HD: What is the equivalent in film?

stephenlnoe said:
Film has more like 5000 lines of resolution (depending on the clarity of the lens). No DV comes close to what film is capable of i'm afraid. Maybe in the future....
Click to expand...

I agree, but once degraded by the various stages of DI and copying etc, HD is pretty much on PAR. It is a weakest link in the chain effect - if you preserve 5K right up to the multiplex and then project with a crappy lens, the image will still be crappy.

... or if the spotty runt in the booth can't focus the projector!!! Grrrrrr!! :evil:
 
wow, we have come a long way from the original post. How does HD compare to 16mm? HD, even from the future HVX will, IMO, be every bit as good as, or better, than 16mm for most applications.
 
I know some people have mentioned filmstocks, but I think most people underestimate how important this choice is to the final quality as well.

I recently saw a documentary that one of my crew had been working on. It was shot on DVCAM and 16mm in the UK and China. Whilst in China, they had used Chinese filmstocks. OMG! They would have got better results from VHS!! The quality (resolution, colour, latitude, EVERYTHING!) was terrible. Compare that to the modern Fuji and Kodak stuff and you may as well be talking different formats. For most people in US and UK, this isn't a problem, but if shooting abroad, it could well be a big one.
 
What about the generation loss. I realize a DI has only two generation loses one in the scan and one in the film out, but HD or 2K projected on a digital projector has no generational loss beyond the artifacts of post manipulation. So even if a perfectly exposed and processed frame of 5205 250D has 5000 lines of resoultion, it will never make it into the computer or out again. I would say, based on my experience with digital stills and 35mm film (I was a pro photographer for many years) that you really get subtantially more information out of a 8MB 6 megapixel RAW digital file than a 4000 DPI 100MB drum scan of a 35mm slide. The info may or may not be there but it is inaccesable Vs. the Digtal file. The latitute is a different issue, but that will get better with time.
 
evinsky said:
What about the generation loss. I realize a DI has only two generation loses one in the scan and one in the film out, but HD or 2K projected on a digital projector has no generational loss beyond the artifacts of post manipulation.
Click to expand...

A film using a DI is likely to have more than two generational losses. First in the negative scan, then anything due to post work, next the master film out, and then at least one more loss in the duplication of all the release prints. I am not sure of the modern system of duplication. Does anyone know how many stages it is?
 
...yeah that director for superman was a bit wonky about the workflow though. it was taking so long because he didnt want to just review it digitally, he had all the dailies printed out to film for review. so its his own fault for the time it took not just trusting it would be fine based off the digital veiwing. if he wouldve stuck to digital domain until a film print was necessary the speed would have undoubtedly been faster than having to work with film prints. because his "dailies" had already been digtally color treated and everything and then printed to film to show him on the big screen for review. but in the digital world he wouldnt have had to ship the footage all around to get it printed to film and all, and if he wanted it color corrected and enhanced for his dailies he couldve reviewed a proxy file that still couldve been colorized but couldve been simply sent online or handled at a closer facility. i think he was just expecting a little too much for the workflow he demanded which was overkill cause he wanted to be sure everything was perfect. i mean i could do the same thing with the HVX200 when shooting a film that will be transferred to 35mm for projection.. can you imagine.. every day id have to send the footage off to be fully color timed by a colorist and then printed to film for review.. like i couldnt just review it off a plasma or something on the set..? both the dalsa and the genesis output regular HD for reviewing and "daily" type stuff. but if i demended an uncompressed 4k output film print of every shot ..well thats just silly IMHO
 
This is getting a little off topic but......

This is getting a little off topic but......

evinsky said:
I would say, based on my experience with digital stills and 35mm film (I was a pro photographer for many years) that you really get subtantially more information out of a 8MB 6 megapixel RAW digital file than a 4000 DPI 100MB drum scan of a 35mm slide. The info may or may not be there but it is inaccesable Vs. the Digtal file. The latitute is a different issue, but that will get better with time.
Click to expand...

evinsky -
What do you mean by more "information" in this sense, AND how is it inaccessable in the scan of the film negative?

This answer is critical to me in terms of trying to decide between a HVX200 shoot or a S16 DI shoot. Since DI has been mentioned in regards to film versus the HVX, I wanted to know a little more about this concept.

Thanks for any help you can offer.
Markus
 
Evinsky, while I agree that a 6mp RAW file can compete resolution wise with a 4000DPI Drum scan, I will have to dissagree with which one has more accesable information. Latitude is information, and so is each grain of film taken from the scan. Film is just so much more forgiving, and so much more workable than digital will be for at least the next 10 years. Now if you want to compare a 22mp digital back with a high res medium format drum scan, well there you may have a challenge. But the last time I checked I didn't have 30G's to spend on a camera back.
Digital is getting there, but I still prefer film. However, I will always go for what the cost allows. IF that means shooting HD over film and saving but loads of money, and getting good looking results, go for it.
 
When discussing film latitude in these types of threads, what is it we're referring to, contrast range?, e.g. a grayscale "latitude" comparison?
 
I like 35mm much better. I ALWAYS see image problems in stuff shot on the Sony CineAlta or the Varicam.

Genesis and it's ilk may finally be equivalent; but as someone pointed out, the workflow is only for those with HUGH budgets.

Super16mm is growing on me as well. Mini-dv is crap, at least when blown up in a theatre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top