(Background on thread.  Debate on if digital can archive the quality of film, especially at low light..  The performance of the new Canon 5DmkII was mentioned)

—–

To ad to Julio’s points.

The camera he is talking about is the Canon 5DmkII.

Currently this camera is making a mess of the digital film camera industry. I know Sony, JVC etc are all running scared.
They are literately selling 5x what they expected on this product. It’s success has changed the industry completely.
This camera makes all there 50-100K kit all seem obsolete. Tho , there is more to a camera then a sensor. (But strangely many people cannot see past that. Ie form factor, the package etc.)

Now, Nikon will likely bring out a competitor at the November show for Pro still cameras. And.. the Nikon has even BETTER low light performance then the canon.

In the Stills world, Film is totally been abandoned apart for the niche areas where some aspects of film still produce desired results that digital cannot. However, this is not common, and a very expensive way forward.

This will of course happen in the motion film area too. I am a little surprised it has taken longer then it has, however, as I have said, there is more to taking a shot then the camera, its the camera man too. This is a generation thing more then anything else.

I have noticed that film-tech seems to be an ivory tower with man holding onto the romance of film. Personally I don;t care. I am a computer tech that has drifted into the doing digital side of exhibition. I just observe and based on what I see, make conclusions.

Film is simply out of date.
I like to compare it to DJing (For which I did for 10 years when I was a younger lad) evolved from vinyl records to CD’s or other forms of digital playback..

At the end of the day, the punters on the dance floor didn’t really care if it was vinyl or CD, the story that was the track was shared and they enjoyed it.

Tho the debate between DJ’s was heated and went on for years. Today, the top DJ’s basically never use vinyl any more.
WHY, well as I like to point out, what sounds better is not really the issue here. The main reason they don;t use vinyl is because vinyl has limitations. While digital has Blue sky. The DJ’s, though the use of digital, have created new playing styles and performance possibilities. Impossible with vinyl.

This holds true for Film as well. Film is dead to me as.. it simply cannot evolve anymore. But once we are digital, the sky is the limit. Night shots that are impossible using film. etc.

One of my favorite would be a new standard of 60fps for cinema. Can be easily converted down to any common distribution format in use today, and would make a film screen, using clean digital images, look like a window into the world that the film creates. Something film grain, scratches and gate movement can never do.. (60fps for film is possible, but like 70mm unrealistic anymore. too $$$$$$$)

So, to me. Film, please leave the building, its time to ignite the booster and leave orbit, and you don;t have a ticket.)

To finish of, I would like to also visit the definition of what make one better then the other.
If we want to talk about which can be better.
Many of you say, film looks better…. if your looking at an answer print compared to 2k. But then again, apple with apples, there are 8k digital systems out there. That would even arguably compare with 70mm.
If we talk about the typical image a widely distributed film presents on screen compared to 2K.
A typical 2K system will ALWAYS look better due to the massive lossy process the film has to go through.

So which is better. What is possible or what is typical??
Please take this into consideration.

James

Well in this case, its got its mind set on owning cinema exhibition and projection.

Here are a few links for consider.

• AMC Entertainment to Convert Entire Circuit to Digital Cinema Projection with Sony 4K Systems (309 theatres and 4,628 screens)
• Regal Entertainment Group to Install Sony 4K Digital Cinema Projection Systems Across Entire Circuit (.. agreement for the installation of Sony 4K digital projection systems across its entire circuit over the next 3 to 5 years … Approximately 1,500 of the Regal screens will also be outfitted for 3D digital projection, using Sony’s newly introduced dual-lens adaptor technology.)
• Sony Announces New Exhibitor Agreements as Conversion to 4K Digital Cinema Technology Continues (The new exhibitors are: Muvico Theaters at the Oaks, Thousand Oaks, Calif.; Alamo Drafthouse at the Village, Austin, Texas; The Palace Theater, Canadian, Texas; Lincoln Square Cinemas in Bellevue, Wash.; and Channelside Theaters in Tampa, Fla.)
• Sony Electronics Expands Digital Cinema Deployment Agreement with Sony Pictures to Cover Asia (… DCSS now has agreements with two major studios for Asia –Sony Pictures Entertainment and Twentieth Century Fox. …)

Initially I thought this to ambitious, but the more I think of it, the more sense it makes.

