Cinema HD versus TV HD

[Sam Wells]

Those are all words, I have yet to see a film on TV or in cinema that does fool me.

 

Everytime that I've suspected a HD imitation of film, and checked it later on the internet it turned out I was right, and that includes sitcoms, black and white, and color features

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well me too but I'd be very curious to see our fellow list member Claudio's Heineken spot on a film out though....

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

It's not really about image quality. In my eyes, a grainy 16mm frame is more pleasing for some subjects that a 16Mpixel DSLR frame which is higher in image quality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah I sort of agree, but for me - at the, well I won't say current (things are happening fast or at least "appear" to be) I'll say recent state of 'digital capture' digital is a cross grade from 16/S16; I'm interested in a leap up !

 

I think it IS about image quality in the sense that the grainy 16mm frame may have 'qualities' that are desirable (could be a mess also)

 

-Sam

[Filip Plesha]

That's sort of why we have to follow our own instincts, and if yours tell you to shoot only film, that's fine, listen to your heart.  We make images mostly to please our own sensibilities, apply our own aesthetics -- that's what we are hired to do afterall.  But hopefully the decisions we make are based on serving the story and not merely to create art for art's sake (I'm talking about narrative work.)

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

did I ever suggest otherwise?

 

 

p.s. regarding your analogy that HD looks as much different from film as negative looks different from reversal

 

I would not agree, all film technology, negative, kodachrome, E-6 etc. has this common look that tells you you are looking at film. The differences are your basic photoshop stuff: for example reversal has a bit more contrast than a print from a negative does. But the difference is very basic: you change contrast, add saturation, and mix the palette a bit and you are in the ballpark, the basic look of chemical photography is there in all types of films.

 

On the other hand the difference between electronic imaging and film is not as simple as changing contrast, it has a different "root look" to beging with, which is hard to change.

 

So , I would not use that analogy.

 

 

p.s.2 By the way, since we are back at the old reversal topic.

A slide printed from a negative on print film (sometimes they use cinema film, sometimes special print film for making slides) does not have less contrast than a E-6 slide. I think you are comparing the wrong thing here.

You can't compare negative film to reversal. You can only compare a print from a negative to reversal.

Edited July 6, 2005 by Filip Plesha

[Filip Plesha]

Yeah I sort of agree, but for me - at the, well I won't say current (things are happening fast or at least "appear" to be) I'll say recent state of 'digital capture' digital is a cross grade from 16/S16; I'm interested in a leap up !

 

I think it IS about image quality in the sense that the grainy 16mm frame may have 'qualities' that are desirable (could be a mess also)

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

well grain, and the special "creamyness" of colors on 16mm may be sometimes an artistic decision, but they are not really something that can be considered as technical image quality. Grain is basicly an anomaly in technical terms.

[David Mullen ASC]

You can't compare negative film to reversal. You can only compare a print from a negative to reversal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That sort of ignores all the negative transferred to video for TV and reversed electronically...

 

As long as you are of the mindset that the gulf between digital and film is uncrossable, there's no arguing with you. For me, digital CAN be similar enough to film to be considered an alternate process just like reversal is an alternate process to negative. You're simply being too literal when you say that reversal and negative are in the same family while digital lies outside of it. Digital is potentially within a realm of imagemaking where a similar aesthetic judgement can be applied because it resembles film images so closely (or at least, can be using certain equipment). It can have a film look yet also retain certain unique characteristics, the way that reversal has unique characteristics.

 

But if you believe that digital compared to film is like a rock compared to a tree, then we can't really agree on BASICS, not enough to have a discussion.

[Mike Brennan]

That sort of ignores all the negative transferred to video for TV and reversed electronically...

 

 

 

But if you believe that digital compared to film is like a rock compared to a tree, then we can't really agree on BASICS, not enough to have a discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Today I saw the Genesis vs Film test again along with 120 other interested people.

I'm beginng to get the hang on the wide shots at least of spotting the difference.

make up a new set of scenes and I'd be stumped for a while I guess.

 

100% of members of the public would not have a clue with this test.

OK it is a test we all know about tests and agendas ect

 

To put this discussion in perspective, at the same screening we saw a few shorts.

I asked the (mature) director of one of the short movies shot on HD if the choice of shooting with the shutter off was an asthetic one.

He didn't know what I was talking about. Blurred pictures? what do you mean?

If an experienced director can produce, direct, offline, online transfer to film, screen at festivals without realising that motion was more blurred than film then perhaps we should revaluate our terms of reference when we discuss the differences between film and digital.

