Sony HDW 900 vs. Super 16

[Pritesh Chheda]

David:

 

Thanks for the posts. For a filmmaker like myself, with severe budget constraints, it all comes down to dollars and cents. We plan to shoot S16 in feb and once I add the price of S16 stock, processing, telecine, downconversion the price tags seems very hefty and almost unaffordable. The facts:

 

For S16: Assuming I shoot at 6:1 ratio (which is extremely tight) for a 90 minute film, the cost of shoot (minus online HD editing) comes to approximately $30K (S16mm Rental = $3000 plus '18 stock at $142/roll = $7200 plus $2500 processing plus $400/hr of telecine on Spirit or Mellenium at 4:1 ratio = $15000 plus cost of D5 = $1800 + downconversion to DVCAM = $1500 : Total = 30K.

 

For F900 HDCAM with 10:1 ratio (Rental $9000 for 15 day shoot + $2000 in tape stock/downconversion = $11K).

 

The difference between the shooting format is tremendous and if I aspire for a traditional film look that does not require shooting in extreme conditions or needs period look, S16 would be very pricy. And not to mention the fact that I will always be stressed wether I will have enough coverage with the tight ratio or will the looks be as sharp and less grainy etc.

 

David, this post is not directed at you and just reflects my opinion. The numbers are based on my 6-month long research and hope they help other filmmakers who are in similar boat.

 

Just my 2 cents,

Pritesh

[David Mullen ASC]

However, I believe Mitch once posted some figures that showed that shooting in S16, cutting using standard def video transfers, cutting the negative, and doing an optical printer blow-up using an IN/IP to 35mm, worked out to be cheaper than shooting in HD and doing a laser recorder transfer to 35mm, depending on the shooting ratio. This is partially because a feature-length optical printer blow-up, even counting the costs of the dupes, runs under $30,000 usually while a laser recorder output is often twice that.

 

So it depends on if your budget carries all the way to a 35mm print, your shooting ratio, and if you need an HD master.

 

Of course, one advantage of doing an HD post, whether you shoot film and transfer to HD or shoot in HD, is the ability to screen the movie using HD projection with a decent quality level for festivals, distributors, etc. Not to mention that an HD master is a good basis for all your home video deliverables.

[Elhanan Matos]

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.

 

Are you sure? Going from HDCAM to HDCAM won't add any noise at all no matter how many transfers you do. HD is a digital signal, its all 1's and 0's there is nothing analog about it. You won't see any change in the quality of the image.

[Elhanan Matos]

David,

 

What differences do you think you would have had in sharpness if you were using a better lense on the HD camera (like a digiprime)?

[John Mastrogiacomo]

If the HDCAM footage has to be uncompressed and recompressed to copy you will see degradation. (for example, if you want to go from HDCAM to an uncompressed HD editing system not using the HDCAM codec). If the signal is copied in the native HDCAM codec it will be loseless.

 

Digital signals may be all one's and zero's but there is a lot going on when they are transferred or manilupated (color space, bit depth, etc.)

 

You can see artifacts in a 4th generation Digial Betacam signal that is copied uncompressed and that is compressed less than HDCAM.

 

 

 

Are you sure? Going from HDCAM to HDCAM won't add any noise at all no matter how many transfers you do.  HD is a digital signal, its all 1's and 0's there is nothing analog about it.  You won't see any change in the quality of the image.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, decompressing and recompressing HDCAM -- like to color-correct it -- will start to increase noise problems. Straight cloning shouldn't be a problem.

 

Obviously better lenses would help both Super-16 and HDCAM. If I can get some frame grabs back, maybe I will post them. It would be interesting to enlarge some shots to look at sharpness problems, etc.

