Sony HDW 900 vs. Super 16

[Markus Rave]

We are planning a miniseries and opt either for Super16 or the CineAlta. The producer mentioned his cons against video. I have shot with the Cina Alta and could not prove his points.

His main concern was strobing would be more visible shooting HDCAM. The pros of course are that production costs would be cut down, since telecine is still expensive not to mention the costs of stock. And that! is of course important to him.

 

I would like to know if someone of you has done extensive tests comparing Super 16 with HDCAM. I know latitude will be an issue, but this is not my main interest. I have encountered severe problems with back focus when the camera gets hot and had the assistant check before a shot. I also know Sony has not adressed this problem.

 

Any other technical issues? I do not want to discuss aesthetic differences since I cannot discuss that with the producer and personally would opt for film for solely that reason.

 

Markus, Germany

[John Pytlak RIP]

We are planning a miniseries and opt either for Super16 or the CineAlta. The producer mentioned his cons against video. I have shot with the Cina Alta and could not prove his points.

His main concern was strobing would be more visible shooting HDCAM. The pros of course are that production costs would be cut down, since telecine is still expensive not to mention the costs of stock. And that! is of course important to him.

 

I would like to know if someone of you has done extensive tests comparing Super 16 with HDCAM. I know latitude will be an issue, but this is not my main interest. I have encountered severe problems with back focus when the camera gets hot and had the assistant check before a shot. I also know Sony has not adressed this problem.

 

Any other technical issues? I do not want to discuss aesthetic differences since I cannot discuss that with the producer and personally would opt for film for solely that reason.

 

Markus, Germany

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

NFL Films has done several comparisons of Super-16 with HD production.

 

Film clearly has advantages of significantly better dynamic range (especially in the highlights), great flexibility in framerate manipulation and ramping techniques, and more pleasant motion artifacts (motion blur rather than jagging) for fast action. Maybe that's the "strobing" you refer too?

 

http://www.nflfilms.com/studios/

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/news/nflFilms.shtml

 

Camera issues (e.g., drift in backplane focus, noise, heat) are often discussed in this and other forums.

[Landon D. Parks]

I once asked the same question, HD vs. Super 16mm. What you have to understand is this:

 

HD and Medium to low speed stock Super 16mm will have about the same resolution. However, With 16mm, Grain is more visible.

 

Film does however have a head over digital because as John said, it can handle highlights better.

 

Some people can tell the difference between Film and HD, some can't.

 

If you're shooting only for TV, then HD is a good medium. I THINK the new TNT feature The Librarian was shot in HD.

 

If your asking will HD look like film, then yes and no. HD will look more like film than MiniDV. But Film is still one medium and HD is another.

 

One day HD probably will catch up with film, however film is making leaps and bounds in the area of improvment too. Someday film probably will run out of improvements, and digital may catch up. However as of now, as HD gets better, so does film.

 

As fare as "Strobing" and all. 24p is 24p. If you set the HD shutter to the proper setting (1/48 of a second I think) and shoot at 24p, you should get the exact same Motion Blur as you would in film shooting at a 180 Degree shutter.

 

It all comes down to preference. I would however say that if your comparing HD to 35mm, then if you can afford 35mm go for it. But if your comparing HD to Super 16mm, then it's hard to say. Each has it's pros and cons.

 

I am however NOT a professional cinematographer, and these are just my views on the subject. I'm sure other more experianced people will point out more than what I can.

 

Sorry for spelling errors, im trying to set a new typing speed here, but I'm sure you'll have little trouble reading it.

Edited December 6, 2004 by Landon D. Parks

[Alvin Pingol]

If you set the HD shutter to the proper setting (1/48 of a second I think) and shoot at 24p, you should get the exact same Motion Blur as you would in film shooting at a 180 Degree shutter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not trying to correct or anything, but I've heard that the rotating (mechanical) shutter found in film cameras expose the neg (frame) from top to bottom, as opposed to electronic shutters on video cameras, which cycle on and off, thereby exposing each frame entirely at once - and that this causes very slight differences in motion rendering.

