720p on the big screen

[mmm]

Does anyone know how 720p looks on a cinema (Multiplex size) screen. My last two films were only shot on SD PAL (576 lines) and suffer when shown at this size (obviously).

I also have a thing about filming trees, which digital formats in SD HATE. I am just wondering if I should hold out for the 1080p of the HVX or not :undecided

I would prefer DVCPRO-HD to HDV aswell, but if HDV is "good enough", then I'll save myself the money until P2 drops in price.

Has anyone seen 1080p against 720p on a large screen? As far as small screen goes, HDTV is still a long way off in the UK, so it is just cinema viewing that I am concerned about. I know the HD100 isn't out yet but I am trying to plan my investments. If 720p is no good I can rule out the HD100. Hope that makes sense. :)

[mgalvan]

For optimal results, the 1080p would be the way to go. Also the compression of DVCPROHD is much better for a film out than HDV compression. 720p should look good though, so its a matter of what you really want ...

[mmm]

Thanks for the reply mgalvan...

Have you seen 720p and 1080p compared, I had heard (through the internet grapevine) that there isn't much difference. But is there much difference between 576 lines of SD and 720p then??

:huh:

[Daniel Skubal]

I'm running a test currently with different settings via digital projector at a movie theater I work at... I'll be sure to let you know how it goes

[mmm]

Thanks dj200423, look forward to the results!

What projector is it? Lovely new 4K?

[David Jimerson]

There's not a great deal of difference beteen 1080i and 720p. There's quite a difference between 1080p and 720p.

[Daniel Skubal]

I tested 480 p, looked better than I expected. I'll let you know how the other tests go

[philnerd]

I tested 480 p, looked better than I expected. I'll let you know how the other tests go

Alright, I'd like to know how the 720P footage looked so much that I've created a dvxuser login just to ask. I've seen DV in the theater (limited to the Open Water trailer) and personally thought it was terrible. I remember when I saw it, it took about 2 nanoseconds for me to say "hey, that's DV".

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

[Daniel Skubal]

I should have a completed comparrison by the end of july.

[philnerd]

I should have a completed comparrison by the end of july.

Thanks for the update. I'm sure a lot of readers are going to be interested in the results.

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

[harlan]

I've shot a few things with the VariCam's which have been projected theatrically, and they look great. Don't worry so much about the projection concerns of the various formats; focus (no pun intended) more on your story. Shitty artifacts are far more noticable when there's no story to 'distract' the viewer. :)

cheers,

harlan

[theos]

I had the same 720p projected on a bad projector and a nice 4500k projector . . . the amount of light hitting that screen gives colur, contrast and detail . . . go after a good projector if you want a good result, the image from 720p looked great in optimum conditions, I expect a higher res to do even better!

[mmm]

Don't worry so much about the projection concerns of the various formats; focus (no pun intended) more on your story. Shitty artifacts are far more noticable when there's no story to 'distract' the viewer. :)



I know, I'm working on that.

I am just worried because after all the work that I put into my last films, they don't stand up well on a big screen. They were shot on DV, and I want to loose that low-res distraction as soon as I can!

[Barry_Green]

Well, here's a cheap way you could experiment to see... consider that 720p is about 4x as large as a DV frame that's been cropped to 16:9, right? Twice as wide, twice as tall = 4x.

So you could project your DV footage in the theater, and hold out a ruler at a fixed distance in front of your eyes to measure the forced-perspective width/height of the screen. Then go further back in the theater until the screen is 1/2 the width & 1/2 the height as it was. Then look at the projected image -- that'll give you a vague idea of what the clarity and sharpness level would be like, had you shot it in 720p and were still viewing it from where you were viewing the DV footage. Of course, that's not taking into account compression artifacts or color sampling, etc., but for just overall sharpness it should give you a clue.

[Shaw]

Or you could take a photograph with a digital SLR, crop, and screen that. Would be an interesting test.

[mmm]

The problem with stills is that the do not always act the same as video.

