HPX to Big Screen

C

cheetz106

Member
Hello,

I plan on shooting a short film with the HPX and a 35mm adaptor this June with festival ambitions. My question is, how does the HPX footage hold up when projected onto the big screen? What are the ways to secure that the image looks the best it can when blown up for the big screen?

Is getting it transferred to 35mm the way to go? Does that make a difference?

Thanks,

Eddie
 
Getting transferred to 35mm will not improve the quality at all, but it will cost you an arm and a leg. The only reason to do it is if the festival requires it.

And it depends on what festival you're talking about -- many festivals project off of DVD! Standard-def DVD. Many still accept BetaSP as a delivery format.

The HPX170 with an adapter, if shot well, looks fantastic on the big screen, as many here will attest.
 
So the HPX + Adaptor footage projected straight from a DVD looks good? That's a relief. A few years ago I shot a short on a DVX and the DVD projection on the big screen was embarrassing to have to watch at some festivals.

Eddie
 
Eddie, the issue of digital projection at festivals is a complicated one regardless of format or camera used. There are several key variables - primarily the playback device and the projector itself. We recently completed a film (shot using a mix of DVCam and DVCProHD) that has screened at 3 different festivals. Plus I have seen our film projected in several post-house theaters in LA. Of course, playing back the finished product from the HDCAM master projected with a Barco or Christie 2K projector looks fantastic - even the DVCam material, if properly handled. I've also seen the film projected from a DVD player that does a proper scaling to 1080 projected through a 2K projector. To my surprise this also looked very good. Though if you walked up close to the screen you would begin to see compression artifacts. But if you use a projector of marginal quality, even screening from HDCam will not save the viewing experience from technical problems because the image is compromised in the final step of the process.

My experience with festivals is that the viewing experience varies greatly from event to event. Sometimes even venue to venue. Eventually we will likely see a situation where viewing experiences will standardize around very good quality 1080 or 2K projectors. For now, it's still a bit of hit and miss situation.

Regarding output to film - which we also did - as Barry said, it will not improve the image. In fact, you will see some softening and the image will be blown up a bit. Plus it will add grain, which some folks kinda like. You will also experience gate weave, a very subtle experience most of us are unaccustomed to since we shoot, edit and finish in a digital domain.

My recommendation - as has been stated by others many times before - do the best you can with lighting, composition and all the other technical issues while acquiring your footage. Be vigilant along the production path in maintaining the quality of those images - meaning don't bake in effects or color correction until you are a proper post environment. But the most important thing is to have a good story, good acting and good direction. Audiences generally don't see technical things the way we do, but they get drawn into good storytelling, engaging characters, good scriptwriting. Yes, I also feel that the technical stuff is important. Controlling depth of field, good lighting and production design, music and sound design, etc. are critical elements in any film. But I'm often stunned by the efforts put into the making of a film (even Hollywood pics) where the production quality is so high and the script is simply awful.

Well, probably more of an answer than you wanted. Best of luck with the film.

Phil
 
I shot a 20 minute short not too long ago with an HVX200A and lens adapter (as 1080 24pa) that was screened in a commercial theater from a standard definition DVD and it honestly looked like "a real film". And it wasn't even projected with a real D-Cinema projector.

I haven't yet seen a feature length film projected this way but I'd imagine Blu-ray would be the way to go and then I'm sure digital projection would rival a filmout especially taking into account the $200-$350. per minute cost of the filmout and the generation loss.

As far as I know, most if not all festivals are using digital projectors and if you were even considering a filmout, you could just buy a nice Christie DLP projector for about the same cost (or less) to project your pristine digital file with.

.
 
pwalker said:
Well, probably more of an answer than you wanted.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the part about the overriding importance of story, script, acting and direction, and *in that order*, is something that cannot be overstated on gear-centric forums like this (or anywhere else, for that matter). IMO it (collectively) is absolutely, positively *the* biggest reason why, as conventional wisdom says, 99%+ of all micro-indies are crap. Not to mention a sizable percentage of "real budget" movies too. Unfortunately it seems to be a point that gets proven over and over and over with amazingly little effect.

A great story well told outweighs a thousand technical shortcomings...
 
What's the situation currently with festivals and Blu-Ray? Are many of them actively supporting it? If not, are they willing to let filmmakers BYOB (Bring Your Own Blu-ray player)? I kinda doubt it on either point, but thought I'd ask anyway...
 
I shot a film on my HPX170 that premiered in December at the IMAX theater in Copenhagen. It was projected from their media server through a 4k data projector and it looked very good, better than I had hoped for. It was shot 1080 24pA. It was weird to see our film projected on a dome so that all of the straight lines showed up looking bowed but they did not have the capability to "un-bow" the image via the projector but as far as the quality, contrast and feel of the images, it looked surprisingly good, I was very pleased as was the director.

Dan
 
hey pure, was the sharpness of image from the copenhagen projection adequate and pleasing to your eyes? not too soft?
 
I thought it looked plenty sharp and I was pretty close to the screen in the second row. We also screened ten other trailers at this event that were shot on a variety of formats and the 170 looked better than all of them except a music video that was shot on 35mm. We shot the film on a stage in Hollywood with good lighting and wardrobe, many of the trailers shown were not well lit and had lower end production values in comparison.

Same old, same old, it is more about your skills at lighting, composition and editing than if you shot on a $5k camera or on a Sony F35.

Seeing it here in an environment that normally shows film-based 4K projection made me think that if I had seen the same footage in a "normal" theater, it would have looked even better because it would have had a flat screen.

D
 
That's very encouraging, Dan. I think I've seen just about enough examples by now to believe that HVX/HPX footage, well shot, can be presented theatrically in pretty much of a "no apologies" way where image quality is concerned. Which is quite amazing considering the price of these things...
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Actors, Sound

The utmost critical elements; everything else is negligible.
Click to expand...

Well, we may have to agree to disagree on this, but IMHO, in the absence of a great story/script, the above is all for naught, as I think Hollywood has proven countless times...

And I will hereby respectfully rest my case on the subject, at least for this thread : )

PS: 23,000 posts...wow...
 
We just had a premiere for a feature film I directed shot on an HVX/LEX and it looked great coming off of DVD through a 4k projector. It 29 hours to for compressor to do it's thing but it looked damn good up there. I would not do a film out unless it's required, as mentioned it will be EXPENSIVE.

Blu-Ray or Having it come off the server and shown in HD would be Ideal if the cinema has those capabilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top