16mm for the internet world

RAJENDRA BISWAS · December 3, 2012

I have a 5d mark 2 and I am quite happy the way i can make HD videos and documentary by it...but I have a love for film,is 16mm or super 16mm really good for the internet world like vimeo,youtube..will these websites compress the quality..Is 1080p transfer good?

Matthew W. Phillips · December 4, 2012

16mm, if shot well, should look good on most any presentation medium. S16 can loosely be considered HD and scans from certain great labs look fantastic. Shoot 16mm if you like film and keep it alive!

David Cunningham · December 4, 2012

Super 16mm correctly exposed and scanned by the right people will be better than 1080p quality, maybe even 4K if you are talking about Vision3 50D or Ektachrome 100D.

But, once you start compressing that video for Internet streaming such as vimeo or youtube, you loose almost all of the "film qualities". The fine grain disappears and is instead replaced by horribly annoying digital "compression" artifacts The soft organic feel starts to look like just bad video rather than beautiful softness. The highlight details get squashed so you loose much of the dynamic range advantages.

All these facts are why I always suggest blu-ray to my customers rather than DVD or ONLY doing streaming versions on Youtube, Vimeo or Facebook.

I think one of the best examples of all this is the AMC TV series The Walking Dead. This series is entirely shot on Super 16. The difference between the Blu-Ray and the highly compressed cable or satellite broadcast is mind numbing! Watch an episode on blu-ray and then on TV. You will see all of the losses I mention above. The most obvious is the film grain which The Walking Dead producers intentionally bump up by using 500T, underexposing it and push processing it. Then, at scan time, they skip the "grain reduction" and avoid compression throughout the process. Sadly, it's all largely lost on TV, but at least the blu-rays do it all justice.

Kip Kubin · December 4, 2012

http://vimeo.com/46914629

Here's a little S 16 mm test I turned into a short. I think Vimeo does a great job of hosting videos that still look good after their compression.

I too shoot lots of DSLR and Red but think S16mm film is a format that digital, to date, has failed to capture never mind the color rendition of film.

RAJENDRA BISWAS · December 4, 2012

http://vimeo.com/46914629

Here's a little S 16 mm test I turned into a short. I think Vimeo does a great job of hosting videos that still look good after their compression.

I too shoot lots of DSLR and Red but think S16mm film is a format that digital, to date, has failed to capture never mind the color rendition of film.

that video was amazing,music so soothing for the soul like a philosophical walk in the forest.

I wish i had a super 16 camera here in India

RAJENDRA BISWAS · December 4, 2012

Super 16mm correctly exposed and scanned by the right people will be better than 1080p quality, maybe even 4K if you are talking about Vision3 50D or Ektachrome 100D.

But, once you start compressing that video for Internet streaming such as vimeo or youtube, you loose almost all of the "film qualities". The fine grain disappears and is instead replaced by horribly annoying digital "compression" artifacts The soft organic feel starts to look like just bad video rather than beautiful softness. The highlight details get squashed so you loose much of the dynamic range advantages.

All these facts are why I always suggest blu-ray to my customers rather than DVD or ONLY doing streaming versions on Youtube, Vimeo or Facebook.

I think one of the best examples of all this is the AMC TV series The Walking Dead. This series is entirely shot on Super 16. The difference between the Blu-Ray and the highly compressed cable or satellite broadcast is mind numbing! Watch an episode on blu-ray and then on TV. You will see all of the losses I mention above. The most obvious is the film grain which The Walking Dead producers intentionally bump up by using 500T, underexposing it and push processing it. Then, at scan time, they skip the "grain reduction" and avoid compression throughout the process. Sadly, it's all largely lost on TV, but at least the blu-rays do it all justice.

isn't bluray 1080p? whats your opinion on ultraHD will that come into scene sooner

Mark Dunn · December 4, 2012

Now that we are stuck with digital TV many older 16mm. shows look awful, as if someone has painted-by-numbers on grass, skies, walls, any area of similar tone. Even some classic films look are affected, with smoke particularly bad.

I can't forgive the broadcasters for what they've done to 'The Adventures of Robin Hood'. It's worse than VHS. Terrible.

David Cunningham · December 4, 2012

isn't bluray 1080p? whats your opinion on ultraHD will that come into scene sooner

Blu-Ray is 1080p. But, the more important thing is that you can limit the compression. My DirecTV and Comcast TV providers are all 1080i, so not bad. The problem is they compress the hell out of their broadcasts. The average viewer has little or no idea what's being lost in compression.

UltraHD (almost but not actually 4K) will be awesome and will probably exceed the resolution of 16mm film or finally do it justice. But, again, it's all about compression and dynamic contrast. Resolution doesn't mean anything if you loose all your highlight detail or "soften" the picture with loads of compression.

Nicholas Kovats · December 4, 2012

Nice, simple and effective, Kip. Thanks for shooting on film. However you should give credit where it is due. This is a fine example of the great Russian composer Eduard Artemyev's work on Andrei Tarkovsky's "Stalker".

http://vimeo.com/46914629

Here's a little S 16 mm test I turned into a short. I think Vimeo does a great job of hosting videos that still look good after their compression.

I too shoot lots of DSLR and Red but think S16mm film is a format that digital, to date, has failed to capture never mind the color rendition of film.

Nicholas Kovats · December 4, 2012

Lets try that again and hopefully this forum will not compress the typography, i.e.

"Nice, simple and effective, Kip. Thanks for shooting on film. However you should give credit where it is due. This is a fine example of the great Russian composer Eduard Artemyev's work on Andrei Tarkovsky's "Stalker".

I am known to enter a dream state when I hear this ambient piece as Andrei pans through derelict Soviet industrial sites not knowing that half his my crew will die of cancer from this shoot. Including the Master.

Kip Kubin · December 5, 2012

Lets try that again and hopefully this forum will not compress the typography, i.e.

"Nice, simple and effective, Kip. Thanks for shooting on film. However you should give credit where it is due. This is a fine example of the great Russian composer Eduard Artemyev's work on Andrei Tarkovsky's "Stalker".

I am known to enter a dream state when I hear this ambient piece as Andrei pans through derelict Soviet industrial sites not knowing that half his my crew will die of cancer from this shoot. Including the Master.

Hi Nicholas,

I did give him credit at the end and in my text description of the video. I'm an electronic musician myself and it would be the height of my career to work with Mr Artemyev. He is a genius and that is one of the best scores ever. I sometimes let the DVD menu run just to have the music in my house.

It's kind of a chicken and egg thing...I would not know about Eduard if not for Andrea. That's why I titled the piece the way I did.

Will Montgomery · December 7, 2012

Super 16 shot in focus with excellent lenses can look amazing in HD. Everyone is right about the compression however. Because of the larger grain structure it doesn't compress very well in video. Always a good idea to shoot 50D whenever possible.

For anything you need to shoot on 500T due to lighting issues, I suggest moving to 35mm. The grain in most modern 35mm stocks is so low that it compresses fine.