Jump to content

Varicam for feature?


Chuck Hartsell

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...for 16mm the three to four generations that needed in order to do release prints in 35mm without having the ability to manipulate film with digital processing (just chemistry) this is making the final product inferior of a fully digital processed DVX footage.

Did you arrive at this conviction empirically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they don't teach you in film school is a basics physics class in the theory of relativity which means that a film look frame rate is completely relative to the speed of the motion.

 

Einstein's Theory of Relativity has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what you've just said. That is why they don't teach it in Film School.

 

Other cameras that just shoot at 24 frames per second assume that motion is constant which in real life is not the case.

 

Motion is not constant in real life, but our perception of it is. 24 frames per second gives us the closest approximation of movement to our own perception. That is one of the major reasons that it is used. We may be able to photograph movement at 60fps or 6000fps, that does not mean that it is necessary or desirable when attempting to reproduce natural movement.

 

Quit talking about things you don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
And yet if you film fast action shots you may find that your filmrate of 24 frames per second is too slow to capture the motion. So for fast action 60 frames may be just right for a film look

 

So when I'm watching a car race on television, is it supposed to have the film look because its fast and its being recorded/displayed at a image sampling rate of 60/second? To my eye, the car race still looks like video - even moreso when they do the shots showing the cars whipping past the camera.

 

What we can realize is that at very fast panning speeds even 60p strobes just like 24p at slower panning speeds. So at fast panning speeds 60p maintains the film look.

 

Are you suggesting that the faster an object moves in front of the camera, the faster the framerate must be to maintain a filmlook? Clearly, just from watching a car race or a hockey game (both sampled at 60), you can see that this is not true.

 

In fact, go and rent a car-racing movie shot on 35mm, then watch a real car race on TV. Which has the "film look" that you describe?

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they don't teach you in film school is a basics physics class in the theory of relativity which means that a film look frame rate is completely relative to the speed of the motion. In otherwords if you photographed a snail you would find that if you shot at 24 frames per second your film would look like video because 24 frames per second is way too fast to handle the slow motion of a snail. So for a film look you may need to shoot your snail at 12 frames per second. And yet if you film fast action shots you may find that your filmrate of 24 frames per second is too slow to capture the motion. So for fast action 60 frames may be just right for a film look and 120 frames is what would make your movie look like video. With the Panasonic Varicam you can adjust your framerate relative to the motion so as to achieve the perfect film look relative to the speed of your motion. Other cameras that just shoot at 24 frames per second assume that motion is constant which in real life is not the case. What we can realize is that at very fast panning speeds even 60p strobes just like 24p at slower panning speeds. So at fast panning speeds 60p maintains the film look.

:lol:

Edited by Scott Fritzshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example if you are filming a car race and you are tracking the race cars you may find that a framerate of 24 frames per second works just fine. However if you try and film cars whizzing by you may find 24 frames per second totally inadequate. Again if you film a hockey game and you track the movement of an individual player 24p may be good enough but if you are trying to capture the motion of the whole team where everybody is going in opposite directions then you will realize the limitations of the 24p format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early days of cinema, it was found that a frame rate above 16fps was necessary to create the illusion of movement. Furthermore, it was necessary to have a 'frequency' of around 50hz to eliminate flicker. To this end early projectors were equipped with a three leafed shutter that showed each frame three times, creating 48hz. When 24 fps was adopted, 48hz was retained, being easy to derive. In NTSC TV, 29.97fps@60hz stays close to this original idea, as does PAL TV 25fps@50hz.

 

The point is, that virtually any frame rate could be used, but if you want to reproduce motion as people actually perceive it, then you need to shoot between 20-30fps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ...

So you're saying framerate is "temporal resolusion." Are you suggesting image playback should varry from shot to shot? It sounds like you're saying if we cut from a shot of a snail to a shot of an athlete running, playback should change from 12fps to 60fps instantly. Otherwise you're under or overcranking.

 

It sounds like you're not looking at images while you think of these things. You don't mean "film look" at all, you're talking about simulating reality, where our eyes sample many more images a second than 24, and in which case, it would be best to always record and play back at 10000fps so you can get every nuance of real time.

 

But the look of 24fps signals to the viewer the notion of cinema.

 

Also, the linking of space-time is only a theoretical framework that simplifies many hard problems, it's not something that makes time and space "interchangable," it only reflects the idea that you cannot separate time from space or space from time. Nor is that in any way a proven, hard fact. Nor does it have anything to do with the cinema, where time is the pigment we paint with and the clay we sculpt in any way we see fit.

Edited by David Sweetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to give you a perfect example I own a camera that shoots both 720p30 and 480p60 progressive scan formats. Theoretically both formats deliver close to the same amount of pixels so they can be considered as being the same resolution. However 90 percent of the time I prefer the finer detail of 720p and am perfectly satisfied with 30p which delivers a very film like look. However there are a few times where 30p just does not cut the mustard and I am forced to shoot 480p60 even thought there is a spatial resolution loss.