 

A second blurred motion example is that I have yet to see a critic comment that the motion in "Collateral" was different or strange.

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Filip Plesha]

If in the negative transfered to tape is matched in contrast to a film print (regarding white point and black point), then it is a fair comparison (with reversal).

But a lot of times (at least it seems like that to me), the transfers use more information from the negative than what would end up in a standard negative to positive print system. In which case, it would not be a fair comparison with reversal for these reasons:

 

1.reversal is made to match the contrast of a print from a negative and it does that (with a little less shadow and highlights detail perhapse, but the contrast is made to be similar)

2. telecine machines can not pull out the entire range of tones from reversal film because of its print/projection contrast, or at least everyone keeps saying that (I have never seen a motion picture scan of reversal film)

 

So for a fair comparison on TV between negative and reversal, the negative transfer would have to be matched to "normal" contrast (print contrast), and reversal

would have to be scanned from Dmax to Dmin without any crushing of shadow details.

[Filip Plesha]

And as for digital vs. negative vs. reversal

 

I am not talking about how MUCH different they are, I am talking about in what WAY they are different. The way current HD seems to be different from film in a more complex difference than simple contrast or saturation.

[David Mullen ASC]

I am not talking about how MUCH different they are, I am talking about in what WAY they are different. The way current HD seems to be different from film in a more complex difference than simple contrast or saturation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Certainly digital is a different way of capturing or displaying images that have properties beyond simply contrast and saturation. But you yourself said that the difference between Kodachrome and Ektachrome was also beyond simply contrast and saturation or graininess.

 

That's why I'm saying that you are being too LITERAL when I am suggesting that digital gives you a different look like reversal gives you a different look compared to color negative. I'm not talking literally or technically or pendantically about the differences in contrast, grain structure, etc.

 

I'm just suggesting that one can abstractly think of digital images as if they were made with some exotic film stock with a special look, and you would use it for that look -- and again, don't take this LITERALLY like I mean digital looks just like a film stock...

[Filip Plesha]

yea, you can think of HD as another kind of film stock.

I thought you ment that literally HD looks like a variation of "film look"

 

By the way, now that you mention it. Kodachrome can be used as a good analogy for a difference between film and HD because Kodachrome is not only a variation of the usual Kodak-Fuji-Agfa film look, but it has a unique look that is not always recognizable in other film technologies.

[Sam Wells]

well grain, and the special "creamyness" of colors on 16mm may be sometimes an artistic decision, but they are not really something that can be considered as technical image quality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I fail to see why not, honestly.

 

-Sam

[Filip Plesha]

Grain is not a technical plus because there is no grain in the scene. Grain can be a nice artistic touch, but to to a Kodak lab technician, it is a problem of film technology that is to be solved.

 

And as for the "creamy" colors, they are one step away from reality than 35mm.

35mm and larger formats have more natural colors, smoother gradations similar to those you see with your eye. 16mm tends to bring a warmth to the colors that again is an anomaly to a lab technician. It is pretty and can be used as an advantage in artistic terms, but it is based on inacuracy in capturing light.

[Sam Wells]

I'm sorry Filip, I'm not buying this.

 

What is the "warmth" anomaly of a 16mm area of negative compared to 35mm ???

 

Or creamy colors ?

 

And what if I'm shooting a desert with whipped cream, should I insist on 16mm :D

 

I understand the desire to minimise graininess in a film stock's architecture but I don't know, if grain is ultimately an evil we should be using the old Metro Kalvar gas bubble emulsion technology.

 

Film is a medium, not a window. It's beauty is that it can be an **equivalent** to seeing.

 

-Sam

[Filip Plesha]

"Image quality" is the the level of similarity between actual scene and the rendered image.

 

"image quality" is not "what feels pleasing". That is esthetical beauty of the medium.

 

Sometimes too much image quality can ruin the mood and look of some image.

 

You are mixing beauty and quality.

 

Quality is a plus for a technical engenier, and may be a minus for the fimmaker.

[Filip Plesha]

by the way, size of film area is not only connected with resolution, sharpness and grain, but is also connected with the way colors are rendered.

 

A large format photograph will have smoother gradations in colors than a 35mm frame, and that will make it look a bit more real, and thus a bit "colder" than a frame of 35mm.

 

Same goes for 35mm and 16mm.

[Sam Wells]

A large format photograph will have smoother gradations in colors than a 35mm frame, and that will make it look a bit more real, and thus a bit "colder" than a frame of 35mm.

 

Same goes for 35mm and 16mm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well this is only true in terms of maginifying the image.

 

I don't buy the "colder" part at all.

