I just watched Celebration which was apparently shot on 8mm film stock. It still looked better than video, but the quality has a lot to be desired. I have worked with 16mm before and actually thought the quality was pretty good as far as low budget filmmaking went. Never worked with 35mm. So the big question for me is whether or not this new HVX200 will even close to 16mm. I know we can't say for sure until footage is released, but how far in resolution is an HD image compared to a piece of 16mm stock?
HD: What is the equivalent in film?
- Thread starter Deadzone
- Start date
Rosestar
Well-known member
Deadzone said:
Actually, "The Celebration" was shot on PAL mini-DV. As a rule of thumb most people regard DVC-PRO 50, shot with the Panasonic SDX900 very close to Super 16 in subjective visual quality when transfered to 35mm with a modern transfer methods. DVC-PRO HD shot by the Varicam and HDCAM footage shot with the Sony CineAlta cameras are regarded as having the subective image quality of 35mm film, in most cases.
What the footage from the HVX looks like is anyones guess at this point. I personally think that it will probably compare to standard (4:3) 16mm blown-up to 35mm film. We will have to wait and see if I am right.
I don't know that I can agree Rosestar. I have some experience with shooting 16 and DV, but none with HD. I was, however, under the impression that the Cinealta and Varicam was comparable, resolution wise, to the newer Vision and Fuji stock Super 16 using modern lenses than to DVC Pro. I may be wrong of course and hopefully someone with more knowledge and experience will chime in. To me eye though, 16 telecined to DV looked sharper than the DVC Pro that I've played with and looked more like the Varicam footage I've seen.
.. the issue with talking resolution between film and video is that film does not have a set resolution.. it can be scanned in at whatever digital resolution you want. but the actual percieved sharpness and image quality has a limitation.. it doesnt matter whether you scan a 16mm frame at 4k or 2k .. the actuall image quality remains the same within the given limitations of the original analog media. i would agree with the previous statement that high quality SD can compare to the percieved image quality of 16mm.. heck ive seen the DVX put out footage to the big screen that rivals if wasnt better than super 16mm. and i would say that HD's image quality is directly comparative to 35mm. i think george lucas and robert rodriguez and all those HD heads would agree. so again its not a matter of sheer digital resolution as far as how many pixels dose ths image have,.. its a matter of how much image information and detail is actually presented to the viewer to bring about percieved resolution and quality that matters.
...and yes of course if pressed for technicality, im sure that the super 16mm would beat a 4:4:4 sd image, and super 35 would beat a 4:4:4 Hd image in some sort of sustained image resolution test. but when talking in real life terms about the average viewer looking at the theatre screen- strictly looking at percieved image resolution ..one could be switched for the other without joe blo noticing all other things (color -lattitude- 24p. ect.) being equal.
...and yes of course if pressed for technicality, im sure that the super 16mm would beat a 4:4:4 sd image, and super 35 would beat a 4:4:4 Hd image in some sort of sustained image resolution test. but when talking in real life terms about the average viewer looking at the theatre screen- strictly looking at percieved image resolution ..one could be switched for the other without joe blo noticing all other things (color -lattitude- 24p. ect.) being equal.
Zack Birlew
Veteran
No, no, no, the Varicam is closer to 35mm than anything. It's up there with the Sony F900/950s. But they look similar to 35mm film, not the same. Plus, even with film you need to take lighting, make up, set design, and all of that into account to look great.
As far as the HVX goes, give it a rest. The camera isn't out yet, there hasn't been any footage released, nobody knows anything except what it will do. I tell ya what, when it comes out, I'll scout for one on a trip to L.A. and tell you what I think of it when I find one.:laugh: :thumbup:
But until then, everything is speculation. Also, when comparing HD footage to 16mm, I think it exceeds it by far, but that depends on what HD camera is being used. So wait and see.
As far as the HVX goes, give it a rest. The camera isn't out yet, there hasn't been any footage released, nobody knows anything except what it will do. I tell ya what, when it comes out, I'll scout for one on a trip to L.A. and tell you what I think of it when I find one.:laugh: :thumbup:
But until then, everything is speculation. Also, when comparing HD footage to 16mm, I think it exceeds it by far, but that depends on what HD camera is being used. So wait and see.
Well we can all agree to disagree. It's my opinion that manufacturers created cameras such as the D-20 and the Genesis because the offerings from Sony and Panasonic didn't offer quality comparable to 35. I've captured 35 and Varicam footage from a D-beta deck into FCP and the Varicam didn't hold the highlights as well and didn't have the overall sharpness or vertical resolution of 35. To me it was comparable to Super-16 I've seen telecined. But again, to each his own. Your mileage may vary.
