16mm compared to DVX

L

Lapp

Member
Hi, I don't know too much about the differences between film resolutions and digital resolutions. How well does the DVX compare to 16mm film? What about the HVX200? What about 35mm film; how does it compare to the two digital cameras listed above? Go easy on me. Thanks for the help.
 
I don't think you can really compare the two because they are both different animals. 16mm film responds to light diffrently than video(video responds electronically). Anyway, this discussion has been talked about before, over and over and over and over and over again. Take a look at some of the archives for more indepth and better explanations.

Kev
 
Just remember that there is a quite big difference between 16mm and S16mm. The DVX beats 16mm IMHO.
 
MiniMan said:
Just remember that there is a quite big difference between 16mm and S16mm. The DVX beats 16mm IMHO.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt go as far as to say that the DVX beats 16mm. And it would be practically foolish to say DVX beats S16 even though I know you didnt say it.
S16, if shot well, has better res than most of the top of the line HD Cams.
 
To be honest with you, I would rather shoot on S8 than on the DVX because S8 has the true film mojo whereas the DVX is just a cost effective entry level option.
 
MiniMan said:
The DVX beats 16mm IMHO.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more. While the DVX is a very nice camera, the images shown here were shot with an Arriflex 16S camera package that cost less than $1500. I don't think you can get anything this nice from a DVX.

http://www.arri16s.com/Cooke25.htm

Image.jpg


-Tim
 
If you do a good digital intermediate and if you shoot well (actually even if shoot like crap), 16 will always have a better dynamic range than all dv cameras, hdv, or hd cameras a la varicam or cinealta.

Resolution wise it brakes down like that:
dvx < hvx / hd cameras (cinealta, varicam) < super 16 < 35 < super 35
 
I worked on a shoot with 16mm film and when we got the footage back from the lab, people asked the director if it was shot on 35. If shot well, 16mm is always better than DVX.

Clerks was shot with 16mm, so was Pi.
 
They're all good. Just different. In terms of technical resolution and color space, DV is the worst. That means anything on DV... ANYTHING... that means 16 s16 35mm they're all gonna take hits going to DV.

But for starters, 16 has a lot more lattitude and play with the lights, and the optics on any good 16 camera will be better than a DVX. That being said, for a short film, who cares, time and time again it has been proven that it is story and performance that people cling to. You can make a great movie with a camera phone if you are creative enough.



But for what it's worth, here's a trailer for a short I shot on 16mm:

http://mss.raisethesteaks.com/mov/mss_trailer_web_large.mov

Were I to have had a choice (I didn't, part of a the deal with this film) I would have shot in some HD format. I like higher rez. But they said, shoot in 16 and finish a print in 16. So hey... I have a print... and my main reservation was the aspect ratio... so I built my directorial visual style around people being "boxed in"

Project before that was 35mm. Next movie is HVX with a Brevis 35mm. It's all good as long as you're creating and not paying for it :)
 
MovieSwede said:
Evryone seems to forgett that alot of the s16 benefits gets destroyd if you go to DVD.
Click to expand...
Totally wrong. A well shot s16 on DVD can look damn close to 35mm. Watched a feature on the big screen a week ago that I was 2nd AC on last year (as you are from Sweden you might now which one I´m talking about "Sag att du alskar mig") On the bigscreen it was obvious that it wasn´t 35 and every minor exposure mistake looked bad. If you instead go and rent any of the STV "Beck" DVDs or "Emma och Daniel" a childrens movie that I worked on 4 years ago they look more 35ish on DVD than on print.
 
Hazzemania said:
Totally wrong. A well shot s16 on DVD can look damn close to 35mm.
Click to expand...

Yes thats because most of the 35mm advantages gets destroyed on DVD aswell.

Resolution wise you dont need more than 720*576 in resolution.

For this everything from DV-70mm gonna qualify.

You really dont take advanteges of the s16 format until you use HD.

Sure latitude is better, but a well lite scene dont need that much latitude. And remeber that the digital konversion usually makes the s16 in 8bits thats 256 different shades of gray.

Then the real advantage is DOF.

