Is 16mm Obsolete?

[Zachary Vex]

> ban me

 

Ban him.

 

Phil

 

Would you ban Jesse Ventura if he posted in here? He never changed his name legally. Film Runner at least has that name on his California driver's license. Jesse's says "James George Janos".

[Robert Houllahan]

Maybe it's mel proselytizing himself O-Dei style :blink:

 

Seriously in the 5 years now I have been at Cinelab we have never been as busy with 16mm. Not just Negative but zillions of feet of B+W reversal and Tons of 16mm color and B+W print. Film Film Film.

 

As to the Discovery network If I were shooting Old Man Teuttle squeezing Jr. Teuttle's head I would only use Todd-Ao 70mm as this would be the only way to capture the true essence of the beating.

 

 

-Rob-

[Francesco Bonomo]

i know the show but i cant remember it visually as i left the country a few years ago, however i think its great we didnt give up the s16 format for tv shows

 

old fashioned italians....

 

..or penniless Italians :D

 

Seriously though, most Italian tv series are shot on S16, with few exceptions (Storaro's Caravaggio was shot on 35mm, it will be aired in january). It was very interesting to work on the show for 10 months, working in Cinecittà (had to walk through what's left of the Gangs of NY set every day to get to Stage 11, and we were very close to the Rome sets), excellent crew and cast, faboulous camera department, and our DP, Massimo Intoppa, AIC, is simply great.

I worked with him again today on a short film (anamorphic, we used a couple of lenses Storaro used on two films..that's the cool thing about working in Rome), and had a tremendous time.

[Brad Grimmett]

Like I said, if people don't like me using my "real name"... ban me.

 

F.R.

OK.

 

Would you ban Jesse Ventura if he posted in here? He never changed his name legally. Film Runner at least has that name on his California driver's license. Jesse's says "James George Janos".

The difference is, everyone knows who Jesse Ventura is, real name or not.

If Film Runner can produce that drivers license then he can continue to use that name.

[Charles MacDonald]

OK.

The difference is, everyone knows who Jesse Ventura is, real name or not.

If Film Runner can produce that drivers license then he can continue to use that name.

I think their have been stanger names used in the west coast area. Would you worry if some kid named "Moon Unit Zappa" started to post :)

[Zachary Vex]

The difference is, everyone knows who Jesse Ventura is, real name or not.

If Film Runner can produce that drivers license then he can continue to use that name.

 

1] A quick review of the "Forum Guidlines" by clicking the button near the top of the page will reveal this:

 

Members on this forum are required to use their full real names for their Display Name. The format to use is your first name followed by a space followed by your last/family/surname. Please capitalize the first letter of each. Accounts that do not comply will be removed and cannot be reactivated. Display names can be edited in My Controls / Change Display Name once you?re logged in.

 

There is no mention of whether anyone "knows" the person who is posting.

 

2] Film Runner claims that's his real name, just as the rest of us claim that our names are our real names. Nobody else is required to produce a driver's license... what's his crime? "Posting while weirdly-named"? That smacks of thoughtless prejudice... like "Driving while Black" or "Flying while Muslim."

 

The only thing I see wrong with the name "Film Runner" is the difficulty in using a search engine to see what work he is doing (or does in the future).

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Here's the full, horrific report from BSC. Couldn't find an external link to it, so I copied and pasted in the posting. As you can read, their logic leaks like a sieve and has holes you could run small countries through, as the BSC spokesman proves with some rather simple questions.

 

Personally I don't think it'll stick - it's just some technical bigwig at the mo who's got the hots for HD. Once he moves to a new job (as they tend to do quite soon), the storm is over. Why do I think this? Because I just shot a title sequence fro BBC's new food program The Thruth About Food last week, and guess what we shot on? 16mm film....

 

"On 28th September, approximately 150 invited Directors of Photography, Directors and Producers gathered at BBC Television Centre to hear the BBC?s ?Road map for HD?.

 

The morning began with an introduction from Alan Yentob, Creative Director of the BBC. He began by saying he didn?t know too much about the subject of High Definition. This might explain why he struggled somewhat to repeat accurately the information he had been given by the ?white coats? at the BBC?s research facility, Kingswood Warren.

The bombshell was dropped early though, and this at least was clear. Here it is:

?Drama on film has got to stop?

 

Jane Tranter, Controller, BBC Fiction, was next and admitted she didn?t know much about the subject either. This was confirmed by the following two comments meant to be in defence of HD against film:

?With HD you can move more quickly and less encumbered?. Multiple strands of cables running to a plethora of HD record decks and HD monitors that take two people to lift; blacked out tents for the much enlarged video village; waveform and vector scopes; Digital Information Technologists; constantly re-collimating lenses?. Less encumbered. We don?t think so.

 

?With HD cameras we can do anything we want them to?. Well try to ramping from 25 to 150fps at the touch of a button with no loss in resolution or need for expensive post processing (as you can on film) or try to pull back limited highlight detail that has clipped into oblivion (as you can?t on HD). Indeed her very arguments for HD were the exact arguments one would use in support of film.

 

The main villain of the piece (if you represent Kodak or Fuji) or evangelist (if you make HD cameras) was Andy Quested, BBC?s Principal Technologist.

He aimed his bombshell right on top of Alan Yentob?s with laser guided precision: ?There will be no Super 16mm on the HD channel? Now we were to learn why. It is not because Super 16 is an inferior capture medium, far from it, as anyone who has done a Spirit HD scan on film can attest. Indeed the American Company HBO apparently still requests HD material shot on Super 16. The problem lies with the MPEG 4 compressors the BBC uses to squeeze HD into a limited broadcast spectrum. These compressors have difficulty handling the random grain pattern of film, particularly on high speed, pushed and/or underexposed material. This results in blocky artefacts and a general softening of the image that the BBC ?white coats? think the audience at home will find unacceptable. Mr Quested then showed an example of Super 16mm projected in HD before and after compression. Of course he had found the grainiest material he could to demonstrate this. Actually, after the eyeball-searingly bright, hard, and ultra sharp HD originated images we had seen at the start of the presentation, you could sense a lot of the DoP?s in the audience thinking: ?Well it looks pretty good to me!? And here is the nub of the matter, the engineers think that the audience only want to watch super shiny bright and ultra sharp images on their new flat screen TV?s. It?s a numbers game. ?Look how many hairs you can see on the actress?s moustache! See the black heads in her pores; look you can see the writing on the back of the set that says ?DHS hire?! I was reminded of the geeks in the early days of CD music waxing lyrical about hearing the creak of the 1st violinist?s chair, or the rumble of the pianist?s stomach, rather than whether it made listening to the music any better. Page 1 of 2

 

 

 

So there it is, you can no longer shoot on Super 16, because the BBC?s MPEG 4 compressors aren?t good enough, and then only in the event of high speed under-exposed stock. This is true, I?m not making this up. This is the only technical reason. A member of the audience suggested that MPEG 4 compression will invariably improve and will soon have no problem with film grain. Yes, that?s correct admitted Mr. Quested, but the intention is to use better compression to squeeze even more channels into the available spectrum, rather than to improve the technical quality of what is broadcast.

 

?What about the BBC buying in HD programs from abroad that were originated on film such as a lot of HBO?s product?? came another question. ?No, we won?t even buy it if it was originated on film in another country? came the reply from Mr. Quested.

 

During the tea break, one of the BBC engineers was asked about electronic gain on HD cameras. What if you switched in maximum gain, doesn?t that produce a lot of noise that would trouble the compressors?

?Yes it would? came the reply.

?So does that mean we can?t shoot HD??

?Well, er, no, not exactly.? came the reply of a man sensing a trap.

?So are you going to tell us we can?t use gain in HD??

?Possibly yes? came the reply. ?Yes, we?ll do that?

?So?, we asked, ?If the director asks for a scene to have a grainy, gritty look (a not uncommon request) what then??

?Oh, you won?t be able to do that? was his response.

?So, we?ll only be allowed to shoot non grainy images, whatever the aesthetic requirements??

?Yes.?

 

Later on, DoP Matt Grey commented that it was a shame the BBC were ditching Super 16 just at the time it had reached a peak, with great advances in stock and new cameras on the market. Martin Hammond of Kodak also made the point that 22 drama productions were shooting on 16mm this year. Interestingly, Susanna White, director of the excellent ?Bleak House? who had been invited to talk of her positive experiences of shooting HD admitted she had shot her subsequent production ?Jane Eyre? on Super 16mm because she didn?t think HD could handle the bright daylight exteriors so well.

 

No one was being a die-hard film ?flat earthist? Most of the DoP's present had shot on HD with generally very good results. Amongst the clips shown were some excellent examples, and many of us are happy to embrace this new technology - when it works. But there is a distinct sense of throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you can?t use gain on HD but you can still use HD, why not say you can?t push 500asa film, but you can use anything up to 250asa for instance? No one had an answer for this, except that all the advice given to the BBC bosses seems to have come from electronics engineers who only understand and feel comfortable with their own subject. ?We don?t know film, so let?s get rid of this messy organic process and spend lots and lots of money on shiny new kit?. The reliability of which is such that, as one delegate said, ? If it were an aeroplane, I wouldn?t get on board!? Even Mr. Quested said ?Do not buy an HD camera, let the rental companies take the risk?!

 

In many ways, the BBC is to be applauded for making this an open event and for seeking a response from the invitees. The day was well organised and the afternoon session in a studio with lit sets and a wide range of new cameras, presented a tremendous opportunity to learn about some of the new technology emerging that many cinematographers will soon be using. But this was no consultation process, they had already made up their minds, and they and us and the audience will be the poorer for it."

[Brad Grimmett]

There is no mention of whether anyone "knows" the person who is posting.

No, there sure isn't. But do you actually believe that "Film Runner" is a real name?

2] Film Runner claims that's his real name, just as the rest of us claim that our names are our real names. Nobody else is required to produce a driver's license... what's his crime? "Posting while weirdly-named"? That smacks of thoughtless prejudice... like "Driving while Black" or "Flying while Muslim."

So you're calling me a rascist? For attempting to enforce the forums rules? You're really stretching now....

Film Runner is obviously not a real name. You won't convince me otherwise. It's just silly. If he wants to post here he should use his real name. Period. This site is provided to us for FREE by Tim Tyler and he has a few (very relaxed and lenient) rules. If someone refuses to follow them they shouldn't be allowed to post.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

They might have a point about the MPEG-4. However, the solution to this is not to try and push HD down a six-megabit transport stream, or whatever it is they're trying to do. Grain is never going to compress well, sure, but if it's that big a problem, you are not engineering your broadcast system correctly.

 

And how dispiritingly typical to hear the BBC call a meeting and trot out people who don't know very much about any topic raised in the last twenty years. Bandwagon-jumping losers.

 

Still, at least it means all the BBC HD stuff will look like Torchwood, and that's a good thi... oh, no, hang on.

 

Phil

[Mark Williams]

Here's the full, horrific report from BSC. Couldn't find an external link to it, so I copied and pasted in the posting. As you can read, their logic leaks like a sieve and has holes you could run small countries through, as the BSC spokesman proves with some rather simple questions.

 

Personally I don't think it'll stick - it's just some technical bigwig at the mo who's got the hots for HD. Once he moves to a new job (as they tend to do quite soon), the storm is over. Why do I think this? Because I just shot a title sequence fro BBC's new food program The Thruth About Food last week, and guess what we shot on? 16mm film....

 

"On 28th September, approximately 150 invited Directors of Photography, Directors and Producers gathered at BBC Television Centre to hear the BBC?s ?Road map for HD?.

 

The morning began with an introduction from Alan Yentob, Creative Director of the BBC. He began by saying he didn?t know too much about the subject of High Definition. This might explain why he struggled somewhat to repeat accurately the information he had been given by the ?white coats? at the BBC?s research facility, Kingswood Warren.

The bombshell was dropped early though, and this at least was clear. Here it is:

?Drama on film has got to stop?

 

Jane Tranter, Controller, BBC Fiction, was next and admitted she didn?t know much about the subject either. This was confirmed by the following two comments meant to be in defence of HD against film:

?With HD you can move more quickly and less encumbered?. Multiple strands of cables running to a plethora of HD record decks and HD monitors that take two people to lift; blacked out tents for the much enlarged video village; waveform and vector scopes; Digital Information Technologists; constantly re-collimating lenses?. Less encumbered. We don?t think so.

 

?With HD cameras we can do anything we want them to?. Well try to ramping from 25 to 150fps at the touch of a button with no loss in resolution or need for expensive post processing (as you can on film) or try to pull back limited highlight detail that has clipped into oblivion (as you can?t on HD). Indeed her very arguments for HD were the exact arguments one would use in support of film.

 

The main villain of the piece (if you represent Kodak or Fuji) or evangelist (if you make HD cameras) was Andy Quested, BBC?s Principal Technologist.

He aimed his bombshell right on top of Alan Yentob?s with laser guided precision: ?There will be no Super 16mm on the HD channel? Now we were to learn why. It is not because Super 16 is an inferior capture medium, far from it, as anyone who has done a Spirit HD scan on film can attest. Indeed the American Company HBO apparently still requests HD material shot on Super 16. The problem lies with the MPEG 4 compressors the BBC uses to squeeze HD into a limited broadcast spectrum. These compressors have difficulty handling the random grain pattern of film, particularly on high speed, pushed and/or underexposed material. This results in blocky artefacts and a general softening of the image that the BBC ?white coats? think the audience at home will find unacceptable. Mr Quested then showed an example of Super 16mm projected in HD before and after compression. Of course he had found the grainiest material he could to demonstrate this. Actually, after the eyeball-searingly bright, hard, and ultra sharp HD originated images we had seen at the start of the presentation, you could sense a lot of the DoP?s in the audience thinking: ?Well it looks pretty good to me!? And here is the nub of the matter, the engineers think that the audience only want to watch super shiny bright and ultra sharp images on their new flat screen TV?s. It?s a numbers game. ?Look how many hairs you can see on the actress?s moustache! See the black heads in her pores; look you can see the writing on the back of the set that says ?DHS hire?! I was reminded of the geeks in the early days of CD music waxing lyrical about hearing the creak of the 1st violinist?s chair, or the rumble of the pianist?s stomach, rather than whether it made listening to the music any better. Page 1 of 2

So there it is, you can no longer shoot on Super 16, because the BBC?s MPEG 4 compressors aren?t good enough, and then only in the event of high speed under-exposed stock. This is true, I?m not making this up. This is the only technical reason. A member of the audience suggested that MPEG 4 compression will invariably improve and will soon have no problem with film grain. Yes, that?s correct admitted Mr. Quested, but the intention is to use better compression to squeeze even more channels into the available spectrum, rather than to improve the technical quality of what is broadcast.

 

?What about the BBC buying in HD programs from abroad that were originated on film such as a lot of HBO?s product?? came another question. ?No, we won?t even buy it if it was originated on film in another country? came the reply from Mr. Quested.

 

During the tea break, one of the BBC engineers was asked about electronic gain on HD cameras. What if you switched in maximum gain, doesn?t that produce a lot of noise that would trouble the compressors?

?Yes it would? came the reply.

?So does that mean we can?t shoot HD??

?Well, er, no, not exactly.? came the reply of a man sensing a trap.

?So are you going to tell us we can?t use gain in HD??

?Possibly yes? came the reply. ?Yes, we?ll do that?

?So?, we asked, ?If the director asks for a scene to have a grainy, gritty look (a not uncommon request) what then??

?Oh, you won?t be able to do that? was his response.

?So, we?ll only be allowed to shoot non grainy images, whatever the aesthetic requirements??

?Yes.?

 

Later on, DoP Matt Grey commented that it was a shame the BBC were ditching Super 16 just at the time it had reached a peak, with great advances in stock and new cameras on the market. Martin Hammond of Kodak also made the point that 22 drama productions were shooting on 16mm this year. Interestingly, Susanna White, director of the excellent ?Bleak House? who had been invited to talk of her positive experiences of shooting HD admitted she had shot her subsequent production ?Jane Eyre? on Super 16mm because she didn?t think HD could handle the bright daylight exteriors so well.

 

No one was being a die-hard film ?flat earthist? Most of the DoP's present had shot on HD with generally very good results. Amongst the clips shown were some excellent examples, and many of us are happy to embrace this new technology - when it works. But there is a distinct sense of throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you can?t use gain on HD but you can still use HD, why not say you can?t push 500asa film, but you can use anything up to 250asa for instance? No one had an answer for this, except that all the advice given to the BBC bosses seems to have come from electronics engineers who only understand and feel comfortable with their own subject. ?We don?t know film, so let?s get rid of this messy organic process and spend lots and lots of money on shiny new kit?. The reliability of which is such that, as one delegate said, ? If it were an aeroplane, I wouldn?t get on board!? Even Mr. Quested said ?Do not buy an HD camera, let the rental companies take the risk?!

 

In many ways, the BBC is to be applauded for making this an open event and for seeking a response from the invitees. The day was well organised and the afternoon session in a studio with lit sets and a wide range of new cameras, presented a tremendous opportunity to learn about some of the new technology emerging that many cinematographers will soon be using. But this was no consultation process, they had already made up their minds, and they and us and the audience will be the poorer for it."

Thanks for that post adam I was about to search the net for information regarding this. But this is a one stop post.. The new arriflex 16mm camera and film stocks in my opinion are light years ahead.. Also lending themselves beautifully to the craft of film making..

[Stephen Williams]

The main villain of the piece (if you represent Kodak or Fuji) or evangelist (if you make HD cameras) was Andy Quested, BBC?s Principal Technologist.

 

Hi Adam,

 

Now I know which Andy Geoff Boyle was talking about on CML!

 

Stephen

[Zachary Vex]

1] But do you actually believe that "Film Runner" is a real name?

 

2] So you're calling me a rascist?

 

1] He's clearly stated on this forum that it is the name that appears on his California driver's license.

 

2] You said that. Look, you don't have any proof that it's not his real name. You are apparently prejudiced against people with non-normal-sounding names. Can you imagine how insulting your accusation sounds if it really is his legal name and you're flat-out wrong? My point is, give the guy the benefit of the doubt. He's been confronted about this so many times and has had to defend himself enough that I really think it's time to let this go. He doesn't seem to be disrupting the forum... but I feel that these unfounded accusations are doing just that.

 

I have no further comment on this matter. It's becoming distracting.

 

...

?Drama on film has got to stop?

...

The main villain of the piece (if you represent Kodak or Fuji) or evangelist (if you make HD cameras) was Andy Quested, BBC?s Principal Technologist.

He aimed his bombshell right on top of Alan Yentob?s with laser guided precision: ?There will be no Super 16mm on the HD channel?

...

?So?, we asked, ?If the director asks for a scene to have a grainy, gritty look (a not uncommon request) what then??

?Oh, you won?t be able to do that? was his response.

?So, we?ll only be allowed to shoot non grainy images, whatever the aesthetic requirements??

?Yes.?

...

 

Someone should make a movie. 8^)

[Sam Wells]

Here's the full, horrific report from BSC. Couldn't find an external link to it, so I copied and pasted in the posting. As you can read, their logic leaks like a sieve and has holes you could run small countries through, as the BSC spokesman proves with some rather simple questions

 

Thanks for taking the trouble to post this, Adam !

 

I recall ~ 10 years ago CBS was saying the same things about S16 & HD, well they weren't getting into the compression issue - but claimed it was inherently too unsteady (& too 'dirty' - PTR's -- Hello ??).

 

Which I *think* has been disproven :) (I'm doing comps with footage shot on a 40 year old Arri S !! & you can not see vertical registration error or weave with this from a Spirit > D5HD transfer NB film dailies projected same thing...)

 

Maybe I'll try & torture this in some MPEG 4 codec (I DO have better things to do with my time though :D

 

-Sam

[Paul Bruening]

When I drove up to D.C. to pick up my Fearless Panodamnit from a guy, I found out that he (I'll keep names and stories separate) had been a top producer for Discovery Channel and had quit them because they were chopping the price of delivered product to the point that it was costing as much to produce in 16mm than he was getting paid. His implication seemed to be that reality based programming was knocking him out of the staged documentary business. Does this have any connection with this HD thing?

[David Mullen ASC]

When I drove up to D.C. to pick up my Fearless Panodamnit from a guy, I found out that he (I'll keep names and stories separate) had been a top producer for Discovery Channel and had quit them because they were chopping the price of delivered product to the point that it was costing as much to produce in 16mm than he was getting paid. His implication seemed to be that reality based programming was knocking him out of the staged documentary business. Does this have any connection with this HD thing?

 

That's sort of a separate problem. The real culprit is the ridiculous amount of compression that digital broadcasters want to use, guaranteeing that nothing will look very good no matter what format it is shot in.

[Tobias Mennle]

For me, S-16 is almost obsolete. It hurts, but what can I do? I´ve been through good and bad times with my SR2 - she never let me down - but the superb S-16 is not good enough any more for my clients.

 

As a wildlife filmmaker and enthusiastic S-16 shooter I have been depressed about the strict and seemingly irrational HD policies of many channels for quite a while ? and I was convinced that Sony and Panasonic had bribed some important people into HD. Part of the story may go like this (it´s what a friend told me after he had worked for the BBC ?planet earth? series): NHK (japanese state TV) commissioned the BBC to produce ?planet earth?. NHK would pay 70% of the production costs, but of course the series had to be shot in HD (or 35mm). Sony or Panasonic HD. Real, big japanese HD. Most BBC freelance DoPs ? after long and basically happy marriages with the Arri SR2 and S-16 being better than ever before ? were probably not pleased at all. I was excited about the aerials in the series ? wow, HD looks great - until my friend told me they were mostly shot on 35mm. Which makes complete sense given the costs of the helicopter hour, the strive for longtime archival value and the somewhat poor resolution of the Varicam which becomes more obvious in landscape shots than in animal behaviour sequences.

 

But unfortunately it is true that film grain and compression do not go together well. Of course we can suppress S-16 grain in the telecine process, but we will get new artifacts or at least a very electronic, cold look ? so why shoot film then?

 

I bought ? after a lot of crying and cursing ? a Panasonic AJ-HDX900. There was no other way out. In international wildlife film, it´s HD or not to be. See above. At least, having waited a year longer than most colleagues, I saved about 25 000 Euro because of the massive price drop due to Panasonic´s new product and marketing strategy. Thanks, Panasonic. The camera body costs about the same than film stock, film processing and Spirit telecine on Digibeta for a 50mins wildlife film, so even economically HD may start to make sense. Image quality with a good lens, 25p, cinegamma and cinegamma correction on the monitor is amazing in 95% of all situations. Definitely film texture, not video. And right out of the camera with only a little monitor trickery. There can even be some grain (quite a lot, if you underexpose)... For me, HD´s biggest disadvantage imagewise is blooming. Biggest disadvantage in the field is weight and power consumption. Biggest advantage apart from the godsent 7s preroll: Tapes don´t care about being x-rayed. And quite sure, because in HD you go for the important highlights, not the shadows like in film, the whole system is several stops more light sensitive than S-16 with 500 ASA. Which is really really nice.

 

At the bottom of my heart, I hope S-16 will flourish for years to come and that finally I will sell my HD camera again, get 15kg off my rucksack and have an A-minima MK2, Kodak Vision 3, a decent zoom and an affordable Arriscan scan for the best looking HD imagery in my career. More probable, in 4-6 years it will be a 1080/100p HD camera half the size half the weight than today´s cameras.

[Mitch Gross]

I agree that HD is taking the place of S-16 in many areas, but I can also attest to having shot 4 national spots for major clients in the last few weeks, all in S-16. It is still quite viable.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

And as far as music videos go in Britain, that's pretty much 95% S16mm, so it's still going strong.

[James Erd]

If S16 suffers so much from compression I have to wonder what else is being lost? I understand the need for compression, but even the best CODEC degrades the original, no matter what it originated on.

 

HD may suffer less than film, but by the time it gets pumped into a cable or bounced to and from a satellite dish, what you see on the screen at home falls short of the promise of HDTV that we have all been sold. How sad.

[Patrick Cooper]

Currently in Australia, just about all the top fictional TV shows are shot on S16. Though I admit, such shows only make up a pretty small percentage of the local content. The rest of the locally produced material is made up of travelogue, lifestyle shows, soapies, low budget dramatic fiction, reality tv, news and sports which are typical video domain. To my knowledge, 35mm is not used for TV production in Australia....but don't quote me on this. Whenever film is used to produce TV programs here, it is usually S16.

[Alessandro Machi]

For me, S-16 is almost obsolete. It hurts, but what can I do? I´ve been through good and bad times with my SR2 - she never let me down - but the superb S-16 is not good enough any more for my clients.

 

As a wildlife filmmaker and enthusiastic S-16 shooter I have been depressed about the strict and seemingly irrational HD policies of many channels for quite a while ? and I was convinced that Sony and Panasonic had bribed some important people into HD. Part of the story may go like this (it´s what a friend told me after he had worked for the BBC ?planet earth? series): NHK (japanese state TV) commissioned the BBC to produce ?planet earth?. NHK would pay 70% of the production costs, but of course the series had to be shot in HD (or 35mm). Sony or Panasonic HD. Real, big japanese HD. Most BBC freelance DoPs ? after long and basically happy marriages with the Arri SR2 and S-16 being better than ever before ? were probably not pleased at all. I was excited about the aerials in the series ? wow, HD looks great - until my friend told me they were mostly shot on 35mm. Which makes complete sense given the costs of the helicopter hour, the strive for longtime archival value and the somewhat poor resolution of the Varicam which becomes more obvious in landscape shots than in animal behaviour sequences.

 

But unfortunately it is true that film grain and compression do not go together well. Of course we can suppress S-16 grain in the telecine process, but we will get new artifacts or at least a very electronic, cold look ? so why shoot film then?

 

I bought ? after a lot of crying and cursing ? a Panasonic AJ-HDX900. There was no other way out. In international wildlife film, it´s HD or not to be. See above. At least, having waited a year longer than most colleagues, I saved about 25 000 Euro because of the massive price drop due to Panasonic´s new product and marketing strategy. Thanks, Panasonic. The camera body costs about the same than film stock, film processing and Spirit telecine on Digibeta for a 50mins wildlife film, so even economically HD may start to make sense. Image quality with a good lens, 25p, cinegamma and cinegamma correction on the monitor is amazing in 95% of all situations. Definitely film texture, not video. And right out of the camera with only a little monitor trickery. There can even be some grain (quite a lot, if you underexpose)... For me, HD´s biggest disadvantage imagewise is blooming. Biggest disadvantage in the field is weight and power consumption. Biggest advantage apart from the godsent 7s preroll: Tapes don´t care about being x-rayed. And quite sure, because in HD you go for the important highlights, not the shadows like in film, the whole system is several stops more light sensitive than S-16 with 500 ASA. Which is really really nice.

 

At the bottom of my heart, I hope S-16 will flourish for years to come and that finally I will sell my HD camera again, get 15kg off my rucksack and have an A-minima MK2, Kodak Vision 3, a decent zoom and an affordable Arriscan scan for the best looking HD imagery in my career. More probable, in 4-6 years it will be a 1080/100p HD camera half the size half the weight than today´s cameras.

 

I'm sorry but I don't believe you. Several stops more sensitive than 500 ASA??? Can you give a specific spec? I just don't believe that Super-16 is not good enough for HD. Who was doing your film transfers?

 

 

If S16 suffers so much from compression I have to wonder what else is being lost? I understand the need for compression, but even the best CODEC degrades the original, no matter what it originated on.

 

HD may suffer less than film, but by the time it gets pumped into a cable or bounced to and from a satellite dish, what you see on the screen at home falls short of the promise of HDTV that we have all been sold. How sad.

 

Oh haven't you heard, as long as it's called digital, any amount of compression is acceptable because what remains is so super clean and perfect and what was left out just didn't belong. (that was sarcasm).

[adam berk]

I recently completed the supervision of the post for a music video shot Super16 on a bolex. The material was processed at Fotokem, then transfered to D5 HD on a Spirit. After offline editing, the D5 material was then conformed and graded on a smoke*. After the grading was completed, we immediately created H.264 (a flavor of mpeg4) web friendly HD quicktime files for client approval at a datarate well below half that of what is used for broadcast HD. We didn't use any fancy/expensive compression tools, just the normal $25 Quicktime Pro encoder. The compression had absolutely no trouble with the grain, even on Fuji 500 daylight that was under-exposed.

 

Both we, and the client are extremely happy with the final product, and the choice made to shoot on super16. We couldn't be happier. The images are sharp, the colour fantastic, resolution superb.

 

Long live super16.

[Tobias Mennle]

I'm sorry but I don't believe you. Several stops more sensitive than 500 ASA??? Can you give a specific spec? I just don't believe that Super-16 is not good enough for HD. Who was doing your film transfers?

Oh haven't you heard, as long as it's called digital, any amount of compression is acceptable because what remains id so super clean and perfect and what was left out just didn't belong. (that was sarcasm).

 

Chip sensitivity and 500ASA film are pretty close I guess. But with the chip I expose for the highlights. Take a city night shot: I want to keep the lights. With film, I´d have to open about 2-3 stops to somehow save the shadows. Plus, the Arri has a fixed shutter, I do HD night (moving cars) with open shutter for a bit of motion blur/smear. Makes 3-4 stops.

 

Film transfer was Spirit with a 100 000 Euro grain reduction hardware box.

[Stephen Williams]

Film transfer was Spirit with a 100 000 Euro grain reduction hardware box.

 

Hi,

 

With a Spirit much of the grain is actually noise! This became very clear when I made some scans at Arri recently.

 

Stephen

[adam berk]

Hi,

 

With a Spirit much of the grain is actually noise! This became very clear when I made some scans at Arri recently.

 

Stephen

 

I was unaware that the spirit was considered a noisy machine. Everything I've heard about the spirit w/s16 has been good, as in much less noise than tube based telecines like the c-reality.

 

Hi,

 

With a Spirit much of the grain is actually noise! This became very clear when I made some scans at Arri recently.

 

Stephen

 

 

Is the arriscan used much for TVC/music videos? I was sort of under the impression that the arriscan is mostly a feature film driven device.

 

Do you know of any USA facilities, other than EFILM that use Arriscan?