750 as good as F900?

[Stephen Williams]

. BTW, a correctly set up digibeta will match HD cameras in terms of contrast handling (around 11 stops).

 

 

Hi,

 

Its the way digital cameras capture and process those 11 stops that can add to the DigiBeta look.

 

If the scene is static how much do you benefit from progressive?

 

Stephen

[Guest MDO]

Hi,

 

Its the way digital cameras capture and process those 11 stops that can add to the DigiBeta look.

 

If the scene is static how much do you benefit from progressive?

 

Stephen

 

 

Hi, unless anyone can accuratly define what they mean by 'digibeta' look, as opposed to a video look, then this discussion is a bit too nebulous.

 

I would hesitate to describe progressive as having a 'benefit'. It is a different look that may or may not be required depending on the requirements of the project. For live sport or soaps, progressive is not usually used.

To answer your question, for any static mage that has no motion in it at all, ie camera locked off on a still, you will not be able to tell the difference between interlaced or progressive, as both these methods require some image movement to have an effect. This is one reason why progressive video sometimes looks like

video rather than the film it is trying to emulate. If there is very little image movement then the progressive effect is less. Badly set up cameras or low-end cameras do not convincingly provide the film look just by shooting progressivly or by repeat-field methods larter.

[Guest MDO]

Hi,

 

Just an opinion of what I saw with my eyes, nothing more!

 

Shooting on film and downconverting to SD yields better results than shooting on SD or HD. One would expect HD downconverted to SD to look better too.

 

I am Sure a F900/3 would give a better result downconverted SD than a 970

 

Stephen

 

Have I misunderstood something here? I thought you said that the 970 looked better than a 750? If they are viewed in the correct way, ie 970 on a SD monitor and 750 on an HD monitor then how is the 970 better?

 

Depends how you define 'better' for film & telecine path rather than straight video. If you want all the faults of film, ie weave, grain etc then video will lose out, although this can be added later. For TV broadcast, video with the best lenses etc, nowadays, is as least as good as film telecine, Dof issues aside.

 

For a digital screen, HD will outperform film shown on a conventional screen. The arguement that film has a 3K resolution does not hold for the entire optical process, it is more like 2K by the time it is projected.

 

There may be a slightly better look to a f900 downconverted than a straight 970, but the question is: "can you justify the huge difference in aquisition cost?" I think most producers would take some convincing if you displayed the two side by side.

[Stephen Williams]

Have I misunderstood something here? I thought you said that the 970 looked better than a 750? If they are viewed in the correct way, ie 970 on a SD monitor and 750 on an HD monitor then how is the 970 better?

 

 

Hi,

 

I was VERY SURPRISED too! That's why I made my post!

 

My definition of video/digibeta look : Pictures that clearly are not film that has been transferred on a Spirit.

I have seen pictures from a F900/3 and a Viper that do not fall into this category, but not that often!

 

Stephen