 

Is this true? If so, is the difference in motion rendering noticeable?

 

Thanks,

[Mike Brennan]

We are planning a miniseries and opt either for Super16 or the CineAlta. The producer mentioned his cons against video. I have shot with the Cina Alta and could not prove his points.

His main concern was strobing would be more visible shooting HDCAM. The pros of course are that production costs would be cut down, since telecine is still expensive not to mention the costs of stock. And that! is of course important to him.

 

I would like to know if someone of you has done extensive tests comparing Super 16 with HDCAM. I know latitude will be an issue, but this is not my main interest. I have encountered severe problems with back focus when the camera gets hot and had the assistant check before a shot. I also know Sony has not adressed this problem.

 

Any other technical issues? I do not want to discuss aesthetic differences since I cannot discuss that with the producer and personally would opt for film for solely that reason.

 

Markus, Germany

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mike Brennan]

Motion rending isn't an issue per se, one has to be careful that the added depth of field doesn't make verticals in the backgound too sharp.

 

BBC will not accept Super 16mm for co production work.

 

You more than likely had a serious problem with your camera assistant, not the backfocus.

 

Once it gets to the TV or cinema dynamic range of picture is same as for film.

Just that you have less room to manouver in post, but it is easier to do it and high key lighing for faces is a challenge.

 

Good monitoring helps.

 

Majority of sitcomes in states shot on HD, so Sony say anyway.

 

Germany will have HD channel end of 2005, will they accept 16mm?

 

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Markus Rave]

You more than likely had a serious problem with your camera assistant, not the backfocus.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am not the only one with backfocus issues when the camera gets hot. I was reading discussions about this in the forum and we paid attention to it. Some companies already make custom socket blocks for the HDW 900 because of this. I was happy to have a very alert assistant who, one the problem was mentioned to him, scrutinized the camera and gear in every aspect and did an excellent job. No blame on him.

 

Alvin, your aspect of shutter mechanisms is a very interesting one and would explain the jittering that obviously appears, as John has pointed out. Never thought about that before.

 

I did not get to the articles of the tests made but will read them and of course stress the points in some tests myself.

 

Markus

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Various film cameras reveal the frame in various ways, at least by looking at drawings of them and peering down the lens port while rotating the inching knob they do - so they all vary anyway. I find the effect of simultaneous whole-frame exposure on video cameras visible but not objectionable, although i"d probably shoot at less than virtual-180-degree-shutter to cut down the apparent difference.

 

I would also expect the difference to be more pronounced comparing 90-degree shutter and the equivalent electronic setting, since you're then not only not exposing the whole film frame at once, but you're not even exposing certain bits of it at the same time as certain other bits.

 

Phil

[John Pytlak RIP]

The NFL demo comparing Super-16 and digital origination had a scene showing tracking pans of birds in flight, with wings flapping. The film rendered the motion in a much more pleasant fashion. They also had scenes of a fast paced soccer game shot for slow motion -- the film looked much better.

[Elhanan Matos]

The film rendered the motion in a much more pleasant fashion.

 

What do you mean, "a much more pleasant fashion" was there less strobing, was it more life like?

 

 

Markus,

 

If you are having a lot of issues with backfocus you should see if your rental house will give you a back focus alignment device of some sort, we sell the Zeiss Sharpmax, and a lot of rental houses all over the world carry them. The sharpmax makes checking back focus very very simple, you just attach it to the lens, set the focus to infinity, and then turn the back focus knob until the image is sharp. The whole process takes less than a minute.

[John Pytlak RIP]

What do you mean, "a much more pleasant fashion" was there less strobing, was it more life like?

Markus,

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've only seen the demo once, but I recall the digitally captured image had an unnaturalness to the wings' motion -- kind of a judder at the edges. Whereas the film was just normal motion blur.

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

Video formats come and go. One often overlooked but cruscial reason to shoot film is that Super 16 will have legs into the future where as the current latest flavor of digital video will be dead meat in a few years. Just think of all of the DV25 interlaced footage which suddenly dooesn't look so hot compared to DV25/24p.

