16mm compared to DVX

When shooting 16:9 (squeeze) only part of the vertical pixels are used, then uprezzed in post. Same thing as shooting letterbox, cropping to 16:9 and uprezzing in post.

Maybe for TV there is not much uprezzin but for DVD (usually 16:9) there sure is.

Besides, to get true full DV resolution the native resolution of the sensor must be higher than the final output rez, thing too complicated to get into here. This is the reason HD and even HDV cameras have higher real Dv resolution after downrezzing than even the best SD only cameras.
 
"the various generations and digital intermediates and such, the average 35mm film only shows about 800 lines of resolution when projected in a theater.""

from what i remember the 800 lines was worst case NOT average & included so-so lens , projector light dimmed ... a good projector, good lens & a good print projected in focus ( off dupe neg) should come in the 1500-2000 line area ...
 
Well not really because some HDV uses interlaced source. And if a camera at 50i creates 650 lines. A perfect progressive conversion would trow away half the lines.

650/2 = 325

Thats not good enough.

I think the limit would start at about 700 lines progressive.
 
by lowest HDV I meant 720p, if done with good camera it equals average projected 35mm in resolution.
 
Yes 720P would be enough so long U stay at 1,85:1 ratio.

With 2,35:1 you would need to shoot 1080P and crop to 810 lines.

Even if 720 cropped to 540 isnt that bad compared to avarage cinema. I wouldnt recommend it as an mastering format for 2,35:1
 
zoostory said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Your film looks amazing, man. Congratulations. What 16mm camera did you use? What film? How much is a can of 16mm going for these days anyway? I've been toying with the idea of doing something in 16mm, but it has to be a very well crafted project...in video if the image ends up a little over or unde exposed you get away with it...but in film you might just end up with no image at all. Shooting 16m in low light can be tricky and dangerous.
 
There's a very good comparison out there, to order the DVD (which includes the footage in HD) just visit:

http://www.chromatv.de/en/format_comparison/five_reasons.php

It features a music video shot side by side on MiniDV, Digibeta, Varicam, F900 Cinealta and Super16mm. It's a very fair comparison.

I can save you time by telling you that the competition in terms of visual quality is between the Varicam, F900 and Super 16mm. MiniDV and Digibeta just pale in a side by side comparison.

In terms of resolution & sharpness the F900 wins (barely) over Super16mm. On zoomed in close evaluation the Varicam looked fuzzy compared to the Film and F900. In terms of dynamic range/latitude film wins, having much more info to color correct and compensate with followed by the Varicam and then the F900. The F900 and Varicam produced cleaner (noise/grain) free images than film but the film grain was estetically pleasing and never got in the way and just elevated the apparent sharpness of the picture. If you want more info get the DVD, it's worth the money.

Super16 is more comparable to the F900 and Varicam quality wise than it is to Mini DV or any SD format. Of course the lenses and telecine process are going to be the major factors in the final quality.

Off the top of my head some random stuff you can catch that was shot on Super16... the series "Scrubs" & "The Shield" the features "Hustle & Flow", "Frankenstein (2004)" and many more...
 
Petrus said:
Should, but it does not. And no need to remember, here is the study:

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

Highest local resolution (center of screen) was 875 lines (theater in Orlando), worst was 433 (in NY). Average around only 700 lines.

Thus even the lowest HDV should equal 35mm theatre projected film in resolution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not new that theatres and release prints are inconsistent. My opinion is that digitally projecting is going to be better in some ways and worse in others, there are a whole lot more variables to calibrating a digital projector than focusing and framing a film projector and the 16yo kid that operates the equipment in the multiplex might not be up to the task.

Also, we can compare lines all day long but just get off the computer and go to the theatre and watch Jackass 2 , shot on DVX, HDX and the finale is on 35mm film. Judge for yourselves.
 
Last edited:
If anyones interested here is a link to a film I directed

we shot super 16 on an Arri SRII with a really old 15-120mm zoom (might be off on this it was over a year ago) and a 9mm prime. No video tap, real old school style.

12min film + 2000 feet of stock = 1 take wonders

http://www.missionstories.com/indiecinema/Films/Bright_Lights.mov

best part of of digital is the cost and not having to worry so much about running out of stock! But that seems like a no brainer.
 