But first let me explain why this was very unexpected by the industry.  In general, cinema owners did not give Sony much of a chance.  However, Sony appear more determined than anyone could guess.

Sony has a history in exhibition already.  In the distant past there was a Sony technology for cinema audio called SDDS. (See wikipedia for a details on Sony Dynamic Digital Sound). In short, it was an expensive new audio format that Sony supported for a very short period of time. Those cinema owners who adopted it where very angry with Sony.  They invested a lot of money only to be left hanging soon after.  Cinema owners are a tight group with long memories.  To them, Sony had lost all credibility.

Then there is the general opinions of cinema technicians and Sony competitors towards the Sony 4K technology.

Sony has not done well in many areas compared to the TI (Texas Instruments) based projection companies NEC, Christie and Barco.  Sony may have the 4K of very teir 2K resolution but in all other areas they are lacking.  These include.

1. Colour consistency across the screen outside DCI spec.  This has been put down to the implementation of the 4K system.  It is actually 4x 2K chips operating independently.  This is said to be greatly improved in the latest revision. (??)
   
2. Questionable longevity.   Sony 4K projectors is based on IDLA projection technology, which has by and large been a failure in domestic projection technology.  Makes you wonder about its commercial implementation.
3. proprietary media-block and interfaces.  The TI projectors makers can use many different media players (Dolby, DTS-Qube, Dorami, GDC) and are documented so anyone can integrate.  Sony has all home grown product.  Access to this API’s is unknown.
4. To gain FIPS (A security requirement DCI equipment need to meet) approval, the projectors are large secure refrigerator type boxes. In a comparison of a typical DCI/TI projector with the same performance and brightness of a Sony equivalent.  The Sony would typically need more equipment and technology.  As such, one would not consider they could compete on price.
5. Sony projectors have the highest running costs of all DCI compliant solutions available.  Lamp cost and longevity is said to be on the poor side compared to all other DCI projector makers.  This is an important issue as your running costs are actually one of the most important considerations.
   

If you consider all the above issues, Sony would likely be a distant last on the consideration stakes for any cinema owners.

As the announcements above indicate, this is not the case.  So how does this all stack up? Currently Sony have more slated projectors going in then anyone else.  And if it keeps going this way, they are likely to gain at least 50% of the market over NEC, Christie, Barco.

If you notice above, the Sony announcements are all done with large cinema organisations.  I have not heard of any small independent cinemas selecting Sony.

Rumour is that Sony is selling its solution for the same, if not less then the typical price the current 2k equipment is going in for.  In my opinion, they must also be guaranteeing the longevity and a level of running cost as well.  Even with the bad sentiment from the past, in large deals like above, that means little to the white collar business man and accountant making the deal.

Sony also has a big roadmap with 4K production as it focus.  They do make great (Expensive) professional gear, but they also need to keep ahead of the consumer end of the market.  4K cinema gives this hi-end of the market a reason for existence.

So what is Sony to Gain.  If one considers Sony are not likely to actually make a great deal of money out of this.  In many ways, they are buying dominance in a upcoming industry.  They are giving their tape based servicing infrastructure a new reason for living with 4K tape-less and cinema support businesses.  They are putting a Sony logo at the start of nearly all films show in all cinemas.  They are building the brand back up to its peek in respect and perceived quality.

Cinema Exhibition portion of the Sony empire is a lost leader.  It will not likely loose or make money, but will position the company so save many segments from going out of business and keep Sony the domestic leader it strives to be.

Every TV in every home..  a SONY!

P.S. Follow this link to my www.cinetechgeek.com site and videos on the Sony cinema projection technology.