Tim
Tim
Barry_Green
Moderator
"The Celebration" was shot on the Sony PC7, a tiny miniDV camera with arguably the worst picture quality of any miniDV camera then available. It was chosen for its ultra-tiny size, not for its picture quality.
For big-screen projection, obviously more pixels = better results. Continuing the "obvious", 35mm looks better, on a big screen, than 16mm does. And HD will look better than DV. Whether a particular video format compares to a particular film format is a matter of subjectivity... a CineAlta will definitely produce a much sharper, cleaner picture than 800-speed regular 16mm film, but will it hold an advantage over 50-speed Super16? Probably, but it'd be a lot closer comparison.
I think Hollywood's come to the conclusion that HD origination, at least on the CineAlta, is a reasonable alternative to 35mm origination. Hollywood rarely ever produces a film originated in 16mm or S16, but HD origination is becoming more common.
However, when bringing the HVX into the equation, understand that you're talking about a camera that costs about 1/25th of what a full-blown CineAlta kit does. You cannot expect the same results.
The way to think about it may be: a DVX does a reasonable job of theatrical blowup. Not great, but certainly watchable. The HVX should be much, much, much better. If you were considering using a DVX, you should be THRILLED with the HVX.
But I would be surprised indeed if an average viewer would consider an HVX to be a same-quality alternative to 35mm film origination, or CineAlta origination. That just doesn't seem to be a reasonable expectation. Who knows, we haven't seen the results yet, but it just doesn't seem possible.
For big-screen projection, obviously more pixels = better results. Continuing the "obvious", 35mm looks better, on a big screen, than 16mm does. And HD will look better than DV. Whether a particular video format compares to a particular film format is a matter of subjectivity... a CineAlta will definitely produce a much sharper, cleaner picture than 800-speed regular 16mm film, but will it hold an advantage over 50-speed Super16? Probably, but it'd be a lot closer comparison.
I think Hollywood's come to the conclusion that HD origination, at least on the CineAlta, is a reasonable alternative to 35mm origination. Hollywood rarely ever produces a film originated in 16mm or S16, but HD origination is becoming more common.
However, when bringing the HVX into the equation, understand that you're talking about a camera that costs about 1/25th of what a full-blown CineAlta kit does. You cannot expect the same results.
The way to think about it may be: a DVX does a reasonable job of theatrical blowup. Not great, but certainly watchable. The HVX should be much, much, much better. If you were considering using a DVX, you should be THRILLED with the HVX.
But I would be surprised indeed if an average viewer would consider an HVX to be a same-quality alternative to 35mm film origination, or CineAlta origination. That just doesn't seem to be a reasonable expectation. Who knows, we haven't seen the results yet, but it just doesn't seem possible.
Rosestar
Well-known member
tim_brown said:
I'm sorry, I was talking filmout for theatrical projection, not telecined footage. I also was careful to only refer to "subjective visual quality" not actual test bench, side-by-side comparisions.
When considering blow-up to 35mm, I think that the HVX could further descimate the use of academy apeature 16mm (which has almost become extinct anyway) and could very well have or equal the subjective visual quality of Super 16mm. The HVX could very well, in the hands of the right cinematographers, rival images captured with Varicams or CineAlta. This is just something that we will have to wait to see.
I think that the HVX with it specific combination of chips and lens may very well give us a new look, something we have never seen before.
thisiswells
Retired
I still have no idea why the most redundant topics receive the most attention on this forum. Look at the number of posts I've made; I'm in a safe position to make that statement.
This topic has been discussed by minds with more knowledge and hands with more experience than any of us. Electronic capture has already surpassed the resolution of film. Yes, any kind of film. Take into account the following: a Super8 frame is about the same dimensions as a 1/3" CCD. How come they can fit HD-resolution onto a 1/3" electronic sensor, but not into an approximately same-sized film emulsion? For that matter, how come they can fit 5 megapixels onto even smaller chips in digital cameras?
What other conclusion can you draw other than (a) film manufacturers aren't doing all they can to make the MTF of film sharper, which is nonsense considering the capabilities of the newer Vision2 stocks or (b) A century of R&D cannot produce film that captures equal resolution as their electronic counterparts.