I find that I get a lot of flicker on fine detail with SD, which looks horrible. This will still be an issue with 720p or 1080p, but hopefully much less so...

[Barry_Green]

You shouldn't ever get any flicker from 720p on fine detail. That flicker is a result of interlace scanning, and 720p is never interlaced.

Might happen on 1080i, but not on 1080p (when projected as 1080p). If the 1080p is projected on a 1080i system it might still happen.

Should never happen from 720p.

[mmm]

I get it even if I deinterlace though.

I can't remember the technical name, but it is when you get sub-pixel sized details (mortar in brick walls, branches etc) and if you pan or tilt across it, you get a flicker.

[gcoffee]

What you're describing isn't commonly referred to as "flicker". It's the moire pattern that results when pattern details are finer than the pixels on the recording device.

[mmm]

That's the word I was looking for! Moooooire.

On branches it doesn't make much of a pattern though, just makes them "flicker," that's all I meant. I hate it.

[Simon Wyndham]

Turn down the sharpness on the camera. A lot of people still leave their cameras set at factory default. No good.

[stephenlnoe]

Last week we had our 48 Hour Film Project competition. Our team shot on a Panasonic DVC30 in 16:9 (anamorphic) Frame mode (30P esqe) and the resolution on the big screen was very good. Some other teams shot with HDV (FX1 and Z1) and the resolution was jaw dropping sharp. I mean it was too sharp. The issue was the color saturation could was not even close to what the Panasonics produced. I made a scene file I call 'Butter' which really looks rich and used it for some select scenes. I didn't see this type of range out of the sony's but I'm sure they can produce great gamma if set up that way.

Anyway HDV (whether a consumer format or not) looked incredible and it made me thing twice about waiting for the HVX200 in favor of the JVC HDPro offering.

[Barry_Green]

When you're asking about 720p on the big screen, I don't know of any theatrical films shot on the VariCam. Usually they've used the CineAlta 1080p mode.



Some other teams shot with HDV (FX1 and Z1) and the resolution was jaw dropping sharp

When shot properly, and when nothing goes wrong in the footage, then yes the Sony HDV cameras can be amazingly sharp. I believe I used the same term ("jaw dropping") to describe what I saw the first time I plugged it into an HDTV television set.



it made me thing twice about waiting for the HVX200 in favor of the JVC HDPro offering.
I am certain that any of these cameras will make much sharper images on the big screen than DV will. But I don't think the HD100's format will hold a candle to the HVX's format. If you are considering one or the other, it's not really that much of a "wait" anymore (depending on when the HD100 actually shows up). EVS was told it'd be "September" before they get any, and the HVX might show up in November/December, so it's really only a couple of months wait.

I know that most film transfer houses used to say "if you're going for the big screen, shoot PAL instead of NTSC because you get 20% more resolution, and that really shows up" (this was prior to 24p being common, of course). Even with 24p being out there, I believe Marcus at DVFilm has said that a 25p transfer from PAL is superior to a 24p transfer from the NTSC version of the camera, again due to the 20% boost in resolution. So the way I look at it, if 20% is good, how much better would 50% be? The HD100 is 1280x720, the HVX is 1280x1080 -- that's 50% more pixels. And not just 50% more, but then you look at chroma -- the HD100 is 640x360, the HVX is 640x1080 -- that's 3 times as much.

I can't help but think that's going to make a huge difference. That's as much chroma resolution difference as the difference between the HD100 and DV! May be well worth waiting for. Only side-by-side testing will truly tell, of course... I think the HD100 will probably make a far sharper film blowup than a DV camera would, and probably sharper than the FX1/Z1 do (because the footage doesn't need to be de-interlaced, etc). But I think the HVX could (operative word is COULD) be as much of a jump above the HD100 as the HD100 is over DV.

Time will tell.