My brother in recent your of attending, had come back with a suitcase full of goodies.  Free clothes, caps, DVD’s food souvenirs.  You name it.  This year…  I got one coolish but cheaply made Star Trek cap.  Otherwise, it was so low key..

DCI was of course what everyone is talking about, and how the VPF is the key. (See the recording of the Showest panel discussing this on cinetechgeek)

3D was the big push and siad to be worth it even without VPF.  Premium pricing carries that.

The bigger surprise was that Art-house and Alternative content has been a getting a lot of interest and welcomed as a new source of income.  It was interesting to see that a lot of the big studio films on preview appeared to be Art-house in nature.  A “we can make this stuff too” type feel.

Operas and retropy (Spell? New word to me. Showing Old films again) was also a topic of interest.  This has partly taken traction based on non-DCI technologies.  And to a degree this makes a lot of sense.  Why use $80K DCI kit when you can use $10K of standard Kit to archive a 90% result. (And most patrons will not even know the difference.) Especially as this is niche content that is likely to get short runs (Harder to amortise but a lot cheaper then DCI). I even hear some cinemas putting in a few non-DCI cinemas simply to play eCinema release Art-house and alternative content.  Especially now as this type of content is becoming more common.

In terms of content for www.cinetechgeek.com, I got over 2 hours I expect.  This will take some time to get all online.  Editing, then compression etc.  This has started and content will start appearing in a day or two.  The videos will include,

• Taping of a panel talking about VPF
• USL and its cool kit
• Dolby,
• QSC
• Christie
• Sony
• NEC
• DataPort
• MiT and some interesting stuff they are up to.
• DTS and Qube

plus a few other smaller videos.

I missed Barco (No one avail to go on Camera) and many other stands.  I do plan to get some info from RealD.  I did their training while at the show, and they have definatly got some cool tech.  I hope to bring this to you later when I have time.  Based on theor power point for the training.

To gudge this, lets look at the track record.  The RED1.

From talking to people from the prosumer and professional areas, I get two different perspectives.  The Prosumer, wanting the big toys for no money pant RED as the coming of the messiah.  The Pros, who have been using Viper and other uncompressed hi-end systems consider RED a bit of a Joke, but do respect how quickly they have developed an impressive camera.  Still, it has quite a number of problems.

The Pros have some major issues.

1. It over heats under heavy use.  The running joke with the hire companies is it may be cheaper to rent then a uncompressed system, but you need two on set to make sure you have no down time.  Tho I do hear the later revisions  have improved this problem greatly.

2. The colour depth of REDCODE codec is good but uncompressed is better.

3. Its NOT 4K.  Its a good 2K camera.  It uses a bayer filter.  This is not a true pixel for pixel sample.  So please…. stop calling it a 4k camera…  Please goto wikipedia for an explanation.

4. Until recently you could not work natively on redcode-codec files adding a complex addition to the workflow.  I have heard of quite a few major productions having to do neg match to media files as meta data errors and other problems have been occurring on the workflow.

5. Red has not delivered on a number of promised features.  Number of audio track supported.  Support for 4:2:2/4:4:4 single/duel HDSDI out put.  These are major issues to the Pro.

The key to the RED is the sensor.  Who makes the sensor then..  Well that’s a secret.  This is what makes me most nervious of all.

Let me go over some Sensor history.  Many of you may be wondering how RED was able to jump so far ahead in Sensor technology.  Well, this is because it is already a very old and mature industry.  In my career, I have worked for Kodak on the Cineon Project, the first of its kind to bring film into the digital age.  I have been involved in the engineering of a film recorder.  We also planned to make a film scanner, but it’s a bit late for that now.  During this time we went over engineering products suitable for building these tools.  From hi-resolution sensors to line arrays.  Strangely enough these components have been around for quite some time.  There reason for existence.  Robotic eyes.

Very hi-resolution sensors exist, for example to detect imperfections in CHIP manufacture.  These sensors are easily re-purposed into what the RED1 became.  The biggest problem to overcome was that the sensors did not have a data path capable of bringing images of at the speed required for film.  This is the main redesign needed to archive what RED did with RED1.

