Is Super 16 really good enough for HDTV ?

[Keith Walters]

You answered your own question. Watching the two from normal viewing distances your eye can not see the difference. That is a fact. The angular subtense of a full pixel at 1920 is is 0.7 arc minutes which is far beyond what they eye can see. So scream all the resolution you want, it makes no difference. We’ll never need 4k TVs cause you can’t see 4k. If someone makes a 70 inch TV then resolution above 1024 becomes a factor but for right now it isn’t and that is not going to change. If only we sat one foot from a TV, we'd appreciate the higher resolution, if it was there (as long as other factors were correct) but we don't sit on a TV so talking resolution numbers as a gateway to quality is not only silly but misleading. Note: My three year old used to but then I put the TV on the wall.

 

I didn't say anything about "normal viewing distances". I simply meant that if I step back far enough so that the resolution of the two screens looks about the same (because I then can't discern the extra detail in the 1920 screen) the pictures look identical (as in brightness, contrast etc, meaning the two sets are otherwise the same).

 

What exactly are these so-called "correct viewing distances" that people keep quoting like they were the Third Law of Thermodynamics?

 

Apart from size my 1920 x 1080 TV screen displaying a Blu-Ray movie is for all practical purposes going to produce an identical picture to what I would expect from a 2K digital projection in a cinema. So, what is the "optimum viewing distance" from a forty foot screen then?

 

Most of the time there is plenty of seating choice available and people seem to sit all over the theatre, with a tendency to congregate in the centre back half. It's true most people avoid the very front rows but I think this is more out of habit rather than actual preference, as I find sitting up close to an LCD projected picture not anywhere near as irritating as one from a 24fps film projector.

 

The often quoted optimum viewing distances were originally devised to take into account the effects of interlace flicker, when TV cameras and TV displays all used vacuum tubes and Interlace was considered the "least-worst" option. Most of this was based on research carried out in the 1930s by Dr Raymond Kell, using modified film projectors to simulate an interlaced scan.

 

From this they concluded that with a 525 line scan (480 active lines) it was a waste of bandwidth (and receiver signal-to-noise ratio) to transmit anything more than about 4.2MHz (360 lines) luminance resolution, and not the 5.5MHz or so that a 640 x 480 display is theoretically capable of displaying. All this is based on the assumption that viewers will tend to situate themselves at a position where their eyes can just not quite detect interlace flicker on horizontal edges.

 

LCD TVs have no interlace flicker. They look and behave just like a colour transparency with a fluorescent light behind it. The picture looks just as good to me from any distance as long as I can focus on it and I can't see the pixel structure. For the 1920 x 1080 set that's about 1 metre if I'm not wearing glasses. What is actually wrong with watching such a TV from this distance? My field of view is then going to pretty closely resemble what I would see in the cinema.

 

Optimum TV viewing distances are a relic of the 20th century. And like it or not, Account Executives and other holders of the mighty check-signing apparatus ARE going to make comparisons like this. Even if you can produce learned works to back up your argument, the Customer is Always Right. If you insist on proving them wrong they won't be your customers for long.

[Phil Savoie]

Sorry to come to this thread so late Walter. I've commented on this question before on this forum. There are both technical and artistic considerations. I spent some months during pre-production for the BBC Planet Earth series testing origination formats for HD transmission. Our tests showed Super 16 shot on low ASA stock, 50 ASA Eastman, 64 ASA Fuji looked outstanding when transfered to HD D5 on a Spirit at 2K. In fact 16mm looked fabulous up to 250 ASA - the Eastman 250 looking significantly better than the Fuji 250 due to it's T grain. 500 ASA on 16mm did look quite grainy. 35mm looked exceptional in terms of color depth, latitude, resolution and overall image quality whatever the ASA, even 500. The tests were carried out at Arri Media in London with assistance from Kodak, Fuji, Arri as well as Sony and Panasonic. We tested the Sony 750 and 900 cameras and the Varicam vs Super 16 and 35 (3 perf). 35mm simply knocked you out. A number of business professionals reviewed the test footage and 35mm to HD is simply gorgeous.

 

Obviously craft is part of the equation and 16mm certainly benefitted from being shot at optimized T stops. In terms of grain it's also an artistic choice, some like seeing a bit of grain. As David stated the real problem with much of the 16mm seen in broadcast HD is grain accentuated by the compression broadcasters impose on the image in the transmission process. As well as the odd archive footage. And as you have noted both the monitor and viewing distance play a part.

