Better Cinema Look - EX1 or HVX200?

[Barry_Green]

Umm...
Film carries contrast and color information stored on the molecular level.

Film's ability to resolve detail is not infinite, it's limited by the grain size of the silver halide emulsion, not by measuring resolution at the molecular level.

Look at some Super8 film, it's lower res than standard-def DV.

35mm film is claimed by Kodak, and verified by tests, to deliver about 4000 x 3000 pixel resolution. Or, put in other words, if you wanted to do a digital scan and assure yourself that you're capturing all the detail of the original film shot, you'd have to scan at a resolution of 4000 x 3000. That means a scanning rate of about 4500 DPI.

How many lines per mm would that be?

Well, considering a full-width frame of film is about 24mm wide, and can resolve about 4000 pixels, that'd be in the range of about 80 lp/mm.

The EBU calculates that the Nyquist limit for resolution of scanning film at 2K res is about 41.1 line pairs per millimeter, so an upper limit of 82lp/mm would seem appropriate for a 4k scan. Last I knew, even Kodak wasn't claiming you'd get any benefit from scanning film at higher than 4K res -- although, that was before Vision 3 stock came out; I know they're claiming reduced grain but I don't know if they've upped the perceived resolution claims of vision 3.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Which is why, even though I haven't used 'em in a few years, I still have a closet full of film cameras...

What kind do you have?

Which ones are your favorites?

 

[TimurCivan]

Oooo... Vision 3.... Cant wait to try it someday.....

 

[kubalsky]

thanks for the link stevet! Im trying to work out my EX1 gama settings at the moment, was a big help!

 

[kubalsky]

heres my digital/film analogy.

digital is a luxury gps guided fully powered yacht. it gets you from port to port quickly and with much style. plus it has a steering wheel and anyone can pilot it.

film is a sail boat. it still gets from port to port, but its a little slower, you need skill and a small crew to pilot it, and keep it running smooth. but its looks beautiful, gracefull and elegant. also commanding and operating the ship itself is half the fun.

Nice Analogy...and either boat still makes us feel like kenny loggins or a beegee.

 

[PaPa]

Oooo... Vision 3.... Cant wait to try it someday.....

hoping to get some vision 3 500t for next semesters shoot!

 

[emotepix]

Barry
So emulsion isn't built of molecules, then?
And you're saying that a digital scan dictates the physical resolution of a chemical film emulsion?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your arguments only make sense if you're actually finishing or going digital in the end?
What about projection in a cinema?
If you have a decent projection setup, what's the theoretical (not practical) physical resolution there?
Isn't your method of measurement based on digital limitations? On the limits of what's presently scannable? And as you know, drum scanners can elicit a lot more resolution than 4kx3k, and there's not been much progress in high resolution drum scanning for years.
Vision 3's resolution isn't higher than Vision 1's, then? Because of its lines/mm?
80 lines/mm, you say?
And film couldn't ever do better than 80 lines/mm, because molecular information can't get any better than emulsion level? Or that emulsions can't get any better at the molecular level?
Barry, are you sure?

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry
So emulsion isn't built of molecules, then?

Of course it is. But it's the complete grain of silver halide crystal that's registering the image. The size of that grain determines how much resolved detail the film can reflect.

And you're saying that a digital scan dictates the physical resolution of a chemical film emulsion?

No, I'm saying that the grain structure of the film limits it. You made it sound like it's unlimited resolution, and it most certainly isn't. The limit of 35mm film's ability to resolve detail can be accurately captured in a 4K scan. Scanning at any higher density won't show any more detail, it'll just take up more space.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your arguments only make sense if you're actually finishing or going digital in the end?

What does digital have to do with it? I'm saying film is not unlimited resolution, it's able to resolve based on the size of the grain structure of the emulsion. Whether you go digital or not, you're still going to have that same limit. And the limit is cumulative; as you make more copies and prints the limit goes down, to the point where by the time you make a release print for exhibition in the theater you're down to about 800 lines of resolved detail.

What about projection in a cinema?

Optical cinema projection should have no effect on the resolved image, depending on the quality of lens you use. If you've got a cheap lens, obviously that could ruin the quality of the projection.

Digital projection is a totally different beast, of course. But optical projection, depending on the lens, should show every detail the film recorded.

If you have a decent projection setup, what's the theoretical (not practical) physical resolution there?

Depends on what you're projecting (camera original reversal film? Or a release print made from an answer print which has been printed from some combination of interpositive and internegative intermediary steps? The camera original film can be quite sharp, extremely sharp -- but the cumulative optical effects of contact printing mean that you usually get somewhere on the order of about 800 lines of visible resolution (yes, about 720p HD worth) from a final released film print.