Sony and other manufactures where starting from scratch as they consider bayer filters as a non-professional way to capture 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 images.  For example, why we have 3 chip cameras, sampling the full colour for every pixel in the sensor.

RED1 4k bayer equates to a little better then 2k at 4:4:4.  So really the RED1 is an amazing 2k camera.  Please don’t call it a 4K camera.  Maybe a “4k-bayer”.

This explains how RED had a perceived jump on the incumbents.  It was not so much a jump as looking at the problem from outside the square.

So really, RED has aligned itself with one of these sensor makers and focused them on making sensors which are more suitable for film acquisition.

The real question here is.  Can RED get this secret company who specialise in sensor development to make sensors to the specifications announced in the recent dream fest?

My personal opinion is that what they have put on paper is possible.  But the time frame arguable.  And now canon and Sony may start playing with the same rules. RED may have some real competition.

Consider this.  If Canon/Sony, with its years of engineering know how, brings out a camera even close to the RED products. Who are you likely to purchase.  RED who are learning as they go along, or Canon/Sony, who really know about building pro kit?

This is simply a reality check for those wraped up in the RED hype. If the RED1 does it for you great.  Canon looks like having kit coming to market soon that will be equivalent in some ways to RED1 and better then the original promis of scarlet..  RED has promised us some vapourware we may see in the future.   But really.  If I cannot touch it, its not worth my or your time.  If your in production, its what you can do today, not what you may be able to do in the future.  Focus on what can be done and your more likely to actually get a prodcution finished.

This trend has just been turned into a reality with Sony announcing that by Christmas, 90% or all TV on sale will be Internet ready,  and to quote the Sony release..

Sony will embrace open standards “to improve interoperability among all of our customers’ devices.”

See this report “Sony sets sights on global networked entertainment“.

My Web/Javascript programming friends do not even consider sproutcore is as good as many other javascript libraries on the net for example, the Yahoo libray, mootools etc.  However, because Apple is using it and promoting it and Apple has very publicly refused to support Adobe Flash.  This is a big deal.

Apple has given some relevant but ultimately hollow reasons to refuse the support of FlashLite (As a developer I never expected full Flash support), probably one of the most asked for features on the Iphone.  This leads everyone to ask WHY?

Sproutcore is the first sign of why.  In my opinion, this is the main reason why the hype engine is running into the red/extreme zone.  Ultimately it gives us a hint that Apple are actually considering introducing a competitive product to Flash and Silverlight.

As a developer Sproutcore, as an alternative to a real Internet application development environment, is laughable.  All these new javascript frameworks are, in a simplistic description, just an extension to the typical old HTML <FORM> type features and widgets but better looking and friendly-er with real time feedback.

A set of widgets does not an application make.

If we look at current Internet applications which only use Javascript frameworks.  You will notice they are extremely limited and simple.  Javascript frameworks are simply not well suited for extensive Internet Applications.  It gets over complex fast and slows down very quickly.  I have seen flash/flex internet applications that simply cannot be done in Javascript frameworks.  A good example of these are the online picture editing tools like, Photoshop Express.

Lets look at the other Internet God, Google.  Google is a flagship of businesses built on OSS (Open Source Software).  Much of their technology is based on it.  Android, the new Mobile Phone OS and much more.  Still, Google does use Flash extensively in all their analytics products.  The new Flash version of Google Maps API, in my opinion, is far superior then the AJAX version. (Faster, Zooms better, etc)

Google is not afraid to use the right technology for the right Job.

Adobe has also, in recent months, released much of the specifications of FLASH.  So much so that writing your own Flash player is now very possible (From my understanding a number of open source projects are chewing on this right now.)  Adobe did not , however, release much of the information regarding the video and DRM systems. (What did you expect)

Flash has its uses.  The lack of flash on ANY of apple websites and iPhone restrict it from any type of analytics and data representation.  It restricts if from more complex Applications that are possible in Flash and Silverlight.  Apple, proud of its superior OS and software, this simply does not jell.