 

I do not belive that any video format available today will be here in 10years, what do you think? It is not in the manufactuers best interest to stop introducing the next latest and greatest means of seperating fools from their money.

 

If your not shooting the latest and greatest your work is immediately discounted at least on a technical level.

 

It somestimes takes years before your "film" gets to the point in it's life where it is finally ready for market.

 

Super 16 can always be re-xfered into the latest hot video format for sale or distribution.

 

Shooting Super 16 is just a good investment. B)

[John Sprung]

I do not belive that any video format available  today will be here in 10years,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you mean tape formats, and "be here" means in use for new production, I'd agree. For archival material, newer generations of machines will have to play the legacy cassettes. The incoming SR machines will play original HDCam tapes.

 

If you mean image formats, I'd expect the 1080p/24 structure to still be in use for television production. The ATSC broadcast standard should be around longer than most of us will, and until we see on the horizon the huge expense of changing the standard and replacing absolutely everything again, there's no need for a higher image format for TV.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

I've heard that the rotating (mechanical) shutter found in film cameras expose the neg (frame) from top to bottom, as opposed to electronic shutters on video cameras

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It depends. Some cameras have the shutter shaft alongside the aperture, and the shutter edges move pretty much vertically across the frame -- usually top to bottom, but either way would work. Others, such as the Eclair NPR, Arri 35 BL, Konvas, etc. have the shutter shaft below the frame, and the shutter edges move across the frame from side to side.

 

The only practical effect of this is the look of the roll bar when you shoot a non-synced TV set. Top to bottom shuttering produces a solid horizontal bar, sideways shutter passage produces a sort of fan-like effect.

 

The other thing to look for is a shutter that's a little bit out of sync with the pulldown, either early or late. Shoot a test with a black BG and small very bright light sources in all four corners of the frame. An out of sync shutter will give you streaking in the area where the film is in motion and not covered by the shutter.

 

Pull the lens and inch a camera through a few cycles. You'll see that shutter edge passage is a small proportion of the exposure time, and its effect is unimportant for the vast majority of subject matter.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Edited December 7, 2004 by John Sprung

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

If you mean tape formats, and "be here" means in use for new production, I'd agree.  For archival material, newer generations of machines will have to play the legacy cassettes.  The incoming SR machines will play original HDCam tapes. 

 

If you mean image formats, I'd expect the 1080p/24 structure to still be in use for television production.  The ATSC broadcast standard should be around longer than most of us will, and until we see on the horizon the huge expense of changing the standard and replacing absolutely everything again, there's no need for a higher image format for TV.

-- J.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you really think Sony and Panasonic are going to stop inventing new video formats. If they do they go out of business. We may not like to believe it but the manufacturers see "video professionals just like any consumer ...something new and glittery, PHD Press here Dummy Let's see there is D-1 D-2 D-13 and on and on and on.

 

How can 1080p be could enough when we got right her a quad rez digital camwhopper! young man, just what you need to get to the big time :D

 

The manufacturers (including Kodak) are driving the bus not the lowly users like us.

Edited December 7, 2004 by Andy Sparaco

[David Mullen ASC]

I just got back from Austin TX where I was doing a two-day seminar for the university there. We shot a simple F900 HDCAM vs. Super-16 test (transferred to 23.98PsF HDCAM) using Kodak 7218 (Vision-2 500T).

 

We did some lighting ratios, some over and underexposure, and a shot with a slash of bright sunlight and a very dark scene lit by a candle where I pushed that shot one-stop on the film test. On the HD camera, for that shot, I gained one-stop of exposure by dropping from 1/48th to 1/32nd of a second combined with going to +3 db.

 

I was curious because it's been awhile since I've shot Super-16 and I've never had a chance to transfer it to HD before. The footage was sent to Dallas for processing and telecine overnight so I didn't supervise the transfer, which came back a little darker than the HD material. All the shots were done side-by-side, simultaneously.

