The end of film for TV production?

[Keith Walters]

Just to further clarify, film is the benchmark. If it wasn't then why are their endless digital forums that speak of getting a "filmlike look." Many people that shoot digital aren't content with the look, that's why they tweak the image til the cows come home to get the look that filmshooters get with raw stock. Some people might like the raw digital look but this number pales in comparison of the thousands that seek the film look on a digital budget.

 

I've been saying this for the last 20 years so, and I'll probably still be saying it for years to come:

 

There is no video technology available now or the horizon that can equal the dynamic range of modern colour film. And no amount of tweaking will put back something that wasn't there in the first place...

 

One piece of absolute bollocks that used to be frequently extracted from the a$$holes of certain regular posters (but who now seem to have mysteriously disappeared) is the notion that you can get more stops of dynamic range than there are bits in the ADC process.

 

This is utterly impossible; the most you can possibly expect to get is the same number of stops that there are bits, but in practice this means that you first stop is being encoded with only one bit of resolution, which makes it extremely noisy.

 

With a 12-bit ADC, you can usefully squeeze about 10 stops DR if you're lucky.

 

To equal or even approximate the performance of film, you'd need a video ADC with at least 18 bits resolution, and an image sensor with at least 16 stops DR, and there is nothing like that available at present or likely to be in the forseeable future.

 

And just a reminder, going from 12 stops to 18 stops is NOT like souping up a car engine so it will do 180mph instead of 120mph, it's more like going from 120mph to 7,680mph!

[Thomas James]

Actually sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes film makers who insist on using real film try to achieve the video look. For example look at NFL films which is a company that uses real 16mm film. They shoot 16mm film at 120 frames per second because they are after that video look or at least some type of hybrid look that bridges the gap between film and video.

[John Sprung]

> The CCD is 5760x2160 Pixels. However, this doesn't properly conform to the 1920x1080 Pixels of HDTV.

 

5760 = 3 x 1920 and 2160 = 2 x 1080. Clearly this was designed for the HDTV format.

 

>Furthermore, the actual "resolution" of Genesis is only 1920x1080 Pixels.

 

That's what it outputs to SR tape. You get the 2:1 Nyquist top octave advantage vertically, but horizontally not so much because that's spread over three colors.

 

> The Super35 size of the Sensor doesn't really help improve the HDTV image.

 

What it gets you is similar DOF to film.

 

> When shooting on Super35 Film, and converting to HD, you are intensifying the image on the Film by reducing it to HD. However, this doesn't work with a Digital to Digital conversion.

 

Not sure what you mean by "intensifying" -- never heard anybody else use that term in this context.

 

> To convert Genesis to HDTV, you are just deleting the extra Pixels.

 

No, that would result in a severely undersampled image with gonzo aliasing. What really happens is a multi-tap filter that uses all the source pixels and does loads of math.

 

> The extra resolution of Genesis is not maintained through to the HD version.

 

No, because the downconversion happens digitally, it gets pretty close to brick walling at the N/2 limit, unlike an OLPF that has to start rolling off at N/4 in order to be out by N/2. That's where you get the top octave advantage.

 

> The Red One Bayer Pattern CMOS Sensor measures 24.4 by 13.7 mm, and has 4520x2540 active Pixels. However, the camera only records from a 4096x2304 Pixel area in 4K operation. This is better than the Genesis, ....

 

That's very debatable. Bayer vs. vertical stripe is really apples and oranges. Take a good look at the ASC/PGA tests if you want to compare Red and Genesis with film -- and each other. Think about the Nyquist limit for green vs. for red and blue on a Bayer chip....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

So is this the motivation for all of these "death to film" people? I figure something has to explain why they are trying to expedite films demise.

 

Not really -- I'm perfectly happy with either film or digital, so long as the check clears and the audience enjoys the show.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Michael Most]

Actually sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes film makers who insist on using real film try to achieve the video look. For example look at NFL films which is a company that uses real 16mm film. They shoot 16mm film at 120 frames per second because they are after that video look or at least some type of hybrid look that bridges the gap between film and video.