So my point is even if s16 is so superior. DVD format will take away alot of the advantages(resolution, latitude). So its easier for cameras like the DVX100 to match S16.
 
In theory you would be right. But in the real world, it is always different. It seems once film makes it's imprint, it is there for good, no matter what you convert it to.
 
MovieSwede said:
So my point is even if s16 is so superior. DVD format will take away alot of the advantages(resolution, latitude). So its easier for cameras like the DVX100 to match S16.
Click to expand...

Got to disagree with you there. Even if you could somehow take the footage shot with a Super 16 film camera and telecine and down-convert it into the exact same format you get off of you DVX camera, the footage would look better. Because your capture medium, in this case we will say Kodak Vision2 film stock, can take the wide latitude in a well lit "movie scene", (as opposed to the high key look of television sitcom lighting). Your DVX can't possibly capture the original scene with anywhere near the sharpness and detail of motion picture lenses, not to mention the latitude issue.

Reminds me of when I was studying Fortran computer programing in college back in the 1970's, we used to say, "Garbage in, garbage out." Once the footage is captured from the "scene" with the DVX you have already lost so much information which you cannot get back. With film, that information is still there, no matter what form you down-convert it to.

-Tim
 
I dont say the DVX100 footage is better or equal, just that alot of the benefits with film gets lost once you convert it to a 8bit SD picture.

Even the DVX footage gets whipped because of the DV compression.
 
The DVX100 duplicates the film look and motion perfectly. 16mm will still give you more lattitude and a shallower DoF (if that's what you want). That said, with a lower budget, it really depends on how gifted you are. I know that, at my film school, I saw DVX100 films that look much better than all the 16mm films when transfered to a DVD.

As for resolution, people keep forgetting how much of the film resolution is lost when you go through all those generations. Kodak talks about 35mm having 3200 lines of resolution but a recent study indicated that after all the various generations and digital intermediates and such, the average 35mm film only shows about 800 lines of resolution when projected in a theater. A digitally projected F900, on the other hand, shows about 1200 lines of resolution. A film negative will destroy all forms of digital in every way but we're never looking at the negative. DPs don't even shoot with the negative in mind, always trying to keep in mind how much contrast and other degridations will be added after multiple generations. Unltimatly, well shot digital can come pretty damn close all said and done, especially on DVD. Lattitude's a ***** though...
 
Timmyjoe said:
Couldn't disagree more. While the DVX is a very nice camera, the images shown here were shot with an Arriflex 16S camera package that cost less than $1500. I don't think you can get anything this nice from a DVX.

http://www.arri16s.com/Cooke25.htm

Image.jpg


-Tim
Click to expand...

No offense but I've seen that nice and nicer from a DVX100. The stuff I've seen from an HVX200 simply blows it away.
 
You have to remember that even when the end result is 720x576 (in PAL) digital video, film formats and DVX100 approach this from the opposite sides.

All film formats 16mm and bigger have higher native resolution than that. When making a DVD the resolution is downconverted; the achived final resolution is real.

When shooting with dvx100 the native resolution from the sensor is much LESS than DV resolution, especially when shooting squeeze (or letterbox -> 16:9 conversion). In reality the video is uprezzed in camera (or edit). The final resolution is always partly fake.

Make your own conclusions from that.

Theatrical film resolution is another matter, there HD actually beats 35mm release prints.

From this we can conclude that resolution really plays a rather small role in the percieved quality, it has more to do with latitude, color rendition (film beats compressed video), film/sensor size related DOF possibilities, general professionalism in shooting/planning etc.
 
well lit S16mm can cut pretty well with standard non anamorphic 35mm with few problems.

S16 is AWESOME.
 
When shooting with dvx100 the native resolution from the sensor is much LESS than DV resolution, especially when shooting squeeze (or letterbox -> 16:9 conversion). In reality the video is uprezzed in camera (or edit). The final resolution is always partly fake.
Click to expand...

Don't know where you are getting your info but, for an NTSC DVX100 at least, the CCDs are roughly 750x490 (I think) which is more than standard 720x480 resolution. Some cameras have to uprezz for TVs but not the DVX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top