hd to 35mm

[Elie Kamal]

hey there,

i'm preparing for a low budget feature. we'll shoot on sony f900 with a pro35 and zeiss prime lenses. we'll blow it up later to 35mm. unfortunately there's ABSOLUTELY no budget to shoot on super 16.

i'm thinking of shooting 1080i and not 720p and later on i will deinterlance everything on smoke or flame before doing the transfer on arri laser.i think i will get a higher resolution with the 1080 rather than shooting 720,especially that we have some high speed shots.

any comments,tips or corrections ? i'd really appreciate it.

regards,

Elie Kamal

[Michael Nash]

You've got your cameras crossed. The Sony F900 shoots and records 1080/24P (24"PsF," technically). No need to record interlaced unless you want 60fps for slo-mo, and it doesn't even do 720P.

 

You're probably thinking of the Panasonic HDX900, which will record in the methods you describe. For a film-out I think the simplest route is probably best. Shoot 720P and take advantage of the various frame rates you can pull from that without de-interlacing. Any kind of de-interlacing is likely to create motion artifacts and/or soften the image, negating any of the advantage of shooting with a 24P system or "bumping it up" to 1080. If you really want to get more out of the image, try uprezzing and sharpening the image in post rather than mucking about with interlacing/de-interlacing.

 

And speaking of softening, you'll get the cleanest, sharpest image if you just shoot with good HD glass like the Zeiss Digiprimes (or other good HD Cine-style lenses). Adapters, uprezzing, and deinterlacing all "step on" the good clean footage that the camera can produce. If you shoot with good glass and good lighting, you don't really need 35mm lens adapters on 2/3" chip cameras (remember that Super16 has basically the same depth of field characteristics as 2/3" chip systems).

 

Keep it clean, keep it simple.

[Elie Kamal]

you're right Michael.i got confused with the cameras...but there's something about shooting interlaced and progressive that i want to share; i've recently got a demo disc from kodak in which they compare film to hd...there's a section in the disc when they say that if u want to go high speed on hd it's better to shoot interlaced and the deinterlace in post because the frame blending and resolution/sharpness and defition are better (which is clear in the demo disc comparision...) what do u think of that?

and another question plz: i read in a forum that many cinematographers prefer not to use the p+S technique when blowing up on film because the image gets very blurry but in tv broadcast it's great...can u tell me more about it if you agree...

thanks a lot...i really appreciate it!

Elie Kamal

[David Mullen ASC]

Don't shoot 60i on a camera if 24P is an option (whether or not it gets recorded to 1080i), not for a film-out to 24 fps film.

 

The main reason people shoot 60i in order to get slow-motion is that they don't have a choice, the camera doesn't do 60P. 60i converted to 60 fps slow-motion doesn't look too bad, despite losing half your vertical resolution.

 

Now comparing 1920 x 1080 60i converted to 60 fps (essentially working & uprezzing with a 1920 x 540 pixel frame shot 60 times a second) versus using 1280 x 720 60P mode, well, it's not a big difference, better vertical resolution with 1280/60P over de-interlaced 1080/60i, but worse horizontal -- it's really a wash and just depends on your post set-up which is easier to work with.

 

--

 

As for adaptors to get a shallow depth of field, I'd test anything intended for cinema release. There is a softening to take into account. Most people using 2/3" CCD cameras would rather just use faster lenses (T/2 and wider) to reduce depth of field, which gives them the benefit of more exposure as well. 2/3" CCD photography has the equivalent of 2.5 stops more depth of field, so working at a T/2 is like shooting 35mm at an T/4-5.6 split, which is not the end of the world, especially on longer lenses.

 

It's really for the 1/3" CCD cameras where the adaptors come in handy to get rid of that excessively deep-focus look.

