Super 16mm Resolution

[Guest Kai.w]

So the look they were going for was - "as close to a digital animation without 3D renderings" - they wanted plastic skin tones and barbie&kenn doll visuals? Art?...

And if so.... Anything wrong with that in general? Anything wrong with digital animation or 3d renderings in general?

pfff... no really...

 

 

-k

[Bon Sawyer]

Yuk, The "Superman Returns" Trailer looks awful to me. Its all soft and plastic looking,

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks so. I'm amazed that the film-makers would opt for this look as a stylistic choice- especially given the budget. I can honestly say I would have noticed (and disliked) it even if I did not have prior knowledge that the film was being shot in HD.

 

I'm not "anti-digital, pro-film" by any stretch, but this trailer is certainly a reminder that HD is not yet in the same league as 35mm (in terms of overall quality). However, it's quite possible that the actual movie will look better than the trailer, so I'm planning to see it on the big screen, and am prepared to be open-minded about it.

 

Bon

[Matthew Skala]

I might have a chance to go see it this weekend. Hopefully digitally projected. I read the American Cinematographer Article, They say this is the look they wanted and even considered 65mm at one point. Their tests revealed that the Genisis would hold up and give them what they wanted. I saw some trailers on my 24" TV and the look wasn't as "plastic" as on the big screen. We'll see.

[nathan coombs]

Its funny - people talk about grain as a big issue, but I think this is only relevant is pro-circumstances where certain quality control regulations and standards play more of a role than aesthetics.

 

From what I've witnessed at festivals, generally the audience react well to S16 levels of grain, because it provides a certain authenticity, especially because the colours and latitude match 35mm. What I am trying to say is that audiences generally favour film over digital even if production execs and certain DPs get upset about the grain issue.

 

It also makes a big difference whether the film has had a 35mm print made. An optical print from S16 usually looks great need to HD projection.

 

Go to a few festivals and see for yourself!

[Bon Sawyer]

However, it's quite possible that the actual movie will look better than the trailer, so I'm planning to see it on the big screen, and am prepared to be open-minded about it.

Just got back from seeing it (Superman Returns) tonight, on a large screen with good projection (and a good clean print).

 

I'm still not overly keen on the look, but am prepared to concede that it's more likely the stylistic choices that I dislike than the use of HD video. Even close-ups often looked too 'smooth' for my liking, which makes me wonder if make-up and/or lighting were (at least partly) to blame.

 

Still, I was not overly distracted by it, and enjoyed the film for the most part.

 

Bon

[Allen Achterberg]

I like Super-16 as much as the next guy, but you look at 1080P HD images cropped to only 800 lines and output to 35mm anamorphic (and even blown-up to IMAX) -- like "Superman Returns" -- and you know that Super-16 would not hold up to that degree of enlargement.

 

David, Correct me if i'm wrong but I'm not entirely sure it's fair to compare the Genesis to S16, the vericam yes. But the genisis?

 

Although I agree with all other statements.

 

Allen

[Matthew Skala]

I also saw the film this weekend, film projected. As a whole it didn't look as "plastic" as the trailer did. Especially scenes not featuring superman. The look was only distracting during Close Ups, the same thing happen to me with "Once upon a time in Mexico." However, I ended up liking the film a-lot, so the impact of the story wasn't stiffeled by the look. What bugged me the most was the age of the character's. Everyone was too young, Superman looked like he was barely old enough to drink, let alone save the world.

[David Mullen ASC]

David, Correct me if i'm wrong but I'm not entirely sure it's fair to compare the Genesis to S16, the vericam yes. But the genisis?

 

Although I agree with all other statements.

 

Allen

 

The Genesis is high-end HD, but it is still HD, 1920 x 1080 pixels, so in theory Super-16 and it are similar, resolution-wise. In practice, it seems less so... for the reasons I've said already.

 

The Varicam is 1280 x 720 pixels, so it does not even have the pixel resolution of the F900, Viper, or F950, etc.