 

The bottom line in my opinion is 16mm is more than good enough for HD when good craft and low ASA stock is employed. This testing was a few years ago now and we used a combination of Zeiss Super Speeds and Ultra primes and the stock of the day, 7245, 8622, 7246, 7279, 7218 - as I recall 7218 had been recently released. One would guess that stocks, telecine capabilities and lens technology have all improved significantly and both 16 and 35mm film to HD should look even better. It would be good fun to revisit the tests today to evaluate these improvements. Perhaps we could get some stock and goodwill from some post facilities and get to it. I'm sure my students would be up for the job.

[Keith Walters]

?? Look harder I think there are five in theaters right now including Aranofsky's The Wrestler..

 

S-16 has been widely used for 2K for some time now.. including in Apcoalypto and mixed with 35mm and digital in multiple productions.

 

-Rob-

Yes. but it's hardly the origination medium of choice. There is always going to be low-budget stuff shot on 16mm and there is nothing wrong with that. Advertisers with corporate egos and deep pockets might not agree. Which is the main thrust of this thread

[Keith Walters]

Sorry to come to this thread so late Walter. I've commented on this question before on this forum. There are both technical and artistic considerations. I spent some months during pre-production for the BBC Planet Earth series testing origination formats for HD transmission. Our tests showed Super 16 shot on low ASA stock, 50 ASA Eastman, 64 ASA Fuji looked outstanding when transfered to HD D5 on a Spirit at 2K. In fact 16mm looked fabulous up to 250 ASA - the Eastman 250 looking significantly better than the Fuji 250 due to it's T grain. 500 ASA on 16mm did look quite grainy. 35mm looked exceptional in terms of color depth, latitude, resolution and overall image quality whatever the ASA, even 500. The tests were carried out at Arri Media in London with assistance from Kodak, Fuji, Arri as well as Sony and Panasonic. We tested the Sony 750 and 900 cameras and the Varicam vs Super 16 and 35 (3 perf). 35mm simply knocked you out. A number of business professionals reviewed the test footage and 35mm to HD is simply gorgeous.

 

Obviously craft is part of the equation and 16mm certainly benefitted from being shot at optimized T stops. In terms of grain it's also an artistic choice, some like seeing a bit of grain. As David stated the real problem with much of the 16mm seen in broadcast HD is grain accentuated by the compression broadcasters impose on the image in the transmission process. As well as the odd archive footage. And as you have noted both the monitor and viewing distance play a part.

 

The bottom line in my opinion is 16mm is more than good enough for HD when good craft and low ASA stock is employed. This testing was a few years ago now and we used a combination of Zeiss Super Speeds and Ultra primes and the stock of the day, 7245, 8622, 7246, 7279, 7218 - as I recall 7218 had been recently released. One would guess that stocks, telecine capabilities and lens technology have all improved significantly and both 16 and 35mm film to HD should look even better. It would be good fun to revisit the tests today to evaluate these improvements. Perhaps we could get some stock and goodwill from some post facilities and get to it. I'm sure my students would be up for the job.

All perfectly sound statements.

I think the trouble is that Shows like Law and Order are trying to get 35mm performance using 16mm with the same ASA rating and the same lighting. If they used slower stocks, the pictures would be better, but then they would have to spend more on other things.

 

The other problem is that every technological improvement that makes 16mm more acceptable, tends to make 35mm even more so.

 

There is also far less room for error in focussing with 16mm. Attention to detail in general becomes far more critical.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Keith Walters

[Rich Hibner]

"Chuck" is shot with 16mm

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0934814/technical

Edited January 19, 2009 by Rich Hibner

[Phil Rhodes]

number of business professionals reviewed the test footage and 35mm to HD is simply gorgeous

 

The BBC is spending my licence money on verifying this?

 

Oh, the humanity.

 

P

[Keith Walters]

The BBC is spending my licence money on verifying this?

 

Oh, the humanity.

 

P

You STILL have TV licenses? How Quaint.

I thought they were due to be discontinued in the UK.

 

We did away with those in 1974, just before the introduction of colour broadcasts here.

I particularly remember because my brother finally got one about 2 months beforehand, after dodging the inspectors for 10 years, and there were no refunds!