[Michael Nash]

David's right, and I think you misunderstood that Kodak DVD. Interlacing does nothing to improve the resolution of the image, in fact a deinterlaced image will often look softer (depending on image content and how the deinterlacing is done). What they were probably trying to say was that shooting 60i gives you 60 images per second to work with instead of 24, giving you better motion sampling for slo-mo -- but at a softer resolution, since each frame is constructed out of one field (half the vertical resolution).

 

Panasonic cameras like the HDX900 and Varicam can shoot 720/60P, so you don't have to do any deinterlacing for slow motion shooting.

[Mike Dunn]

Don't shoot 60i on a camera if 24P is an option (whether or not it gets recorded to 1080i), not for a film-out to 24 fps film.

 

The main reason people shoot 60i in order to get slow-motion is that they don't have a choice, the camera doesn't do 60P. 60i converted to 60 fps slow-motion doesn't look too bad, despite losing half your vertical resolution.

 

Now comparing 1920 x 1080 60i converted to 60 fps (essentially working & uprezzing with a 1920 x 540 pixel frame shot 60 times a second) versus using 1280 x 720 60P mode, well, it's not a big difference, better vertical resolution with 1280/60P over de-interlaced 1080/60i, but worse horizontal -- it's really a wash and just depends on your post set-up which is easier to work with.

 

--

 

As for adaptors to get a shallow depth of field, I'd test anything intended for cinema release. There is a softening to take into account. Most people using 2/3" CCD cameras would rather just use faster lenses (T/2 and wider) to reduce depth of field, which gives them the benefit of more exposure as well. 2/3" CCD photography has the equivalent of 2.5 stops more depth of field, so working at a T/2 is like shooting 35mm at an T/4-5.6 split, which is not the end of the world, especially on longer lenses.

 

It's really for the 1/3" CCD cameras where the adaptors come in handy to get rid of that excessively deep-focus look.

 

Hi David,

 

I just wanted to clarify something for myself in regards to depth of field characteristics. I read on another forum that Super 16 is similar to cameras with 2/3" chips. Is this correct and does it apply to both HD and SD? Also, you mentioned that working at a T2 is like shooting 35mm at a 4/5.6 split in regards to depth of field. Does this scale slide up and down as well? Shooting on video at a T4 is like shooting 35mm at say a T8 or thereabouts? Thanks!

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David,

 

I just wanted to clarify something for myself in regards to depth of field characteristics. I read on another forum that Super 16 is similar to cameras with 2/3" chips. Is this correct and does it apply to both HD and SD? Also, you mentioned that working at a T2 is like shooting 35mm at a 4/5.6 split in regards to depth of field. Does this scale slide up and down as well? Shooting on video at a T4 is like shooting 35mm at say a T8 or thereabouts? Thanks!

 

Yes, yes...

 

2.5 stops more depth of field with 2/3" over 35mm; 2 stops more depth of field with 16mm over 35mm.

[Adam Paul]

Yes, yes...

 

2.5 stops more depth of field with 2/3" over 35mm; 2 stops more depth of field with 16mm over 35mm.

 

 

I'm curious how that would apply to 1/2" video. Shooting a f2 would be equivalent to shoot what in 35mm?

[Bogdan Radulescu]

Hi there. I am shooting in this moment a medium feature with a Sony HD SR1E video camera. After the post I will try to make a direct to print on the AGFA 35 mm Color Positive motion picture. Does anyone knows how could eb the pictoruial impact of HD images on AGFA color positive? Thank you

[Walter Graff]

Yea those adapters are pretty redundant for 2/3inch. They are meant for prosumer cameras. I often think they look like cartoonish Short focus rather than what you get with lenses. Not only do you loose stop with them but you also loose resolution overall. A wide open 2/3 inch camera with slightly longer lens is just like shooting with 35mm. I'd not waste time using one with a 2/3 inch camera as you'll be taking a slight step back in quality. Get a set of good lenses and you'll be making the best choice. Also shoot with the 1080 over 720. The slight bit more resolution often makes for the cleanest pictures for filmout.