FX1 to Film. Stunning results

[Steve_Shovlar]

Taken from
http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/showthread.php?t=1085
Posted by maheelrp

I have transferred several clips from FX1 to 35 mm film. Those clips were as follows.
From HDR-FX1 Sony HDV Info.com Forum
Kerr Cook’s
shottransove.4.m2t - a fast zoom out
car25side.4.m2t - shot from a moving vehicle

From DV info.net forum
Kaku Ito’s
bikepassngby.m2t - zoom out and a pan folloing a moving motorbike
day0dbf6.2.m2t - 2 children running towards the camera
eevgap.m2t - zoom out from a billboard to a wide shot of a street

horses.m2t - (I am not sure who shot this) merry-go-round with horses move up and down on the foreground while the background passes by

all of these shots contained lot of movement. On most of the shots the entire frame contained movement.

I de-interlaced the clips using our proprietary software, which works as a plug in for AE. I did not try any 24p conversion since my aim was to evaluate resolution on the film transfer. (I will be using a PAL camera anyway, since I am in the PAL region). Then I cropped the frame to get Cinemascope aspect ratio and stretched it vertically to fill the full 35 mm frame. Transfer was done using our proprietary film recorder on to FUJI 250D negative.

The print was viewed at the lab’s screening room, which has a 14’ screen. The screening room was designed to view the rushes at short throw, which would clearly show any defect on the print, that would not be noticeable on a long throw projection in a theater.

That was the best film transfer I have done. I have transferred quite a lot of advertisements, done using Sony DXC D35PL and D50P cameras with either Canon or Fujinon lenses, 2 feature films using Sony DSR 570 and D50P, footage from my own good old Sony VX 1000 (I still use that) and Panasonic DVX 100 (not the 100a) and Canon XL1s. But all these were no match for the resolution of FX1. Even after the cropping and stretching for the Cinemascope AR, the resolution was very much above these SD cameras. The technicians at the lab were simply shocked. I did not see any pixelization on these clips. Although little softening is noticed during the zooms, it is well hidden behind the crash zooms. I noticed it because I was looking for it.

I think I owe something to the people who shot these test footages. Please email me your addresses. I will send you sample frames from your footages. (If possible I will try to send you a copy of the entire 30-second film out.)

I am going to purchase the Cam.

Thanks every one.

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

So there you go! The FX1 has proved itself with a stunning result on transfer to film. Now where Brad Pitts number, got a small job for him........ ;)

[David Jimerson]

Well . . . two points.

I wouldn't go by an unillustrated testimonial on a website.

Also, "resolution" isn't everything. It's only part of the equation. Gamma curves, color rendering, etc., all play just as much of a role.

[LoveHD]

http://www.filmlook.com/process.html

[scharky]

http://www.filmlook.com/process.html


Huh? I don't get what that has to do with blowing footage up to film. Maybe I missed it, but it seemed that site specialized in converting your footage to have the "film" look.

[LoveHD]

"Gamma curves, color rendering, etc., all play just as much of a role."

The blow up isn't just to connect your camcorder to a filmrecorder.
The site gives you a clue scharky.

[David Jimerson]

I'm starting to think you might be Sergej, LoveHD.

In any case, all the posting above talks about it resolution. My point is that resolution alone does not equal better quality.

[scharky]

I agree with you there LoveHD, but why would you send your footage out to a company when you could just do that yourself. i still don't get what you're refereing to by that link. When blowing up to film it is not a good idea to apply film looks to your footage, such as grain. You want to make the footage look how you want, but when transfered to film, many of those characteristics will be inherited by being on film. Adding grain to your footage before going to film will just reduce the resolution. Now, if you want the "film transfered to video" look, that is what that site specializes in. I'm just not quite sure what stance you are making LoveHD.

[LoveHD]

When blowing up to film it is not a good idea to apply film looks to your footage, such as grain. You want to make the footage look how you want, but when transfered to film, many of those characteristics will be inherited by being on film. Adding grain to your footage before going to film will just reduce the resolution. Now, if you want the "film transfered to video" look, that is what that site specializes in. I'm just not quite sure what stance you are making LoveHD.

You don't need grain pattern. What you need is motion characteristics and altering gray scale, color and contrast to get film density curve.

[David Jimerson]

Who said you needed a "grain pattern"?