If you wanted the theoretical maximum, you'd have to look at every element in the chain, including the sharpness of your lens and the precision of the registration of the film (any jitter or wiggle in the film's registration will obviously have a serious impact on the film's capability to resolve vertical detail). Assuming you had perfect registration and a perfect lens (heck, let's use an Arri Laser Recorder instead of a camera to record the image in the first place to assure that) then you'd get, again, about a 12mp image on that film. The sharpness, as expressed in terms of pixels, would be in the ballpark of 4000 x 3000.

Isn't your method of measurement based on digital limitations? On the limits of what's presently scannable? And as you know, drum scanners can elicit a lot more resolution than 4kx3k, and there's not been much progress in high resolution drum scanning for years.

Again, has nothing to do with digital. You could scan 35mm film at 10,000,000 x 10,000,000 and you're still only going to get about 4,000 x 3,000 worth of unique information.

Just like you could take a VHS tape and transfer it to HD. It won't be any sharper, it'll just take up a lot more space. Even though the HD tape was recorded at 1920x1080 resolution, the original VHS tape didn't have any more than about 400 x 300 worth of picture.

It doesn't matter what resolution you scan that film into, or whether you scan it at all. The film itself is capable of recording a limited amount of detail. According to Kodak themselves, if you wanted to do a digital scan of a 35mm film frame and capture every bit of detail recorded on that film, you should do a scan of 4000 x 3000. That's about enough to get all the detail that film can record.

But again, it's dependent on the size of the film too. 16mm is not going to be able to record as much detail as 35mm, and 8mm won't be able to record as much as 16mm. And 35mm can't record as much as 65mm.

Vision 3's resolution isn't higher than Vision 1's, then?

I said I don't know whether it is or not. I looked on their marketing site and they don't claim that it's sharper than Vision. They claim less grain in the shadows and extended highlight range, but they don't claim it's sharper. There's only one Vision3 stock out now, and it's 500T; maybe by the time they get to 50D they'll be claiming more sharpness? We'll see.

And film couldn't ever do better than 80 lines/mm, because molecular information can't get any better than emulsion level? Or that emulsions can't get any better at the molecular level?

Kodak improves film all the time. Vision 2 is notably sharper than the stocks that shot movies in the 50's and 70's. The EBU has created a special test film that resolves up to 125lp/mm. Not something you'd shoot a movie on, but something you'd shoot tests with.

Barry, are you sure?

Sure about what? I'm not sure about what you're asking.

Am I sure that film doesn't have limitless ability to resolve detail? Absolutely. Can it be improved? It always is. But modern motion picture film maxxes out around 80 lp/mm nowadays. And if you wanted to quantify how much detail a frame of film is capable of resolving, you could mathematically measure out the millimeters and count the lines, having to factor in such niceties as the Nyquist limit as well... or you could go by what Kodak says. Kodak even advertised 35mm film as a 12-million-pixel sensor (4,000 x 3,000 = 12,000,000).

 

[emotepix]

Barry.
Very interesting. Most illuminating.
That's based on an 18x24mm full frame (Academy) 35mm gate, right?
So Super 35 might be a little more, and 35mm at 1.85 (hard gate) would be less. So it isn't possible to reduce the size of the emulsion grains and capture more theoretical resolution (with due respect to Mr. Nyquist?)

Then what's giving the film ness of the images, if it isn't the absolute resolution? Is it the relative contrast (luma) ranges? What else is being captured onto those emulsion grains that isn't being captured onto pixels?


For me, I already know that when I use my own film cameras (also at the moment in my closet -- but they get air regularly), I'm forever putting things on the lenses to cut the resolutions down, especially when shooting faces. (who wants to see every pimple and wrinkle?)
But there's certainly something being captured on the emulsion that's missing in the electron.
And really, the 24p motion I've seen out of some of these cameras (NOT the DVX or HVX, which are still my faves) looks nothing at all like film telecine'd. I recently had a look at some footage in a true, high end HD monitor and REALLY didn't like the 24p motion from the cameras (I think they were high end 900's).
So what do you think it is?

Very interesting discussion. Most illuminating. I've been doing this for awhile and haven't had an answer to these questions that satisfied me in quite the same way as yours have.

Thanks again, Barry.

Oh, and going from the above back on topic, this would mean that the added resolution of the EX1 may or may not result in a more filmic look than that of the HVX? If resolution were all we were looking at?

And if you had a camera to buy and a dramatic feature film to shoot, at least to go to Blu Ray and maybe through DI to 35mm, which would you prefer? Given the requirement of that elusive film look?

If you couldn't afford to go to your freezer and bust out your Vision 2 stock, that is?

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry.
Very interesting. Most illuminating.
That's based on an 18x24mm full frame (Academy) 35mm gate, right?

Yes based on 4x3 full frame, which is the same as Super35. Academy is smaller because it makes room for the soundtrack on the side.

