35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

Pascal Parvex

Pascal Parvex

Well-known member
An user wrote at Amazon, that the DVX is the camera "that killed 16mm", another user wrote: "Better than 35mm? No. Better than 16mm? Yes!". On the other hand, someone wrote in a book, that compared to 35 and 16mm film, DV is like 6mm. So, what is true?
As far as I know, 35mm has a resolution of about 16 000 000, 16mm 2 500 000 and "our" DVX only 380 000 Pixels. And considered that film has better color and contrast, the DVX looks waaay inferior to even 16mm.
So then, did the DVX100/A just kill 16mm because it's easier and cheaper to work with?
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

Well I wouldn't say that DV killed 16mm. Sales for 16mm have actually gone up with because of fast growing rate of HD post production. By transferring super 16mm (near 16:9 aspect ratio)selects to HD with da vinci or Pogle color correction, grain control etc, conform in a HD NLE then output to 35film, a lot of the quality and costs associated with 16mm to 35mm release has been eliminated while gaining all the advantages of a digital intermediate workflow. No neg cutter, no blend frames on cut points, no optical blow up etc. In the end, you get a real film look with all the digital advantages.

But as with all prodcutions, budgets play a big role and digital video acquiaition allows for lower up front costs to get the "film in the can" as they say.

Michael
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

People who talk numbers usually don't bother with the actual facts, they're more interested in being "right" than in actually learning what the truth is.

35mm film is typically stated to be adequately sampled at 4k resolution, which means a 35mm film frame would be about 4,000 by 3,000 pixels, or 12 million pixels per frame. Plus, 35mm film can deliver about 13 stops of latitude.

16mm is not really used much anymore, everyone's shifting to Super16. Super16 can be scanned at 4k or at 2k. At 4k resolution a Super16 frame can be adequately sampled at about 2000 x 1200, or to round it off even further, it makes a good HD transfer at 1920 x 1080, for around 2 million pixels. And Super16 can deliver around 11 stops of latitude.

The DVX is 720 x 480, with maybe stretching 8 stops of latitude.

So on the numbers, is it better? No.

But the numbers are just numbers. Look at comparison clips and decide for yourself. I've shot 16mm vs. DVX footage, and for the most part, I think the DVX looks better. It's sharper, clearer, and there's NO GRAIN. People who chatter about numbers don't factor in the graininess of 16mm. 16mm can be extremely grainy. Disturbingly grainy. The DVX is much "cleaner" than 16mm. The DVX clocks in at about ASA 640. Shoot 500T film and compare it to the DVX, the DVX looks pristine, the 500T looks like a swarm of gnats.

16mm typically uses longer lenses, delivering a shallower depth of field than a 1/3" video camera, so the looks will not be the same, no matter what you do.

The assertion that the DVX is like 6mm film is absurd -- the DVX picture looks far superior to Super 8 (in terms of detail, grain, latitude, resolution, just about any way you want to quantify it). If you had to put a mm resolution on it, I'd call it maybe 12mm, who knows, but again that's just arguing numbers instead of facts. And the DVX is grain-free, more like 35mm. Super 8 (which is 8mm wide) is almost completely constructed of grain, and 16mm is noticeably grainy (50D doesn't look bad at all, 800T would look amazingly grainy). Kodak does have some new Vision2 stocks which supposedly cut the grain to about the equivalent of films at half their rated speed (i.e., Vision2 500T is supposed to be no grainier than Vision 250).

I've blown up DVX footage to 35mm, and Marcus van Bavel, who saw it projected, said it looks like Super16 "but without the dirt and noise" (or something like that).

I love 16mm. I have five 16mm cameras. In 2002 I did probably 75% of my work on 16mm film. Since getting the DVX I have used just one of those 16mm cameras, exactly one time for a paying gig, and even that was a double-shoot, DVX and 16mm.

Does the DVX look the same as 16mm? No, but it can look close. Is the DVX "better" than 16mm? No, not really, 16mm has more latitude and may (MAY) provide for a better 35mm blowup, but the DVX is "cleaner" and "crisper".

If the DVX ends up killing off 16mm, it will be because of the convenience factor. For me it comes down primarily to the fact that there are no labs within 300 miles of me, and making a round trip to Los Angeles to supervise a transfer is downright inconvenient, and costs a full day out of my schedule. The DVX gives an image that is plenty acceptable enough, looks very much like 16mm, and the footage is ready NOW, with no $1000 trip budgeted in. And clients so far have not volunteered to pay extra to have it shot on film, once they've seen the DVX footage. One client did, in 2003. That's it.

I love film, I hope it never dies. Film is real, it's organic, it is light trapped in silver, and projected by shining a light through it. It will always look and feel different than the electronic approximation of reality that is video, which is then captured by magnetizing rust (iron oxide on tape). As film snobs say, "Film is silver, video is rust." They look and feel different. They both have a place. Comparing them is silly. It's like saying "which is better, a pickup truck or a motorcycle?" They're both vehicles, they can both get you places, but a motorcycle is an awful lot easier to park in SF or NYC, whereas a pickup can haul a sheet of drywall home.