[scharky]

You don't need grain pattern. What you need is motion characteristics and altering gray scale, color and contrast to get film density curve.

yes but I still don't get the meaning of your post? Are you saying that the FX1 needs to go through this process before you blow up to film? I really don't think that you need a professional organization to alter your footage in that way. Besides from this website they are obviously editing the footage for video viewing, not in preparation for a film printing. Get a "film density curve" is a subjective thing. Who is to say what gamma curve film has? Film can have as little or as great (relatively) latitude as you want. It can have crushed blacks and blown out highlights, or extra detail in the blacks and have been flashed to preserve highlits. Film is, whatever you want it to look like. If it is lit badly, it will look bad and amaturish. There really is no such thing as a cure all film setting that will git to all standards. I personally would like to have full control over my final footage, rather than send it somewhere to have their interpretation of what film looks like.
So after all this, I still don't see what that website has anything to do with the first poster. I guess I'm just a little lost as to what you were getting at with the post of the website.

[xray]

Taken from the same site the same discussion:

'I also have transfered the DVX100 25p (the PAL version does not have 24p)footage and yes it is better than the 50i. Specially with "Thin Line Detail" to cancel the vertical blur introduced by the camera to soften the inlaced image.'

So the "stunning results" with the FX1 50i compared to the DVX100 is maybe not that stunning...?

[LoveHD]

Scharky, the link was just an answere to this.


Well . . . two points.
Also, "resolution" isn't everything. It's only part of the equation. Gamma curves, color rendering, etc., all play just as much of a role.

Da Vinci can do magic. http://www.davsys.com/images/2kplus.jpg

[LoveHD]

Taken from the same site the same discussion:

'I also have transfered the DVX100 25p (the PAL version does not have 24p)footage and yes it is better than the 50i. Specially with "Thin Line Detail" to cancel the vertical blur introduced by the camera to soften the inlaced image.'

So the "stunning results" with the FX1 50i compared to the DVX100 is maybe not that stunning...?


This one is from the same discussion:
<<<--That was the best film transfer I have done. I have transferred quite a lot of advertisements, done using Sony DXC D35PL and D50P cameras with either Canon or Fujinon lenses, 2 feature films using Sony DSR 570 and D50P, footage from my own good old Sony VX 1000 (I still use that) and Panasonic DVX 100 (not the 100a) and Canon XL1s. But all these were no match for the resolution of FX1. Even after the cropping and stretching for the Cinemascope AR, the resolution was very much above these SD cameras. The technicians at the lab were simply shocked. I did not see any pixelization on these clips. Although little softening is noticed during the zooms, it is well hidden behind the crash zooms. I noticed it because I was looking for it.

-->>>

[xray]

That part whas already in the post from Steve --> Look above at the start of the topic, I tried to ad something new here.

[David Jimerson]

Scharky, the link was just an answere to this.


Da Vinci can do magic. http://www.davsys.com/images/2kplus.jpg


You're *really* assuming a lot of things that weren't in that post above.

All he talked about was *resolution* -- not about any of this other stuff.

"Smart Travels with Rudy Maxa" on PBS HD has MUCH better resolution than any DVD I play, but it doesn't look a THING like film. The DVDs do.

So . . . resolution isn't everything.

[J.R. Hudson]

This thread made me laugh. :D

[David Jimerson]

It was the "Smart Travels" comment, wasn't it? :D

[J.R. Hudson]

:D

[Bukkake]

Your in the wrong thread, Mr. Hudson.

[J.R. Hudson]

I'm never in the wrong thread Maf. I have freelance priveledges.

[dakotapod]

I'm never in the wrong thread Maf. *I have freelance priveledges.

LMAO! :D

[J.R. Hudson]

Ya know?

What does that even mean? The wrong thread? Do I go around 'taunting' people? DO I? No. I don't. I get along with everyone. But every once in awhile some clone shows up and opens his trap; blah blah blah.

Jeez.

[David Jimerson]

What does it mean, "in the wrong thread"?

[Maheel]

I have done the film transfer that Steve_Shovlor mentioned. I am also a member of DVX User forum, because I own a DVX 100 (not the 100a). I do not own a HD FX1 but after seing the results which were obtained from the sample clips I am going to buy the camera. I will not sell my DVX100. It gives beautiful footage.