Sarmoti said:
There's a very good comparison out there, to order the DVD (which includes the footage in HD) just visit:

http://www.chromatv.de/en/format_comparison/five_reasons.php

It features a music video shot side by side on MiniDV, Digibeta, Varicam, F900 Cinealta and Super16mm. It's a very fair comparison.

I can save you time by telling you that the competition in terms of visual quality is between the Varicam, F900 and Super 16mm. MiniDV and Digibeta just pale in a side by side comparison.

In terms of resolution & sharpness the F900 wins (barely) over Super16mm. On zoomed in close evaluation the Varicam looked fuzzy compared to the Film and F900. In terms of dynamic range/latitude film wins, having much more info to color correct and compensate with followed by the Varicam and then the F900. The F900 and Varicam produced cleaner (noise/grain) free images than film but the film grain was estetically pleasing and never got in the way and just elevated the apparent sharpness of the picture. If you want more info get the DVD, it's worth the money.

Super16 is more comparable to the F900 and Varicam quality wise than it is to Mini DV or any SD format. Of course the lenses and telecine process are going to be the major factors in the final quality.

Off the top of my head some random stuff you can catch that was shot on Super16... the series "Scrubs" & "The Shield" the features "Hustle & Flow", "Frankenstein (2004)" and many more...
Click to expand...

I saw this test and it frankly just didn't look right to me. I've never seen Varicam look that blurry before, not by a long shot. It just didn't look right and I'd really like to know more about what kind of process was use. Also, the test didn't take into account all the generations you have to go through with film. Once again, if the average 35mm film is only getting 700 lines when projected then the Varicam (which produces a bit more than 700 lines consitently) is more than adequate in 1.85 as are other progressive HD cameras. One also can't help wonder what, if 35mm is getting around 700 lines, 16mm is pulling off when projected after numerous generations (I wish they'd hit March of the Penguins). I can understand the concern with an interlaced camera like the Sony Z1 when trying to do progressive output but true progressive cameras in 720p like the HVX200, HD100, and the grandady Varicam, seem like they would be adeqaute for projection. Not consistently as good as 35mm by any stretch of the imagination but no so far behind as to be noticible to most audiences and most likely comparible to the average viewer to Super 16mm. Everyone on these boards who has seen the film out tests of the HVX200 has said that it looks like pretty good Super 16mm.
 
The only time I've used the Varicam in the same place as an F900 we mastered in SD so I can't argue your opinion on it looking blurry. What I do know is that the video used a P+S Technik 35mm lens adaptor with cine lenses, just something to consider perhaps.

I think we have to separate adquisition format from distribution formats. Regardless of what you shoot on, if you're releasing on film you're going to have generation loss in the release print. That's not going to happen with Digital Projection regardless of it being shot on Film or Digital.

IMHO, the more resolution you start with, the more resolution will make it to the release print after generations of Neg,IP, IN and prints. I don't have a study to support the statement, it just makes sense. I mentioned this before but Jackass 2 is a film that you can watch to support this idea (shot on DVX,HVX and 35mm for the finale).

On the same note, if you're projecting digitally at 4K and do a DI at 4K with footage originated from 1080P, 720P and 35mm Film the film originated shots look significantly better. I've actually attended demos of this, (I was told that currently Kodak holds them once a week in NY). I thought the HD cameras looked pretty good but the 35mm just looked great.

I saw March of the penguins (2nd generation print I think) and it looked pretty good, however I do admit that in terms of Raw resolution, I'm guessing that the Varicam would probably be really close and the F900 would probably exceed it. I can't say the same thing for the latitude though, with black & white penguins against all that ice, sky & snow the whites would have probably blown out alot on HD, with film you do also get plenty of room for extreme color/exposure manipulation in post that would quickly result in artifacts or noise on the Varicam or F900.

I do think that the current crop of high end Digital Cinema cameras (Genesis, Origin) greatly exceed Super16 and in some situations 35mm. They're not great for everything quite yet but there are some shoots where they are a welcome replacement for film.
 
Sarmoti said:
I think we have to separate adquisition format from distribution formats. Regardless of what you shoot on, if you're releasing on film you're going to have generation loss in the release print. That's not going to happen with Digital Projection regardless of it being shot on Film or Digital.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert so if my facts are wrong please feel free to correct me but I believe you'll go through less generations with digital than with film. Seperate prints don't have to be made for timig and other things. I believe you simply make digital trasnfer to a negative and there may be even ways to make a posative strait and thus not have any generational loss (once again, I may be totally wrong about this). Regaurdless, I'm pretty sure there are less generations in digital then there are in film.