[Mark Allen]

Are you sure? Going from HDCAM to HDCAM won't add any noise at all no matter how many transfers you do.  HD is a digital signal, its all 1's and 0's there is nothing analog about it.  You won't see any change in the quality of the image.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HDCAM is a compressed format. However, if the decks are capable of doing clones as you suggest (which makes sense), then all the quality loss is coming from once I pull it into our machines and then send it back out again because it would have to recompress it at that stage. That is no longer a clone. It's like the mistake people make when making DVD's - they cut in DV format and then go to DVD format creating just hurrendous amounts of compression.

 

In our case we delivered on the same tape they provided the rough shot on so I asked them to dub to D5 as well. I will research to confirm that the xfer is a pure clone.

 

thanks

[Mark Allen]

David:

For S16: Assuming I shoot at 6:1 ratio (which is extremely tight) for a 90 minute film, the cost of shoot (minus online HD editing) comes to approximately $30K (S16mm Rental = $3000 plus '18 stock at $142/roll = $7200 plus $2500 processing plus $400/hr of telecine on Spirit or Mellenium at 4:1 ratio = $15000 plus cost of D5 = $1800 + downconversion to DVCAM = $1500 : Total = 30K.

 

For F900 HDCAM with 10:1 ratio (Rental $9000 for 15 day shoot + $2000 in tape stock/downconversion = $11K).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the numbers. If you're in Los Angeles, you can get a better deal on telecine - message me if you need a pointer. Additionally - I have found that if I do my own audio synching I can get a full range (for later color correcting) film to HD transfer at 3:1 - but nothing less. I think if I were to have them synch it would be more like 5:1.

 

Since you're researching this - I know people like to have this stuff on DVCAM - but I really have to recommend or suggest the idea of capturing proxies. It is such a smooth system and keeps you at 24p. If you in the mac realm - if you capture FCP and use poxies, then do all your effects in FCP and even color correction in FCP using those proxies, you can do an HD online really quickly. I've got a bid from a place at $1k/day with FCP HD system and a D5.

 

In the end, though, I don't think there is any way around the fact that HD is going to be a little cheaper. That's why this topic is so darned prolonged!!! And that's why we keep getting excited about unavailable, unfinished, and unconstructed cameras like the Genesis, Kinetta, and Arri20 which could bridge the gap.

 

 

As for David's commnt "This is partially because a feature-length optical printer blow-up, even counting the costs of the dupes, runs under $30,000 usually while a laser recorder output is often twice that." - There are actually much cheaper ways to take HD to film now and the quality is what even scrutinizing people would call "negligible." I forget the name of the one system, but if you want to know more contact Ken Garf and www.in24p.com as he can arrange time on these machiens. I am sure it is less than an optical print last I remember.

 

Also, yes it's true that there are lots of opportunities for HD to be projected at festivals.

Edited December 9, 2004 by Mark Douglas

[Brad Grimmett]

For F900 HDCAM with 10:1 ratio (Rental $9000 for 15 day shoot + $2000 in tape stock/downconversion = $11K).

 

Pritesh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does that rental price sound low to anyone else? It sounds extremely low to me. Unless of course you're just talking about the camera body and a zoom. If you're talking about a whole package including primes, sticks, head, monitors, and all the other doo-dad's then you're getting a great price. Where are you renting from?

[Brad Grimmett]

Thanks for the info David. I guess the definitive answer to my question is "it depends". Kind of what I figured.

[David Mullen ASC]

$9000 is low but I went to Russia with an F900 camera package, sticks, a 14" HD monitor and a 9" NTSC monitor, Miranda, etc. for one month and we paid $10,000 total for something that would be more like $20,000 usually.

 

As for film-outs, I've seen a number of non-Arrilaser transfers from various facilities and usually have not been impressed with the sharpness. Hardly seems worth shooting in HD if the film-out softens the image in any way.

[Landon D. Parks]

With my figures, a semi-complete HD shooting package at posted rates will run around $3,000.00/day or so with a 3 day a week deal that would be $9,000 week. 15 days is 2 weeks. So I would say an HD package would at least run $15,000 or so after any discounts they give you for 15 days. That of course is my figures with a Pro 35 adapter and Zeiss Ultra Prime Lenses.

