[QUOTE=Alessandro Machi] Imagine you are in a Western and Clint Eastwood is your shooting buddy. You both pull out your weapons of choice and take aim at the enemy.
You pull out your HD gattling gun and fire several rounds and eventually down your target. Clint pulls out his six shooter and with one shot, nails his target.
You and Clint face each other and say "nice shot".


But the most likely scenario outside Hollywood fantasy would be that Clint does not accomplish the task with one shot. The trouble with these fantasy analogies and the many general arguments posited against digital technology is that somehow film users are all Clint Eastwoods, all erudite, sensitive, masters of their craft, while on the other hand, those that embrace digital methodology are unprepared, vision-less weaklings who must rely on luck- of course, this is bunk.
Consider the recent masterpieces that would not have been made if it weren't for the presence of Digital means. Look at the stunning feature debuts and docs that would have been smothered at conception in the elitist world of film. One could go on forever, but in the end we'll see who rides off into the sunset and who lies in the dust.

One could go on forever, but in the end we'll see who rides off into the sunset and who lies in the dust.It will be the filmmaker that is talented and has made a film that the vast majority of people (art film lovers and mainstream) think is a good movie and/or distributors think they can market.

I am a firm believer that the cream always rises to the top. Unless of course, the cream gives up before they get there.

And what you will be left with is "film" people sitting in the dust talking about how video is garbage because of whatever and "video" people sitting in the same dust talking about how affordable HD changed the world because of whatever.

Talent must prevail? I think not, history is replete with the husks of the talented, the geniuses who died in penury listening to the vacuous din of the pop culture of their day. One has to look no farther than most "Top One Hundred Movies" lists to see the atrocious relegation of talent and genius.
This is not a recent phenomenon, the Bard addressed the issues in a sonnet:


.... And right perfection wrongfully digrac'd,
And strength by limping sway disabled,
And art made tongue tied by authority...
...Tir'd with all these, from these I would be gone,
Save that, to die, I leave my love alone.

[QUOTE=Alessandro Machi] Imagine you are in a Western and Clint Eastwood is your shooting buddy. You both pull out your weapons of choice and take aim at the enemy.
You pull out your HD gattling gun and fire several rounds and eventually down your target. Clint pulls out his six shooter and with one shot, nails his target.
You and Clint face each other and say "nice shot".


But the most likely scenario outside Hollywood fantasy would be that Clint does not accomplish the task with one shot. The trouble with these fantasy analogies and the many general arguments posited against digital technology is that somehow film users are all Clint Eastwoods, all erudite, sensitive, masters of their craft, while on the other hand, those that embrace digital methodology are unprepared, vision-less weaklings who must rely on luck- of course, this is bunk.
Consider the recent masterpieces that would not have been made if it weren't for the presence of Digital means. Look at the stunning feature debuts and docs that would have been smothered at conception in the elitist world of film. One could go on forever, but in the end we'll see who rides off into the sunset and who lies in the dust.


This is the core fatalism that I have noticed about digiheads. "As long as one day film no longer exists, and HD does, than we have overcome the tyranny of film."

It's the same creepy sentiment that roils among different races. "One day, we will rule, and bla bla bla.......

Just enjoy both types of creativity, film and digital, without lusting for the day when only one form exists, as if somehow until that day comes, you are a victim of some sort.

The message I clearly made was digital filmmaking's stronger points is that one CAN make a film by breaking the common rules that exist when making a film on film. I question why anyone who has used digital will never ever make a film on film.

Instead of pointing an accusatory finger at what has been the stable, high resolution format for the last one hundred years, simply welcome the new.

My hope would be that all people don't fervently believe the more self absorbed the filmmaking process becomes, that somehow that is better than what came before, it will just be different.

As for the attempt to quash Clint Eastwood and his "magic bullet" it's funny to me how some scorn the analogy of Clint's magic bullet, yet final cut pro rode the coattails of the "magic bullet" process for several years.

I yesterday have seen Revenge of The Sith, digital projected, and I still like film more. Sometimes it was a tad soft, but I think that could have to do with the soft lightning maybe of Lucas.

I think this is a very interesting thread, but there aren't so many people who answered the original question: what would look better on the big screen, pure technical, 16mm or HD?

BTW: Please keep discussing, it's a very interesting read :-) I just noticed that when I started the question many people told it wasn't so very important which recording format you choose if you have a good story, actors, lightning,...
I know that, but I was curious to what would look the best on the big screen, just curious.
Most said S16mm if I'm correct.

Best regards,


Ow, and ps: another question: what could you deliver with the HDX200 in combination with a Mini35?

And another off topic question, but maybe it's better to post that in the HD forum, sorry if it's stupid: are there many differences between the Varicam and the Cinealta, and exept for bigger chips, are there other differences between that and the HDX?
Well, I know there are many, but what actually? Interchangeble lens system... and?

