HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=Kidster link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=15#17 date=02/20/05 at 12:43:08]Give an average guy ..... a Panavision 35mm and you will get average work. [/quote]
Did you know that Panavision 35mm sucks in low light? And all these filmcameras are useless in low light?
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Does a Panasonic 35mm really suck in low light?? :P  Is that what all those 200's and 50's, C-stands, and flags are for??

I am not going to pretend to know a whole lot about film stocks, but I think it is ridiculously obvious to experienced DP's why that is. The ASA number, and something about film stock called "opacity" and "transmittance/absorbance". A more sensitive film stock will "stretch blacks" while a less sensitive film stock tends to crush them, giving that filmy look.

Did you know that miniDV cameras suck in high light?  And all these video cameras are useless in high light?  :P

I agree that we should all be going out there in the world and pursuing our passions at artistic expression with the tools at hand.  Everything will follow naturally if we are genuine in our message and delivery...

For some reason, this takes me back to a person I know who had this shirt that read "Fame Whore".  The weird thing was that this person wasn't delivering the message in an ironic way, but was delivering the message that they really were going to do and say anything to get famous.  Are they famous today?  No.
 
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=SergejIvanovits link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=15#20 date=02/20/05 at 13:28:33]
Did you know that Panavision 35mm sucks in low light? And all these filmcameras are useless in low light?
[/quote]


Huh? you seem to have missed the point.
Besides, the camera being a panavision has nothing to do with it "sucking" in low light. Film cameras are nothing more than box with a motor and a hole in it. You attatch a lens and you put in some film and you shoot your movie. The camera has no light preference. IT depends on what kind of film you use.
and again this comes down to the type of film maker you are. Any camera will suck with low light. Cameras are not meant to take picutures with no light. If you want a scene to be dark, compensate with your lighting.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=scharky link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=15#22 date=02/20/05 at 13:38:08]


Huh? you seem to have missed the point.  
[/quote]

I did not missed nothing. It was sarcasm. How a camcorder works in low light, on the streets at night without any light setup etc, was always a major discussion on any forum.  
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Gotcha serge ;)
next time give us a little wink or smile or something. Sometiems it is hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic. :)
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Geffy, I'm not saying Hollywood wants to make movies look like video, but that some movies emulate the "video look" to give a documentary/high-tech feel.

Examples:
Mystic River: Over-exposed, but with rich blacks. Drab lighting, primarily a deep DOF.
Three Kings: Looks a lot like reversal stock. Whites blown out to give the feeling of news footage.
Infernal Affairs (just saw it): Dark blacks and tons of blown highlights. A lot of it was shot with ultra-wide angle lenses (barrel distortion all over the place). Looks a lot like high definition video in places due to the deep DOF and limited dynamic range, but looks really good.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=SergejIvanovits link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#8 date=02/20/05 at 11:19:00]I just heard that some of the scandinavien countries has only 16:9 broadcast from 2005[/quote]
Yes, but 16:9 is not HD. 16:9's been around a long time, and as I understand it the British broadcasters are requiring new programs in 16:9. Not high-def, of course, but 16:9.

and the new setts they are selling in shops are HD ready.
Click to expand...
Certainly many of them are. It's tough to find a 42" TV or larger that *isn't* high-def-ready. But what does high-def-ready mean? Someone on the Cow posted about how he'd just gotten his high-def plasma TV, and that they're easily available. So I looked up the specs. It was 864x480. As in, standard-def. Yes it could take an HD signal, but it would down-rez it to standard-def.

The EBU hasn't even issued its directive on what type of broadcast format would be suitable for Europe. So unless you're subscribing to a satellite HD system or something like that, there shouldn't be much (if any) HD programming readily available in most of Europe.
Norway stops all analogue broadcast from 2008/2009.
Click to expand...
Sure. But digital broadcasting does *not* mean high-def! That's one thing that really trips people up -- they think that DTV and HDTV are synonymous, and they're most definitely not. In America we're also supposed to stop broadcasting analog soon... but there is no requirement to go to high-def. Only to digital. Of the 18 formats of digital television endorsed by the ATSC, 12 of them are not high-def.

Consumers are confused -- they think 16x9 digital television = high-def. It doesn't. You can have 4:3 digital TV, or 16:9 digital TV, or high-def. They're different.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=Deadzone link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#9 date=02/20/05 at 11:34:49]I guess the big question is whether Panasonic will release an HD cam under $10,000 which is still within my striking price (barely).[/quote]
That question's already been answered -- they have already said that they're going to produce exactly that.

So if I understand correctly, even if panasonic comes out with a new HD cam it will not look better on DVD compared to a DVX-100A because the CCD size and lens will probably be the same.
Click to expand...
Well, that seems likely, but it remains to be seen. You can't discount the potential of some sort of technological breakthrough, or if they were to use CMOS sensors, or something like that. But yes, barring any such breakthrough, I would expect that the new high-def camera wouldn't be able to produce a better-looking DVD than the prevailing standard-def cameras, assuming that all other things are comparable.