 

Zoom in to the 16mm area of a 35mm print, is it colder ? I don't think so.

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

"Image quality" is the the level of similarity between actual scene and the rendered image.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I fundamentally disagree ! Tell me how to quantify the "actual scene" in recorded *imaging* terms.

 

 

-Sam

[Filip Plesha]

I fundamentally disagree ! Tell me how to quantify the "actual scene" in recorded *imaging* terms.

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If the light that comes in through a lens is very similar to light that comes out from the projector lens, then the system has high image quality

[Filip Plesha]

Well this is only true in terms of maginifying the image.

 

I don't buy the "colder" part at all.

 

Zoom in to the 16mm area of a 35mm print, is it colder ? I don't think so.

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

not colder, warmer.

 

But that is subjective. Maybe it doesn't feel warmer to you.

 

The reason why LF is used is not only because of grain and resolution. MF has

enough resolution for most print sizes that are used with LF printing. LF is used at smaller print sizes, because the tones look smoother.

 

Don't tell me you never heard of that

[Sam Wells]

Again I think it's a question of magnification.

 

A 12.4 x 7.4 S16 (or a 10.3 x 7.5 regular 16) area of a given negative stock inside a 22.04 x 11.9 (1.85 framed) 35mm piece of film for instance is the *same thing* as that area on a 16mm piece of film.

 

 

The light coming in through a lens is wavefronts, we're not recreating them we're fixing a flat image created by them.

 

Even what we see with our own "lenses" - eyes - and fix on the retina is interpretation.

 

 

"If the light that comes in through a lens is very similar to light that comes out from the projector lens, then the system has high image quality"

 

I know what you're saying, but again the photographic image is iartifice, it's representation, it is - to my mind - expressively speaking an equivalent to seeing (or can be).

 

-Sam

 

is this OT yet ?

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think you can say 16mm versus 35mm is warmer or colder or more contrasty or less, etc. if it's the same emulsion being used in the same processing for the same post work.

 

I do agree though that the larger the negative is, the more subtle colors it "samples" -- you basically have more information to work with, both in detail and fine patterns of colors. With a small negative, it seems to more bluntly "decide" if a shade is this color or that whereas a large negative can keep more subtle variations.

 

When I saw the 70mm print of "Far & Away" I was interested to see that subtle shades of pink would appear in warm yellow tones that I normally don't see in 35mm. Obviously the best example with be a field full of wildflowers.

[Phil Rhodes]

Couldn't that just be processing variation?

[Filip Plesha]

I don't think you can sat 16mm versus 35mm is warmer or colder or more contrasty or less, etc. if it's the same emulsion being used in the same processing for the same post work.

 

I do agree though that the larger the negative is, the more subtle colors it "samples" -- you basically have more information to work with, both in detail and fine patterns of colors. With a small negative, it seems to more bluntly "decide" if a shade is this color or that whereas a large negative can keep more subtle variations.

 

When I saw the 70mm print of "Far & Away" I was interested to see that subtle shades of pink would appear in warm yellow tones that I normally don't see in 35mm. Obviously the best example with be a field full of wildflowers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

that is exactly what I have been talking about..

 

and to my eyes this difference looks warmer (not as in more yellow, but as in more..something, don't know)

 

And I never mentioned change in contrast

[Filip Plesha]

Again I think it's a question of magnification.

 

A 12.4 x 7.4 S16 (or a 10.3 x 7.5 regular 16) area of a given negative stock inside a 22.04 x 11.9 (1.85 framed) 35mm piece of film for instance is the *same thing* as that area on a 16mm piece of film.

The light coming in through a lens is wavefronts, we're not recreating them we're fixing a flat image created by them.

 

Even what we see with our own "lenses" - eyes - and fix on the retina is interpretation.

"If the light that comes in through a lens is very similar to light that comes out from the projector lens, then the system has high image quality"

 

I know what you're saying, but again the photographic image is iartifice, it's representation, it is - to my mind - expressively speaking an equivalent to seeing (or can be).

 

-Sam

 

is this OT yet ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

yes it is a question of magnufication

 

When you zoom more into film emulsion, the the medium has less to offer regarding color changes simply because it has less particles to work with. That is why

a same image captured on 50mm wide aread, and that same image captured on 10mm area will look different. becuase less particles are used and the transitions between colors are less smooth.

 

That being said. 16mm image watched on a small monitor will apear to have the same tonality as 35mm image being viewed on the big screen.

But once you blow up the 16mm image to the the big screen, the colors will be a bit roughter than that of 35mm version (or that of smaller 16mm projection) because you are closer to its inner structure