DVXuser.com DP Interview Series: Phil Parmet

Jarred Land said:
no... 35mm has almost 4x the resolution as 1080p.
Click to expand...

Jarred... an interesting bit of a conversation with Brian Bonnick, VP of Technology for IMAX ...

"The smallest resolve power of neg film is about 6 microns. As a result, the limiting resolution on a 35mm negative frame is around 3700x2700 pixels. This means a maximum of 2000 lines of vertical resolution for an image with a 1.85 aspect ratio and even less for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio (1570 lines).

The resolution on a 35mm release print is much lower due to MTF generation loss in the film process. A recent paper from SMPTE journal reported that the real resolution that audience can discern in a high-quality 35mm cinema is about 1600 horizontal pixels, which translates to about 850 lines for 1:85 and less than 700 lines for 2.35. Most 35mm cinemas fair even worse than those numbers."

Here's a link to the original source, with more info...

http://www.siriusdude.com/blogger/2005/03/last-update-was-sunday.html

Regards,

Jim Arthurs
 
Thanks Jim. It's good to know that. the next target is the dynamic range.

To Barry : Do you know which company Phil choosed to do the upres ?
 
They were in the process of running tests with a number of companies to determine who's going to do the final film out. As of the interview, a decision hadn't been made.

hvpz said:
To Barry : Do you know which company Phil choosed to do the upres ?
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I'd think he meant -4 since +4 would be quite a lot of in-camera sharpening--very undesirable for a film transfer.

crazyczech said:
Phil mentioned he shot with detail set at 4. Is that a +4? Everything I've read would lead me to believe -4 as you want less "video detail" especially for film blow-up. Wasn't November shot at -7 detail? Just a question...anyone know for sure? Thanks....
Click to expand...
 
hvpz said:
Thanks Jim. It's good to know that. the next target is the dynamic range.

There's no question a timed print from original negative would be far sharper than HD, but since that's not what we see in the theatre, it's only fair to compare to the release print, which is usually a dupe of a dupe of a dupe (original negative to interpositive to dupe negative (multiple copies made) to release prints. All of these intermediate stocks are FAR sharper than camera negative, in order to hold detail, but still, you're taking a picture of a picture, etc.

Years and years ago I was fortunate to be able to make commercials for local clients to run in the theatres before the trailers... and shoot 35mm to do it. These commercials only had a handful of prints pulled from the negatives, so we usually did this from the A/B roll cut camera original, so the viewer in the theatre saw a sharpness quality better than the actual movie! Not that these clients deserved it, as it was a bunch of car dealers and local radio stations...

Regards,

Jim Arthurs
Click to expand...
 
Outstanding

Outstanding

Another good article here at Dvxuser.com. Very informative.

I like it that the DP was honest about what he didn't like about the DV format. But did you notice that he pretty much presumes that DV is going to take over film?

'It is what it is.' Yeah, I think that about sums it up. The shooters on this forum obsess so much about how to get the best possible image from the DVX, but really, all the audience cares about is the story, on a good day. My mom is in town this week, so yesterday I trotted out an old mockumentary short that I shot on a Panasonic DV1, which is a single CCD $600 camera. Grainy as hell, especially a scene where I shot an interview in a moving truck at night. While I was kind of wincing at the grain, she was engaged with the content. Lesson learned: your audience doesn't give a **** about F stops.

Stabb: anamorphic vs full-frame. Remember what Phil said was that they didn't shoot with an anamorphic converter because the viewfinder didn't allow one to see the images unsqueezed. That implies that he may have wanted to use one.

You can shoot full-frame or anamorphic, but each choice of course has its tradeoffs. I believe we did a poll a year ago and it was evenly split as to anamorphic vs not preferences. I personally like the anamorphic process, but I have a 16:9-capable monitor which shows me what I am really getting.

It depends which film-out house you use as to which way they prefer you go with your original material. If you are seriously going to film out a project, this issue is just one of many more tough decisions you will need to make.
 
Boom operatorrrr, booom...operatorrrr

boom.jpg

*(to the tune of smooth operator)

Saw the film at sundance, loved it. It opened my eyes to the genuine professional possibilities you can drag out of the DVX, even though ive been supporting it forever!
 
In my eyes, most DVXUser contributors seem to be constantly seeking ways to better their images. I rarely experience anyone as being wholly satisfied with their results.

The prevailing "make-it-work" attitude around here will benefit anyone as they begin working in HD formats and certainly within conventional film production. Need more depth of field - kitbash and manufacture your own adapter. Want more cinematic motion - build a skateboard dolly.