[Will Montgomery]

The Genesis is high-end HD, but it is still HD, 1920 x 1080 pixels, so in theory Super-16 and it are similar, resolution-wise. In practice, it seems less so... for the reasons I've said already.

 

The Varicam is 1280 x 720 pixels, so it does not even have the pixel resolution of the F900, Viper, or F950, etc.

 

How does a 1920x1080 captured image look so sharp when its blown up to 4k 35mm? I know that 1920x1080 at 24p has a ton of information to work with, but it seems like that would be the "resolution" of 16mm, not 35. I know we can't compare resolutions the same way between film and video, but how does that smaller starting image look so good on 35mm film?

[David Mullen ASC]

My main theory is that the lack of grain denies us visual clues that the image started out "smaller" (not physically of course, but compared to a 16mm blow-up where the original camera grain is optically magnified). And we tend to think that fine-grain images must be 35mm rather than 16mm.

 

I also think that the fixed pixel pattern of a CCD tends to exaggerate the edges of things even if the edge enhancement is turned off in the camera. Plus of course, anything HD or even 2K gets some degree of edge enhancement added for the film-out to 35mm (how much is up to the individual companies, etc.) But edge enhancing a fine-grain image tends not to make the grain pop out as much, again, the problem with sharpening 16mm digitally when doing a D.I.

 

Of course, I'm not saying that there is something wrong with grain; I'm just talking about audience's perceptions here of whether something originated in 35mm.

 

So my theory is that lack of grain combined with ability to electronically sharpen the image without enhancing grain (since there is none) is the main reason why HD seems to hold up despite being sub-2K.

 

Now if you're talking about intercutability, 16mm shares more visual attributes to 35mm, both being color negative origination. But it all depends on which image aspect matters most to you. For example, this year, "Silent Hill" and "Mission Impossible III" used some HD material that was gain-boosted to allow low-light photography, and no doubt it cut into 35mm more smoothly than Super-16 would pushed two-stops to shoot under equivalent levels (of course, there would be no reason to use Super-16 for this particular reason since you could just push 35mm if you wanted to stick to film.)

[Matt Pacini]

I'll trade the grain of film for for the lack of color depth of digital any day of the week.

 

MP

[ishan vernallis]

Hope you all don't mind me bringing this old horse of a thread out from the archives...

But it brought up some questions for me regarding HD.

 

A few months ago I decided to make the jump from working in standard def video to HD

by learning how to shoot in 16mm, with the idea of eventually shooting super16

and getting 2k telecines made to post with...

 

What I am wondering, a bit into the process,

is how good does your glass have to be to even make it worth the while ($)

to have the film converted to hd.

 

I've been slowly getting to know the principals of working with some simpler film cameras,

using early nonreflex filmos and bolex just warm up to the new medium,

and have acquired a few nice older primes (angenieux/switar)

for these cameras.

 

Now that I have a S16 ACL on the way, and am wanting to start thinking about actually shooting for 2k transfer...

does that mean having to spend $1200 plus (Zeiss) per lens in order to get the kind of resolution and contrast

that a 2k telecine would do justice for?...

 

would using my older prime lenses for a 2k conversion project just further enhance their limitations

when presented in hd?

 

much gratitude for directions down the road.

[Deepak Bajracharya]

I'll trade the grain of film for for the lack of color depth of digital any day of the week.

 

MP

 

Namaste,

 

Totally agree with you but my Producers need not.

 

Regards,

[Mark Williams]

No one knows if the resolution of film is comparable to HD. The grain on a film is changing constantly so hidden defination in one frame is revealed in another. Whether grain contributes to the film look is debateable what would happen if film had all its grain removed? would it look like HD? I don't think so. The two both capture an image with film doing it better. Better doesnt have to mean more defination. Better can mean many more things besides.

