anyone have 16mm tele'd to HD...

Marcel Zyskind · February 21, 2006

Hi again.

Yes I also shot "The Road to Guantanamo". We shot on video, the Panasonic DVX100A, PAL version in progressive mode.

We had the film blown up to 35mm print and it was screened at the Berlin Film Festival last week and I was very happy with the result of that little camera. Great camera.

We also tested the Z1, but we prefered the progressive mode the DVX100 delivered compared to the slightly sharper interlaced image of the Z1.

Yes, you could say that it is politically edgier, but I would say that most of Michael's films are somewhat edgier, both politically and sexually. Like 9 Songs.

Hope all is well.

Marcel

David Mullen ASC · February 21, 2006

I never used the gain, but we were often on the edge of exposure, which i suppose could yield more grain/noise.
I also found that during grading noise would appear quite quickly. Possibly because of the 10bit F750 compared to the 12 bit F900 camera.

I personally didn't mind the grain myself.

I didn't mind it. I actually thought for a little while that there was some intentional pattern of the book incidents looking grainer (I thought Super-16) and the real world segments looking more like HD, but that difference began to break down. But the grainier shots -- I guess noisier actually -- looked more film-like oddly enough. The HD looked the best in overcast and dusk weather.

Alessandro Machi · February 22, 2006

I don't think you were listening. If you watch a 4x3 full-frame broadcast of something shot on Super-16, the QUALITY IS IDENTICAL TO SOMETHING SHOT ON REGULAR 16MM because you are just using a regular 16mm area of the Super-16 frame for the 4x3 video transfer.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL PRODUCT in this case.

The improvement with Super-16 only comes in widescreen applications.

Is it possible that that there is a broadcast quality difference on an HD monitor depending on whether one has their film image going all the way across the screen versus having two vertical borders on the left and right side. Wouldn't compression algorithms favor the regular 16mm with black borders on the left and right side of the HD screen versus Super-16 which would require the entire screen?

The black part of the screen would use minimal bit rate leaving more for the actual picture area???

David Mullen ASC · February 22, 2006

My guess is that letterboxing or pillorboxing in HD broadcasts is not going to visibly affect the quality of the compressed image. I don't see any difference in compressed SD digital broadcasts when letterboxed material comes up.

Alessandro Machi · February 22, 2006

My guess is that letterboxing or pillorboxing in HD broadcasts is not going to visibly affect the quality of the compressed image. I don't see any difference in compressed SD digital broadcasts when letterboxed material comes up.

What makes this issue complex is not just the film guage being considered, but also the method of broadcasting this signal AND the video card that is installed in the HD monitor as well.

Would broadcast compression and the video card in an HD set require different compression schemes for a horizontally letterboxed image versus a vertically letterboxed image? It seems to me that horizontally letterboxing an image on an SD monitor creates a different ratio of compressed film grain versus a vertically letterboxed film transfer onto HD.

Example, letterboxing Indiana Jones on SD would be a nightmare because the film image is shrunk so small and is not using the entire television screen area, whereas a 16mm film on HD would benefit if the image ratio is unchanged, meanig the 16mm to HD image would be using the entire top to bottom screen area of the television.

If Maximum quality equals using the top to bottom of the film frame while using the top to bottom of the TV screen as well, then if the black vertical borders could be "virtually resampled" that would allow for more of the transmission data to be used for the actual film frame.

So in theory, a 16mm film frame that is not expanded to cover the entire HD screen could actually have a better quality of transfer to HD for broadcast transmission purposes than Super-16 that uses more transmission picture area of the television screen but no more transmission data than the 16mm version.

David Mullen ASC · February 22, 2006

So in theory, a 16mm film frame that is not expanded to cover the entire HD screen could actually have a better quality of transfer to HD for broadcast transmission purposes than Super-16 that uses more transmission picture area of the television screen but no more transmission data than the 16mm version.

I doubt it would make a difference one way or the other, but no one shooting new material specifically for HDTV transmission would pick a 4x3 format anyway and release it pillorboxed, unless for a specific reason (faking old 4x3 footage, for example). Or for an artistic reason. Certainly not the reason to reduce compression artifacts.

By the logic that HD transmissions should not fill the HD screen because then they would compress better, why not just show movies as a postage stamp size in the middle of the HD screen? Or why not limit movement in the frame? That would also reduce compression artifacts.

In other words, the solution to improving HD digital broadcasts shouldn't have to be to only transmit images that don't fill the screen.

And odds are just as high if you did attempt to shoot in regular 16mm as some sort of attempt to "improve" HD broadcast, it would only get cropped to 1.78 anyway and you'd lose quality over shooting in Super-16.

I don't know, but it seems to me that you are going through some rather torturous logic to justify shooting regular 16mm over Super-16 for HD broadcast.

Hal Smith · February 22, 2006

What makes this issue complex is not just the film guage being considered, but also the method of broadcasting this signal AND the video card that is installed in the HD monitor as well.

I have a Mitsubishi 55" Platinum CRT television and a Samsung DirecTV/ATV off-air receiver. Both the TV and the receiver have multiple format options. The quality of the picture is highly dependent on just how one squashes and expands the picture to fit (or not fit) the screen and whether the TV or the receiver is doing the aspect ratio conversion. Only 1080i on both really looks good, everything else has all sorts of artifacts including a very noticeable ghosting effect when running the Samsung and the Mitsubishi on DirecTV non-HD sources. DVD's direct to the TV look about like they usually look, I notice motion artifacts like everyone else but the picture's not too bad. My personal opinion is the "genii" who created all the ATV and satellite compression specifications were spending too much time in the bar and not enough time auditioning all the proposed standards on real world equipment. Grump! :angry:

Edmond, OK

Addition: The artifacts I'm talking about are present to such an extreme degree that they could easily cover up any subtle degradation like the difference between S16 and R16 shot letterboxed. I only wish that ATV and DirecTV were good enough in SD mode to see that, it might be possible to see the difference in HD but someone would have to somehow produce an S16/R16 shootout for an HD over-the-air and/or DirecTV test.

Jose M · July 27, 2006

Please, could someone tell me if the TRISTRAM SHANDY DVD transfer (USA release) was made directly from video source, and thus, encoded as interlaced instead of progressive?

Thank you for your help.

David Mullen ASC · July 27, 2006

Please, could someone tell me if the TRISTRAM SHANDY DVD transfer (USA release) was made directly from video source, and thus, encoded as interlaced instead of progressive?
Thank you for your help.

I thought it was shot at 25P/1080 on the Sony HDW750. Even if it was posted in 50i it could be converted to 25P for DVD release, just like they do for movies shot on film, which are usually stored as 60i or 50i in the standard def masters.