Landon D. Parks Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 sorry for using Super 16mm in the HD only area. But I didnt find anywhere else to ask this. Which medium will provide me with the highest quality, highest resolution 35mm film-out print? We want the best quality out of our upcoming film... We have the choice of HDC-F950, Viper Filmstream or Super 16mm. Thanks, Landon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 24, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 24, 2004 It's an apples and oranges question because HD and Super-16 have similar resolutions, so the difference in quality is more of a textural issue -- i.e. Super-16 looks exactly like film because it IS film, no matter how badly you shoot Super-16. HD looks like HD, which may be a great look for your project and be "film-like" enough for your purposes even though it is not exactly like film. I also have a theory that the lack of film grain in HD allows the lower resolution compared to 35mm to be less obvious than with a Super-16 blow-up because we use grain size as a visual clue as to the degree of enlargement. So we "sense" with a Super-16 blow-up that the original negative was smaller, but we are lacking those clues with an HD transfer, so in a sense it seems more like "soft" 35mm (less detail but low in graininess.) Anyway, it also depends on how you are planning to shoot the Super-16 (stocks and lenses) and how you will blow it up. For example, if you had a lot of low-light night exterior material to shoot, you'd probably be using the fastest stocks in Super-16, which would impart a certain look. I think the image from a Viper in Filmstream mode transferred to 35mm would look really nice -- slick, fine-grained, etc. That doesn't mean that the look of a Super-16 blow up wouldn't also look nice, but it would be a different look. I'd probably go for the Viper, partly because it does 2.35 : 1 easily, but that's just me. It really would depend on the look imagined for the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 But times are a changing for super 16. I know of people shooting a lot of tests with the new super 16 stocks pushig them and seeing what they are capable of and getting very impressive results. The new Vision 2 stocks for a blow up to 35mm print are remarkable, particularly 7217. I've shot a lot of 7274 pushed to 400ASA and have gotten great sharp images. So I imagine 7217 will be even better. In the past shooting 7279 and blowing that up to a 35mm print did yield more grain and a more obvious soft 16mm look. Looking towards the future. At NAB I spoke to Arri engineers who were showing their new Arriscanner. Which has a new 3K native CMOS chip. I was told they have done test with scanning super 16 to 3K files and have gotten some very impressive results. They would continue to test with Kodak's new Vision 2 stocks and were sure this process would yield very sharp grain free images that would not resemble the traditional look of 16mm. Ultimately though you have to test for yourself and see what aesthetic fits the needs of your production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted July 24, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 24, 2004 NFL Films has done some tests comparing Super-16 and HD origination, which were shown by Kodak at NAB 2004: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...throughsP.shtml Part of the demonstration includes a test produced by NFL FILMS that compares Super 16 film and digital images displayed on HD monitors. The demonstration includes side-by-side comparisons that run the gamut of production situations captured with film and high-definition, NTSC and PAL format video cameras. The test scenarios include interior and exterior dramas, nature and action sequences. "This exhibit provides convincing evidence that content produced in Super 16 format will satisfy the highest expectations for future HD display," says Maryann Mendel, product manager for the Kodak Entertainment Imaging division. "Advances in films, cameras and postproduction technologies are fueling a renaissance in the use of Super 16 mm film. Budget-conscious filmmakers are opting for the creative flexibility and affordability of the format." Other productions: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...0.1.4.3.8&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...0.1.4.3.6&lc=en Dickerson and Libatique explored a resurging approach to producing independent features for Never Die Alone. They opted for the Super 16 film format, which provided both cost benefits and creative flexibility. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...0.1.4.3.4&lc=en Remember the stories propagated by CBS Television engineers about Super 16 mm film image quality not being good enough for airing in high-definition format? You can forget them. One Tree Hill is artfully produced in Super 16 film format by Billy Dickson, ASC. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why....1.4.3.10&lc=en What are the differences between film and digital imaging technologies? How do those differences affect the way audiences perceive images? Cinematographers and directors use words like "dream-like" and "organic" to describe the film look. Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian sociologist, took a scientific approach to understanding the fundamental differences in his 1964 book Understanding Media. McLuhan concluded that we process film and video information differently. He labeled video images "cold" and film images "hot." What happens when light strikes a frame of motion picture film? How are images formed? How does that differ from the way digital video cameras record pictures? Which format has higher resolution, 24P HD or Super 16 mm film? We asked Dick Sehlin, chief technology officer and vice president of Kodak's Entertainment Imaging division, these and other related questions. Here are productions that were shot in Super-16mm on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS:Super%2016 An overlapping IMDB list of "35mm Blow Ups": http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PFM:35%20mm%09(blow-up) I agree with Tenolian Bell: The much sharper and finer-grained Kodak VISION2 color negative films make Super-16 all the more viable for lower budget productions that may have 35mm or HD release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykvist_fan Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Select a scene, and shoot in all of the above, transfer to 35, and you have your solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal Fredericks Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 i shot a horror film called LAUGHING DEAD back in '96 (ouch!) on super 16mm that was blown-up to 35mm release prints for a limited theatrical... i used the 98 stock (500T) along with the 45 stock...DuArt Labs in NYC did the 35mm prints and i was there to time them... while the film got mostly less than positive reviews during the theatrical, many reviewers commented on the cinematography...so i was pretty happy with the quality... the more scary thing was that the VHS/DVD release was mastered from a transfer of a 35mm answer print at CFI...