 

Likewise I suppose 90 percent of the time the 1080p format with its 24p or 30p delivers the best picture quality for the majority of the shooting situations. But when really fast action is encountered it cannot keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
For example if you are filming a car race and you are tracking the race cars you may find that a framerate of 24 frames per second works just fine. However if you try and film cars whizzing by you may find 24 frames per second totally inadequate. Again if you film a hockey game and you track the movement of an individual player 24p may be good enough but if you are trying to capture the motion of the whole team where everybody is going in opposite directions then you will realize the limitations of the 24p format.

 

I'm going to ask you this again:

 

Take your camera and set it to 60i or 60p. Pan it back and forth slowly. Does it have that "videoish" look that we are talking about?

 

Now, at the same setting (60), pan it back and forth quickly. Does it still have that "videoish" look that we are talking about?

 

Please just do this excercise. Take a moment and just do it. Please post your observations.

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Likewise I suppose 90 percent of the time the 1080p format with its 24p or 30p delivers the best picture quality for the majority of the shooting situations. But when really fast action is encountered it cannot keep up.

 

Actually, if you're shooting an action film, and you photograph the dialogue sequences at 24p and then photograph the action sequences at 60p, and you intercut the two, you'd find that you are actually going to bring the audience's attention away from the story and towards the format because the two different looks will be jarring. ie: you'd be doing the exact opposite of what you desire: you'd be making the two scenes look totally different from a motion characteristic standpoint - you wouldn't be matching the looks at all.

 

You seem to have a very strong desire to make action sequences filmlike. The best way to achieve this is by shooting at a framerate of 24p.

 

If, on the other hand, you would like to make your action sequences look like video, shoot 60p and intercut that material with your 24p shot footage for dialog sequences. When you show this film to your friends, you will find that they will notice the difference and may even find it rather annoying.

 

Please try and post your observations.

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you arrive at this conviction empirically?

 

Yes, after trying to make both 16mm and DVX better on a 35mm print, I concluded to that result.

 

Remember that is stated on the original post that this is a subjective scoring on a normal theatre (the ones that are in a Village multiplex) with 1:1400 or about 7 stops contrast and 700 lines projected resolution for a 1:1,85 (as again its being described on a previous post in same thread).

 

Thomas he has a point, please find in previous post the link to EBU and will get a lot of answers to the subject of TV out in 720p or 1080i

 

As for the ?same film processed in 2K are looking like video? is a good description of what am trying to say by differentiate the 2K scanned with the 2K Telecine scanners and the log processing and the linear processing.

 

Our work has a lot of traps that someone can easily fall and the differences between formats are so close that figuring what is what is getting more and more difficult.

 

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Premium Member
however, there are several broadcaster in the EU already now who require 1080 for their HD networks or don´t accept 720p and even 16/s16mm, BBC being certainly the most prominent example.

Is it just that they require conversion to 1080 for delivery, or would they reject a show for having been shot in 720? If it's the latter, I'd be interested to see the original documentation.

 

Thanks --

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I worked as 2nd AC on a feature shot on location in MT a couple of years ago. It was a relatively small budget for a film its size so they went with the Varicam instead of super16. We used a great set of 35mm primes and the Pro35 adapter. We were all really pleased with the raw footage and were able to do a lot with it in post. I think the only problems the DoP, Guy Peires http://guypeires.com/ had with the camera was a back focus problem. The issue didn't slow us down at all, but it still was an issue. The movie is called "Three Priests" and you can check out the trailer @ http://gumspirits.com/threepriests.html

We had good results with the Varicam and would recommend it for any low budget production.

 

~Chris Loughran

 

chrisloughran.com

post-16128-1184267780_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
No, I didn't see it on the big screen.

The Pro35 was used throughout as far as I know and we used Super Speeds.

 

 

I finished two features this year, the first with the Varicam...The second I insisted on shooting S16, I wasn't going to do it on the Varicam, I could'nt. The situations did not lend themselves to being attached to cabling at all times... (I alway's have a D.I.T. when shooting video- hence the cabling)

 

Ok, So we all get it, I prefer film...That being said...

 

I would definitley use a Viper or Genesis over a Varicam- in any situation. The Varicam looks soft, yes I said it, SOFT.

When its not sitting side by side with another image, it looks good enough, But, book end it by commercials shot on S35 and you'll know what I mean. The Viper looks amazing in filmstream 4.4.4 and will do a 720P 60frames, So the Varicam "advantage" goes out the window for me... Im being very short (due to time)

 

But- from what I just saw at Panavision last week, I think Im really liking the Genesis (The viewing system is far superior to everything else out there- aside from the D20 which is optical :) and I can use all My Lenses I have used my entire career! )

The Viper is a great tool, especially with the venom packs- making it less cumbersome (your d.i.t.- plugs in, checks, and detaches) and your free to move about the cabin...anyway, I have to go so Im not late for my scout :)-

 

 

Joseph Labisi

Director of Photography

Local 600

www.JosephLabisi.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DV from DVX100 to 35mm = 2.700

 

Digital beta to 35mm blow-up = 1.000

 

I've just picked up on this, so sorry if it's old. Evangelos, are you saying that DV blows up better than DigiBeta? I find that hard to believe, given DigiBeta's superior color sampling, better algorithms and generally better lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Maybe he meant that progressive-scan 24P/480 derived from the DVX100 blows up better to film than interlaced-scan Digi-Beta, despite the fact that Digi-Beta is a superior tape format (4:2:2, less compression -- compared to DV's 4:1:1, high compression.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he meant that progressive-scan 24P/480 derived from the DVX100 blows up better to film than interlaced-scan Digi-Beta, despite the fact that Digi-Beta is a superior tape format (4:2:2, less compression -- compared to DV's 4:1:1, high compression.)

