Jump to content

Sony HD900 vs. 750


Spider

Recommended Posts

I see that there has been a lot of discussion about the quality and the look of HD vs. 35mm

 

I have just gaffered a HD test between the Sony 900 and the 750. The reason we did the test was to see if we could match up the two cameras, because they are going to be used in a two-camera feature production.

 

A small set was build and I did high key and a low key light setting in daylight. We also did a low key night interior on the same set. We ended the test with a cloudy exterior.

 

It was quite easy match the two cameras on factory settings and film setting. We played around a bit with the settings and it was still very easy to match up the two.

 

I really like the look of the HD camera and I was impressed with the really nice filmlook it has. I think it comes so close to film, that it is impossible to see that it is not shot on 35mm. Right now it is beeing graded and will be put out on 35mm next week. I am looking forward to seeing the final result, but I am convinced that HD is just as beautiful as 35mm and there is no doubt in my mind that if every setting is put up correct with HD and the right grading is done, nobody can tell that it is not shot on 35mm.

 

Spider

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'd withold judgement until you see the images on something bigger than a television monitor. Remember, most theatres today have seats as close as one image height from the screen, so look at the images at a variety of distances.

 

Tone scale, color reproduction, fleshtones, etc. are as important as resolution.

 

Even NTSC looks good if you sit far enough away from the television screen. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pete Wright

I have some questions:

 

What is low and what is high key?

 

Isn't 750 interlaced only, like 50i, and 60i? Do you de-interlace it, slow down?

 

How can you not tell the difference between 35 mm and HDCAM? I can and I am not a DP. HDCAM is either too contrasty; if not, it just looks bad. Either way, I don't think that there is a comparison. Maybe you shot uncompressed to hard drives?

 

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think few can argue (some will try) that HD can produce beautiful pictures. Many DP's have shown with their talent and given the proper tools they can produce images on HD that one would assume are 35mm.

 

The digression in this whole thing is once you take HD through some tough tests along side 35mm, you will see a clear difference between the two. It's up to the aesthetic of what the Director and DP want will determine what is good or bad about those differences.

 

This reminds me of the test that LaserPacific did a couple of years ago with Bill Bennett where they shot 35mm, HDCAM, and Varicam. Dubbed them all to D5. D5 quickly showed the compression and color subsampling of HDCAM and the Varicam. D5 even revealed the resolution as well as chroma differences between HDCAM and the Varicam, while the 35mm was stunningly beautiful and pristine.

 

In some situations compression and color subsampling would not be a problem, but in other situations it would be.

 

The industry should really consider HD its own animal and stop using 35mm as its litmus of acceptance. HD is not 35mm, 35mm is not HD. Pick HD because it suites you needs, and works for aesthetic of your production.

 

But I guess honestly more than not HD is chosen because of budgetary constraints, then to make one feel as though you haven't taken a second class alternative one will rationlize that it looked just as good as 35mm anyway, but that should not really be the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I agree with all of this, that HD is its own beast -- but the flip side of this argument is that audiences don't see side-by-side 35mm and HD comparisons, so the lower quality of HD is less obvious when it's all you are seeing throughout the movie. It becomes the "norm" just like you get used to a Super-16 blow-up as you are watching the movie. So while a side-by-side test like Bill Bennet's will clearly demonstrate the weakness of HD over 35mm, by itself, a well-shot HD image transferred to 35mm can look nice and seem of decent quality and at least be reminiscent of film even though not an exact match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the 750 is not interlaced what I know of - but i am also only a gaffer, not a HD specialist.

 

I agree with you tenobell. I think HD and 35 should not be compared because they are two different formats. But I really think HD has a look and a colour reproduction that is great enough to tell any great story.

I also know that quite a lot of cinematographers have been cheated to think that some of the films that the company I work for has done are shot on 35mm, when they are not.

 

I disagree that HD is chosen because it is cheaper, because it is not. The post work to make it look nice and filmy is just as costly as some of the processes in film. It is not cheap to hire a leading HD specialist to be on set and a very good grader to sit around and play with the material for a very long time. If you rock and roll with factory settings, like it looks they have done on Star Wars, yeah it is perhaps cheaper. But if you want the film look it still takes a lot of work. In the end film and HD are almost the exact same price.