Sorry if this is way too off-topic, got more curious ;-)

I recently had the chance to do a visual comparison of formats. Our short film "After Twilight" screened in LA at the Raleigh Studios, Chaplain Theatre last week, as part of the Texas Film Commission Filmmakers Showcase. Of the eight shorts selected, One was shot in 35mm (ours) One shot in HD, One was a digital composite of old found footage, all the rest were shot in 16 and Super 16.

They were all burned to a beta tape and projected on a large screen in a nice theatre.

The HD did NOT look as good as the Super 16 or 16mm films. It was decidedly different.

How much that is attributed to the inherent skills of the production team,or the transfer process I can't say.( I suspect much of it was) But when it came up on screen, it was obviously not film. A nice piece, by the way, but the image was not as good as film.


I also got a chance to go to Parmount's camera department and talk to the guy there. He said that most of the sitcoms are moving to digital, but the episodics are staying with film. He said Kelsey Grammer's new sitcom was picked up, and that Grammer INSISTED it be shot on film.

I also got to handle one of the cameras that shot "The Ten Commandments"... cool mojo.

I think ultimately digital will take over most of the workflow in television, and high end effects films. But I don't think film will ever 'dissappear'. Different tools from the toolbox for different jobs.

1. original question: what would look better on the big screen, pure technical, 16mm or HD?

2. another question: what could you deliver with the HDX200 in combination with a Mini35?

3. And another off topic question: are there many differences between the Varicam and the Cinealta, and exept for bigger chips, are there other differences between that and the HDX?


1. It depends on what HD? F950? FX1? It depends what 16 mm? What film speed? DI? To make simple: If someone is buying under 10.000 USD camera and is not experienced filmmaker, just forget 16 mm. As to HD, can get superb results with F950, with sharpness (not resolution) of 70 mm, and you can get OK results with FX1 and slightly better with HDX.

2. You'll get film-type DOF. That is important. Picture will look more artistic, more pleasing, if you know what you doing.

3. CineAlta will look better on large theater screen, on HDTV Varicam may look better. Pro cameras will have better DOF, sharper lenses, more sound channels, better adjustments. better low light performance, etc.

Radek

[QUOTE=Bill Anderson]Talent must prevail? I think not, history is replete with the husks of the talented, the geniuses who died in penury listening to the vacuous din of the pop culture of their day. One has to look no farther than most "Top One Hundred Movies" lists to see the atrocious relegation of talent and genius.[Quote=Bill Anderson]

So there are hundreds of films out there like Pulp Fiction, Night of the Living Dead, Memento and Do the Right Thing that haven't seen the light of day?

Where are they? I have spent hundreds on underground horror DVDs, I really don't see the next George Romero or Clive Barker.

I have sat through a hundred films at various film festivals and markets and ended up watching hundreds of bad movies. Two of which I am responsible for making.

I find it hard to believe that distributors are passing up on films that were made by talented people that could make them money. Or festival attendees have a grand conspiracy to suppress films that are of excellent quality.

And top One Hundred lists doesn't prove anything. George Romero will never make a top one hundred list, but a lot of people know who he is. Same with Cronenberg, Barker, the Farrell Brothers......

I have seen too many bad films shot on 35mm, Super 16mm, 16mm, Super 8mm, HD, Betacam and Mini DV to believe that the format has anything to do with whether the film gets distributed or not. Talent and something that could be market easily to make a quick buck are what I think matters.

1. It depends on what HD? F950? FX1? It depends what 16 mm? What film speed? DI? To make simple: If someone is buying under 10.000 USD camera and is not experienced filmmaker, just forget 16 mm. As to HD, can get superb results with F950, with sharpness (not resolution) of 70 mm, and you can get OK results with FX1 and slightly better with HDX.

2. You'll get film-type DOF. That is important. Picture will look more artistic, more pleasing, if you know what you doing.

3. CineAlta will look better on large theater screen, on HDTV Varicam may look better. Pro cameras will have better DOF, sharper lenses, more sound channels, better adjustments. better low light performance, etc.

Radek

Thank you.

If one can survive the low budget filmmaking process and actually shoot film, I think the odds are higher for distribution than video, not because film is better, but because there is more dilution of content among mini-dv projects, meaning it's easier to attempt a mini-dv project, no matter how it turns out.

Lets say 10,000 mini-dv projects are offered to distributors and they purchase 100 of them, and lets say 1,000 Super 16 projects are offered to distributors and 50 are purchased by distributors.

Both mini-dv and super-8 16mm advocates can claim victory. Super-16 can claim victory because percentage-wise 5 times as many Super-16mm projects were purchased by distributors as was shot on mini-dv, but mini-dv advocates can claim victory because overall twice as many mini-dv projects were sold as compared to Super-16mm.

I just use those figures without any actual data back-up to illustrate that nowadays, any set of numbers can pretty much be used by either side to make their point.

I think the healthiest scenario is to be flexible enough as a filmmaker to not be shy to use either method.