[stephenlnoe]

Barry-thanks for the info. My observation about the HDV projection is on target. It was sharp to the point of fault and I'd be interested to try some post tricks to force a film look with FilmFX grain or 'Old film' in Edition with a couple of transparency-saturation tricks that have been used for years. I'd like to see how well it holds up under that type of post color correction and manipulation. The trick in Edition is to duplicate the original clip and and place the duplicate clip on top of the original, thus leaving the original clip in tact. Now the upper clip can be brought to 70% transparency and the saturation and film grain tricks take place. Therefore the best possible quality comes through.

I've tried some tricks with M2T files for HDTV and the resulting clips came out spectacular but I've never had the opportunity to project them to a full size silver screen.

[mmm]

stephenlnoe, I have tried some "dual layer" CC in FCP and found there was no real advantage over a single layer with the effect visibility reduced slightly. Even with the original footage underneath showing through, it still has to be recompressed.

If you did side-by-side comparisions, I was just wondering what visual difference there was in doing it this way? It may be because the filters I use in FCP render differently to your NLE, I'm not sure...?

Thanks again for the info Barry. What I want from my next camera is something that gives good, watchable results on the big screen. DV doesn't IMO. I hope 720p will and it sounds hopeful. I will probably wait for the HVX anyway and although it has some clear advantages over the HD100, I am not yet sure if they will be that useful for me - I need to see the production models first.

I saw WOTW a week ago, and I have to say, that was a big advertisment for going digital! The quality was TERRIBLE. It was probably my projectionist, but I have heard a number of people mention the visual quality. It was probably the worse I have ever seen. I should think a HD camcorder, digitally projected would easily have surpassed it.

[stephenlnoe]

mmm, the difference is the end effect. You can not (at least in edition) pull off a transparency/saturation effect on the original clip. The idea has always been (to good effect) that the transparency (approx 70%) and saturation (-40) and film grain (+20) on the upper clip will put just the right amount of 'film effect' on the lower clip to be convincing. The result is Agfa 16. You are right in that it all get's recompressed but the formula has stood the test of time on MPEG2 on a Pinnacle timeline.

I'm not exactly sure about FCP's implementation. The word is there are tremendous similarities to Edition. The settings are probably different but it may be worth a try. Another solution I use is FilmFX which has some nice presets for Kodak, Agfa and Fuji stock which can be tweeked. Those take a loooong time to render and in the end the Edition way turns out almost identicle to their formula for Agfa 16.

Have you tried this trick in FCP?

[Shaw]

I think the benefit really comes in when you need to make lots of adjustments. Make each adjustment on a separate layer and you can get away with a lot more since your data isn't being stretched in 50 different directions (well it is, but it isn't all from one place).

[mmm]

I have tried it, but I was able to do the same thing on a single stream for less mess and render time.

I will try again and play around a little more to see what I can get. I already have some very good colour grading filters and utils. I stay clear of preset filters like magic bullet, as I find it makes your footage look like "magic bulleted footage."

[stephenlnoe]

I have no clue if BigFX's FilmFX will plug into FCP but they are worth a look if so.

www.bigfx.com

[mmm]

I will do, thanks!

I was also interested in what you said about HDV looking too sharp!? Did it look false and not cinematic? How big was the screen that you saw it on?

[stephenlnoe]

What I mean by too sharp is that it does not look cinematic, as you wrote. Of course that may have been the intent of their director but I don't think so since both teams had the same type of outcome. I'm reaonably sure it was the default setting in the camera. It's like DV used to be before cinegama and soft modes. Too sharp. I think that is fine for animation but not for movies. I'm sure there are more settings on the Z1 that allow some cinematography. Anyway, it was astounding, the quality.

I didn't measure the screen but it was held at the Century Cinema in downtown Chicago which is no small theater. The theater we were in had triple deck seating so the screen was as large as any feature release screen I've seen other than IMAX.

The bottom line is that I have a new respect for HDV on a large screen. I know HDV is a great delivery method for HDTV but believe me it's no slouch on a big screen.

