DVX vs Z1 in 35mm transfers

taubkin

taubkin

Veteran
Hi guys!

I will be shooting a feature in november that will have super16 and video images, and we are still deciding if it's going to be DVX or Z1. Well, We shot some tests, and it will be transfered soon, so we'll get to see it on the big screen! I will drop a line as soon as I have something.

On a different note, I just saw a transfered 35mm copy of a DVX short, and it is absolutely amazing. I never expected it to hold that well. In the telecine monitor it is perfect! On the screen it is very good! What the lab did was transfer to Reala 500 negative. It got a nice contrast, the highlights were compressed, but very slightly, and they managed to get a beautiful cinematic grain!

I'm very excited about those new tests. BUT we were shooting at night with gain on, so let's see what we get! BTW, it's amazing how much more sensitive the DVX is. The Z1 really performs badly in low light situations.

Cheers!
 
Well, the results are up.

This is supposed to be a grainy film. We even tried shooting the DVX at 3dB to Really push it, and we plan on transfering the material to reala 500 negative, for that ULTRA gritty look.

The DVX image was excessively grainy (I new it!) because 3dB really did not hold up. But even in 0dB, I can assume it will have enough grain for that application.

My first reaction, though, was how well it held up overall. It really looked good enough resolution-wise, and I mean it was dirty as hell.

Then it came the HDV image. Absolutely clean (even at 6dB - at 9dB much cleaner than the DVX), and the resolutoin difference really makes, well, a difference. If this was a different film, the Z1 would be an excellent choice. But the image was too clean for this one. My impression is that the lens of the HDV camera don't hold up to HD. The image is quite soft, pretty to my eyes, but soft, and the highlight rendition was not very nice, a little "videoish". And the lab could not render the mpg motion propperly. I think it will be some time before I see a good HDV transfer.

If I were to shoot a film for myself, I'd rather shoot HDV than DV. But the motion was so hard to render to 24p, that I really am eager to see what the HVX200 can do. I'm definately convinced that films shot with the DVX and specially with the HVX/HDVs, will be able to compete with 35mm films if the content is good enough and if the cinematography is better than regular.

Basically we will stick to the zero gain DVX and see what it can do, this time around, though.
 
If you were willing to consider CF25 mode on the Z1, then you should be thrilled at the resolution of the JVC. The JVC is higher resolution than 1080i/CF25. And it's actual 24p, so no speed changes necessary.

Don't know about noise/grain though -- looks like there's noise in the HD100 image, whereas the Z1 is quite clean.

Your quotes parallel what Marcus at DVFilm said, that the Z1 prints are quite a bit sharper than DVX prints. Can't wait to see some HD100 film-out, and especially HVX film-out -- 50% more luma and 3x as much chroma has got to look pretty good on the big screen!
 
Well the post house is having troubles conforming the Mpg2 gop structure into 24p. We used a PAL Z1, shot interlaced and let the post house do the rest. THey recognized they screw it up, and now are trying to make it right, but the real issue is their lack of expertise with such a new standard. A transfer from DVCPro might proove to be much easier...

The lack of grain in the Z is remarkable, and we did not shoot ONE take on 0dB! The resolution is certainly enough for an untrained eye. There is a promissing future for indie filmakers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top