Format suggestions for low indie budget feature

[Thomas James]

So 2 perf 35mm film would transfer well to the Blu-Ray disc format?

[Mike Williamson]

If you're seriously considering 2 perf, I'd make sure to talk with your post facility about their ability to handle it both for dailies and for scanning. It also is going to put you back in DI world, so finishing to a film print just got more expensive. It's a non-standard format at this point, which means you'll have a more difficult workflow than shooting a more common format, so be prepared.

 

Thomas, when did Blu-Ray disc become the gold standard by which all else is measured? I've always planned my shooting around the highest resolution display that the film will play on, which so far has been in theaters even for the small movies I've done. I would expect to see more format limitations (grain, lack of resolution, lack of latitude, etc.) in projected HDCAM, for example, than on a Blu-Ray disc on a decent HD display.

 

In answer to your earlier post, yes, I believe that Super 16 will look absolutely acceptable when transferred to Blu-Ray. It outresolves full resolution HD, so why would I expect it to be unworkable for a compressed consumer version of HD with less color depth?

[Phil Rhodes]

> It outresolves full resolution HD

 

I don't think that's necessarily a foregone conclusion for every frame of 16 ever shot. I think the absolute best, slow stock, best lenses at their best stops, best cameras, best crews 16 does, but whether it can be done reliably and practically day to day is a somewhat different consideration.

 

P

[John Brawley]

I keep hearing about people sending their cameras to Australia to be converted to 2 perf! It would be ironic if there are none over there! :) 2 perf is rare generally tho.

 

 

Freya

 

 

Kelvin from Movielab used to have two set's of 2 perf cameras. Movicam's and BL's. I've done 2 jobs with them.

 

Movielab went bust a few months ago.

 

Panavision are now doing 2 pef movements for the GOLD and XL's. Arri also do 2 perf for their arricams....

 

Both are still top end and expensive rental options.

 

I have almost shot 2 perf a few times and then gone 3 perf, mainly because, you still get stock savings, but so much more neg area. All the 2 perf systems are std 35. Super35 3 perf when shooting even 2.35 has so much more negative real estate. Also with 2 perf, there's NO frame line left, so hairs become a BIG problem, not to mention being able to do a little re-reacking in telecine. And 3 perf is much much easier to come by in terms of cameras.

 

jb

[Mike Williamson]

I don't think that's necessarily a foregone conclusion for every frame of 16 ever shot.

 

Yeah, I'll agree to that.

 

In the context of this thread, I'm assuming modern color stock with a decent set of lenses. This isn't somebody's undergrad film with an Arri BL and an Angenieux zoom that's been mishandled by students for over 40 years. As far as crew goes, that's going to be the same between HD and Super 16, so I don't think it's meaningful to throw that in the equation. If it's lit like garbage, it will suck no matter what you aim at it.

[Thomas James]

Blu-Ray is already the gold standard because it is the winning high definition format for the home theatre. The problem with theatrical showcasing is that by the time we take into account generational quality control losses the actual displayed resolution in movie theatres is only equivalent to 720p video. In the past this was adequate when compared with 480p DVD however movie goers are already noticing that there is no improvement in the picture quality at the movie theatre compared to what they can view at home. Also there is the cost consideration as it is cheaper to purchase a Blu-Ray disc then it is to take the family to a movie. Theatres in order to compete will have to switch to 4k digital projection which will preserve the quality of 35mm or HD origination.

 

The problem with 16mm film origination is that it creates too much grain which makes it difficult to transfer to Blu-Ray Disc because of compression encoding issues.

[Lav Bodnaruk]

Hi Paul,

 

thanks for a great 2 perf reply!

I am pretty sure that sourcing out a 2perf camera in Oz, as John mentions, is possible. I would have to try and do so and get a quote for it to know what i am looking at exactly.

 

I have shot with 3perf a fair bit (all my 35mm shorts) and am shooting with http://www.lemac.com.au/film/35III.htm on Easter too (another short I am whipping up). Your email was wonderful Paul, because it reminded me of all the benefits of 3 perf when I first discovered it over 4perf.

 

2 perf is a bit of an unknown territory for me, but i understand all the pro's and con's (most of them). From lack of racking in telecine on the frame, hairs and 'noise levels' (which i am sure are not bad on all cameras) to DI world that follows - but in saying this, over 16mm, i still think it is a valid option.

 

In all honesty, the only reason we are going 16mm at this stage is because of our ratio - the director wants to have a fair amount of options on how many takes she does, fearing the idea of this being a romantic comedy with some names attached now, which might be used to 'waisting' film on other sets, shooting for outtakes almost. In saying this, we had to ditch the idea of 35mm 4 perf straight away, as the neg was going to be too expensive for us. The 3 perf came into calculations but it didn't deliver, as we could afford it, but again, the ratio was too low. 2 perf might be OK, i will have to go back to numbers... oh sweet God, why do I do this... should have just done a typical producer thing and decided to shoot on whatever format might be the cheapest ... too bad i love films and cinematography ha?