[robroysyd]

I've projected SD PAL in many cinemas. If you project it as just that, SD 50i video in all its ugliness it looks just fine, transfer it film and it looks horrible. Transfer 35mm to video and show that in a cinema and that looks horrible too, worse than the stuff we shot on a consummer DV camera!

Why is this, simple really. We see video as video and even on a big screen our brains are used to how it looks and we accept it, turn it into film and we know it's film but for many reasons it's just bad film.

I've seen native hdv at 50i out of a 2K res 6,000 lumen projector and it looks awesome, in many respects better than a lot of 35mm I've seen, it was intercut with Varicam and Cinealta and HDCAM footage. The HDV footage at it's best was awesome, at its worst pretty bad, naturally you have to work within the limits of the system. Even a Varicam or a F900 can turn out garbage if you try hard enough.
Point I'm really trying to make is trying to make video look like film or film look like video on a big screen just doesn't work well but so what, project it as it was shot and any of those formats can look just fine. What kills any of them is fudging it to look like what it isn't.
AS to the JVC camera, had a good look at it a few days ago and the 200, the ProHD looks like a useable camera, the 200 is way too lumpy. Panasonic should have gone for a shoulder mount camera, there's just too much going on with the 200 for that size camera, looks a bit like a camel ( a horse designed by a committee). Just my opinion but no matter which camera you go with they'll turn out useable footage but you've got to use the thing and user convenience and comfort counts for a lot. Panasonic got it 100% right with the DVX100, Sony copied much of that into the Z1, JVC have gone with a tried and true design but I really feel Panasonic have lost it a bit trying to fit too much into the small form factor.

[mezelf27]

I agree: the hvx200 is way to bulky not to be able to mount it on your shoulder... (the DVX was the absolute max....

[Anhar Miah]

I think the short story is, filmlook "shoot film" :), stop fighting the format, it is what it is.

Personally I like the sharp clean images. For me i've become obssesed with trying to get zero noise free video...

And progressive video has its own natural look, thats why the HD100 and HVX200 interest me the most (over Z1 and FX1).

man i didnt think i would be setting here in 2005 actually taking about having 1080P 24 4:2:2 100Mbs camera thats under $10k ($6K if you dont have any media) noway.... times have changed...panasonics made damn sure about that.

[Mediacre]

I know that most film transfer houses used to say "if you're going for the big screen, shoot PAL instead of NTSC because you get 20% more resolution, and that really shows up" (this was prior to 24p being common, of course). Even with 24p being out there, I believe Marcus at DVFilm has said that a 25p transfer from PAL is superior to a 24p transfer from the NTSC version of the camera, again due to the 20% boost in resolution. So the way I look at it, if 20% is good, how much better would 50% be? The HD100 is 1280x720, the HVX is 1280x1080 -- that's 50% more pixels. And not just 50% more, but then you look at chroma -- the HD100 is 640x360, the HVX is 640x1080 -- that's 3 times as much.

I can't help but think that's going to make a huge difference. That's as much chroma resolution difference as the difference between the HD100 and DV! May be well worth waiting for. Only side-by-side testing will truly tell, of course... I think the HD100 will probably make a far sharper film blowup than a DV camera would, and probably sharper than the FX1/Z1 do (because the footage doesn't need to be de-interlaced, etc). But I think the HVX could (operative word is COULD) be as much of a jump above the HD100 as the HD100 is over DV.

Time will tell.

Those are very valid points. The HVX200 will most likely look way better in terms of sharpness and resolution than the HD100. I think that's a non brainer.
Those are very exciting times. Another thing that is looking more promissing every day is Andromeda. I wasn't really impressed in the beginning, but the last clip they did with a mini35 adapter looked like HD in terms of sharpness and very film like. Way more film like than any plain DVX100 fotage I ever seen and even more film like than some Varicam stuff I've seen. Since it's uncompressed, I belive it will have a huge edge over the HVX200, specially for green screen work. The uncompressed 720p could look better than even the HVX 1080p under some conditions.
But the variable frame rates are just too nice to pass on though.
Just exciting times.