 

Just looking at the material on a 20" HD monitor (couldn't get a bigger one), I'd say that the HD-shot material was marginally sharper (we didn't use any detail in the camera, BTW). It was definitely cleaner, no-grain image with a minimal amount of noise. The Super-16 Vision-2 500T (which I rated at 400 ASA) was visibly grainy but not objectionably so, but it had a texture especially in the darker areas of the frame.

 

The only test where I thought the Super-16 undeniably blew the HD away was the overexposure test. Even two stops of overexposure made the HD image pretty unusable, whether the DCC was used or not. The three-stops overexposed shot in Super-16 was more usable than the 2-stop overexposed HD shot.

 

The shot with the hot slash of light on a table with a bounce up into the person's face was not as bad in HD as I thought, just a little clippier than the film shot.

 

The underexposure latitude and the lighting contrast ratio test showed the HD and film to be a close match for shadow detail, with the underexposed HD looking "cleaner" than the underexposed film. The HD maybe had slightly more shadow detail but the film transfer had stronger blacks so that could easily be due to the transfer burying a little shadow detail. I'd say that once you matched the black levels, the shadow detail would be about the same.

 

The "dark" test involved a candlelit shot (single candle flame next to a person's face, augmented by a distant tweenie bounce with a background string of white xmas lights.) The face metered at 1-stop underexposed when rated at 1000 ASA (without the distant tweenie bounce, it was 2-stops under), so I pushed the stock by one-stop. Again, the HD looked finer-grained, "cleaner" (I'm not talking about dirt but the feeling of smoothness), with slightly better shadow detail, but I was surprised at how well the 7218 pushed; there was hardly any increase in graininess compared to the normal footage.

 

The biggest advantage, other than overexposure latitude, that the Super-16 had was that it, of course, had a classic film look -- somewhat gentler on faces, more pleasing in some ways. But grain was definitely visible throughout the image and the smoothness of the HD image, lacking grain, made it look sharper as well, more like a 35mm transfer in some ways. Depth of field characteristics were almost the same; I noted to get the same view on one close-up, I was at about a 78mm on the HD camera and at an 82mm on the Super-16 camera.

 

Oddly enough, at 0 db and 1/48th shutter plus a waveform and a 11-step chart, I was getting closer to 500 ASA in tungsten light on the F900/3 HD camera, so in all of my shots, I was closed down by 1/3 of a stop compared to the film camera since I was rating the film at 400 ASA.

 

This wasn't the most thorough test and I'd love to retransfer the Super-16 with the HD footage in the DaVinci suite so I could match them a little better to eliminate some distracting differences in color saturation and black level.

 

However, my impression was that the HD image would make a better "blow-up" to 35mm than the 500 ASA Super-16 footage in terms of sharpness, grain, etc. but that the Super-16 image was superior in exposure latitude and obviously had no video-ish textures. Some people would prefer one over the other for various reasons -- it partially depends on how much you like or dislike grain.

 

Now I could have closed the quality gap by using 100T instead of 500T but I wanted to shoot the tests in the same lighting situations at the same f-stops, more or less.

 

The lens on the F900 was a Fujinon ENG zoom, something like a 7.8-150mm I think, and the lens on the Arri-SR3 was an 11-110 Zeiss zoom. The candlelight shot, where I pushed the 7218 to 1000 ASA, was shot at T/2.2 on both cameras.

[Mark Allen]

David that's really excellent information.

 

100 is probably too ambitious - I do wonder what 200 would look like.

 

 

Just adding to the discussion, I'm not sure if anyone linked the (obviously biased) Kodak stories about this subject: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...0.1.4.3.4&lc=en

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

However, my impression was that the HD image would make a better "blow-up" to 35mm than the 500 ASA Super-16 footage in terms of sharpness, grain, etc. but that the Super-16 image was superior in exposure latitude and obviously had no video-ish textures. Some people would prefer one over the other for various reasons -- it partially depends on how much you like or dislike grain.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Super 16 to 36mm via optical blowup or via DI? Excellent info! Thanks for sharing

[David Mullen ASC]

A DI wouldn't ADD any grain to the blow-up process, compared to an optical using an IP/IN step, but you'd still have the grain of the original negative unless you applied some sort of grain reduction processing.