(and of course we don't know what the CCD size will be, and we don't know what type of lens it will have, so all other things may indeed *not* be comparable. Gotta stay tuned until April 18 for that news.)

The only difference will be if it is put on HD DVD. But would shooting on an HD format be better if I later decided to transfer the movie to film for showing in a theater setting?
Click to expand...
Almost unquestionably. I hedge it with "almost" only because we haven't seen it yet. What if it's high-def but it only delivers three stops of latitude? Or has a noisy, grainy picture? I don't think those will be the case, I think certainly the high-def cameras will produce a significantly better film transfer.

No matter what, I definitely want to get a camera that has the 24p frame rate. I am really curious about the Sony Z1 and how its 24p stacks up against the Panasonic 100A.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. CF24 is a weird field-blending/field-dropping mishmash that produces variable-resolution frames and uneven motion rendering. Whereas with the DVX, its 24p renders motion absolutely identically to how film renders motion.

You'd expect that a constant-speed object, traveling across a constant-frame-rate capture system, would show a constant deviation between frames (i.e., think of a car moving across the frame -- at exactly 24fps, it should move approximately the same number of pixels on each and every frame). And on a 24P camera like the DVX, it does. But in CF24, it exhibits an odd herky-jerky movement, and examining the footage frame-by-frame reveals why: the CF24 simulation doesn't divide the motion up evenly. For two frames' worth of travel, it'll allocate about 1/3 of the motion to one frame, and 2/3 to the other. So whereas on the DVX the car might move 30 pixels each frame (or 60 pixels over the course of two frames), on the Z1 it'll move about 40 pixels on the first frame, and about 80 on the second. Then 40/80/40/80 repeated. It's nothing like "real" 24P.

Furthermore, CF24 exhibits unstable motion artifacting even on still shots. We shot resolution charts and were horrified to see a crawling/flickering/pulsing pattern in the fine line detail. So, again, frame-by-frame measuring, we found out that CF24 works in a pattern of five frames (as all 2:3 pulldown sequences do) and the resolution varies between those frames! On frames one and two, CF24 resolves about 475 lines. On frames three and four, it resolves about 425 lines. And on frame five, it resolves 575 lines! So you have this constant pulsing/twitter that shows up on all thin vertical line objects, even when the camera is stationary.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: CF24 is unusable as a film simulation. If you want a "video effect", you can use it, but if you want something to look like 24fps film, CF24 is *not* it.

Also, the Z1 is suppose to have native 16:9 chips. However, I will wait for NAB as I HOPE the newest Panasonic will blow the Z1 out of the water.  
Click to expand...
The Z1 does have native 16:9 chips. I can almost guarantee that the new Panasonic will as well, as all ATSC HD formats are native 16:9.

The main difference will be that the Z1 is exclusively interlaced, whereas we expect (haven't been promised, but we all expect) that the Panasonic will have progressive-scan chips. May have interlaced as well (like the DVX does) but it should most definitely have pro-scan.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

I figured I would post this in this thread rather than add to the mounting topics here..

anyone else seen this camera:
http://www.dalsa.com/dc/design/dc_design.asp

I was supposed to go and actually see the camera in action.. but through some crummy communication. But my friends, and several of my teachers went to see it. My teachers being DP's were blown away by it.. even the hardcore film nuts.. they said the image quality produced rivaled 35mm.

The guys were given a demo of footage shot on either camera, then shown blowups of each. Apparently the digital format was much cleaner and much more detailed than the 35mm..

This camera looks incredible.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

That Dalsa camera looks impressive, but at $3000.00 a day way out of my price range.

Thanks to Barry again for the info. I assume Sony's Z1 uses the CF24 technology. By the sounds of it, I will pass on that camera. I didn't know it was official that Panasonic announced the new camera as HD. That's great to hear. If they put in a 16:9 native chip to boot, I will be sold. Got to wait until April 18 though :'(
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

It will be HD, and it will be 16:9. The Z1 uses CF24, it also features CF25 and CF30 as well as 50i and 60i.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=15#26 date=02/20/05 at 15:09:33]
Certainly many of them are.  It's tough to find a 42" TV or larger that *isn't* high-def-ready. [/quote]
Yes, big tv doesn't have to be HDTV but HD-ready it means an equipment to be able to use 1080i and 720p hd-sygnal. The HDTV can have different resolution but its signal processing converts the incomming signal to what resolution the equipment is using. As my frend said, they can use the HD-ready sign only if the sett can handel 1080i/720p HD.

