Digital vs Film

K

krish

Well-known member
Hi, I am a DVX100b owner and am a newbe to filming. This is a great site and for the past few months I have been following many interesting topics on this site. Looks like the general concenses is that DVX is a good first camera for serious videographer. The next step would be something like HVX for HD.

My question is if i compare say the least expensive 35mm or 16mm film camera footage to either the DVX or HVX would i find the film still better then both?

I am learning a lot from my DVX but would like to try out a film camera to see the difference.

ALso what would be a low end film camera that would be a good first camera to own?

Cheers,

-Krish
 
Film cameras tend to simply expose filmstock. The stock itself and lenses have
by far the greatest impact on the image. Sure, there are differences in shutter
and image stability, but overall, stock and lens are key.

The latest digital options definately give S/16mm a run for its money and in most
cases, EASILY surpass it. 35mm film with good optics is still superior IMHO. I've
got a PL mount on my old Arriflex 2C and can use 'modern lenses' and with the
right stock and the right glass, that 40 year old camera still takes the doors right
off of anything digital has to offer.

Hehe.. once you get into post however, I *hate* film :)
 
8mm

8mm

I'm new to the DVX too, but I was looking into 8 and 16mm film a little bit as well. Pro 8mm has some good deals on film, transfers, and cameras. I like them because they sell packages that simplify the process, for noobs like me. Looks like their film is great, they make 8mm and 16mm out of pro 35mm stocks. The cameras they sell are pretty afordable(probably not ebay afordable I'm guessing) but they back them up with service and whatnot. They might have just what you're looking for if you're into learning the fundamentals of film.
 
I shot a lot of 16mm in film school and I resisted video for years. I just never thought the quality would ever match film.

Then I started reading about 24p video, and pro-sumer cameras. Ultimately I found, fell in love with, and purchased a DVX100b. I could't be more happy. The quality can be equal and even exceed telecine'd 16mm if done right.

I wouldn't give up my film experience for anything. It really taught me a lot about composition, exposure, lighting, and getting things right before I start rolling. You also learn to value every inch of stock and not to waste anything.

This goes out the window with video, as you can shoot endlessly with little cost on media. This is the most liberating aspect that video has over film. Also, the workflow has turned from weeks of waiting on film processing, to being able to shoot, capture, edit, and print dvds all in the same day.

I friggin' love it.:love4:

If you really want to shoot film, a Bolex Rex 4 or 5 is a good first camera. I still have my Rex 4 in case I ever want to do timed exposures at night.
 
^
dieselfoot pretty much sumed up everything I have to say.

I shot 8mm and 16mm in film school and it taught me A LOT (not really about composition as you can experiment much more with angles in video but it taught me VOLUMES about lighting). I'm glad I worked with film but, having discovered the DVX100 and now the HVX200, I'll never touch it again in my own projects.

All the reasons dieselfoot mentioned were some of why I love video but the biggest thing is I get to see what the image will look like as I'm shooting it. That's HUGE. As Lucas said (not that he's the best guy visually), digital makes film a painterly medium. Sure I felt cool pulling out my light meter and praying my film would come out. Sure I felt even cooler when my footage ended up looking better than pretty much everyone in the class. Nevertheless, this "craftsmen" aspect can't touch the ability to know exactly how my adjustments will turn out.

Right now, the HVX200 looks as good (if lit right!) as anything I've seen on 16mm (there are differences sure, with the HVX200 actually looking better in many cases, but 99.9% of viewers won't be able to tell the difference). Perhaps if I make it in Hollywood I'll shoot 35mm if someone else is paying for it (though honestly the digital work I've seen on the new uber-expensive high-def cameras like the one they are shooting Superman returns on makes me doubt even that). Right now however, I'd much rather have the flexibility of an HVX than work with 16mm again. Instead of putting so much work into the equipment, I can focus more on my creative vision. That's what's important.
 