 

I thought the BEEB had stamped their little Hush Puppies and declared celluloid had no place in their digital future, with the latest 6 volt valves with no top caps....

Edited January 19, 2009 by Keith Walters

[Karel Bata]

I actually LIKE being able to see film grain on HDTV

Couldn't agree more! Unfortunately I don't that most audiences would agree and tend to equate grain with noise... :(
 
 
But there's another factor not being talked here, which is the workflow from the source material. I saw a few minutes (and then I had to leave the room!) of Sex and the City on Blu-Ray recently. What kept me in the the room for a few painful minutes was the astonishing quality of what I saw. In the close-ups I could see every hair, and it didn't appear to be due to any sharpening, and I realised what I saw was IMHO at a quality better than I would have seen in the cinema. My reasoning was that this Blu-Ray print would have been taken directly from an appropriately optimised DI. For the cinema the DI would have made inter-negatives from which multiple positive prints would have been struck. Or there may have even been an additional inter-positive! Thus there would be generational loss. Anyone who's sat watching 35mm dailies will know that's when they look at their best - and then it's all downhill from there! :D
 
If anyone's unfamiliar with 35mm workflow, a quick copy n paste here:

In the film workflow, the cut list that describes the film-based answer print is used to cut the original color negative (OCN) and create a color timed copy called the color master positive or interpositive print. For all subsequent steps this effectively becomes the master copy. The next step is to create a one-light copy called the color duplicate negative or internegative. It is from this that many copies of the final theatrical release print are made. Copying from the internegative is much simpler than copying from the interpositive directly because it is a one-light process; it also reduces wear-and-tear on the interpositive print.

35mm generated TV has been gradually moving over to digital, and there have been many mixes of technologies, and I very much doubt doubt there's any consistently used production workflow even as yet. So I don't think you can really make valid judgements about 16mm quality from what you see transmitted. Similarly an old 35mm film on HDTV will have likely been telecined from a print, or (if you're lucky) an earlier generation, but very unlikely from the negative itself. So buying Casablanca on Blu-Ray (an extreme example I know) is likely to be a complete waste of money.
 
A slight aside here - I wonder how many Blu-Ray videos are really DVDs that have been up-scaled so you actually get nothing more? If that's not happening yet, then it certainly will. Likewise, how many HDTV broadcasts of films are genuine full HD...?
 
Anyway, watching something (once upon a time) originated on Super 16 and then broadcast on HDTV can be an unreliable guide as what what it really is capable of if the workflow is properly optimised. I know from watching Super16 dailies they can look fantastic. If the workflow can preserve that (and at home in your living room you can get better quality than you ever got in the cinema) then the answer to Keith's original question is unequivocally YES!

[Karel Bata]

You STILL have TV licenses? How Quaint.

I thought they were due to be discontinued in the UK.

 

We did away with those in 1974, just before the introduction of colour broadcasts here.

I particularly remember because my brother finally got one about 2 months beforehand, after dodging the inspectors for 10 years, and there were no refunds!

 

I thought the BEEB had stamped their little Hush Puppies and declared celluloid had no place in their digital future, with the latest 6 volt valves with no top caps....

Ah Keith, how we envy the quality of your television... :P

[Andy_Alderslade]

But there's another factor not being talked here, which is the workflow from the source material. I saw a few minutes (and then I had to leave the room!) of Sex and the City on Blu-Ray recently. What kept me in the the room for a few painful minutes was the astonishing quality of what I saw. In the close-ups I could see every hair, and it didn't appear to be due to any sharpening, and I realised what I saw was IMHO at a quality better than I would have seen in the cinema. My reasoning was that this Blu-Ray print would have been taken directly from an appropriately optimised DI. For the cinema the DI would have made inter-negatives from which multiple positive prints would have been struck. Or there may have even been an additional inter-positive! Thus there would be generational loss. Anyone who's sat watching 35mm dailies will know that's when they look at their best - and then it's all downhill from there! :D

 

I'm confused, are you referring to the TV series shot on Super 16 or the feature film shot on 35mm?

[K Borowski]

Andy, sounds like he's referring to the Blu-ray of the movie vs. a 35mm print from a 35-originated 2K DI in the theatres.

[Michael Most]

I think the trouble is that Shows like Law and Order are trying to get 35mm performance using 16mm with the same ASA rating and the same lighting.