I sent links to Micro35 and Mini35 to the DP on a primetime CineAlta show and was surprised (and also not surprised) to find that he'd never heard of or thought about these emerging analog! technologies. It wasn't until my wife's dad (Art Director) complained about DOF challenges, even on long lenses, that I thought to send him the information. For the AD and deco guys, HD presents some real challenges because the camera really gets in there and sees everything. If it's all in focus, you've got a lot less room to fake it - which most all 35mm single-camera shows do to a fault.

So, here is an example of how a DIY/Indie/Prosumer board is feeding information and innovation up the ladder into the system. I don't know if they're going to give it a try next season, but I would hope that they'll shoot some tests if they come back out of hiatus!

e
 
Definitely have to agree with the general consensus of agreeing with his words "it is what is." DV is for those who have no time to wait for dailies developing, can't afford 3 or more rolls of film, have absolutely no budget for 16 mill, etc. Yes you can get it as close to film as possible in post, and if you don't mind, it's definitely a great way to go.

If he is able to show his ability [as well as with November] to make us forget we're watching something "filmed" on DV, then he's done his job. As is the job of any DP even if they are using film. We don't want to be watching frames, we want to be watching a story we can experience. It seems he's done this.

Great great article Barry, you asked very useful, specific questions [lighting, train shot with DVX, et cetera] as oppose to talking about the generalities. Great flow, great questions, great answers, great article.
 
I saw "Lonesome Jim" projected onto a big screen this weekend at the SIFF (Seattle International Film Festival) and I liked the movie. However, the image on the big screen looked NOTHING like the screen captions that you can find online or in this forum. On the big screen it almost looked like it was shot with a consumer VHS camcorder. I'm not kidding. The milky, milky greys sometimes blobbed out entire areas of the screen creating a very neutral image. Very disappointed in the visuals, but the movie still was pretty strong, narratively.
I don't know if it was the theater, but I have seen documentaries(DV) that looked good at this particular theater so I don't think it was the projecter. I, too, like the images that are displayed online of this movie...but we have to realize that we are looking at a completely different medium of display. Today made it very apparent that displaying a DVX100a movie on the big screen is gonna rip away alot of its small-screen beauty.
 
I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from your screening at the SIFF. As of my interview, they still hadn't done the film transfer, so it's most likely you saw a preliminary digital transfer at the fest. It was most likely a DVD or digital tape and who knows what the quality of the digital projection system was at your particular theater. Once it's transferred to 35mm film, it'll be reasonable to make a judgment on the quality.

I will say that I've seen DVX footage screened off of mini-DV tapes at the AFI Silver Theater and it looked great. The AFI Silver has a fairly new top notch digital projection system, so I'm thinking that either your theater has a mediocre projector, the "print" of LJ wasn't optimized, or both. It's not going to look like 35mm, but it sure won't look like VHS.
 
I'd have to concur- the main determining factor is how good a projector a venue has and how well it's calibrated. I've seen Formosa projected off Beta SP at two venues. One looked as good as a 35mm print, the other looked like second generation SVHS. I've also seen it projected directly from DVD and it looked better than either Beta. So many different projectors out there:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/
 
I don't know whether to change the topic or not... but since it has shifted to projectors and image quality, I have to chime in. Year before last I did a true (1920X1080) HD show... and it is currently installed in a museum playing off an Alcorn Mc Bride server. I noticed a difference from the Editing room version and asked the HD tech. It turns out that the projector can only go up to 1280X720... That's why I was getting some moire in camera moves shot from archival lithographs. Last month, I completed another "HD" project for the same museum. This time I edited it through the "on-line" on my new Liquid Edition NLE at 1280X720... alhough the LE program can do 1080i, why go to the higher res if it isn't going to be projected that way? Unlike the first HDcam master, this show never went to tape... I output the file (123 Gb for 14 minutes) and delivered it on an outboard hard drive to the HD tech. It looks great projected, the audience (client) can't percieve the difference and neither can I. For those European members, Liquid Edition can also seamlessly integrate PAL, SMPTE, HD, HDV, or whatever else you can come up with and output to any of those formats from the same timeline. It also can burn DVDs directly from the timeline which is great for doing client "corrections" without having to do the extra step of outputting to an MPeg and authoring and then burning the DVD.
I'm starting to ramble... and no, I don't work for Pinnacle (recently acquired by Avid) but I had to make a transition along with all the other speedrazor users who were cruelly dumped by In-Sync when they suddenly evaporated without notice.
Cheers to all
Dale
 
:thumbup: :beer:
A nice interview with honest opinions .
I was impressed by the inventive touch of using flat panel slide viewers .Can I trouble anyone for a idea on what type and where to get these /
Great production shots .
I think he( the d.p.) did the subject a good turn
Cheers
Bruce :beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top