IMHO, the more resolution you start with, the more resolution will make it to the release print after generations of Neg,IP, IN and prints. I don't have a study to support the statement, it just makes sense. I mentioned this before but Jackass 2 is a film that you can watch to support this idea (shot on DVX,HVX and 35mm for the finale).
Click to expand...

I'm really tempted actually to take a look for that reason but then I would have paid money to see Jackass. And yes, the more resolution you start with the better but, if you can find methods of projection that manage to retain the resolution you have, then perhaps it's not all that important. I mean, just speaking from experience, I've seen most digitally shot films in theaters and I watch them with a very close eye. Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Sin City, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, and Sky Captain to name just a few all looked every bit as sharp, if not sharper, than the 35mm stuff I see in theaters. These were all shot on F900s and F950s. I really wish some stuff was shot with the Varicam in theaters so I could see how that holds up.

On the same note, if you're projecting digitally at 4K and do a DI at 4K with footage originated from 1080P, 720P and 35mm Film the film originated shots look significantly better. I've actually attended demos of this, (I was told that currently Kodak holds them once a week in NY). I thought the HD cameras looked pretty good but the 35mm just looked great.
Click to expand...

I'd love to attend these demos but frankly I'm a bit hesitant to trust Kodak. After all, they're the guys who are trying to sell film over digital and the ones who always quote these obscenely high resolution numbers for film that no movie will ever achieve on projection. Besides, I've heard different things. Brian Singer for instance mentioned that the reason he decided to use the Genisis HD camera was that it simply looked sharper than 35mm. Same reason Tim Burton used HD on the Corpse Bride.

I saw March of the penguins (2nd generation print I think) and it looked pretty good, however I do admit that in terms of Raw resolution, I'm guessing that the Varicam would probably be really close and the F900 would probably exceed it. I can't say the same thing for the latitude though, with black & white penguins against all that ice, sky & snow the whites would have probably blown out alot on HD, with film you do also get plenty of room for extreme color/exposure manipulation in post that would quickly result in artifacts or noise on the Varicam or F900.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the F900 but the Varicam with 10 stops of lattitude isn't that far behind most Super 16mm stocks with 11 stops. I think it's unfair to claim that only losing 1 stop of lattitude (and I've heard many claim the Varicam actually gets 11 stops with the proper tweaking) will make such a big difference. With the smaller HD cameras lattitude is yes more of an issue with even the best of them (HVX200 and HD100) managing only about 8 1/2 stops. Still, 8 1/2 isn't bad compared to what we once had. Don't get me wrong, if there's anything I'd want to improve in the lower end cameras it's lattitude but, on the higher end with stuff like the Genisis, I've heard it's pretty comparible to film.
 
One still 35mm film frame can max out its "resolution" at 12 megapixels, basically 4K ( RED CAMERA )
if 16mm is half, i would imagine it would be 2K "resolution" about 1080 me thinks in digital terms

8mm i think is slightly under in terms of "resolution" compared to what the dvx can bring.

if im totally wrong, just say so please lol.

the only thing i know for sure is the 35mm frame being equivalent to 12 megapixesl.
 
Sarmoti said:
There's a very good comparison out there, to order the DVD (which includes the footage in HD) just visit:

http://www.chromatv.de/en/format_comparison/five_reasons.php

It features a music video shot side by side on MiniDV, Digibeta, Varicam, F900 Cinealta and Super16mm. It's a very fair comparison.

I can save you time by telling you that the competition in terms of visual quality is between the Varicam, F900 and Super 16mm. MiniDV and Digibeta just pale in a side by side comparison.

In terms of resolution & sharpness the F900 wins (barely) over Super16mm. On zoomed in close evaluation the Varicam looked fuzzy compared to the Film and F900. In terms of dynamic range/latitude film wins, having much more info to color correct and compensate with followed by the Varicam and then the F900. The F900 and Varicam produced cleaner (noise/grain) free images than film but the film grain was estetically pleasing and never got in the way and just elevated the apparent sharpness of the picture. If you want more info get the DVD, it's worth the money.

Super16 is more comparable to the F900 and Varicam quality wise than it is to Mini DV or any SD format. Of course the lenses and telecine process are going to be the major factors in the final quality.