 

Law and Order is currently shot on the Panavision Genesis.

[K Borowski]

Law and Order is currently shot on the Panavision Genesis.

 

Come on Mike. . . I think you get that he is talking about the reruns, shot on mostly 16mm that are getting played about 1/4 of the time on TV on TNT every day. No need to nitpick.

 

Isn't SVU on HD now too?

[Keith Walters]

Law and Order is currently shot on the Panavision Genesis.

 

Which, I guess that answers that question. :lol:

 

 

I used to watch those shows a lot in the past, but they've all turned to crap, with often ridiculously implausible plots and hack politically-correct (or studiedly incorrect) dialogue. Sometimes I get the impression they're just flopping around like a fish on a jetty until their gills dry out.

 

Trouble is, the Genesis is not exactly cheap to rent (well, it never used to be).

 

I think we might be in the middle of yet another film > cheap film > cheap video > expensive video > cheap film > back to 35mm time-warp here. It's been about 10 years since the last one so it's about due.

[David Rakoczy]

I think we might be in the middle of yet another film > cheap film > cheap video > expensive video > cheap film > back to 35mm time-warp here. It's been about 10 years since the last one so it's about due.

 

 

Ain't that the Truth!!!! :blink:

[Michel Hafner]

A slight aside here - I wonder how many Blu-Ray videos are really DVDs that have been up-scaled so you actually get nothing more?

None. DVD is not used for mastering Blu Ray. If you mean SD masters, very few, if we talk about feature films. HD transfers are used in almost all cases. But their age and quality varies greatly, going from old transfers made on CRT based telecines to direct digital mastering directly from DI files.

[Karel Bata]

Thanks for the clarification. At the moment Blu-Ray is in the hands of the big boys who want the public to invest in another new format and so will endeavour to keep standards high. But once Blu-Ray achieves greater market penetration I think we may see a lot of disks released that are not up to the full spec, and which are not honest about it. Will the studios really bother to rescan the negatives of their entire back catalogs? It all reminds me of the early days of CDs.

 

 

My main point earlier (though admittedly I did wander around a bit, but this subject touches upon several other interesting topics) was in reply to "Is Super 16 really good enough for HDTV". I think it is a bit foolish to make value judgments on its viability based upon watching old episodes of "Law and Order"! L&O's workflow was never optimised for HD.

 

But it's worth noting that we've been confining ourselves here to discussions about image quality, and the fact that L&O have moved over to the Genesis suggests there are other more compelling arguments invloved.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Karel Bata

[Chris Keth]

From my own nonscientific experience, well-shot medium to slow speed S16 looks great in HD. Faster speeds like the popular 7218/19 show their grain a bit much for me, but I think they're a little too grainy projected so that's not unique to going to HD.

[K Borowski]

None. DVD is not used for mastering Blu Ray. If you mean SD masters, very few, if we talk about feature films. HD transfers are used in almost all cases. But their age and quality varies greatly, going from old transfers made on CRT based telecines to direct digital mastering directly from DI files.

 

You were also the only person that said the quality of the 4K DI on "Dark Knight" would be inferior because it was from an IP.

 

Saying that digital is always better is just as bad as saying that film is always better or analog is always better.

 

Frankly, the BEST transfers I've seen are from IPs because this means that the original intent of the film hasn't been "tweaked" by a DIT, and the OCN is safe.

 

DIs are also the only reason that you can say that HD looks better than film prints, because of the convoluted, worst method compromise that uses a DI to reduce quality without removing any of the analog copying steps either.

 

 

 

From what I have seen with my "half HD" :rolleyes: Sony. With 1080i broadcasts, I wouldn't shoot anything faster than 250D, or the 200T stock. I'd probably try to stick with 7201 and 7217 as much as I could.

 

These stocks, in S16, produce truly exceptional results. As for what network TV decides to do, that is up to them. Hollywood seems to have a love affair with '18, '19, '79, '60, and any film they slap a "500T" rating onto.

[Keith Walters]

My main point earlier (though admittedly I did wander around a bit, but this subject touches upon several other interesting topics) was in reply to "Is Super 16 really good enough for HDTV". I think it is a bit foolish to make value judgments on its viability based upon watching old episodes of "Law and Order"! L&O's workflow was never optimised for HD.