I agree with the dudes above. The college I went to didn't have an actual 'FILM' program per se, so I bought a 16mm Bolex package to try and learn 'the real way' to do things on my own (in addition to class work). It helped me a great deal, and I wouldn't change my film experiences for anything. But 4 camera bodies and many lenses later, I can't say that it's been the best investment.

After I was out of college and started working at studios ion the Chicago area, I couldn't use my 16mm/S8 cameras on paying gigs (no client/boss wanted to pay for processing & transfer costs when there were good Sony Betacams lying around). To top it off, when I did do paying side gigs for bands (music videos) I wound up spending the whole budget on processing/transfer/color-corrections costs. The footage was GREAT but Daddy didn't make no bread, dig?

Some friends and I actually found it more cost effective to do good music videos by RENTING HD Sony F900 Cinealtas or Panasonic Varicams. Believe it or not, it was cheaper to go that route than pay the prices that even Super8sound charges for Super8 processing and transfer alone! And we were shooting with $80 ebay cameras (Old Canon 810s). Then my buddy bought a full blown steadicam rig- and all bets were off, it was HD all the way at that point.

These newer digital cameras and tape formats just make SO MUCH MORE SENSE to buy if you're doing your own thing (ie- trying to support yourself & family with this craft). You see what you get when you're shooting it, 24p looks GREAT, the DVX 100 offers outstanding 'film look' coloration and flexibility, you can edit immediately on CHEAP-CHEAP-CHEAP editing gear, you can record good sync'ed dual channel mixed audio right into the camera, and you have the option to upgrade to film or HD if you need to. PLUS, if you're still learning, you can simply EXPERIMENT any time you want to. Try rolling off a few feet of 16mm on a whim on any given Tuesday night!

All that being said, I have a lot of good film gear I'm willing to sell you to support my DVX habit!!!! ; )
 
In the end, though, you have to cope with the major failing of video - it lacks dynamic range. Sure, the resolution, motion rendering, and color are all getting there, but video is still nowhere near film in terms of exposure latitude. For that reason alone, I would shoot Super 16 in a heartbeat before I would shoot even HD video for many projects.
 
Holy Cow, forgot to answer your question! I agree on the Bolex Rex 4/5 but I also had good luck with the Bolex M4 also called 'The Assistant Coash.' It's not a Reflex camera, so you have to use dog-leg reflex lenses, but because of that it captures light a tad better than the rex cameras. I always got great footage with it. And it could run spring-wound OR with a crystal sync motor. Also, they didn't start making them until around 1969 (I think) so they are a little newer than some of the other Low-cost 16mm Bolex's you'll see out there.
 
In the end, though, you have to cope with the major failing of video - it lacks dynamic range. Sure, the resolution, motion rendering, and color are all getting there, but video is still nowhere near film in terms of exposure latitude. For that reason alone, I would shoot Super 16 in a heartbeat before I would shoot even HD video for many projects.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure George Lucas or Robert Rodriguez would agree. But again, this topic is HIGHLY debateable and is HIGHLY opinionated.
 
robert rodriguez and Lucas, both used light to theri advantage. They took advantage of the fullest Dynamic range the cameras were able to capture through controlled lighting.
 
My question is, is the 480p resolution/image from a DVX comparable in projection to 16mm film, or is HD/HDV 720/1080p much closer?
 
In the end, though, you have to cope with the major failing of video - it lacks dynamic range. Sure, the resolution, motion rendering, and color are all getting there, but video is still nowhere near film in terms of exposure latitude. For that reason alone, I would shoot Super 16 in a heartbeat before I would shoot even HD video for many projects.
Click to expand...

The lattitude is a pain and honestly the only thing that makes me still sometimes miss film. Yes, I'd much rather have the 14 stops of good film than the 7 stops of a DVX100 or the 9 stops of an HVX200. Still, I've shot enough with 24p that I know how to make the most out of my light and control it the best I can. Even in the old days of film you had to pay attention to what would blow out and what would be under-exposed. Video is much less forgiving but its pros in other aspects make up for that.