Still, Apple is right about one thing.  Javascript frameworks like Sproutcore is very suitable for the iPhone applications.  the widgets it supports and the type of applications you would use on the iPhone can mostly be implemented with Sproutcore.

Reading other blog analysis of this issue, much weight is put into the issue that Steve wants to support non-proprietary standards for its tools.  This is a nice “Purist view” but nothing more then hot air.  Apple may encourage the use of open standard on its products, however, Steve knows more then most that, to make a superior and well defined product, open source development methodology simply does not work.  Look at Linux for the desktop.  It could be as refined and as good as OSX.  It has come a long way but has not and possibly never will reach that level of OSX as Linux is an OS with a vision sourced by hundreds of developers around the world. OSX is a vision of one man. Steve Jobs.

It is for these reasons that no open source attempts at making a technology like flash can reach the level flash has.  Steve knowns this, so rejecting Flash for the reasons stated is, in my opinion, a smoke screen.

As a developers, the big issue with the lack of Flash is the lack of cross development capabilities.  Flash is very popular, and right now, FLEX is one of the hottest programing languages around.  I personally have a lot of code I would like to drop onto the iPhone.  But right now, I have to go back to the drawing board and use javascript and a framework like Sproutcore.  That’s like asking a C++ programming he has to go back to BASIC.  It’s degrading.

Ultimately, one must concede that Apple has something up its sleeve.  And it was announced at WWDC with the feature list of Snow Leopard.  Quicktime X is likely to be more then a video engine.  I expect a new platform encompassing much of the features left out in the current restricted frameworks supported by Apple for the Web.  It is likely to be very standards friendly and cross platform (Windows, Linux, Apple)

One could even speculate that Snow Leopard is possibly an open version of OXS for any Intel based hardware.  A common rumour I like to push and feel would catapult Apple into a position where it really is competing with Microsoft.

They are:

• Verismo Box Plugs Web into Your TV: this is a very good example of the trend towards a open STB with no direct connection to the larger companies.  Ie Microsoft, Apple.  This is intended to be a cheap STB that can utilise as many services as they can get API’s from/for.
• Panasonic Pipes YouTube Directly to TVs: Another example of a large consumer electronics maker making an open STB for general free content on the web.
• Sony To Bring YouTube To HDTV Sets: Sony is getting into the act too.
• R.I.P. SanDisk’s TakeTV, Fanfare Shut Down: A filed quirky attempt.  Not unexpected.
• YouTube Set to Dominate the Boob Tube: A story pointing out how YouTube is partnering with all these general purpose STB and becoming very dominent in this space.
• Apple Should Open Up: More comments from about how AppleTV needs to be open to take off.
• Scoop: Boxee to Go Alpha on Monday: Yet more developments towards open STB with the very well know and popular XBMC (X-Box Media Centre) open source project launching into this space.
• I would also like to mention ADOBE’s release of AMP (Adobe Media Player), all the DRM technology and that Flash Player for embded devices as been made free.  Obviously something is cooking here.

I would like to point out that these stores have all come out in no less then a month.  Thats a lot of action in the STB area.

Still, I find this all very worrying as unlike the past, there is no one driving the development of what I like to compare to as the Analog TV Tuner of past to todays Internet-TV-Tuner of the future.

In the past, organisations such as SMPTE where formed so that the development of TV technologies was based around standards.  Content was structured and produced in a documented way as so it could then be trasnsmitted in a standard way. Any TV manufactuer could simply follow these standards and have a working TV set on the market.

Altho these standards bodies exist and an attempt by them has been made to address the issues of Internet TV, the current state of play is that it is a complete mess.  We have many suppliers using proprietory technologies, trying to leverage their products into a dominent position.

These organisations are very powerful and have, in my opinion, stifeled any movement towards simple open standards for which would allow the adoption of Internet TV to take off.

