Mr. Macgregor

Thanks. But I have shoot a lot with HDcams and 35 mm adaptors and that is not what i am looking for. I need the latitude, texture and color of film. I said compositing but there wont be any chromas. The whole action will take place on exteriors. Here: http://www.km77.com/marcas/maserati/spyder_gt/gra/22.asp Thanks!

A 35mm copy is needed. Unfortunately for us, shortfilm festivals do not have digital projectors yet, or at least it is not common yet. However that could save as a lot of money if we could end in a HDCAM SR tape. We are collecting money from many sources. Lets see how much we can find. Right now film process is not our main issue. We need to build a concept car and that is taking at least half of the budget. So i want to know what format to choose in order to ask for final prices and know more or less how much money i can spend. After some years working in the video industry we want to jump to the film industry and there is no better/other way than making this huge shortfilm and try to win festivals. It is now or never.

4:4:4 SD. While "uncompressed" is naive, here's how it goes down. First define "H" as the horizontal resolution obtained from a 1/2-pixel shifted 3 CCD system. In theory, "H" is probably somewhere between 1440 and 960, but not less than 960). 60i modes: (effective resolution "H"x1080)* Y: 1440x1080 Cr: 720x540 Cb: 720x540 Note that the Cr and Cb information are temporally offset by 1 field. CF30/25 (effective information "H"x540) Y:1440x1080 Cr: 720x540 Cb: 720x540 Note in this case the Cr and Cb come from the same temporal sample. Note also that the vertical resolution available for the CF modes is essentially the same as the effective resolution of the pseudo-progressive frame. In a sense you have "H"x540 4:2:2 going into a 1440x1080 4:2:0 container - which is enough to hold it (if not a little wasteful - there are twice as many luma samples stored as is necessary). If we're generous and say "H" is in fact 1440, then in a CF image you have 1440x540 4:2:2. Scale that horizontally by a factor of 2, and you have 720x540 4:4:4. Do a little vertical interpolation and you've got 720x480 4:4:4. You certainly do much better than 4:2:2. And seriously - if you do this down conversion properly and watch the uncompressed SD running of your hard drive - you'll be absolutely blown away by how good it looks compared to DV.

You are completely right. God bless you. :D

I think film scanning is not essential but necessary. This will be science fiction. So i want to desaturate some colors, and tweak the image a little bit. I could go without it. I know. But some compositing needs to be done accross the story. So in the end maybe 50% of the film has to be scanned. So why not finish the job? Also i am afraid that budget at the end is soooo big that we cannot afford it. In that case shooting in 16mm does not seem to me very helpfull, because we save some money in rental and film, but DI is needed too, as well as digital print to 35mm. What do you think about this?

Thanks for your answers. Now, lets do it more complicated. 3 perf could be interesting. If using the full gate, what is the aspect ratio that i get (by full gate i mean using the soundtrack space too)? The problem is that i think it would be very hard to convince the rental company to modify one of their cameras, and if they do, they will do it with some old BL4, which of course is ok, but also heavy and less sophisticated. 3perf would save around 25% of negative, but will it be an extra charge in the scaning? So, do you think making a DI at 2k will give away all the extra resolution of the anamorphic or the super35? I think a 4k Di is unafordable for us, unless some DI company pull their pants down and make it for the same price as a 2K DI. Now, for some time i have been thinking in using super35 mm full gate and anamorphic lenses. This would give something like 2.70 format, quite a panoramic aspect ratio but with very high definition. I guess the final print in anamorphic would need black bars so images have a pixel aspect ratio of 1.0, but this could be easily done in DI. Yes, this is a shortfilm. We can do things like extra panoramic film. Trying new things is fine to me.

Exactly. HDV is 4.2.0. So it is pure logic, if you have an image 3 or 4 times bigger than PAL but at a lower color resolution, once you downresize you are increasing the amount of color definition for each pixel. I am not technician, but perhaps someone around here could explain this better than me. The truth is that right now footage from a HDV sony camera shot with CF25 and downresized to PAL is almost giving 4.4.4 color sampling, and you can feel it once you start color correcting.

Allthough JVC HD100 is HD resolution camera, images do not look very good. Color, definition, sharpness, very few people seem to like it. On the other hand, try the new Canon XL H1. That really gives very good looking images. Now, latitude and compresion is the problem. The Panasonic is better and we cannot argue that. Now what you have to consider is if a better resolution image is better than a less compressed image with better lattitude. I think XL H1 HDV resized to PAL would be at least as good as DVCPro because color would be 4.2.2 if not better and the compression artifacts will disappear.

Thank you. Our budget is limited but all our efforts go in the visual field: photography and art. So... I think panavision is out of our budget, so i guess i will have to go with arri and hawk lenses. Does this sound good to you? The other option is to use the Cooke T1.3 (yes, they told me they have T1.9 and T1.3 lense sets). Is a 4k DI affordable or it is just a lot more expensive than 2k DI? If going anamorphic we have to think that some shooting will be performed inside a car, so under some circunstances i will have to focus closer than 1 meter... :blink: A big and long lens won´t help me in a reduced environment. but i can sacrifice space if the anamorphic format really gives that 40% extra image than s35 cropped. So I guess s35 T2.0 against anamorphic T4.0 would more or less give the same DOF with the same horizontal image angle.... Flares are welcome but i dont want to loose contrast and sharpness. Also small DOF does not mean to me soft images or blurry. I still have doubts. Rental prices would be similar. Doubts, doubts, doubts...

It was shot with an Arriflex 16 SR2 and of course 16mm film.

hello. We are planning to shot a shortfilm. As always i am concerned with quality. So i want the best definition in my negative. These are kind of images that we want to get: - 2.35 (2.40) aspect ratio - very very low depth of field - flares are welcome - highest definition once we are in the theater and very clean images. We will go with a digital intermediate and some digital FX. So the film will have to be scanned at some point. So i have doubts: Should i go with super35 and Cooke Ultraprimes T1.3 at almost the widest nºT? Or should i shot anamorphic? This would give me more quality in the negative and less depth of field, but i am concerned with field of focus, so in the end shooting with a closer T (to avoid this) would give me the same result as a super 35 at T2.0, wouldn´t it? Maybe i am saying stupid things. I am not a proffesional yet but i am trying hard. What do you think i should do?

Well, this is not the same, but it might help you even when you allready finished the shooting. Have a look at this: http://personales.ya.com/autodrome I did a quick comparison between Sony FX1 (which is the same as Z1) plus a 35mm adapter (the guerilla35, which i think is better than the mini35) versus a sony F750 (i know, it is not a varicam, but both are high end HD cameras) with angenieux zoom and arri digiprime lenses. I think that allthough the huge difference in price, once they are both in PAL, they look really really good and you ask, where have the extra euro100,000 gone?

Where is the link?

Hello. I think this is my first post on this forum. I will try hard. So i guess some of you saw the film Code 46. Wonderfull. Great in many aspects. Now, there is a scene, my favorite, which has an intriguing light set up. Outside the sun is very strange, and as you can see, the characters have more light than the background. This is only possible if there is a big cloud over the sky but not in front of them :D or attaching some huge HMI lights brighter than the sun that would make blind any actor. So how did they did this? After looking it many times i descovered how they did it. I think they are using a projection (not a chroma) as the old movies did. So they are inside a studio. This seems easy, but i have never seen a projection of the background that worked really 100%. This might be the case if i am right. Anyone has a different idea of how to do this? Thanks a lot for your time.