 

Low key and high key! In a low key scene the majorty of the picture is underlit, but some parts are correctly exposed or even overexposed. In high key most of the frame is well lit with a lot of soft fill lights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I disagree that HD is chosen because it is cheaper, because it is not.

I belive it is chosen because it is cheaper, at least during shooting. For many films that are not sure that they will get theatrical distribution, shooting on HD will lower the actual production costs.

 

You can bet that if there is enough money to shoot 35mm, 99 percent of the people will chose to shoot 35mm over HD, because it still gives you the highest picture quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for example the Danish director Lars Von Triers new film, which has around a 10 mio £ budget, is shot on HD. And another Danish director Thomas Winterberg has shot his new film on HD too - and he has a budget of about 8 mio £. I would say that is enough to shoot on 35mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I believe it is chosen because it is cheaper, at least during shooting. For many films that are not sure that they will get theatrical distribution, shooting on HD will lower the actual production costs.

 

Yes, it allows more of the budget to be spent on screen, a great help to those on budgets of $300k or less as they don't have to blow $50k on a transfer to film unless the film is any good.

 

 

"You can bet that if there is enough money to shoot 35mm, 99 percent of the people will chose to shoot 35mm over HD, because it still gives you the highest picture quality."

 

 

It is 65mm film that gives the highest quality. 35mm and HD are for those with not enough money.

 

 

Mike Brennan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spider,

I take it that you will be shooting at 25p if you are using f900 and HDW750?

 

Was it Mark 2 upgraded to Mark 3 or Mark 3 f900?

The difference between the two is most noticable on the larger screen.

 

Yes it is possible to degrade f900 to look like HDW750.

 

10 bit A/D on HDW750 is the limiting factor.

 

cheers

 

 

Mike Brennan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
It is 65mm film that gives the highest quality. 35mm and HD are for those with not enough money.

Interesting way to put it, Mike. Unfortunately although lower picture quality than 65mm, 35mm is still better quality than HD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Yes, it allows more of the budget to be spent on screen, a great help to those on budgets of $300k or less as they don't have to blow $50k on a transfer to film unless the film is any good.

If people have a budet of less than $300.000 and save an extra $50.000 by shooting HD, then I suggest that instead of putting it 'on the screen', they use that money to raise the crew's and actors' salaries to a more acceptable level, instead of exploiting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon true assimilation into the general market, HD will represent cost effectivness far beyond modern standards. I estimate it has saved my productions over $250,000 to date, primarily concerning the issues of developing. The film print exists as the final cut/distribution print.

 

On another note, Super 35mm is outstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

I am not familiar with correct terms of upgrade, but I know that the f900 was the latest upgrade. What the upgrade in particular does, and this was very noticable when looking at the 750 shots, is the much better reproduction of highlights. We had a blown out window, which I graded to be a little darker in the lower corner and very bright in the upper corner. The f900 reproduced this grading in the light very nice and had drawing almost all the way into the overexposed highlight. The 750 could not manage this as fine.

The f900 is also great when you take out some of the detail, desaturate and use the sfx2 filter. It looks stupid with the sfx2 on monitor, but when graded and blown out on film, the grain of the film catches the glow in the highlights and makes it very beautifull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Spider wrote:

 

We had a blown out window, which I graded to be a little darker in the lower corner and very bright in the upper corner. The f900 reproduced this grading in the light very nice and had drawing almost all the way into the overexposed highlight. The 750 could not manage this as fine.

 

but when graded and blown out on film, the grain of the film catches the glow in the highlights and makes it very beautifull.

 

Please explain. :huh: If you transfer the HD via laser recorder, and make prints, the very fine grained films normally used would have minimal graininess.

 

In the situation you've described, I've always seen film origination doing a better job maintaining the highlight detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pete Wright

I checked Sony site. 750 is interlaced 50i/60i. It is not progressive. Why compare it at all?

 

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pete Wright

Must be in Europe. The cheapest 1080p here is the f900. Sony is not going to offer it for less unless there is competitive pressure. So far there is none.

 

750 is something like $70,000. If it had 25p at near Varicam price, Panasonic would soon lower their Varicam price, and a whole chain reaction would start and HD would soon cost what SD costs now.