There is a lot of potential power and money at stake, so no one is willing to “play ball” so to speak.

Fortunatly the technological tuth to all this is that open based STB are inevitable.

For Example.  Lets look at DVD region coding.  This was a way to let the distributors control the release of content around the world.  The movie would be released in the US, for example, under REGION-1.  Here in Australia, Region-6, we would not be able to play that DVD.

Strangely enough, I have never had a problem with this as REGION-FREE DVD players came out very quickly.  REGION-coding today is next to useless.  Consumers eventually learnt about these issues, and today, the consumer electronics stores simply will not stock Region-restricted DVD players are they simply cannot sell them.

The AppleTV for example is already in this bucket.  A consumer who is interested in a AppleTV is as, he is knowledgeable enough to understand that purchasing an AppleTV only really means he can watch shows blessed by Steve, of pod-casts specifically designed for it. (You can hack it to do anything however)

A potential consumer of an AppleTV would understand Torrents, and that alternative content is around, and that obviously, anything he purchases, he will want to also play that content.

This may look to be a trivial matter, but from my experience it is quite the opposite.

The standard TV set of the future is going to need a TV tuner of the future, ie an Internet TV tuner.  This tuner technology needs to be cheap but at the same time as powerful as possible.  I am a big fan of the Adobe mythology as it is possible that each CHANNEL can load its own user interface designed specifically for the target consumer. It can also be easily updated.  Ie the way you use the channel can evolve with the user.  The complexity can evolve with the user.  The Social aspects of the channel can evolve with the evolution of social networks.

The STB of the future still looks like its a fair way down the road. I just hope the incumbent players who are trying to take advantage of this realise sooner then later that we need to get together and head down this road collaboratively soon.  As the longer they procrastinate, the more likely we are to damage the production industry and ultimately the TV shows we love to watch.  At the current rate of development, nether side will end up with very much.

Well here is a great first attempt at this technology..

From http://www.convergent-design.com/ we have the Flash XDR (See some cool comments here)

This device makes any HD-SDI camera capable of recording better then HDCAM images at a fraction of the cost and with a tapeless work-flow.   This is a dream come true for a lot of film makers I have spoken to.

Still, the product did come in a little short with no H.265-Intra support.  But I expect it to support this in the next release as H.264 matures.   If it supported H.254-Intra (10 bit) like the new Panasonic solid state cameras did.  It would be perfect.  H.264-Intra is basically the same as an I-frame MPEG2, but with better performance.  (In general, H.264 IBP long gop is considered to be nearly twice as good as MPEG2  ie 4mbps MPEG2 is similar to 2mbps H.264.  Still we are talking i-frame only, so its not that much of an improvement, but is substantial.)  Still, going from 8bit as MPEG2 can only go up to, to a 10bit colour space is probably going to push 160mbit, the XDR max throughput.

We are talking about getting images similar in quality to a VIPER, Sony-F23/F35,or other top end cinema cameras with hi-end 10bit colour workflows.

The key here is that you can plug it into any camera you like.  From cheap cameras, to expensive ones.  From 1/3 CCD to full frame 35mil CCD.  Shooting a film is not always possible with the one camera.  They all have advantages and disadvantages.  This kind of tool gives you the room to move.  To hire inexpensive gear but get a A1 quality result from it.

This will be a hot product.  I hope the 10bit H.264-Intra support is capable in software upgrade…

NOTE for 20080422: The Maxell iVDRis a 10-bit 4:2:2 master- quality video and native full HD video soulder mounted cam corder was also announced..  google “Maxell iVD”.

I have also referenced the BBC as an example of an organisation who actually “GETS IT”.  Their latest developments are starting to show why and make everything else look like a child who is not getting his way.  (Read the BBC blog entry below for examples)

See “Wii becomes home of online video” on the BBC blog.

The BBC have realised that supporting standards that allow video to be displayed on all devices, especially Set Top Box (STB) type devices like the Wii, is what will drive the move to online video in a big way.