 

NFL Films shoots at overcrank speeds, including 120fps, to achieve slow motion. It has nothing to do with a "video look".

[Robert Houllahan]

I saw CSI-Miami a few weeks ago I can only assume that some of their "stock" skyline shots are 35mm I thought the body of the show (HD) had some funny grading blown highlights and looked over sharp I thought it looked worse than what my memory of it was. Perhaps this was because I was watching on my HD projector on a 88" screen and the flaws were more visible.

 

I think this acceleration of hyper sharp HD tv broadcast has not done any wonders for the already nervous youth obsessed "talent" if this hyper-clear trend continues actors will have to turn in their SAG or AFTRA card as soon as they don't need Pampers any more. This is to say nothing of the "nomral" people in reality TV who are only barely spared by the low end dreck camera's used to shoot those shows.

 

I think the Digi-Cams still have allot of skin-tone issues but even 35mm TK'd to HD can look to revealing and over sharp allot of these shows would look better with S-16 that goes through a 2K (Arriscan, etc.) pipeline IMO. I think part of the TV problem is that they usually cannot afford to run the best post route as a feature or hi end spot will. I.E. doing a flat transfer to tape and a finish grade from tape instead of a 2K scan. Maybe with the cost of scanners coming down that will change.

 

-Rob-

[Francis Kuhn]

Actually sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes film makers who insist on using real film try to achieve the video look. For example look at NFL films which is a company that uses real 16mm film. They shoot 16mm film at 120 frames per second because they are after that video look or at least some type of hybrid look that bridges the gap between film and video.

 

Hi Thomas,

 

This is absolutely untrue. Google any interview with Steve Sabol of NFL Flims. That company exists because it's footage looks nothing like video.

 

-Fran

[Robert Houllahan]

Actually sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes film makers who insist on using real film try to achieve the video look. For example look at NFL films which is a company that uses real 16mm film. They shoot 16mm film at 120 frames per second because they are after that video look or at least some type of hybrid look that bridges the gap between film and video.

 

 

So I guess you have never seen an NFL Film? 120 F.P.S.+ Super 16mm does not look like video. If they were trying to create a video look they would telecine the film at 120fps right? Their film gets transferred at 24fps for.... Slow Motion.... as others have said.

 

NFL Films has practically limitless funds and I believe they also have almost every HD video camera as well...

 

-Rob-

[John Holland]

To me i dont really care what TV prods , are shot on !! i bet 85% of the viewing public TVs are badly set up and dont give a poop what the crap shows they watch look like!!!! , I only care about shooting HD or what ever one calls it when it comes to movies shown on a i hope on a large screen . End of semi rant ! PS film still rules and you have to have skill to use it !!!!

[Stuart Brereton]

One of the benefits of shooting digital is that it makes 65mm cinematography so affordable.

 

What are you talking about? Name one Digital Cinema camera that has a 65mm sized sensor (and don't say Epic, because it doesn't exist yet)

[Michael Most]

I saw CSI-Miami a few weeks ago I can only assume that some of their "stock" skyline shots are 35mm I thought the body of the show (HD) had some funny grading blown highlights and looked over sharp I thought it looked worse than what my memory of it was. Perhaps this was because I was watching on my HD projector on a 88" screen and the flaws were more visible.

 

CSI Miami only started shooting on HD cameras for this coming season. None of those shows have aired yet. Anything you've seen was shot on film, in this case, 35mm, 3 perf.

[Michael Most]

I think the Digi-Cams still have allot of skin-tone issues but even 35mm TK'd to HD can look to revealing and over sharp allot of these shows would look better with S-16 that goes through a 2K (Arriscan, etc.) pipeline IMO. I think part of the TV problem is that they usually cannot afford to run the best post route as a feature or hi end spot will. I.E. doing a flat transfer to tape and a finish grade from tape instead of a 2K scan. Maybe with the cost of scanners coming down that will change.