 

Thanks again guys!

Best,

 

PS. I am very much excited about my short film on Easter weekend - just a small shoot in a Casino hotel, using that 3 perf camera AATON 35-III and Arri's Shift & Tilt lenses. Should be a great shoot!

[Mike Williamson]

The problem with theatrical showcasing is that by the time we take into account generational quality control losses the actual displayed resolution in movie theatres is only equivalent to 720p video.

 

I'd strongly disagree with that. I'm not sure what theaters you're going to, but that hasn't been my experience anywhere I've gone. There's a reason that digital intermediates are being done at 4K when possible, and it's because there's a visible difference between 2K and 4K when projected on a cinema screen. Yes, there is some loss in the IP/IN process but it's nowhere near the numbers you're claiming. And it doesn't begin to address the severly limited color space and latitude of 720p video.

 

I also think there's more to the experience of watching movies in a theater with a large group of people than the technical superiority of the image quality. It's a community experience that I think has had a lot to do with the continued popularity of movies for over 100 years. Obviously this is a personal opinion and you can take it with a grain of salt, but I think it's a mistake to think to reduce the difference between the two experiences to a debate about resolution.

[Mike Williamson]

My apologies to Lav if I've pushed this thread of topic, sorry about that.

[John Brawley]

The problem with 16mm film origination is that it creates too much grain which makes it difficult to transfer to Blu-Ray Disc because of compression encoding issues.

 

 

Sorry, but i think you're wrong here.

 

What evidence do you have to support this theory ? Just because the BBC make a political decision not to accept some 16mm you extrapolate that out to mean that 16mm has encoding issues when striking Blu-Ray DVD's ?

 

As Phil pointed out they accept MiniDV STANDARD DEF material, but not 16mm. Clearly it's idiotic. The reason for the compression issues is more to do with the fact that that they are trying to squeeze SD signals into abysmially small data rates for their SD mutichannel transmissions. They aren't transmitting HD in the UK remember.

 

Just because the BBC have trouble compressing the crap out of SD signals doesn't mean that 16mm isn't good enough. Does that also mean that bit's of Babel will be ommited from the BluRay DVD ? Leaving Las Vegas or City of God won't get a release at all ?????

 

jb

[Phil Rhodes]

They are transmitting some HD here, mainly as a tech demo. The 16 stuff doesn't look as good as even things like Varicam because it is so noisy. I do sympathise to an extent because the blanket prohibition is probably a bit far-reaching, but the elephant in the corner here is that "grain" is just a polite way of saying "noise". There would, I think, be some legitimacy to saying "material shall not be excessively noisy", and adding a footnote that 16mm productions would have to be especially careful about this.

 

I'm also not sure how this is being applied. BBC HD is certainly showing Silent Witness and I believe Spooks, both of which are 16 (and look it).

 

Also, while Mr. James is not perhaps our most reliable contributor, and I don't wish to be seen as in any way support of his wider theses (which are bonkers, frankly), but I wouldn't expect it to be too hard to find a 35mm film which struggled to put 1.5K on the screen. I know of at least one very major super-35 DI, shot on 500 speed stock, where the original neg scans did not resolve 2K let alone the filmed out results. There will of course be counterexamples.

 

P

[Mike Williamson]

I know of at least one very major super-35 DI, shot on 500 speed stock, where the original neg scans did not resolve 2K let alone the filmed out results. There will of course be counterexamples.

 

Again, yes, I'll trust you on that one, Phil. You do see some DI's that look pretty bad and the 500 speed stock doesn't help.

 

Then you go and watch Deakins' work on "No Country" or "Jesse James" and Super 35 500T looks like the best thing that ever happened to cinematography. Obviously he's lighting better than almost everybody else, but that doesn't explain why the resolution is higher and the grain is lower on his films that are using the same stock and lenses as other films. My guess is that some of it comes down to how the image is handled in scanning and post, as far as what kind of choices are made during timing and so on.

[Phil Rhodes]

Yes, exactly. This will never be an easy question to answer. The very best anamorphic stuff (Swordfish, whatever you think of the film, is screamingly sharp) is obviously very high res. Other stuff isn't.

 

Which is why it's incorrect to say that 16 could never be suitable for HD, but probably correct to say that it would frequently struggle.

 

P

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Blu-Ray is already the gold standard because it is the winning high definition format for the home theatre.

 

& not because Sony paid out more and biggr bribes than Toshiba?