So it isn't possible to reduce the size of the emulsion grains and capture more theoretical resolution (with due respect to Mr. Nyquist?)

Kodak and Fuji are constantly improving their film stocks over time; the films of today are much sharper than the films of 30 or 40 years ago. But I'd suspect that the advances going forward in the future are likely to be less aggressive since film is losing so much market share. Film advances could be cross-collateralized between the still and cine market, but while both markets have shrunk enormously (due to pressure from digital) I think the still market has probably fallen furthest. Kodak still churns out a ton of film for the motion picture industry, but how much r&d is justifiable on their end, considering the rapid erosion of film use in the television market?

Then what's giving the film ness of the images, if it isn't the absolute resolution?

Resolution is the LEAST important component in "the film look"! There are so many elements that go into an image, from the resolution to the contrast to the frame rate to the highlight handling to the gamma curve to the toe and knee response to the colorimetry, and then there's that intangible of actually physically capturing something in a tangible medium vs. representing it electronically. There's the tangible aspects of physical grain vs. electronic noise... there's a million differences. But video can be graded very close to film now.

But resolution is the least of the issues. Watch the HD broadcast of the Super Bowl -- very sharp, but does it look in any way like film? Not a chance!

And really, the 24p motion I've seen out of some of these cameras (NOT the DVX or HVX, which are still my faves) looks nothing at all like film telecine'd.

Frequently this is due to the operator not operating the camera like a film camera. I put film and DVX side-by-side to settle this question, and yes true 24p acquisition does look exactly like film telecine'd to video. But so many shooters shooting 24p have no idea how to move the camera that they end up creating footage that doesn't look like film. The hard part to grasp is: if they moved the film camera the exact same way, they'd get footage that looks exactly like the 24p video camera did! But film shooters just don't do that. They've had 100 years of fighting the low-frame-rate issues that they've had enough experience to develop techniques for moving the camera, for panning speeds, etc. that control and mask the strobing.

I recently had a look at some footage in a true, high end HD monitor and REALLY didn't like the 24p motion from the cameras (I think they were high end 900's).

The F900, when shooting 24p, does deliver motion exactly like a 24fps film camera. What you probably saw was a 24pSF monitor, which delivers extraordinarily flickery footage. Watch a movie like Spy Kids 2 or Once Upon A Time In Mexico or any of the other multitude of F900 movies on your DVD player, and you'll see that it really does look just like film motion.

Oh, and going from the above back on topic, this would mean that the added resolution of the EX1 may or may not result in a more filmic look than that of the HVX? If resolution were all we were looking at?

Again, resolution is the least of the issues. Put a Sony FX1, shooting 60i, up against a standard-def DVX100 shooting 24p. I can almost guarantee you that everyone looking at that footage comparison will say the DVX looks more like film. Even though the FX1 would be so much sharper.

We've had this discussion here for years, ever since the Canon XL2 came out. The XL2 was significantly sharper than the DVX100 -- yet (search for "mojo") you'll find that many people preferred the filmlike images from the DVX. The XL2 looked like super-sharp video. When we went high-def the same argument came about with the XLH1 vs. the HVX. The XLH1 is sharper, yes. But it's got that same "look" as the XL2, just in high-def. Whereas the HVX has that same "look" as the DVX, but in high def.

Now we'll probably have a replay of the argument again -- no question the EX1 is sharper. But does that make its footage look filmic? Not in and of itself. You'd have to explore the gamma curves and the colorimetry and probably do some grading in post before you could truly answer that. But I'd say from the footage that comes out-of-the-box, the HVX's default scene files deliver more filmic footage than the EX1's. The EX1 out of the box is tuned for razor-sharp HD video.

And if you had a camera to buy and a dramatic feature film to shoot, at least to go to Blu Ray and maybe through DI to 35mm, which would you prefer? Given the requirement of that elusive film look?

Well, I'm doing exactly that right now. I'm developing a feature film with Jack Stanley. The leading candidate right now is the Red One. But that's a $50,000 product. In the $25,000 bracket I'd go with the HPX500, no doubt. In the $10,000 bracket? That's the question. Frankly you're not going to go to 35mm with a project that's shot on an under-$10,000 camera anyway, the odds are astoundingly against it. But if you were the 1 in 10,000 who did, I'd say the actual camera choice is of little consequence. Whether you chose a DVX, an XHA1, an XL2, an EX1, an HVX, or an HD100, they'll all do a fine job on the big screen. Sure the EX1 would be sharper, but the DVX has shot films that have won the Sundance "best cinematography" award twice, and been nominated for Oscars twice in the "best doc" category. Even the non-24p Sony PD150 has done that. So choice of camera is going to have little to no bearing at all on whether you get picked up and taken to the big screen.