 

There may be some who prefer the HD look. I think most people would prefer the look of film. Film captures an image that is not restricted by squares but infinately changeable. Whether our eyes can detect this is debateable too. BUT to me Film looks more natural, vibrant, and lifelike while HD looks flat, uninviting, and cold. Subjective terms. Film has definately got the BETTER look to me and by quite a margin.

[Adam Thompson]

Hope you all don't mind me bringing this old horse of a thread out from the archives...

But it brought up some questions for me regarding HD.

 

A few months ago I decided to make the jump from working in standard def video to HD

by learning how to shoot in 16mm, with the idea of eventually shooting super16

and getting 2k telecines made to post with...

 

What I am wondering, a bit into the process,

is how good does your glass have to be to even make it worth the while ($)

to have the film converted to hd.

 

I've been slowly getting to know the principals of working with some simpler film cameras,

using early nonreflex filmos and bolex just warm up to the new medium,

and have acquired a few nice older primes (angenieux/switar)

for these cameras.

 

Now that I have a S16 ACL on the way, and am wanting to start thinking about actually shooting for 2k transfer...

does that mean having to spend $1200 plus (Zeiss) per lens in order to get the kind of resolution and contrast

that a 2k telecine would do justice for?...

 

would using my older prime lenses for a 2k conversion project just further enhance their limitations

when presented in hd?

 

much gratitude for directions down the road.

 

I think you do need more modern glass if you are headed that way. Why not rent a high-end zoom like a Cooke or Canon to do those shots with? I've heard the Optars are very nice high-res lenses that cost a lot less than Zeiss but you still won't find one of those primes used for less than $2000 most likely.

 

Your lens will always matter more than your camera and often more than even the medium you are shooting to.

 

"It's all made in the glass."

[ishan vernallis]

I think you do need more modern glass if you are headed that way. Why not rent a high-end zoom like a Cooke or Canon to do those shots with? I've heard the Optars are very nice high-res lenses that cost a lot less than Zeiss but you still won't find one of those primes used for less than $2000 most likely.

 

Your lens will always matter more than your camera and often more than even the medium you are shooting to.

 

"It's all made in the glass."

 

Thanks for the words Adam.

 

Unfortunately, my remote location

(5 hours north of san fran, 7 hours south of portland)

makes gear rentals rather impractical... (but very nice for the other aspects of life)

so, unless some special project showed up that warranted the travel to a rental house...

I'm weighing the cost of ownership with the desire for quality images.

 

 

 

I am still curious if any one has bothered to get 2k hd telecines made

for 16 footage shot with older primes

and what the results were...

or even theoretically would be?

[Martin Yernazian]

Ishan, first, sorry for not calling later I was in BIg Sur for 3 day no reception,

2º) Adam's Idea is bad at all, but I do understand that where you live is practicly imposible to do rent, so I will propose you this

I just got my NPR modifid to Super 16 and PL mount, if you want you can come down to Berkeley, you can rent some lenses at a few friends studios and you can do your test over here, and if you need a place to stay welll I guess you can stay in my place for a couple of days.

 

 

 

Best

[ishan vernallis]

thanks martin

you're too kind.

i'll definitely drop you a line next time i'm heading down.

(usually get there every month or so)

it'd be fun to combine a test rental with a semi serious super-short short shoot .

 

:rolleyes:

[Martin Yernazian]

Ishan I was thinking the same thing, the best way to make a test, well lets make a story, a short story, intelligent, fast and to the point.

definitely let me know.

 

 

Best

[Peter Moretti]

I just finished watching "Venus" (good but a little creepy at times, BTW). I loved the color and natural feeling and warmth w/o being overly sturated.

 

So I looked it up on the IMDB, and to my surprise it was shot using a Arri Super 16 camera (SR 3).

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489327/technical

 

I have never seen an HD movie create the same effect.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Peter Moretti

[ross e lea]

Certainly there have been some nice Super-16 blow-ups (like "Vera Drake") that are close to a 35mm look, only a little grittier and softer.

 

------------------

 

hey David,

 

any idea on what camera they used for Vera Drake?