

But when I go into studio to edit, I re-adjust the levels to what I and the client think are the optimal black level and color levels.

My point is I would rather do that in an editing environment, with no ambient light spilling onto the viewing monitor that is likely to happen on location.

When I edit, I have a wave form and vector scope that I know is calibrated along with my monitors, and I don't have the distractions inherit when one shoots.

Heck, just letting your eyes adjust from the real world to a TV monitor on location can take a minute or two.

The camera guys tell me, "Oh No, I try and get everything as close as possible to the final way it needs to look.

Now, with a big crew, and lots of lighting options, I would agree with that.

But on low budget video shoots, where lighting must be done quickly, efficiently and less extravagantly, and sometimes the cameraperson even does the light rigging since it is so low budget, I want to keep my options completely open in edit.

If I set my picture to have rich blacks and a "film-look", I can't undo it later.

Even though that is what most clients want to see on location!

So as you have discovered it comes down to does the client trust you on location.

Being the editor helps.

I'm to the point now where if I'm not controlling the video edit session, I don't want to bother with the shoot, because very few editors really get into optimizing the look of each shot.

On high budget video shoots, the look should be pretty darn close to begin with, so even if the editor didn't bother adjusting, the production could get away with it most of the time.

But on low budget video shoots, the editors don't seem to have the experience to get in there and really match every shot, so the cameraperson is making adjustments when they shoot that cannot always be undone.

And I believe they do this primarily because of the client's lack of knowledge about "adjusting in post", which by the way, is different than "fixing it in post".

I don't charge strictly by the hour, so if I take a few extra minutes to adjust something that I purposely shot with the set-up level up a bit, the client is not going to be hit with an additional charge, so it really is a win win.

Bottom line, sometimes what the client sees on location is not all that matters, as you tried to explain to your client, it adds time to the production to get it exactly right right then and there, using a format that allows for maximum flexibility at a later date may be the most important thing a video shooter does during a shoot.

But only if they have some control over the editing of the production.

-Alex




------------------


[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 26, 2001).]