American Cinematographer - July 2011 - 12

Letters
Great Explanation of Important Subject I want to thank you and Christopher Probst for his outstanding article in the May issue, “Decoding Digital Imagers: Part 1.” Imaging and photonics is my world, and I found this to be a truly outstanding article. I am extremely impressed by the technical presentation, especially regarding Nyquist sampling and MTF curves, and the necessity of an optical low-pass filter. I have been explaining this particular topic to people in various fields for over a decade — I have a background in X-ray imaging — and I have rarely found such a coherent explanation of this very important subject. This article will, I believe, be of extraordinary help to people in the field. You squeezed a semester of electrical-engineering education into just a couple of pages, and you made it interesting and understandable. This topic is very near to my heart because my company, Tessive, has just launched a product for time-based pre-filtering for cameras. Our product is kind of like an optical low-pass filter, but for time instead of space. It’s a temporal-band-limiting filter for motion-picture cameras. Thank you very much for your hard work. Tony Davis Los Alamos, N.M. Can’t Wait for Part 2! I greatly enjoyed Christopher Probst’s article “Decoding Digital Imagers: Part 1,” and I look forward to the second part. This is the only article I’ve seen that covers the complete imaging path. I hope to assign it as reading for my students. I must say that I was a little surprised Mr. Probst didn’t spend more time on image-sensor noise, which ultimately puts a floor on dynamic range. CMOS censors inherently introduce more noise because they have more transistors in the signal path and because the CCD is an incredibly efficient charge-transfer device.
12 July 2011

By the way, that photo of George Smith and Willard Boyle (on page 61) shows not just an early CCD imager, but the first CCD camera. George showed it to me when he recruited me for his department. Who could resist that sales pitch? Keep up the good work! Marilyn C. Wolf Rhesa S. Farmer Jr. Distinguished Chair in Embedded Computer Systems School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Ga. Questioning Goi’s 6 Questions I read Michael Goi’s President’s Desk column in the April issue with great interest, and I fully agree that just because something is new doesn’t mean it is better, and that the Frankenstein syndrome he so aptly describes is becoming more and more prevalent now that folks are shooting with smart phones, DSLR cameras and other devices. I do, however, question his six questions. If I capture my images on this camera, do I have any assurance that the images will not be accidentally erased or deleted? Does any camera or capture system offer such assurance? Are the captured images a true reflection of what I intended them to be, should I not be around to supervise an output of those images at a later date? With today’s incredibly powerful post tools, is any media completely “tamper proof” or shielded from the (perhaps) unwanted interventions of others? Does this camera actually make my job of filming this particular project easier, or is it making it harder and more expensive? While it’s obvious that some cameras can make a job easier and simpler to shoot, in this world of cheap and easy hype, in the end, after we have voiced our opinion (which is often, thankfully, given serious consideration), other than walking away, do
American Cinematographer

we really have the last word on the choice of format? Some lucky few might, but I know that I, ultimately, do not. If I am filming in a remote area and my camera breaks down, will I be able to fix it with my multi-tool knife, or will production have to shut down? Can any camera — an Arri 435, an Arricam, a Panaflex, a Red, an Alexa or even an old Arri BL — be fixed with a multi-tool device by someone who has no special training of that type? Perhaps a faithful Bolex can, if one is very lucky. Taking a spare body along to remote locations seems like a better precaution than a multi-tool device. Who is going to be responsible for making sure that all the metadata accumulated during production and post is properly logged and stored? I was never concerned with the way film or cassettes were logged, handled and stored by the editors and post folks in the past. Why should I be concerned about that now? I trust them to do their jobs professionally, as they trust me to do mine. What is going to be the archival element for this project? Isn’t that something for the producer to be concerned with? As much as I would like to declare to the world that I am nobly and deeply concerned about the archival preservation of the MOW I am starting next week, or the 30 or so others I have shot in the past few years, truthfully, I am not at all. I have to deal with many other more pressing production issues that I feel belong more directly in the cinematographer’s backyard. Happy shooting, whatever you shoot with. Daniel Villeneuve, CSC Longueuil, Quebec ●
American Cinematographer welcomes letters to the editor. Correspondence must include your name, mailing address and daytime telephone number. Please send letters to: Editors, American Cinematographer, P.O. Box 2230, Los Angeles, CA, 90078. Wereserve the right to edit submissions for length and clarity.

American Cinematographer - July 2011

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - July 2011