I have read through Jarred and Barry's review of the HD FX1 comparing it with the DVX 100A and XL2. I tried to manipulate the FX1 images which were shown in the article to match the DVX 100a images in After Effects. I could get the shadow details out of the HD FX1 images by handling the curves in AE. The narrow Latitude problem could be fixed in post, if you keep the highlights within the range. The low sensitivity may be countered with gain. Since I do not have the camera now, I can not say more about that.

What I was trying to do was to get the DVX look from the FX1 image. From the limited footage available from both cameras filming the same scene (only the stills from the review), it seems that it could be done. I intend to use FX1 to shoot a feature which will be transfered to film. The difference in resolution of SD and HDV is very much evident on a 50' screen.

When transfering the FX1 footage to film I did not apply any pull down. I will be shooting in 50i and the need does not arise. No need to do anything to get the film look. The final print is in film and every physical characteristics of film is there.

Steve,
Email me your address. I will post a few frames from the transfer. But remember they are in the animorphic format. So an anamorphic lens is required to view it at the correct aspect ratio.

David Jimmerson,
Do not trust any unillustrasted testimonials (how I could illustrate the film transfer, bothers me). Do get a transfer done by DV Film. They may have already done a demo reel using FX1 footage. I totally agree that resolution is not everything. That is why I tried manipulating the FX1 image to get the look of DVX100.

John Hudson,
I did not see anything laughable on that thread. Let us share your amusement.

[David Jimerson]

David Jimmerson,
Do not trust any unillustrasted testimonials (how I could illustrate the film transfer, bothers me). Do get a transfer done by DV Film. They may have already done a demo reel using FX1 footage. I totally agree that resolution is not everything. That is why I tried manipulating the FX1 image to get the look of DVX100.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said.

[J.R. Hudson]

Maheel

If you didn't get it the first time; me explaining it to you isn't going to do a bit of good.

[Bukkake]

Mr Hudson, how can we have any serious discussions of the FX1 if you are in this thread belittling the comments under a veil of humorous derision? I find your attitude off-putting.

[J.R. Hudson]

You can have a serious discussion Maf; don't let me stop you. Look around outside the walls of this particular thread and you'll find the lot of us tend to have fun even in the most serious of discussions. In fact, this forum has been built on the members being able to relax and have fun while getting and giving the information needed.

Relax a little; we can learn alot and find the answers we seek while still having a bit of fun. If you're looking for a straight, no-nonsense approach perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.

If you find the bits of humor and chit chat distracting then it's your choice; either particpate or ignore them.

[David Jimerson]

No doubt. Get the lay of the place before you start busting on people. It's just the way we do business around here.

[Jeff_Chandler]

you'll find the lot of us tend to have fun even in the most serious of discussions

It's one of the things that attracted me to this forum. I enjoy a good discussion with a laugh thrown in here and there.

[J.R. Hudson]

:D And the happy face is the most important tool in here ;D

Serious; there are other foums that will delete your post or tell you to stop if for one second you stray from the topic. Thats no fun.

[TimeKoder13]

;D RELAX all PC SONY dudes, If I can't rotflmao once in a while, I'm in the wrong biz. I own the VX2K, love the DVX, and am about to shoot a film (straight to dvd) and part of the fee is the Z1. SO I don't care if Panny comes out with HD the day after we start filming, I'll just sell the Z1. But my question is since all these folks who DO like the F1 are obviously working with, well, F1s, do I need to even bother with the Z1? Some say CF is horse _ hit, others find it acceptable. I've got a gillion "film look" techniques, but in camera is always better. We're doing real sound, boom to sony md so I don't care about XLR. Am I missing a need to have feature of the Z1, other than 24p? If not, that's an extra $1500 in my pocket. ...and yeah SONY doesn't get it. Their response when asked why no 24p was included with the VX2100 and PD170 was that their user base of wedding videographers were happy W/O 24p. What BS were they smoking? We were all EXPECTING 24p with those models.

[David Jimerson]

The Z1 doesn't have 24p.

[TimeKoder13]

Yeah David I misworded my joke. I know the Z1 doesn't have 24p. That's why I don't do standup. I don't even own the Panny, but I've learned a ton from this site over the last 7 or 8 months and have sent a ton of others here for education and enlightenment.