16mm compared to DVX

[Barry_Green]

Kodak claims that to properly sample a frame of 35mm movie film, you'd have to scan it in at 4k x 3k resolution. 4k x 3k = 12 million pixels per frame.

Note: I'm not saying that's accurate, I'm saying that's where that number comes from; it's Kodak's term.

 

[chrishull3]

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.



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.



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 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.

hi you seem to watch a lot of films i know its a long shot but do you know what cameras were used in the film the king is alive most film sites technical specs tel you but this film just says dv, the film is only average but the quality picture wise looked good if amateur cams were used,cheers

 

[Zig_Zigman]

Once Upon a Time in Mexico did NOT hold up well for distance shots. Closeups were nearly indistiguishable from 35mm, with the exception that if I were an A list actress I would definitely want a film cam on the set instead of an HD cam. Hd seems to flatten out highlights and magnify imperfections.

 

[abalex]

Just remember that there is a quite big difference between 16mm and S16mm. The DVX beats 16mm IMHO.

Sorry but don't agree with ya. Film kills any type of digital camera, hands down. I've seen stuff well shot on 16mm that looked like super 16 and almost like 35mm , but you need to know how to light it and how to use it. My friend is a pro Dp and we always talk about these things.

Cheers

g.

 

[insanityfw]

Always the same. Old school. New School. Film or video.

They're different beasts for different tasks and outcomes.