This is where the BBC is doing a big favour to the rest of the world.  Currently we have a lot of consumer devices that could bring video from the web to our TV very simply.  If they only decided to follow a standard.  Unfortunately this is not what they want as each player is trying to capture the market in a kind a walled garden in which they own the viewer. (Ie the view will either purchase content of them , or watch free content with advertising inserted by them..  Either way, they intent to clip the ticket.)

To bypass this, BBC has basically implemented the many different “CUSTOM STANDARDS” or more precisely, the exact requirements of many STBs and wireless devices.  In effect the tail is wagging the dog.

In effect, what this is likely to do is to demonstrate that we do not need the proprietory AppleTV’s, PS3, Xbox, MediaCentre etc type devices to make working models for the distribution of media.  This will demonstrate that in most, if not all cases, direct producer to consumer models can work.  And if you consider this takes out an expensive middle man, it is a win-win for the consumer.

If a standard was developed, it is likely that it would be adopted as was the typical “Analog TV Tuner” that has been in every TV sold such that we could plug it in, plug in the aerial, switch on and watch.  It follows that in the future of the internet society we will have the same functionality for moden day TV’s.  In this case, instead of an ariel, its an connection the the internet.

The BBC’s massive growth in viewers demonstrates this unavoidable future and is hopefully de-constructing the FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) marketing of the Apple, Sony and Microsoft of this world.

BBC you are my hero.

Rob acknowledged the departure of Sony from production storage technologies.  For example, Sony has not tried to compete with Computer industry storage technology like the express card.  To tell the truth, its simply not worth it for them trying to compete with the low margins the computer industry work on.

This is a big departure from Sony’s history of driving sales by introducing different tape formats every 2-5 years to encourage user to re-purchase equipment.  This has worked well for them over the years with a variety of betacam formats. (SP, Digital, SX, HD, HD-SR)  As a facility owners, it has been the bane of my life. (See a previous post in which I traveled to NAB to have a big talk to the VTR engineers on how they should build a them.)

Tape for acquisition does have some small advantages but at the end of the day.  All independent film makers that come to me for advise.  The first comment they says is. “I want a tapeless workflow”. They see tape spooling and ingestion as a complete wast of time/money.  Recorded to a data file as filmed is exactly what has to happen as some stage so the non-linear editing system can use it.  As they are usually shooting on the cheap, media security and reliability is not seen to be as important.

In general, however, I see solid state recorders that attach the the side of a camera and have uncompressed HDSDI/HDMI interfaces as the imminent future of Production.

Then once finished, creation of digital files distributed over the internet for display in Cinema or cable and TV networks around the world.

One problem still exists and appears to be overlooked. Long term archival of source material.

We have two solutions.  Optical Storage or good old TAPE.

Firstly, Archival on Hard Drives is not recommended but very common.  Drives do not last well if left on a shelf  for long periods without spin up.  And when they fail, you loose it all.

The latest Sony HDCAM SR upgrade, tho expensive, looks like one of the better solutions.  Its a proven long term storage media that can store enormous amounts of data on a tape which can also be spooled and viewed without needing to pull the data of the tape. (This includes viewing common image sequences in file formats such as DPX, TIF as a data backup on the tape.)

I really hope they bring this type of technology to lower cost but obviously slower to transfer tape drives.

OR

Optical storage such as Blu-Ray.  The first issue here is that Blu-Ray has had little written about its longevity.  Still, this issue alone will give Blu-Ray the success and longevity may have expressed will die out as Internet Distribution will greatly reduce the Movie on Optical disk market.  In my opinion, Blu-Ray is only a stop gap.  We will need faster and more capacity optical media with archival ratings.  This may be a revision of Blu-Ray or a completely new technology.  We still have the need and it will grow for the video producer as we use higher resolutions and less compression (4k images, more colour depth)

[Update, This Week In Media ep 85  featured my Blog post.  Based on Alex’s comments here is a follow up post.
Alex Lindsay, Ok, we get it. You don’t use tapes.