Anybody seen AF100 footage blown up to 35 in a projector??? is it good???

owaltec

owaltec

Well-known member
Has anybody actually blown up to 35 and projected into a theatre footage taken with this camera??? If you have, please share on how it looks.

Best.
 
If you are considering this particular workflow for your project...you really need to do a test for your self.

Out puting to a film print is very expensive ( as I am sure you are already aware).

Thats why I recommend you do a test.

FWIW : I have seen AF100 footage digitally projected on a large screen . Its impressive but thats in the eye of the beholder and of course its a different workflow than film output.
 
I have recently done a short-movie project and my productions shot with the AF100 looked very good on the bigscreen of the theater.
It could have looked even better if the original file was displayed with a mediastreamer and not with a bluerayplayer(the original was converted and burned with DVDarchitect 5.2 to a Blueray disk).
 
I don't know that I'd necessarily go that route either. The AF100 is a great camera and I'm sure a good post house could make a solid enough looking 35mm print from it. that said, it's still *only* HD resolution and the AVCHD compression is relatively heavy- resulting is less than optimal image quality as a source for film negative. It would look absolutely dynamite say going to a high end digital projector however. But if I knew 35mm was my desired destination I'd probably shoot RED, ARRI Alexa, etc instead. You really need that extra resolution and lower compression levels when you are trying to fill 35mm negative.

Noah
 
NoahK said:
I don't know that I'd necessarily go that route either. The AF100 is a great camera and I'm sure a good post house could make a solid enough looking 35mm print from it. that said, it's still *only* HD resolution and the AVCHD compression is relatively heavy- resulting is less than optimal image quality as a source for film negative. It would look absolutely dynamite say going to a high end digital projector however. But if I knew 35mm was my desired destination I'd probably shoot RED, ARRI Alexa, etc instead. You really need that extra resolution and lower compression levels when you are trying to fill 35mm negative.

Noah
Click to expand...

Shoot for final output and you wont be sorry. Go Red.
 
Your talking about film, but a lot of theaters don't have a filmprojector anymore; they receive a harddrive and that's it.
 
NoahK said:
I don't know that I'd necessarily go that route either. The AF100 is a great camera and I'm sure a good post house could make a solid enough looking 35mm print from it. that said, it's still *only* HD resolution and the AVCHD compression is relatively heavy- resulting is less than optimal image quality as a source for film negative. It would look absolutely dynamite say going to a high end digital projector however. But if I knew 35mm was my desired destination I'd probably shoot RED, ARRI Alexa, etc instead. You really need that extra resolution and lower compression levels when you are trying to fill 35mm negative.

Noah
Click to expand...
Your talking about film, but a lot of theaters don't have a filmprojector anymore; they receive a harddrive and that's it.​
 
mcgeedigital said:
That depends on what part of the country you are in.
Click to expand...

This is true .. there's still a lot celluloid going out .. although it is trending towards the
digital projectors (much to many director's disappointment).

Moreover, some releases are starting to skip film transfer .. and boy does that look weird
to me. I guess we'll get used to it.

jeff
 
Last edited:
Most mainstream theatres here in Portland are all digital but either way I'd guess you'd need a Red to fill the big screen. Transferring an AF100 to 35mm would be remotely akin to blowing up 16mm onto 35mm - it would be interesting to see.
 
I don't know a lot about 35mm transfers from digital, but the freaking DVX100 looks awesome blown up on the big screen I am sure the AF100 will look great without a doubt
 
Compered to MANY other SD movies that ended up on 35mm, some becoming quite successfull in the theatres, my guess is AF100 would still look pretty good. Content....story...editing....sound. I mean, look at some of the Danish Dogme movies. Ofc it can be done and most likely be "good enough".
 
Anyone who has seen a screening of the SCCE has already seen AF100 footage on the big screen. It looks fine. It looks about 4,000 times better than DVX footage on the big screen, and the DVX was good enough to have many films made that were transferred to film and screened successfully.

I would have no hesitation in saying that an AF100 will not be the limiting factor on a bigscreen presentation.
 
Saw the SCCE footage, i've also seen some scenes I shot on a large screen at Anthology Archives courtesy of member IMdjay. Ya know what? bring all the elements of good film making together, script lighting , camera, production design, acting and no one is going to care about the camera. The AF looks great on a big screen.
 
Barry_Green said:
Anyone who has seen a screening of the SCCE has already seen AF100 footage on the big screen. It looks fine. It looks about 4,000 times better than DVX footage on the big screen, and the DVX was good enough to have many films made that were transferred to film and screened successfully.

I would have no hesitation in saying that an AF100 will not be the limiting factor on a bigscreen presentation.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what I would think. I remember seeing movies with Super 8mm film blown up to 35mm in the early '90's, like "JFK", "Natural Born Killers", "Black Rain" and "Flat Liners" and being impressed with the quality of those images. Living in Detroit for a while, I have seen many, many films presented from 16mm prints, especially at the annual Ann Arbor Film Festival, and that format holds up fine with projection to very large screens. Of course I have seen some of the DV films that were blown up to 35mm, including "Chuck and Buck", "28 Days latter" and "The Cruise" and I alway thought that their look was very close to 1.33:1 16mm blown up to 35mm, except for the image artifacts caused by reverse pull down to 24fps, and de-interlacing. Then there are the many films shot on Super 16mm, especially lately, like "Black Swan", "Hurt Locker, and ""Hustle and Flow". Those films look great on the multiplex screen. While I shoot with a FS100, I would not hesitate to use a AF100 to shot a project intended for 35mm blow up, or direct digital projection to a big screen, if that was offered to me. The image quality of these modern cameras is amazing. I would definitely get with the transfer house in pre-pro and work with them to get the best quality image possible. Duart labs in NY and Monaco labs in SF, both well known for their optical blow up skills, used to have downloadable documents on their websites with tips for shooting 16mm for 35mm blow up, and they offered good advice that I believe would be useful for digital filmmakers wanting to blow up their projects. If I remember correctly, the basic suggestions are to use the best quality format available (lowest ISO/Gain settings, best lenses available and to a robust codec, via external recorder, for a digital equivalent) properly expose your images, and light much flatter than you would normally think for digital delivery. With that, the images from a camera like the AF100 (or the FS100) should look stellar on the big screen, even blown up to 35mm. I really think that these modern cameras have propelled us over a threshold where skilled filmmakers can make images of great beauty and quality, appropriate to their stories, that can compete on the big screen with much of what is being produced for mainstream movies today. Now, there are a lot of caveats with a statement like that, but the use of these cameras is not the primary ones.
 
For the sake of it I have experiences my own HDV footage on the big screen.

I rented the Swedish film industries move theater and it even fooled the experienced operator that run the movie on the high def digital projector.
He thought it was shot on film.

So yeay for me, here is the the movie by the way. It plays from the point were it starts getting visually interesting http://youtu.be/ann-nwc5v08?t=6m11s

There are English subtitles in the clip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top