Of course, what we're seeing in the "film look" is not resolution. It's a combination of things that only film has shown us to date: wider dynamic range in negative film which doesn't harshly clip highlights, depth of focus only available with large sensors (D-20 and Genesis have this as well, but aren't in our price range so lets not discuss them), tailored response characteristics (pick a film stock for a particular "look"). Rarely when someone talks "film look" do they infer resolution. Most of the S16 or S35 film I see is on BetacamSP tape or a DVD. Film has a visceral feeling even the best electronic capture systems have not equalled.
The DVX100a has enough of a "film look" to be considered excellent. Anything priced above it looks even better (and visit my homepage if you don't believe me, I've had my hands on a VariCam....) The early review of the Genesis by David Mullen, ASC appears quite promising, although he does mention the film held highlights better than the Genesis, but barely. Electronic is the future, I say.
This topic has been discussed by minds with more knowledge and hands with more experience than any of us. Electronic capture has already surpassed the resolution of film. Yes, any kind of film. Take into account the following: a Super8 frame is about the same dimensions as a 1/3" CCD. How come they can fit HD-resolution onto a 1/3" electronic sensor, but not into an approximately same-sized film emulsion? For that matter, how come they can fit 5 megapixels onto even smaller chips in digital cameras?
What other conclusion can you draw other than (a) film manufacturers aren't doing all they can to make the MTF of film sharper, which is nonsense considering the capabilities of the newer Vision2 stocks or (b) A century of R&D cannot produce film that captures equal resolution as their electronic counterparts.
Of course, what we're seeing in the "film look" is not resolution. It's a combination of things that only film has shown us to date: wider dynamic range in negative film which doesn't harshly clip highlights, depth of focus only available with large sensors (D-20 and Genesis have this as well, but aren't in our price range so lets not discuss them), tailored response characteristics (pick a film stock for a particular "look"). Rarely when someone talks "film look" do they infer resolution. Most of the S16 or S35 film I see is on BetacamSP tape or a DVD. Film has a visceral feeling even the best electronic capture systems have not equalled.
The DVX100a has enough of a "film look" to be considered excellent. Anything priced above it looks even better (and visit my homepage if you don't believe me, I've had my hands on a VariCam....) The early review of the Genesis by David Mullen, ASC appears quite promising, although he does mention the film held highlights better than the Genesis, but barely. Electronic is the future, I say.
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
ah !
that's my opinion too.
Digital acquisition is the future, no doubt.
I saw episode 3 on a big screen and it looked as sharp as any other film i've seen there.
There was a subtle difference in the highlights, but it looked really good.
that's my opinion too.
Digital acquisition is the future, no doubt.
I saw episode 3 on a big screen and it looked as sharp as any other film i've seen there.
There was a subtle difference in the highlights, but it looked really good.
Does PAL look that much different than NTSC? The Celebration looked nothing like the video images I usually get from my consumer grade Sony camera. Did they affect the image somehow to get a more film like look? The whole thing was suppose to be shot using the Dogma 95 rules. Judging by the available lighting in the movie, the images came out a lot better and closer to Super 8 then I ever get with my TRV.
Rosestar
Well-known member
Pal video has higher resolution and also records at 25 frames per second, which is closer to films 24fps. A lot of American DV productions, aiming for theatrical release, have chosen to shot PAL DV because of the resolution and frame rate. "Chuck and Buck, Aniversity Party and Time Code are examples.
The version of "The Celebration" that I have seen on video looks like it was a telecine of the film transfer and not copies from a video master. This would add quit a bit to it's "look".
The version of "The Celebration" that I have seen on video looks like it was a telecine of the film transfer and not copies from a video master. This would add quit a bit to it's "look".
thisiswells
Retired
"The version of "The Celebration" that I have seen on video looks like it was a telecine of the film transfer and not copies from a video master. This would add quit a bit to it's look. "
... Especially if they used the (more-affordable) CRT transfer method for the initial "film out" which uses a camera stock before printing.. Contrast to the (more-expensive) laser method, which does not.
More likely than not, there would also have been a high level of grading/color correction on the original miniDV footage (using desktop tools in Avid, for example) for a more filmic look.
... Especially if they used the (more-affordable) CRT transfer method for the initial "film out" which uses a camera stock before printing.. Contrast to the (more-expensive) laser method, which does not.
More likely than not, there would also have been a high level of grading/color correction on the original miniDV footage (using desktop tools in Avid, for example) for a more filmic look.
JoshuaNitschke
Well-known member
thisiswells said:
Where is this homepage? I'd like to see just because I'm curious.
thisiswells
Retired
What about Super16? How do you define "2K" in resolution/dimensions. You sound confident in your condemnation and you may be right, however your message raises some interesting questions. Care to elaborate?Tzedekh said: