Evan Owen Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Well its my belief many films shot on HD would have looked even better on 35mm Star wars for example. I have to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Well its my belief many films shot on HD would have looked even better on 35mm Star wars for example. The new DVDs of the Star Wars series feature a stunning transfer of the 1977 version. It looks like it could have been shot yesterday, I mean it's just incredible looking. Two other films I have that produce this same effect are Zulu, 1964, and the first Alien, 1979. It just amazes me how good these movies can look being made over 30 years ago. The picture quality of these three movies is vastly superior to any thing the very best HD technology can produce in 2007. Yes I'm sure they did hours of "clean up" work on the negs on these movies to get them to look the way they do on DVD, but the fact is that it could be done in the first place, so that 30+ years later we can still enjoy these movies. Film certainly has it's draw backs, and video has its advantages, but in the end the results show that film is always well worth the "sacrifices" in the areas of cost and a bit tougher production pipe line. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Michael Corey Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 QUOTE(Mark Collins @ Sep 21 2007, 06:55 AM) *Well its my belief many films shot on HD would have looked even better on 35mm Star wars for example. Well, my belief is that Star Wars would have looked even better on RED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Which Star Wars ? the original or the last two shot on Sony 900's ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Yes I think Video has its uses for HD TV etc. Also Film can be archived for a hundred years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Owen Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 (edited) Yes I think Video has its uses for HD TV etc. Also Film can be archived for a hundred years. But why use video even for HDTV? Yes it may be a bit cheaper, but with digital cinema cameras like RED becoming available at lower price-points, video isn't looking as attractive anymore. It may just be starting, but I think eventually video will be on its way out as well... even the most expensive HD video cameras just don't compare. Edited September 21, 2007 by Evan Owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Michael Corey Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 (edited) Which Star Wars ? the original or the last two shot on Sony 900's ? -------------------- John Holland DoP. Star Wars: Episodes II & III, shot with the Sony 900's. Edited September 21, 2007 by John Michael Corey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Well Red wasnt around then was it ? so they would have looked better if they had been shot on 35mm anamorphic film just like the previous ones , i really cant wait to see Red projected via a DI film print so i can no where we are . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Owen Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Well Red wasnt around then was it ? so they would have looked better if they had been shot on 35mm anamorphic film just like the previous ones , i really cant wait to see Red projected via a DI film print so i can no where we are . I don't think anyone would argue with that... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 (edited) But why use video even for HDTV? Yes it may be a bit cheaper, but with digital cinema cameras like RED becoming available at lower price-points, video isn't looking as attractive anymore. It may just be starting, but I think eventually video will be on its way out as well... even the most expensive HD video cameras just don't compare. I was using the term Video to describe all things digital. The RED camera will undoubtably replace the high end HD cameras but it wont have n effect on the consumer market. I believe HD has already had a fair test and found wanting. The addition of the use of dof and higher psuedo defination is not going to be enough because the realisation that HD doesnt compete with film is already understood in some who have tried it. Yes HD could be seen as a new type of film look for certain projects and some will say its great for those struggling with costs. Although this argument seems to me to be paper thin. Why can't anyone make a film with film? 35mm Cameras are cheap enough on ebay and film itself. In fact you could make a feature transferred to a DI for probably less than A RED camera and all its peripherals would cost. THE TRUTH is Many have not spent the time learning how to make film and think sticking a camera attached to a monitor so you see what your shooting will enable them to do what the Pros do.. Ooops Big mistake. The RED will not give those with limited abiltiy a short cut to being pro. Edited September 21, 2007 by Mark Collins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted September 21, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 21, 2007 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Film is composed of microdots of silver or dye. In a color film, these dots are analog in density gradation, but in B&W are more 'digital'. The average image on a 35mm film can have details in the 1 - 10 micron range, and the dots can be as small as 1 micron. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The dye clouds in gelatin on color film are no more analog than the silver particle on B&W. Silver halide grains are the light sensitive element in both. In B&W, you just leave the silver there. In color, it couples to the dyes. You either get a dye cloud or not, depending on whether the associated silver halide grain had been latensified or not. The dye clouds aren't even a lot more fuzzy-edged than the silver particles of B&W. The remaining silver particles in B&W are sort of tangled stringy-looking things, they almost look like the stem structure you have left after eating a big bunch of grapes. Each individual dye cloud will have one of three colors, depending on which layer it's in. Film resolution is measured in line pairs per millimeter. TV uses line pairs per picture height. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Häakon Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 But why use video even for HDTV? Yes it may be a bit cheaper, but with digital cinema cameras like RED becoming available at lower price-points, video isn't looking as attractive anymore. It may just be starting, but I think eventually video will be on its way out as well... even the most expensive HD video cameras just don't compare. Hi, The definition of video: the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion. RED may be a very high quality video camera, but a video camera it is nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seung Han Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Hi, The definition of video: the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion. RED may be a very high quality video camera, but a video camera it is nonetheless. You're right, it is technically a video camera but in my mind its such a leap from what I consider video that I understood what Owen meant in his post. It's like when somebody mentions film I'm not assuming they are talking about 8mm, 16mm or 70mm, I just assume they are speaking on 35mm. Unless, many here are comparing Red footage to 8mm. When somebody says video these days, I automatically think vhs, beta or 3/4 inch. If somebody referred to even my PD-150 images as video I would probably correct them and say it's mini-DV, even though technically they are right. I agree nomenclature is important but to a point because if certain standards in discussion are expected than everybody should be held accountable to it. This could lead to endless semantics. From reading these posts, I realize people on both sides will continue to expect filmic images from digital which is kind of a shame, because I would love to see you professional guys with real budgets to show us amateurs what this new technology is capable of on a big canvas. It would be exciting. Still, I am even more excited to see what kind of images the indie and 'video' art world will produce with these cameras... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Häakon Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 If somebody referred to even my PD-150 images as video I would probably correct them and say it's mini-DV, even though technically they are right. Hi, A PD-150 is absolutely a video camera; MiniDV is simply the format on which the video data is stored. You would not be accurate to "correct" them in this manner. Best, Häakon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Film is composed of microdots of silver or dye. In a color film, these dots are analog in density gradation, but in B&W are more 'digital'. The average image on a 35mm film can have details in the 1 - 10 micron range, and the dots can be as small as 1 micron. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is that relevant if a 4K scan of the negative can replace the negative itself for all intents and purposes? How many 1 micron dots do you figure end up on the IP, the IN and the release prints as they are on the negative? ZERO. And if 35mm film is so super resolved, how come no 35mm I have seen looks as detailed as 4K from Red and Dalsa? Analogue audio tape has tape hiss too. And you can make it a fetish and claim it means there is (almost) endless resolution there to record audio. We all know it's not true. And it does not measure up to digital audio of sufficient resolution. Especially not when cascading analogue processing steps (as you have to do with film as well). No its not the same at all Digital Film cameras capture film entirely different. So? Are you saying what film does can not be accurately modelled mathematically and simulated with data to an extent that you can not see the difference anymore? What is your scientific basis for this claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Well its my belief many films shot on HD would have looked even better on 35mm Star wars for example. I guess you don't mean "Star Wars' but the 2 latest sequels. I don't disagree on principle. But then these were not shot with 4K data cameras. And looking at many films shot on 35mm it is my belief that release prints should look a lot better and if I could see a digital projection directly from the scanned and graded negative or a print directly from the negative or the same film shot with one of the new 4K cameras and projected digitally I would see a technically far better picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 The new DVDs of the Star Wars series feature a stunning transfer of the 1977 version. It looks like it could have been shot yesterday, I mean it's just incredible looking. From DVD? You are happy with MPEG2 at ~ 7 mbit/s and 480p quality? Or are you talking HD? It just amazes me how good these movies can look being made over 30 years ago. The picture quality of these three movies is vastly superior to any thing the very best HD technology can produce in 2007. These movies look so good on measly 8 bit 'video' because of digital technology removing tons of film artifacts and avoiding long analogue processing chains all eating away at image quality, in addition to the 35mm negative quality. Now imagine what happens if you start not with such a negative but clean 4K data full of information to begin with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Now imagine what happens if you start not with such a negative but clean 4K data full of information to begin with! For quite a few productions "clean" goes against the story. For example "Star Wars" was intended to be a worn world with battered, used equipment on your everyday death star. The improvements in telecines have been enabled more information to be gathered from the original material compared to the older transfers. The same has happened with improvements in print stocks etc. Seeing these older films blown up onto 70mm prints in flagship cinemas when they were originally released quickly demonstrates how much information there is. Of course, quite a bit is lost in the 35mm print being screened your average cinema. Making films isn't a technical exercise, it's a creative process with technical elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seung Han Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Hi, A PD-150 is absolutely a video camera; MiniDV is simply the format on which the video data is stored. You would not be accurate to "correct" them in this manner. Best, Häakon RIF...reading is fundamental. I said it was video...are you slow? Why are people on this board so argumentative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Häakon Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 RIF...reading is fundamental. I said it was video...are you slow? Why are people on this board so argumentative? Hi, Yes, I saw what you wrote. You also said that you may possibly feel the need to "correct" your fellow shooter and I was simply pointing out that such a correction would not indeed be a correction at all. Perhaps you should re-read your original post? :-) At any rate, the bigger issue was not centered around your post but the post which preceded it; discussing the "digital cinema" nomenclature which has been applied to steer users away from the negative connotation of "video" (especially as compared to film). "Digital cinema" is a fine and dandy term, but doesn't take away from the fact that at it's core, RED is still a video camera. That was the main point I was getting at. Nothing to argue about - and I certainly don't have a need to stoop to name-calling! Have a good day! Häakon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Häakon Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Now imagine what happens if you start not with such a negative but clean 4K data full of information to begin with! Indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seung Han Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) I edited this post... :lol: You have a nice day as well! Edited September 23, 2007 by Seung Han Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 23, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 23, 2007 Why are people on this board so argumentative? Hi Seung, I also find it odd, but have noticed that people who come here to pick fights generally have very few posts to their name. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seung Han Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Hi Seung, I also find it odd, but have noticed that people who come here to pick fights generally have very few posts to their name. Stephen Hey Stephen, I'm not sure if your mention of the post count was directed at me, but I guess everybody starts somewhere. I am actually prepping to shoot a film soon and have been joining a few forums to get information. I got kind of hooked in this subforum because the discussion is very spirited and I guess my take on it is less technical but more theoretical on how the Red footage could be used to tell a particular story. I am however very grateful for all the great tips and advice on this forum. I have also picked up many things from your posts on this site as well as reduser.net. Thank you! Also, I apologize to Haakon for being rude. I was being flippant but it was still rude. No call for that. I am sorry. And I want to correct myself - mini-DV is a tape format and DV is the video compression... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 23, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 23, 2007 Hey Stephen, I'm not sure if your mention of the post count was directed at me, Hi Seung, It was not, just an observation in general. Stephen 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