[Brad Grimmett]

However, my impression was that the HD image would make a better "blow-up" to 35mm than the 500 ASA Super-16 footage in terms of sharpness, grain, etc. but that the Super-16 image was superior in exposure latitude and obviously had no video-ish textures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David, based on your past experience do you think that you would feel the same way if you had done the test with a 100ASA or 200ASA stock? Obviously, there would be less grain and possibly better sharpness, but do you think the differences would be big enough to change your opinion about a better blow-up format?

[David Mullen ASC]

I think I'd have to use a 100T stock to match the "grainless" look of the HD in the test, but for practicality's sake, I'd probably use 200T in general for interiors to get a good blow-up and 500T for low-light, higher-contrast night scenes where grain would not be as visible anyway.

 

The test sort of confirmed my impressions that HD looks (purely subjective since I did not shoot focus charts to look at MTF) somewhere between Super-16 and 35mm, resolution-wise or detail-wise. Also, the noise level of HDCAM F900 shot at 0 db, although visible, is less distinctive as S16 500 ASA film grain. Now you could say that I "dumbed down" the S16 by transferring it to HDCAM, but if that were true and S16 actually had more resolution, then the results should have been that they looked the same in HDCAM, not that the S16 looked slightly softer. And of course, better prime lenses would have helped both cameras' images.

 

Of course, I'm only talking about a few limiting factors -- many people thought the S16 looked "nicer" than the HD, i.e. more like traditional film (because it is!) 24P HD has a hybrid video-film look. But in terms of grain & sharpness, the HD seemed to be better. In terms of underexposure latitude and shadow detail, it was neck and neck. In terms of overexposure latiude, it wasn't even close; the film was much better with fewer artifacts. Overexposed HD just looked bizaare, even when I switched things like knee sat and DCC off and on.

 

It all comes down to how you define a "better" blow-up (and digital-to-35mm is not technically a "blow-up" but just a conversion or transfer). If you don't like the HD look, and some attendent digital-only artifacts, then the fact that it seems cleaner, sharper, and possibly more detailed for a blow-up to 35mm might not matter as much; conversely, if you don't like the texture of S16 grain, then the fact that it has better exposure latitude with no weird digital artifacts may not matter much to you.

 

One of the reasons I test S16 against HD is because I already know that 35mm is all-around better, so this was an issue of comparing two common alternatives to 35mm for cost reasons.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Exposed at their rated EI, you should find a very low level of graininess on both KODAK VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 and KODAK VISION2 100T Color Negative Film 7212.

 

The bigger difference is that 7212 is sharper:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4.4.6&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4.4.8&lc=en

[Alex Ellerman]

David -

If you don't mind commenting... based on your experiences, if a producer were to hire you to do a film and was looking for format input on whether to use S16 or the F900, would you basically call it even and let the material decide which fits the project? Or has one format edged slightly ahead for you in terms of practice rather than theory?

 

Best,

theturnaround

alex ellerman

Edited December 8, 2004 by theturnaround

[David Mullen ASC]

If I had no particular budget issues in terms of a great deal that would make one or the other more attractive, I'd seriously base the decision on the look I wanted for the project and pitch it to the producer that way. Also, certain logistical issues would also be factored in, for example, if this was going to be a "Collateral" type urban night film but I didn't want a grainy image, versus a desert movie in full sunlight, maybe shot in locations without electricity, etc. There may be other deciding factors, for example, the movie is set in the 1970's and I want a slightly retro feeling. Or if most of the movie would be shot against a greenscreen, etc.

[Mark Allen]

Now you could say that I "dumbed down" the S16 by transferring it to HDCAM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

David - as always appreciate your knowledge and demeanor...

 

I wanted to simply mention on this though that there is actually a shocking amount of noise on HDCAM (compared to D5). On a TV show I worked on, they were shooting to HDCAM, then dubbing certain shots to HDCAM for FX, then doing the effects and going back to HDCAM and you could really see the difference in quality - each transfer added a ton of noise. After that, D5 was used as the intermediary - it does make a big difference. Just wanted to put that out there for anyone working with this.