 

If there are any issues - and quite frankly, I think television dramas today, regardless of their origination, look, at least for the most part, terrific - they would be far more related to the limited time available than the methodology or equipment used. A feature DI is usually budgeted for somewhere between 40 and 80 hours of color grading. A one hour television show is usually done in 12 hours or less. That's not a lot of time for serious finessing, but the vast majority of colorists who do network television shows - and it's a very select, rather small group - do an amazing amount of work in the ridiculously short time allotted. Using an HDCam SR path vs. a 2K scan path makes surprisingly little difference, and I speak from experience. Having said that, there are a few shows that are doing a scan approach - Lie to Me and Lost come to mind. They are scanned to log format HD size files on a Spirit 4K scanner (which can run 2K or HD scans in real time) and don't hit videotape anywhere in the process. But having worked with material from at least one of those shows, both from "standard" HD telecine and from scans, I can tell you that the final results were damn near identical. The scan approach really only gives you an advantage when the material is seriously underexposed.

 

It's the colorist, not the equipment.

[Robert Houllahan]

CSI Miami only started shooting on HD cameras for this coming season. None of those shows have aired yet. Anything you've seen was shot on film, in this case, 35mm, 3 perf.

 

 

Sure I mostly thought it was a weird grade lots of wonky green-yellow blown out highlights and some funny obviously synthetic lens flares and it was the first time I saw it in HD. There were some really cheap looking speed changes if I remember correctly too. Last time I saw the show was on a SD set but even still some of the post choices seem either cash strapped or bad taste.

 

So even the mighty 35 can look too clean and revealing to me, certainly unflattering to the actors involved. They would be better off on S16 or if they threw some (more???) diffusion on that lens....

 

-Rob-

[Robert Houllahan]

If there are any issues - and quite frankly, I think television dramas today, regardless of their origination, look, at least for the most part, terrific -It's the colorist, not the equipment.

 

 

I can't disagree with you I do remember looking at the Miami Skyline shots (aireals) and thought they looked really great on the HD projector in my house. I am getting a picture with much more technical fidelity than could have been imagined, for the home viewer, only a few years ago.

 

I do remember the csi show being a warm and fuzzy thing from the last time I saw it, the new technical fidelity has shattered that and in doing so the clarity has been very unkind to the acting talent which should be a big part of why one watches a tv show, right?

 

I agree that the Colorist is more important than the gear but I cannot agree with the decisions that were made on the episode I saw which was a mix of colorist (weird looking highlights in some shots) and edit with the flares and speed changes.

 

It is getting harder to tell the origination source for these images but I for one would like a little more fuzz in the tv realm. Ever meet a true audiophile? highly concerned with the technical fidelity and could not care less about the music... If I were producing a show like this I would dump the 35/Genesis for everything but wide establishing shots like the skyline and do everything else S16 with some nets and Super-8 500T for flashbacks etc...

 

Rob "Likes it dirty" Houllahan

 

-Rob-

[Thomas James]

Yes I have seen some NFL films footage and it is in slow motion. It may not look like video but it reminds me of video because the footage is free from motion blurring.

[Robert Houllahan]

Yes I have seen some NFL films footage and it is in slow motion. It may not look like video but it reminds me of video because the footage is free from motion blurring.

 

 

OK you run with that....

 

 

-Rob-

[Michael Most]

I do remember the csi show being a warm and fuzzy thing from the last time I saw it, the new technical fidelity has shattered that and in doing so the clarity has been very unkind to the acting talent which should be a big part of why one watches a tv show...

 

Now THAT's where I have to draw the line. We're talking about CSI: Miami here. "Acting talent" is being way too generous.

[Keith Walters]

Now THAT's where I have to draw the line. We're talking about CSI: Miami here. "Acting talent" is being way too generous.

Uh oh... Horatio has just put his sunglasses on in a very significant and ominous manner!

Everybody back away slowly. Don't make any sudden moves...

Look out! I think he's talking in a low and menacing voice with a lot of unnecessary pauses!

[Keith Walters]

And in reference to another post, the final colorist on CSI Miami is a very good friend of mine. He feels that there's been essentially no significant change in the look of the show this season (on the Genesis) when compared with any previous season (on film). And he's got one of the best pairs of eyes I know.