 

HD probably does not cost that much to make anyway. The R&D is done. The production cost is probably 10% of the selling price anyway. They make a batch of these, probably a few hundred pieces on a robot line and then stock it. If they have to upgrade it, they change some $10 plug-in board and download new software. Done. You have Mark III.

 

It will take the Kinetta to make the HD price structure to crumble. Because the majors see the Kinetta coming, they are probably speeding up their introduction of some less expensive HD products. XDCAM mechanism is good for 72 Mbps and it probably would not take any real extra effort to make it HD from the start. You would need better MPEG2 processors. That's all.

 

Sony used to be a technology driven company. It was headed by an engineer. Now it's been headed by a marketing man for some time. From marketing perspective it is better to sell XDCAM first, and couple years later start selling the HD version. This way you a station buys XDCAM's first and will replace them with the HD model later. 2x profit for Sony. The Kinetta may force them to introduce the HD version by next NAB.

 

Silicon Imaging will be coming out with $4,000 1-chip 1080/60p and $10,000 3-chip 1080/60p cameras. I hope these are good enough and will give the HDV consortium some second thoughts about $40,000 (with lens) 19 Mbps HDV cameras. The chips are supposed to be the same as on the Kinetta. I hope some other companies join in this effort and will produce some storage for these cameras.

 

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony Pocket timeline, note these 1st delivery dates are hard to check.

 

700 series

 

1997 HDW 700 60i

1997 HDW 700A 60i

2001 HDW 750 60i (May)

2002 HDW 750CE 50i and 25p, (model number then changed to 750p).

2002 HDW 750P 50i and 25p (Sept)

2002 HDW 730 50i and 60i (1st announced feb 5 2001)

2004 HDW 730S 50i and 60i (long exposure option, otherwise same as 730?)

 

900 series

 

2000 HDW f900 Lucas Panavised cams. (June)

2001 HDW f900 Mark 1 available

2003 HDW f900 mark 2 (new block)

2003 upgrade kit Mark 1 to Mark 3 (excludes block)

2003 HDW f900 mark 3 (also called f900H by the resellers)

 

 

The original HDW 750 was meant to have both 30p and 60i specification at one time, they dropped the 30p.

 

Sony feared HDW750CE/HDW750P would affect sales of f900 so the 25p version is not available in the states. Instead they launched the IMX format, MSW900 a 25p standard def camcorder in the USA in 2003.

 

 

 

 

So the current model range is

 

HDW 750 60i (FIT chip)

HDW 750p 25p, 50i

HDW 730 50i, 60i (IT chip)

HDW 730S 50i, 60i (IT chip. Slow shutter option)

HDW F900 H 24p, 25p, 50i. 60i. (viewfinder supplied separately)

 

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pete Wright

How much are the cameras in Europe - 730, 750p, 900? Does Varicam sells well in Europe? How nuch does it cost? Does not the French SECAM system have a higher horizontal resolution than Varicam?

 

Thanks,

 

pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To John!

 

Yes ofcourse, film does the best job in the highligths, but I think the differences are so minimal that an ordinary audience wouln't notice or question wether or not this movie is filmed HD or 35mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

Varicam is almost unknown in the UK, at least. I think there's exactly three available for rental in London. Panasonic UK are also horribly unhelpful when discussing the camera for use in feature production, which probably doesn't help!

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Yes ofcourse, film does the best job in the highligths, but I think the differences are so minimal that an ordinary audience wouln't notice or question wether or not this movie is filmed HD or 35mm.

Here we go again...

 

If the differences are truly so minimal, why doesn't everyone shoot on HD? Especially since one could save a lot of money shooting it compared to film.

 

I have yet to meet a Dop who would chose HD over 35mm. In fact the Dops that I work for don't even consider HD. They carefully chose their stocks, lenses and filters to find the right look for every project. The differences between say Cooke S4s and UltraPrimes or Primos are much more subtle than the differences between HD and 35mm, yet they go through all this effort, because they care intensively about the look of films. And I think they would be quite insulted if someone suggested that all their hard work would be lost on an 'ordinary audience' which wouldn't even notice the differences between HD and 35mm. Because even if an audience doesn't consciously notices these things, they still feel them subconcioulsy. And that is what still counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...