(back in '98)...way too dark... but a new distributor is re-releasing the film and I am trying to convince them to do a low-con print for the new DVD transfer...wish me luck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 I still find that with the various HD camera systems one is still fighting the video look. Burning highlights, a certain "video sheen," a different feel to motion. They just see differently. Not better or worse, just differently. I get companies all the time offering various deals that make the cost of shooting S-16 and going to 35mm the same if not cheaper than shooting HD. So I find little incentive to shoot HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Oh, and if you want ease in production, take a look at the size of an Aaton or Arri Super-16 camera package. Then pick up the new copy of American Cinematographer and look at the support gear needed for the Viper on "Collateral." Looks like their hauling HAL 9000 with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted July 25, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 25, 2004 Hi, I think you'll find that film requires probably more support gear; it just doesn't end up being constantly attached to the camera. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 25, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 25, 2004 I did a test with the Panavision/Sony F900 at a rock concert side-by-side with a Super-16 camera with someone else shooting that -- they got their camera up in half the time we did. The biggest advantage I had during the show was the ability to quickly see the exposure changes (with the zebras) and compensate. On the Super-16, the assistant was taking spot meter readings continually through the show. And they had to change mags when they needed to push-process stuff while I could just hit the gain switch. Also, I didn't have to worry as much about mag changes in mid-song. However, on viewing the tests, the director chose the 16mm. If you're talking about a full Panavision or Arricam package versus the HD package for a feature, not ENG or doc, I'd say the packages are similar, the biggest difference being the mags and cases with 35mm versus the large HD monitor. Perhaps the fact that larger block batteries are more common with 35mm versus onboards with HD -- which is less of a factor with Super-16 when using onboard batteries. I'd say that a Super-16 package would definitely not be larger than an HD package, since the mags are smaller and the batteries can be onboard types. Most add-ons, like onboard monitors, large matteboxes, etc. are similar to both systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 'We want the best quality out of our upcoming film... We have the choice of HDC-F950, Viper Filmstream or Super 16mm." Quality from whose perspective? Producer, Director or DP? An improvement in quality for the director may be being able to afford to do an extra take to get a better performance. Understandably DPs prefer highest possible in-camera quality. Usually but not always this is 35mm Depending on shooting ratio 35mm delivers higher quality in camera at a higher/same cost. In case you have been looking at rate cards in reality a 24p kit with zoom lenses covering 5mm to 150mm can be had for $3500 to $4500 and tape at $60 an hour. Get a good range of post quotes, including one from a company that does not have a telecine. When getting a quote from a company that does have a telecine do not ask them to quote for HD and 35mm film as they tend to mark up the HD to lead you toward film. My experiences in London anyway. When you approach these companies don't say you are making a film vs HD comparision, instead say you will definitly shoot on HD and you want the best deal. A producer needs to figure out the politics of the local advice, often the right decision is to go with the flow rather than rock the boat. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian sociologist, took a scientific approach to understanding the fundamental differences in his 1964 book Understanding Media. McLuhan concluded that we process film and video information differently. He labeled video images "cold" and film images "hot." Is there any more recent analisis? Interlace SD video on a 1960s crt is one thing, progressive HD transferred to film is more relevant. Even more relevant would be digital capture and projection vs film capture and digital projection. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted July 26, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 26, 2004 'We want the best quality out of our upcoming film... We have the choice of HDC-F950, Viper Filmstream or Super 16mm." Quality from whose perspective? Producer, Director or DP? This being a cinematography board, I suppose we are talking about picture quality, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 Im both Director and DP... But my "Image Quality" I mean is the end users take on it... what the mass of people think looks better when they go to the theater and see it. I mean, you have to please so many people. You go to the IMDB Message boards on films shot in HD... and some will say they have never seen anything so pretty, and other will say they could not sit through 3 minutes of it. I know a lot of people who go see movies dont care what it was shot on... however, there is always the judge in the crowd that makes some snide remark about how ugly it looked, and then that spreads around and soon everyone thinks it looks ugly. I really want to shot HD for the ease of it, but I want the film qualtiy. :( Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted July 26, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 26, 2004 Then I suggest you shoot a comparison test and make the format that you like best work for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted July 26, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 26, 2004 I really want to shot HD for the ease of it, but I want the film qualtiy. For 35mm prints, why do you think HD will be easier or less expensive? Do you prefer the "look" of films shot on HD, or recent films shot on Super-16, especially with the new Kodak VISION2 stocks? Any scenes that require film's advantages, (e.g., higher frame rates without strobing, variety of cameras)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 John, Im refering to ease in the fact that I can get instant Dailies, I know what I got. And since im acting as DP also, I can play with the lighting and camera tricks a bit, and see what it looks in real time. With film, this would not be possible as I would only be able to afford 10 hours of it in 35mm and maybee 15 in S16. And we are working with children in this film... that worries me with Film. We onyl have 10 - 15 hours of it, and kids cost a lot of film. with HD I can just say "Retake" Rewind the tape if we run out, and shot again. And really, the only time I was able to tell the difference in HD and Film (Besides resolution) was on Spy Kids 2. When comparing the shots after the title, where the camera "Flys" in the window, I noticed immediatly that the Color on SK2 was dull. Compared to the SK1 scene... all the colors where bright and cheerful. (This may have been intentional though, so I cant say for sure that it was HD that made it so dull.) Other than that, I never could tell the difference. Dont get me wronge here... I LOVE film... I love the look, the Contrast, the color reproduction and the like. However, I have never been more limited on the amount of stock I would have to get the story told. And working with kids, I am affraid we will run out of stock without getting what I want. Under normal conditions, I would not be having the conversation, because Film is still better. And I would shot film. However, Im feeling the presure on this production. Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 P.S) I dont intend to do any Ramping or any kind of effects that Film can do more than HD. :blink: It will be shot 24p 100% of the time. Im not a slow-mo fan, or a speed freak. and this film does not call for any special Ramps either. Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted July 26, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 26, 2004 Well, thousands of movies with young actors have been shot on film, going back beyond "The Little Rascals" and "Shirley Temple" to "Home Alone" and "Stuart Little 2", so that shouldn't deter you. Obviously, if you don't process and print obviously "blown" takes with the inexperienced actors, you can save money there. It really SHOULD be a matter of the "look" you really want for your film, and I sense you didn't really like the look of SK2 overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 Can someone tell me some recent MAJOR films that got wide release shot on Super 16mm? I know "Never Die Alone" was shot s16... but have there been any others recently? :blink: P.S) John, no I really didnt like the look of Spy Kids 2. You could tell it was video. It just didnt have the Depth and the look that film has. however, I dont judge films by how they look. I'll sit through a movie that looks terrible if the sotry is good, But i wont sit through a film that is the best quality if the story sucks. Just my way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 The Producer and I sat down and Descided we are going to use Super 16mm. We figure if we are carful enough, we can get it for $.12/foot new. In which case for the cost of HD we could get 40 hours of the stock. which is MORE than enough for this production. We do plan to use HD only on the 10 shots that require Blue/Green Screen work. All Live action will be s16 Film. In which case we will use the HDC-F950 4:4:4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted July 27, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 27, 2004 Some additional Super-16 productions: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newslett...4summer_2.jhtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...0.1.4.3.4&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...0.1.4.3.6&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...0.1.4.3.8&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why....1.4.3.12&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/exp...=0.1.4.13&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...dragonfly.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...ngDreamsP.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...posterity.shtml For other productions, you can always search the Internet Movie Data Base: http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS:Super%2016 http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PFM:35%20mm%09(blow-up) http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?OFM:16%20mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitin Sagar Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 i have been struggling with this for over a year...thank fully i shot my debut film S16.... over the last year i belive in the following 1. i'm based in india...shooting S16 is cheaper than shooting HD. 2.if one wants to shoot hd then the Dp needs to clor correct to the closest posible desired look while shooting.....unlike 16 where one can shoot keeping just the contrast ratio and bracke tin mind...and then color correct on luster etc...i firmly belive in this...to cut the long story short...i feel shooting HD is more time consuming than shooting 16....and time is money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted August 1, 2004 Author Share Posted August 1, 2004 Thank you John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted August 1, 2004 Author Share Posted August 1, 2004 i have been struggling with this for over a year...thank fully i shot my debut film S16....over the last year i belive in the following I have no doubt that s16 is cheaper than HD. Really. I figured HD would be 2 times as expensive as s16 on the production. but money is not my main concern, its what I'll get for the money sprent. .if one wants to shoot hd then the Dp needs to clor correct to the closest posible desired look while shooting Not using the Viper Filmstream Camera :) . You have the same choices as in a Film Camera. Then in Post, you Color Correct. Time is money! How right you are my friend..... :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now