 

"He feels that there's been essentially no significant change in the look of the show this season (on the Genesis) when compared with any previous season (on film). "

 

Excuse me for being a Flame-Magnet and all, but that's kind of what I'd EXPECT him to say, since that's what he's doing for a living.

And then such people will rear up indignantly and deny that any such consideration would ever enter their head.

Which of course is also what you'd expect them to say.

Why don't you ask him if he'd like to post something here. You know hearsay evidence and all that.

 

I'll reserve judgement until season 8 screens here, whenever that is.

[Michael Most]

Excuse me for being a Flame-Magnet and all, but that's kind of what I'd EXPECT him to say, since that's what he's doing for a living.

And then such people will rear up indignantly and deny that any such consideration would ever enter their head.

Which of course is also what you'd expect them to say.

Why don't you ask him if he'd like to post something here. You know hearsay evidence and all that.

 

I don't have to. He's one of the least egotistical people I know, and also one of the most cynical. He tends to put down every show he works on. If he felt it had lost anything, believe me, he would say so. He's not shy about such things, and he has nothing to prove, especially to me, since we've know each other for almost 20 years. What he said is true, at least as far as he can tell, regardless of your conspiratorial suspicions.

 

If it helps, he also works on "Ugly Betty," which has also switched from film to digital this year (F23, I think, but I could be wrong about that). And on that one he does feel it has taken on a much more "video-like" look as a result of the switch.

[Terry Mester]

> The CCD is 5760x2160 Pixels. However, this doesn't properly conform to the 1920x1080 Pixels of HDTV.

 

5760 = 3 x 1920 and 2160 = 2 x 1080. Clearly this was designed for the HDTV format.

The proportions need to be the same for both horizontal and vertical -- i.e. 3x3, 2x2, etc. You can't maintain proper proportions when it is 3 in one direction, and 2 in the other.

 

> When shooting on Super35 Film, and converting to HD, you are intensifying the image on the Film by reducing it to HD. However, this doesn't work with a Digital to Digital conversion.

 

Not sure what you mean by "intensifying" -- never heard anybody else use that term in this context.

I was thinking here if you were to use a lens to reduce Super35 to a HD 2K CCD size. Just like optically reducing 70mm to 35mm.

 

> To convert Genesis to HDTV, you are just deleting the extra Pixels.

 

No, that would result in a severely undersampled image with gonzo aliasing. What really happens is a multi-tap filter that uses all the source pixels and does loads of math.

Yes, you are definitely right that there are a lot of complicated arithmetical computations. However, in the end, the extra Pixels are being deleted.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------

To add further to what I previously mentioned regarding 35mm Film, Super16mm should also look better than Red One as long as a low enough Speed of Film is used. S16 50D and 100T should definitely look better than Red. I think S16 200T should appear better than Red, but comparisons would be needed for viewing.

[Keith Walters]

The proportions need to be the same for both horizontal and vertical -- i.e. 3x3, 2x2, etc. You can't maintain proper proportions when it is 3 in one direction, and 2 in the other.

That depends on the shape of the pixels.

The Genesis spec talks of "Macropixels" which actually means two lots of RGB stacked on top of one another - six altogether.

There are 1920 columns of 1080 of these macropixels.

[Keith Walters]

I don't have to. He's one of the least egotistical people I know, and also one of the most cynical. He tends to put down every show he works on. If he felt it had lost anything, believe me, he would say so. He's not shy about such things, and he has nothing to prove, especially to me, since we've know each other for almost 20 years. What he said is true, at least as far as he can tell, regardless of your conspiratorial suspicions.

How did I know you were going to say that?

[Robert Houllahan]

Now THAT's where I have to draw the line. We're talking about CSI: Miami here. "Acting talent" is being way too generous.

 

 

HA!! :lol: maybe I should have said "The Speaky-doie smoulderie sunglassie people" on the csi talent truly might have been a stretch. I was just using industry terminology I swear your honor! we call all sort of schmucks "Talent" in this biz. :lol:

[Thomas James]

And all this stuff about video not having high dynamic range is nonsense. Today experimenters are inserting HDR photographs into a video stream and are able to upconvert the entire video stream to high dynamic range.