Actually my original point was that at the moment only a small percentage of viewers are equipped with TV sets capable of displaying the full 1920 x 1080 that present HDTV broadcasts are capable of delivering. As this percentage increases, the deficiencies of previously adequate origination formats may become more intrusive. The Law and Order episodes on 16mm were just the first example of this I have seen. On SDTV there is no perceptible difference, and on sub-2-megapixel HD displays the grain is not all that intrusive. but 1920 x 1080 won't let you get away with anything, particularly on screens 50" or bigger.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the premium HD capture medium eventually settled around whatever-they-call-the-35mm-version-of-Super-16 format (not Super-35 since that has a slightly different meaning). Super-35 One-Seven-Eight?

[Todd Anderson]

I did some investigating into what Super16mm originated material existed out in the market on Blu-ray. I was mainly looking for some material that was 'all' Super16mm (as opposed to some of the mixed 35mm / Super16mm productions like "The Constant Gardener", "28 days later", etc, And I was looking for something that would have been most likely have been transfered on a 2k Spirit from the original negative; etc.

 

Here is what I was able to uncover:

 

"Life on Mars" Blu-Ray; (series one and two) Original BBC television series from a few years ago.

 

Bottom-line: footage looks really outstanding. Shot with Panavision Primos and Kodak stock from what I understand. Probably the best current example of Super16mm on Blu-ray.

 

"Pride and Prejudice" Blu-ray (1995) This is an older adaptation from almost fifteen years ago. I'm sure it was probably shot on Zeiss superspeeds. (It has that Zeiss 'look')

 

Bottomline: for obvious reasons, not as 'clean' as the Life on Mars footage, but this footage looks exceptionally well. Actually, I was quite blown away. The transfer is really remarkable considering this was Super16mm on pre-Vision stock. A real eye opener on how well the scanning technology has gotten.

 

Also, as a bonus on the P&P disc, there is even a short documentary on the restoration from the original negative. Kind of interesting.

 

Anyhow, some good examples on anyone who is trying to sell Super16mm to producers (pick up the "Life on Mars" sets) ... or for seeing a slightly older 16mm production resurrected for the historic value / possible borderlining geek complex regarding film grain (you know who you are) ... pick up the P&P set.

 

By the way, these titles can be purchase at Amazon.co.uk. And I'm in the US, and both titles are region free and play fine on my player in the states.

 

That is what I have uncovered so far...

 

Best,

Todd

[Michel Hafner]

You were also the only person that said the quality of the 4K DI on "Dark Knight" would be inferior because it was from an IP.

I don't know what this has got to do with my reply here or the 16mm question, but my point there was that using the IP instead of the ON loses spatial resolution which it does. There are other considerations though that can favour an IP.

Saying that digital is always better is just as bad as saying that film is always better or analog is always better.

What are you talking about? CRT based telecines versus CCD? What has this got to do with my reply here?

Frankly, the BEST transfers I've seen are from IPs because this means that the original intent of the film hasn't been "tweaked" by a DIT, and the OCN is safe.

The best transfers I have seen are direct from DI, directly computer generated material or direct from ON with digital grading of the HD. Direct from IP can look very good as well. Incorrect grading and digital manipulations messing with the integrity of the images are not so much a technical issue but a matter of policies and who calls the shots.

DIs are also the only reason that you can say that HD looks better than film prints, because of the convoluted, worst method compromise that uses a DI to reduce quality without removing any of the analog copying steps either.

There are prints and prints. I don't like standard prints and I don't like current cinema digital projection too much (not enough contrast, blacks too high, rooms with too much ambient light, 2K too course to sit close). I prefer watching in 1080p at home with super high contrast in a completely light controlled room. Or EK prints in light controlled screening rooms (the reference). Later on I hope 4K projectors with more contrast become standard in cinemas.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Michel Hafner

[John Sprung]

.... 35mm film will rise yet again Phoenix-like from the mud :lol:

Actually, it's ashes, not mud. The Phoenix is supposed to burn itself in a pyre and rise from the ashes. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

. Will the studios really bother to rescan the negatives of their entire back catalogs?

The one I know of, and probably all the rest, have been working in 1080p/24 for many years now. When it comes to Blu-Ray, at least for the last 8 years worth or so, they just have to grab a tape from the shelf. For pictures older than that, yes, they'll go back on the big hits and re-master, eventually.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Rakoczy]

If the Studios won't, they'll sell the rights to someone who will.