 

But there is always deals to be had I guess...

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Since when was two weeks fifteen days? It's fourteen if you work every day, and you'd be hard put to do more than six a week.

 

Phil

[Landon D. Parks]

Since when was two weeks fifteen days?

14 days is 2 weeks. He said 15. Its that a huge difference.

 

and you'd be hard put to do more than six a week.

Wait. So he needs the equipment for 15 working days? in that case a 5 day a week shooting calendar (Average) he would need the equipment for 3 weeks.

 

That raises the price a bit (Not by a whole lot, maybee $6 or 7k)

 

It is still cheaper than film unless your going to film-out.

Edited December 9, 2004 by Landon D. Parks

[Mark Allen]

It's like the mistake people make when making DVD's - they cut in DV format and then go to DVD format creating just hurrendous amounts of compression.

 

Mark, i don't quite understand what you mean by this, could you please elaborate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure - (sorry for the OT sidebar) - Imagine you're a DP wanting to make your reel. You have lots of sources beta, Digibeta, etc. You go to a facility and capture them all in DV format because you've got your DV editing system at home, then you'll just cut together your reel and burn it to DVD. But that's a bad idea. Capture uncompressed and edit it on an uncompressed system then save it uncompressed - then use that to make your DVD. The mistake people make is thinking that DV and DVD are using the same compression - they aren't. Even if their sources and process is uncompressed, sometimes people will save their movie out as DV before making their DVD - not good, might as well have captured at DV then.

 

That clear it up?

[Mark Allen]

I just wanted to ad this link to the discussion:

 

http://www.elementalfilms.co.uk/solid_air.htm - shot on HD

 

http://www.elementalfilms.co.uk/projectx/hd24p_text.htm - a very detailed discussion about it

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Straight cloning shouldn't be a problem.

 

Absolutely, if it were possible to clone HDCAM the same way it's possible to clone DV. HDCAM is compressed. SDI isn't, so you have to uncompress it to go between decks, and recompress it at the other end. Loss ensues.

 

Phil

[Mike Brennan]

Hi,

 

> Straight cloning shouldn't be a problem.

 

Absolutely, if it were possible to clone HDCAM the same way it's possible to clone DV. HDCAM is compressed. SDI isn't, so you have to uncompress it to go between decks, and recompress it at the other end. Loss ensues.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lossless clones are possible using SDTI boards on HDCAM decks.

Not many HDCAM decks have these boards. In London its about 1 deck in 20 at a guess!

 

So be very carefull! Check that you are actually getting SDTI to SDTI

I usually check the back of the machine.

 

Mike Brennan

[Brad Grimmett]

Wait. So he needs the equipment for 15 working days?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If they plan to shoot for 15 days then my best guess would that they would need the camera for 15 days. But then again I'm not a producer so I could be WAY off.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Ordinarily one would assume that 15 working days would be three weeks, for which you would be charged. People do seem pretty ready to give three day weeks, though, so you'd probably only pay for nine days. On top of that, you might possibly get a crew to work 6 day weeks if they were particularly dedicated to the project or if you were paying them well, which then becomes a big incentive to cut the script down so you can shoot it in 12 days and save a week's worth of rental and wages on everything and everyone associated with the production, which IS a big saving.

 

Phil

[Alex Ellerman]

Obviously better lenses would help both Super-16 and HDCAM.  If I can get some frame grabs back, maybe I will post them.  It would be interesting to enlarge some shots to look at sharpness problems, etc.

 

This was such an informative thread! David, I don't know if you will get a chance to post the frame grabs (some of us would kill to see them), but it would be awesome if you could... You rock!

 

Regardless, I appreciated you sharing your experiences on this subject b/c it is a significant practical application for many of us.

 

Best,

theturnaround

alex ellerman

Edited December 12, 2004 by theturnaround