Off the top of my head some random stuff you can catch that was shot on Super16... the series "Scrubs" & "The Shield" the features "Hustle & Flow", "Frankenstein (2004)" and many more...
Click to expand...


is there a video comparison online? or does one need to order the dvd....
 
DavidBeier said:
I'm no expert so if my facts are wrong please feel free to correct me but I believe you'll go through less generations with digital than with film. Seperate prints don't have to be made for timig and other things.
Click to expand...

Same number of generations (with the exception of the camera neg if you want to count that as a generation) for release prints between film and Digital origination as long as the film is going through a DI. On traditional film cutting the number of generations can vary to 1 or 2 more depending on how many prints you're making.


DavidBeier said:
I've seen most digitally shot films in theaters and I watch them with a very close eye. Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Sin City, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, and Sky Captain to name just a few all looked every bit as sharp, if not sharper, than the 35mm stuff I see in theaters. These were all shot on F900s and F950s. I really wish some stuff was shot with the Varicam in theaters so I could see how that holds up. .
Click to expand...
With the exception of Once upon a time in Mexico I have seen them all in the theatre. They all looked sharp, (with the exception of Attack of the Clones whose filmout just looked pathetic in comparison to the digital projection). Sin City and Sky Captain were highly processed (or B&W), they looked pretty sharp to me but it was impossible to judge overall quality with all the post work. Sharpness doesn't mean quality to me, after all we do almost always shoot 35mm with diffusion to soften it up a bit.



DavidBeier said:
I'd love to attend these demos but frankly I'm a bit hesitant to trust Kodak. After all, they're the guys who are trying to sell film over digital and the ones who always quote these obscenely high resolution numbers for film that no movie will ever achieve on projection. Besides, I've heard different things. Brian Singer for instance mentioned that the reason he decided to use the Genisis HD camera was that it simply looked sharper than 35mm. Same reason Tim Burton used HD on the Corpse Bride. .
Click to expand...

I don't think that the film was produced by Kodak, it's just screened at their theatre, the same film it argues against film in VFX work and low light for example. Corpse bride was shot on DSLRs which are great for animation workflow. We're pretty close to Brian, he helped us shoot this video http://www.darrenromeo.com/magic/video_hi.htm. I wouldn't put Genesis in the same category as a Varicam. It's probably the best Digital Cinema camera out there, if it were for sale it would probably cost you well over $1/2 Mil with the HDCAMSR recorder. It stands up to 35mm and exceeds it in many situations (like smoothness and VFX work) However it does have some downsides, if you see the film (SR) you'll notice some weird noise in the toe of the midtones.



DavidBeier said:
I Don't get me wrong, if there's anything I'd want to improve in the lower end cameras it's lattitude but, on the higher end with stuff like the Genisis, I've heard it's pretty comparible to film.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the high end digital cameras are theoretically pretty close to film in range, however, in simple terms film holds highlights and digital holds shadows so there are differences that end up in films favor once you time or apply LUT's, color correction to the image for theatrical release. You also get less distracting artifacts when pushing color correction to the limit.
 
Well, having seen Once Upon a Time in Mexico, I can say that it looked comprible to most 35mm films in terms of quality and that was the first of the F900 features (that I know of).

I really wish I could comment on Varicam blown up. As for artifacts I've never seen them in a any of the F900 stuff and I believe the Varicam has milder color compression (4:2:2 over 3:1:1).
 
DavidBeier said:
Well, having seen Once Upon a Time in Mexico, I can say that it looked comprible to most 35mm films in terms of quality and that was the first of the F900 features (that I know of).

I really wish I could comment on Varicam blown up. As for artifacts I've never seen them in a any of the F900 stuff and I believe the Varicam has milder color compression (4:2:2 over 3:1:1).
Click to expand...
Wish I had seen that in theatres since it wasn't an effects/post heavy film (in terms of style). I believe the Star Wars films and Sin City did not record in camera for the most part, they went dual link SDI to HDCAMSR 4:4:4 for most stuff since they had heavy compositing work to do. Not sure about Sky Captain although I'm sure the info is online. It would make sense if they did use Dual Link SDI out to HDCAMSR as well.
 
Not even a 35mm still frame equals 12 Mpix in resolution, and 35mm cine frame is (less than?) half of that in size. 35mm still image, 36*24mm, equals 8-10 Mpix, thus cone frame can not be more than 5 Mpix. The original. 4k systems are better than any 35mm films what comes to resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top