If going to blu-ray or HD-DVD (for that 1% of households that have a player) I'd rule out the DVX and XL2 and stick with some manner of HD camcorder, but the particular one would be chosen based on what features were needed and what the price range was. The only absolute requirement I'd insist on would be that it shoot 24p.

If you couldn't afford to go to your freezer and bust out your Vision 2 stock, that is?

Well, that's the other funny thing -- if you're *sure* you're going to end up on a 35mm print at the end, it's just as affordable to shoot 35mm in the first place. :thumbsup:

 

[TimurCivan]

film is not as horridly expensive as some make it out to be... I 1sted on a feature shot on 40,000 on vision2 shrt ends. it was hell on me and the loader but it can be done.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

film is not as horridly expensive as some make it out to be... I 1sted on a feature shot on 40,000 on vision2 shrt ends. it was hell on me and the loader but it can be done.

How much were you able to score the film stock for?

Do you have any idea what your average lengths were?

 

[TimurCivan]

How much were you able to score the film stock for?

Do you have any idea what your average lengths were?

we were avraging 350' short ends. not too shabby. dont know price.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

...
Well, I'm doing exactly that right now. I'm developing a feature film with Jack Stanley. The leading candidate right now is the Red One. But that's a $50,000 product. In the $25,000 bracket I'd go with the HPX500, no doubt. In the $10,000 bracket? That's the question. Frankly you're not going to go to 35mm with a project that's shot on an under-$10,000 camera anyway, the odds are astoundingly against it. But if you were the 1 in 10,000 who did, I'd say the actual camera choice is of little consequence. Whether you chose a DVX, an XHA1, an XL2, an EX1, an HVX, or an HD100, they'll all do a fine job on the big screen. Sure the EX1 would be sharper, but the DVX has shot films that have won the Sundance "best cinematography" award twice, and been nominated for Oscars twice in the "best doc" category. Even the non-24p Sony PD150 has done that. So choice of camera is going to have little to no bearing at all on whether you get picked up and taken to the big screen.

Well, that's the other funny thing -- if you're *sure* you're going to end up on a 35mm print at the end, it's just as affordable to shoot 35mm in the first place. :thumbsup:

Great points Barry.

It's like you always say, the right tool for the job at hand.

From my limited knowledge I understand, it's important to look at the project's work flow from acquisition, production, and to publication. Not just any one phase.

Is it still the case that having a 35mm print made form digital is quite expensive?

 

[Barry_Green]

Last time I looked the quality jobs started at around $400/minute for HD to 35mm, and go up from there. So count on $40,000 to $60,000 for one print.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Ouch!

Do you know how much it is to have a digital film, say shot on the HVX or Red, packaged for Digital Cinema Distribution?

 

[Barry_Green]

Is there any such thing yet? Is there any substantial installation of Digital Cinema projectors, or a network to deliver content to them?

You could try talking to Mark Cuban and his Landmark Theaters, but last I knew there were only about 58 Landmark theaters in America, in 23 cities. Not exactly a mass audience.

DCI distribution will undoubtedly be the future, but as for today I'd bet film distribution is the only viable option for reaching the mass audience.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Is there any such thing yet? Is there any substantial installation of Digital Cinema projectors, or a network to deliver content to them?

You could try talking to Mark Cuban and his Landmark Theaters, but last I knew there were only about 58 Landmark theaters in America, in 23 cities. Not exactly a mass audience.

DCI distribution will undoubtedly be the future, but as for today I'd bet film distribution is the only viable option for reaching the mass audience.

To be sure.

Even the top theaters in the country only have one or two. (Century in Daly City California is a good example.)

But, what I am wondering is if there is a standard format to deliver the digital films in and if so is it proprietary and what's its costs?

 

[emotepix]

Barry
Just did a shoot on a Red and it wins this battle hands down. Too steep for me at this moment, though, and the rental queue is ridiculous at the moment. Thanks for the heads up, though. Much appreciated.

 

[Dylan Marshall Brady]

Hi Katya... I'm buying the EX1 partly for my full length feature work.
1. I'm guessing the EX1 will produce a better 35mm blow-up by far since it's full blown 1080p as opposed to 720p.
2. Apple FCP fully supports the EX1's long GOP format...and with Color, it's amazing what you can do to achieve a film look. Not only that, with Motion, you can smooth out those handheld shoots to be glassy smooth. So much of your work will actually be in post rather than in the camera.
Also, I really don't think any shutter wobble will be an issue at all (unless you're slinging the camera around on a rope). Many people on this forum have reported not seeing ANY problem at all.
With the great in-camera film looks...for me, there's no question the EX1 is the top choice.

Yes, the EX does 1080p at 35 mbps i think.
The HVX does 1080 at 100 mbps, with a 4:2:2 color space.
Wouldnt you think the HVX has better picture quality.