Okay, enough rambling. Shutting up now.
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

Yes.. 16mm and the DVX play very nice together, and are used in a few instances together, such as if we are shooting stunts or slow motion. You can overcrank a 16mm camera, you cant do that with the DVX. Latitude is also a big bonus, but that doesnt buy much anymore if you know how to light for Video.
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1081545905;start=0#2 date=04/09/04 at 15:36:26]Okay, enough rambling. Shutting up now.[/quote]

Hey, not at all. Thank you for that 'rambling', I learned a lot about the pros and cons of film an video.
I bought my DVX100A NTSC, my first (motion picture) camera, at the end of February this year, not because I dislike film, just because I can't afford to buy and to process film stock. The DVX is not the same as film, but it's near to it and let's me collect experience at almost zero cost. And I can handle it alone.
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

For me, I understand the 6mm equivalant only in terms of the properties of the lens.

Sure, grain and resolution are characteristics of specific frame sizes, but in each of those frame sizes a lens operates differently. DoF, angle of view, circles of confusion, rate of fall off, etc...

A scene shot through a lens on DV doesn't look anything like the same equivalant shot through an equivalant lens onto 35mm. Much the same as 16mm doesn't look like 65mm through equivalant lenses.

It's as much about the size of the imageing surface a it is about the resolution.

It'd be nice if they could just give us larger chips. I'd be perfectly happy with a 720x480 chip if it were 1"

J
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1081545905;start=0#2 date=04/09/04 at 15:36:26]People who chatter about numbers don't factor in the graininess of 16mm.  16mm can be extremely grainy.  Disturbingly grainy.  [/quote]

Anyone who wants an incontrovertible example of this should pick up the first season of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" on DVD.
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

For me it can really be a cost scenario. Aside ffrom the umpteen other pros and cons of the two different formats (16mm and DVX) one 90 minute MQ will get me a lot farther than say a 400' foot magazine of film stock. Oh yeah, then there is developing. Oh yeah, then there is transfer to tape.
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=Events;num=1081545905;start=0#7 date=04/12/04 at 10:17:47]For me it can really be a cost scenario.  Aside ffrom the umpteen other pros and cons of the two different formats (16mm and DVX) one 90 minute MQ will get me a lot farther than say a 400' foot magazine of film stock.  Oh yeah, then there is developing.  Oh yeah, then there is transfer to tape.[/quote]

To say nothing of having to use outdoor/indoor film stock, etc. . . .
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

and CTB and CTO and having a professional lighting set-up (For INT shots) and most likely a lot bigger (er more expensive) tripod and stabilizer and extra room in the fridge ;)

and oh yeah, a 16 mm camera and lenses and...
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

yeah, theres a huge cost difference. i get so tired of listening to people say that it costs the same in the end, because you have to pay for a film tranfer from the video, vs using film to begin with, but  thats assuming your practically shooting a 1:1 (or very high ratio anyway) ratio if your shooting film, and then assuming that your not transferring to hd or other format to do computer color correction, or special effects at all, and then paying to transfer that back to film.  theres only one cost for video to film, and its the cost of the film with virtually a 1:1 shooting ratio  to  take the video and transfer it to film. and pay the company a bit to do it for you. but it costs less. you dont even have to go to film .. you can do digital like hd or wm9 projection for festivals, and then have the distributor pay for the film out. also when shooting film, your dealing with more expensive items to rent or buy, and more people to manage more equipment for monitoring, and running the equipment,and all the more time spent and paid for people to cut and edit, and process the film, and on and on and on .. blah blah blah..if youve got the money shoot whatever you want, but if you dont thanb its by far cheaper and easier to shoot video..  so stop saying that people.. bah! .. :)
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

I have said this before:

I am stoked beyond comprehension that we are 'for once' in a position to be filmmakers. We can run out, film and put our film online for hundreds of thousands of people to see and get feedback and praise. Filmmaking is only aorund a hundred years old (Give or take; I didnt run to google to look it up) and look where we are!

We are so very fortunate to be in this position. Someone in Wisconsin or Ohio or China or Russia or France or...

(Im trying to name places far removed from NYC, LONDON or L.A.) can make a legit movie and then display their art! How exciting is that?! Forget the costs; relish in the technology!
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

I think the thing that attracted me most to this camera is not how much it looks like 16mm but how much it really looks like nothing else out there. It does have a film look, thanks to the technical characteristics of the camera, however, it really should be classified in it's own catagory. It doesn't look like 16mm, because, for the most part, 16mm is much grainier. It certainly doesn't look like normal 60i video (thank god) so it really is it's own medium and should be treated as such. If you want to mix it with 60i video, go ahead. If you want to mix it with 16mm film, go ahead. It is the most universal consumer level camera available, and that is why if you go to the screengrabs/clips section of this forum, you can see hundreds of great projects that people are doing. If this camera cost as much to operate as 16mm film, you may see 2 or 3 great projects. Basically this camera allows us all the oportunity to generate artwork that has a great professional asthetic at a very low operating cost ($5 an hour). I can certainly afford that. I have worked with 16mm in the past, and I really do love it, however for the results I get with 16mm and the results of the dvx, for 1/50th the cost, I choose the dvx. Yeah baby.
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

Well, it's the best in its class in what it does . . . including 60i. A no-brainer decision, I'd say, yet so many don't see it that way . . . hmmm . . . and hmmmm . . .
 
Re: 35mm, 16mm, 6mm (DVX) versus DVX killed 16mm

oh....but I thought at least all Platinum members were.... ;D ;D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top