 

Exactly David, plus the cinelike mode that has much more latitude than Digital beta and don?t mention the Firewire no generation loss of the DV editing process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Exactly David, plus the cinelike mode that has much more latitude than Digital beta and don?t mention the Firewire no generation loss of the DV editing process.

 

Hi,

 

I don't think you have much experiance working with DigiBeta cameras or with Editing of that format.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I don't think you have much experiance working with DigiBeta cameras or with Editing of that format.

 

Stephen

 

Stephen

 

Last year I transfer to film a future called the ?Crossing? it was shoot with 790 in 16:9 and then transferred to film.

 

I requested the original tapes and I remaster from Avid OMF2 the movie to FCP and in uncompressed 10bit. Then we color grade with Final Touch 2K. We deinterlace the film as well as upscaled to 2048x1107 1,85:1 all that in internal rendering with FT at 32bit per color.

 

The result was very good for a digital beta orientation, but from my work in other futures or shorts the deinterlaced process, that?s result a loss of about 40% of vertical resolution, plus the very bad highlight handling in 790 (edge coring) they have a devastated Video look in the final filmout. In contrast of the DVX cinelike mode that doesn?t need deinterlace so it has by far better resolution and the very good highlight handling make that small miracle to out perform Digital beta.

 

Just have in mind that I was competing with Swiss Effects and Cinepix for the CC and film transfer and we selected after test prints that we all submitted. I remember the reaction of DoP in the theatre he was jumped from his chair after the first 8 seconds of our test projected yelling ?its obvious, its obvious!!!?.

 

I have transferd to film more than 20 futures the last three years... from all camera types even 35 to 35 16 to 35.

 

I have done all the 2K to HDcam-SR colorgrade and finshing for the Greek Eurovision last year!!

 

So as far as experience matters, according to Greek Cinematographers Guild I?m probably the only real DIT in Greece.

 

Plus am electronic engineer with more than 10 years R&D in my back in digital video and with international patents under my name in the video domain.

 

And finally this IS MY OPINION. And Im not forcing anyone to belive it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Stephen

 

 

I requested the original tapes and I remaster from Avid OMF2 the movie to FCP and in uncompressed 10bit. Then we color grade with Final Touch 2K. We deinterlace the film as well as upscaled to 2048x1107 1,85:1 all that in internal rendering with FT at 32bit per color.

 

Hi,

 

Did you go to FCP directly from the Digibeta (compressed) to FCP, or did you go via the Avid?

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, probably is the language barrier?

 

I?m writing in my post that we have recapture everything from original digibeta tapes in uncompressed 10bits within FCP. We didn?t use media from avid, we didn?t take a tape out we just batch capture again everything in 10bits uncompressed. All our process in everything that we do is always uncompressed from original media.

 

From Avid we simple use OMF2 to transfer the metadata (timeline info and bins) to FCP with NO media. Then we recapture everything in uncompressed 10bit and we import the audio guide, again uncompressed.

 

So NO LOSS workflow, just maximum for all our projects.

 

It?s more difficult but it?s much better. After all, as much effort as you give this much better the result is. We don?t have the volume of others, but because of that we care more.

 

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to agree with Stephen Williams. The Sony Digibeta 970 features native 24p progressive scanning as well as 1000 lines of horizontal resolution and 4:2:2 color. I would bet that this camera would outperform the Panasonic DVX100 for 35mm film out. The Sony Digibeta 790 is an interlaced camera and was never designed for cinematography but for use in applications such as electronic news gathering or sports broadcasting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn?t disagree for 970, I haven?t put my hand on it, and so I can?t have an opinion.

 

Here in Greece they went directly to 750 and 730 HDcam?s?

 

Photographers should have to take very seriously the CineGamma future which introduced from Panasonic back in 2003. It?s a Log encoding mechanism that mimics the film acquisition. There are lots of posts that I have in this forum regarding to that.

With the correct processing a small camera like DVX can outperform a much bigger one easily at least in Latitude and Highlights handling. In these two words is hiding a lot of what we usually referring as ?film look?. Of coarse its resolution also but believe me the richness of film is not resolution.

 

I have recently measure HVX200 and it was a touch better than F900R! As far as latitude matters?

 

So beware, as I have said in the past, our job has a lot of traps in the road?

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

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...