But I mean we have to separet the production from the broadcasting. If we are saying the sony's 1080i is too early on the market because the customers hasn't got the right tv-sett at home to be able to watch 1080i, than how can they watch the next comming dvcpro-hd at home. And how could they watched a tv-serie made with 35mm film. So the prduction is one thing and the broadcasting is an other. [/quote]
 
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=15#26 date=02/20/05 at 15:09:33]The EBU hasn't even issued its directive on what type of broadcast format would be suitable for Europe. [/quote] It does not too much metter for the consumer because the setts they are selling now are duall system. It has 1080i/720p -> convert to its resolution. If I'm not wrong the early hd-sets downconverts 720p to 480i and not to 1080i.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=SergejIvanovits link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=30#31 date=02/21/05 at 03:46:04]If I'm not wrong the early hd-sets downconverts 720p to 480i and not to 1080i.
[/quote]

My set is from 2001. It converts 720p to 1080i.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=Policar link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#5 date=02/20/05 at 09:44:38]
If it has bigger CCDs (varicam, cinealta), it also has a greater dynamic range and DOF...[/quote]

Not to be a stickler, but bigger CCDs will yield, all other things being equal, a shallower DOF, which is indeed more characterisic of film than of video.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

..im sure thats what he meant.. people generally use "DOF" as shorthand for "shallow DOF" . even though its an oxymoron.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

I meant "great" as in "super!"

Just kidding, but yeah...I'm lazy. Of course I meant shallower.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=scharky link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#10 date=02/20/05 at 11:37:33]. . .  Buy your camera, make the next award winning film.  But don't let anybody sell you on the hype of the next best thing.  Don't worship your camera.  Abuse it.  Throw it around.  Get it dirty.  USE YOUR CAMERA.

Sincerly
A very fed up
Scharky[/quote]

Scharky,

I agree wholeheartedly with your soapbox post earlier (only the end is quoted here). I would like to add two reactions. First, clearly you are not talking about shooting your next project on a Canon ZR40. There are some minimal limits involved in what you are saying. Second, your post was such a relief to me. I, for the life of me, cannot get geared up for this HD thing. I've been reading all about the new Panasonic camera coming out soon with interest, but without any application. My goal is to distribute on DVD and never converted to 35mm for a movie theater. I do weddings, commercials, training films, and am working on a pilot for a broadcast TV show. I have yet to figure a use for HD - at least not for years to come. Barry's post also reassured me. My next step up would be a 2/3" SD 24p camera like the SDX900, not an HD camera (although the SDX is out of my range). So for now, and for quite a while in the future my DVX100A is where it is at (I've even considered purchasing another one!).

(By the way, I'd love for Panasonic to train their 1/2" 3CCD DVC200 to do 24p. That would be a huge boost to us little guys and an upward path from the DVX100 for the next 5-7 years while SD will remain the dominant medium - Jan, are you listening?)
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

So if I understand correctly, even if panasonic comes out with a new HD cam it will not look better on DVD compared to a DVX-100A because the CCD size and lens will probably be the same.
Click to expand...

Well, that seems likely, but it remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

As far as I read into optics, the same lens should be no problem. As a shot in the blue, I would say the lens on the DVX resolves about 10 Million 'pixels', so this won't be a limit for the near future. They just have to make sure that the lens of the HDX whatever is about three feet long to get a shallow depth of field. Yes, I am reading your book. :)

And a standard resolution DVD should look significantly better when the film was shot in a higher resolution. Just watch any 35mm film on DVD, it looks way better than video on the same resolution, as there was more information available for every pixel of the 'low' resolution MPEG2 offers.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

I wouldn't go that far. I doubt the DVX's lens resolves anything close to 10 million pixels. At its sharpest aperture, I'm sure it resolves more than the DV format requires, but it focuses into a smaller 1/3'' area. Panavision advertises the sharpness of their HD lenses because it's hard to make an HD lens that's as sharp as a 35mm lens because of the smaller sensor. Also, the XL1's 16X zoom lens was said to be too soft to resolve the full resolution offered by the XL2. 10 million pixels is a LOT.

Furthermore, the lens wouldn't have to be THAT big to offer such shallow DOF. A 200mm lens (which offers tons of DOF) is hardly three feet long. With a 1/3'' sensor, you'd need to extremely far from the subject just to get an extreme close up, and space would be compacted so much that everything would appear flat and claustrophobic.

And while DVDs from film out do indeed have more information to work from than mini-DV, but they are also color corrected, sharpened, noise-reduced, etc. very carefully. Furthermore, the "more information" they have is mostly in the form of extended dynamic range offered by film. Also, Hollywood movies have an average budget of 50 million dollars, and that helps anything look good. I doubt a DVD would resolve any more resolution than the DVX. But 35mm to video offers way more dynamic range.

A DVD from a high definition camera, assuming everything else was the same a the DVX (and I actually expect the new camera to have worse low light performance, but hopefully better gain circuitry and thus less noise) would look only nominally better. An HD-DVD, blu ray disk, or film out, would look much better.

I still think dynamic range is more important than resolution, though. I'd take an sdx900 over whatever the HDX turns out to be. Those 2/3'' chips and excellent lenses do a lot more in the way of quality imagery than some extra resolution, although that helps, too, obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top