My question is, is the 480p resolution/image from a DVX comparable in projection to 16mm film, or is HD/HDV 720/1080p much closer?
Click to expand...

Some one shot a test side by side with the DVX100A and a 16mm camera then projected. According to him, the DVX100 looks pretty close but a bit softer than 16mm.

Recently on this forum, someone posted videos of a side by side comparison of a Super 16mm film and an HVX200 set to 720p. Based on what I saw from the blown up images, I'd say they were VERY close. Yes there were differences but 99.9% of people would never be able to tell the difference. THe HVX200 actually looked a bit sharper to my eye. The 16mm seemed to have slightly softer shadows compared to the HVX200's which popped more. The HVX200 definatly had more noise in the shadow areas though the 16mm seemed to have more grain in the lighter areas.

I assume that a HVX200 shot in 1080 would be even sharper.
 
skat said:
I'm not sure George Lucas or Robert Rodriguez would agree. But again, this topic is HIGHLY debateable and is HIGHLY opinionated.
Click to expand...

Hehe, I'm happy to have those two guys disagree with me as much as possible. Both of them are vitriolic to a fault and I don't much care for the way they do things or the films that result.

As for sharpness in 16mm vs. DVX100, if it's even coming up as an issue, then the 16mm must have been shot with some pretty poor lenses! 16mm vs. HD is highly comparable.
 
16mm film is still a bit better than a DVX, but it's a creative choice then. You have to remember though that film can be displayed much more easily than digital can, on the lower end anyway. I've seen 16mm film and I've seen DVX footage and I'd still side with 16mm as being superior, but an HVX200 would make up for it and be a better option. 16mm just looks clearer to me but when you get into the HD stuff it's hard to tell.

I would suppose that 16mm and Super 16mm are comparable to the current <$10k HD cameras by my eyes but the <$10k HD cameras beat it in cost savings. But when it comes to 35mm, it's really difficult to say. The Sony F900/F950s do a great job and are good competitors for 35mm film. The Varicams can be pretty close too. But 35mm is just one of those things that depends solely on who is using it and what they do with it. For example, Lord of the Rings trilogy versus Big Trouble in Little China. Two different films with two different looks yet they were both shot on 35mm. See? It just depends, one isn't better than the other, they're just different. HD video can beat some aspects of film but it can't replace it yet, if ever.

Plus, as has been said over and over in this thread, there's a lot of little minor
details that come into how good film will look (tape stock, lenses, lighting, ect.) so nobody can really truly say which is better actually. For cost though, digital is the clear winner, even if you buy everything instead of renting. Overall, it just depends on the situation and, most importantly, you.
 
TimurCivan said:
robert rodriguez and Lucas, both used light to theri advantage. They took advantage of the fullest Dynamic range the cameras were able to capture through controlled lighting.
Click to expand...

And isn't that what we all should try to do as well?
 
Video is much less forgiving but its pros in other aspects make up for that.
Click to expand...

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. I would rather change the project and shoot video just to have more control of the image. But, some projects are still better suited to film.
 
Sorry but no 1/3" CCD camera, SD or HD is going to come real close to film. ANy skilled DP could pick out even the best Viper, Genesis, etc. HD video cameras. Once you get to that level you are getting pretty close and average Joe wont be able to tell so much but to compare a DVX to 16mm is silly. Super 16mm looks better than that and 35mm way better than that. As noted, you can choose lousy film stock and crappy glass and make it look pretty bad but.... why would you?



ash =o)
 
I love S16 but posted some grabs in the HVX of The Devils Rejects and it's not like the best looking stuff ever (intentionally for the subject matter and visual style).

In contrast, November (and stuff from our own) looks pretty cool.

-

They're both nice. Different. But I'd take S16 anyday purely for latitude.

-

But Ash ...

Digital is on the way. You can only use the 'Film is better' argument for so long !

-

Avergae Joe dont know dick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top