[Thomas James]

I'm not saying that Toshiba HD-DVD was not a good format. It was dirt cheap and was on the verge of becomming mainstream before the rug got pulled out from under it. What might have killed it is that they did not include it as standard equipment with the Microsoft XBOX but rather marketed it as a costly add on. The Playstation 3 on the otherhand was good entertainment that the entire family could enjoy even if you were not into video games because it had a Blu-Ray deck that you could use to watch high definition movies.

 

However I see no indication that the Indy producer who started this thread is even interested in a high definition release of his film.

[Lav Bodnaruk]

However I see no indication that the Indy producer who started this thread is even interested in a high definition release of his film.

 

Thanks for that Thomas, the post did get a bit out of hand...

 

My POST was asking for SUGGESTIONS on the format I should shoot my indie feature on (a no budget feature by my standards).

 

Then the discussion around the ratio became interesting, what is appropriate for comedy and what isn't, but what format it gets released on for DVD is not something I had yet gotten around my head (perhaps because I trust this will be a job of a distributer and perhaps because I have zillion other things to worry about - like lack of sleep during the pre-production of this film).

 

Either way, I am sure I will turn my concerns towards it eventually - just not yet. MAYBE when I am in POST? Maybe when I know the faith of the film, when it is complete and I first discus theatrical distribution....

 

Cheers mate,

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I'm not saying that Toshiba HD-DVD was not a good format. It was dirt cheap and was on the verge of becomming mainstream before the rug got pulled out from under it. What might have killed it is that they did not include it as standard equipment with the Microsoft XBOX but rather marketed it as a costly add on.

 

Toshiba claimed that Sony paying Warner Video $50,000,000 to drop HD-DVD was the final straw.

 

"Toshiba is widely expected to pull the plug on its HD DVD format sometime in the coming weeks, reliable industry sources say, after a rash of retail defections that followed Warner Home Video's announcement in early January that it would support only the rival Blu-ray Disc format after May."

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/conten...7d0bfb0c25aa58d

 

"Nishida said last month's decision by Warner Bros. Entertainment to release movie discs only in the Blu-ray format made the move inevitable."

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/19/technology/toshiba.ap/

[Andy_Alderslade]

I'm also not sure how this is being applied. BBC HD is certainly showing Silent Witness and I believe Spooks, both of which are 16 (and look it).

 

Phil,

 

Is it just me or are many (definetly not all) BBC shows looking less 'filmy' these days even their 16mm stuff is begining to look like noisy video? - at one point I thought many of their normally film produced shows were switching over.

 

While many (though not all) ITV shows are still looking pretty decent, last year Little Devil and particularly Primeval looked pretty great.

 

Could it be post tinkering, where the problem is arising?

[Phil Rhodes]

I don't know. While it's usually safe to assume, with the BBC, that anything they're paying for will have the life beaten out of it by ludicrous broadcast "guidelines", the blame may also lie at the door of modern Kodak stocks which seem to be very low in contrast and thereby look extremely flat and boring.

 

It makes you think that as the video cameras achieve better and better dynamic range, Kodak keep making their stocks go the same way. Because they can do this more or less at will by varying the fineness of the sensitive emulsions, it is a race they can easily keep on winning, but nobody actually seems to have realised that endless dynamic range is not desirable. I'm thinking particularly about the Kris Marshall BT ads, which appear to be taking place in the greyish, fog-filled world from the end of Silent Hill.

 

Phil

[Andy_Alderslade]

I don't know. While it's usually safe to assume, with the BBC, that anything they're paying for will have the life beaten out of it by ludicrous broadcast "guidelines", the blame may also lie at the door of modern Kodak stocks which seem to be very low in contrast and thereby look extremely flat and boring.

 

It makes you think that as the video cameras achieve better and better dynamic range, Kodak keep making their stocks go the same way. Because they can do this more or less at will by varying the fineness of the sensitive emulsions, it is a race they can easily keep on winning, but nobody actually seems to have realised that endless dynamic range is not desirable. I'm thinking particularly about the Kris Marshall BT ads, which appear to be taking place in the greyish, fog-filled world from the end of Silent Hill.

 

Phil

 

Its amusing that you mention the Kris Marshal BT ads, because I actually like them - kind of wish someone could actually make a series like that. For me the low-contrast look compliments the understated style of them... but thats only my personal opinion.

 

The problem with blaming kodak for making their stocks with greater and greater dynamic range is american shows shot on super 16 look far different than the the low contrast british look, shows like The OC and One Tree Hill look incredibly snappy, and those shows are shot on identicle films stocks with identicle lenses.

 

I think the blame has to lie more with lighting tastes, telecine, post, the weather and production design.

 

After all britian is the land of grey, low contrast weather and white interiors.

[Max Jacoby]

I'm thinking particularly about the Kris Marshall BT ads, which appear to be taking place in the greyish, fog-filled world from the end of Silent Hill.

I quite like the ads for the Chris Moyles show that are screening in cinemas at the moment. Of course every time I see them I go: I could have shot that!