I did some tests prior to shooting a feature called "The Perfect Sleep" last winter, which was slated to shoot on HDCAM (Cinealta) and deliver on 35mm. Since the director and I wanted a 2:40 aspect ratio, I needed to see for myself what that crop would look like after the film out to anamorphic (compared to a 1:85 "flat" film out). I was happy with the results, but we wanted to fight for film origination with a "poor man's DI" aka transfer to HDCAM for color correction then film out.

We looked at some Super 16mm footage that had gone through this process onto HDCAM and HDCAM SR then filmed out. I was surprised to see how much grain was present during this process--I would have expected a bit less. Even though it certainly had the film "look", it wasn't a clear win over the HD footage, which looked sharper and cleaner, for better or worse. The 35mm material we also screened was the obvious winner, but that format was unquestionably beyond our budget.

Charles,

Do you recall which S16 stocks you tested?

We looked at some Super 16mm footage that had gone through this process onto HDCAM and HDCAM SR then filmed out. I was surprised to see how much grain was present during this process--I would have expected a bit less. Even though it certainly had the film "look", it wasn't a clear win over the HD footage, which looked sharper and cleaner, for better or worse. The 35mm material we also screened was the obvious winner, but that format was unquestionably beyond our budget.

That's exactly. HD gives 70 mm sharpness and 16 mm resolution.

Radek

I think the odds are going to 35mm are slim.

I say write a really good script. Then rewrite that really good script a dozen more times.

Put the money into an actor like Michael says for distribution. I've seen some nice stuff come out of the DV world. So going to HD with the new Panny is going to help.

Using a great DP will also help to bring up the production value.

But I still believe if someone is being entertained, they won't care what it's shot on.
To this I'd add "Use a good sound person." Really. Occasionally iffy photography will be forgiven much more readily than badly recorded sound.

Charles,

Do you recall which S16 stocks you tested?


Richard:

We actually didn't shoot the 16mm footage--the film-out house had it from another project that had gone through their post process. They weren't able to tell me what stock was used, but it was a day exterior, so it is reasonable to assume that it wasn't over 200 ASA. I don't think it was 7245 though.

I didn't want to start a whole new thread, but the comparision I've been losing sleep over is HVX vs. Cinealta (or Varicam for ease). I'm going to be shooting a feature this winter on a 100k budget, and while I know nobody not fully aware of the production could answer the question of what camera to use, I'm really not sure what would make the most sense. We'd like to position ourselves that if needed we could do a decent film blow-up, and I'm wondering if the 1/3" chips of the HVX are simply not large enough to compete with the Cinealta. While, it would cost slightly more to rent a package then buy the HVX, I'm focused on making this movie the best it possibly can be. Any suggestions?

Since nobody's seen the image from the HVX, it's a bit hard to say but empirically, a 2/3" camera will win out over a 1/3" camera every time. It's just a smoother image. Especially if you are able to use the Digiprimes with that 2/3" camera.

That's exactly. HD gives 70 mm sharpness and 16 mm resolution.

Radek

What does that mean?

I didn't want to start a whole new thread, but the comparision I've been losing sleep over is HVX vs. Cinealta (or Varicam for ease).

Rather than inadvertently hide your question in this topic, it seems like everyone, including yourself would be better served if your question were presented as a new topic.

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

I would never rely on a test in which one doesn't know the film stock of origination, how and who shot it, and under what conditions.

Also, Film Transfer facilities themselves vary in quality.

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

Jeff,

Interesting article in the newest Videography magazine about an indy shoot with digital workflow. Some good advice in there. Of course, it was a 'low budget' 1.5 million flick, but good advice nonetheless.

I would never rely on a test in which one doesn't know the film stock of origination, how and who shot it, and under what conditions.

Also, Film Transfer facilities themselves vary in quality.

Alessandro, I'll assume this statement is directed towards my post. I agree, I wouldn't want to rely on a test like this; but I wasn't looking to rely on it, it was a preliminary comparison. The grain pattern was pretty consistent with most Super16mm releases I have seen (including those that I consider to be quite good, such as Leaving Las Vegas and The Station Agent). In comparison to HD originated material, the grain really popped.

Certainly transfer facilities vary. The house in question was iO Film in North Hollywood, and after extensive discussions and viewing of their demo material I decided to go with them for the filmout of "The Perfect Sleep" as I felt they not only provided a quality product but had excellent customer service. My associate Jim Muro who had "Crash" DI'd there had a good experience also.

I saw El Mariachi on cable the other night. I think most of El Mariachi was shot on the two highest rated or next to highest rated ASA negative films that Kodak makes, and El Mariachi was originally shot on 16mm.

No Grain!

Grainless!

I think Digital noise reduction techniques that have been in place for a decade can do magic with film grain. Digital noise reduction techniques that were developed for video actually work better on film that has been transferred to video because the A & B field of each individual video frame are both scaned from the same film frame, plus every fourth video frame is doubled. The result is one can add a bit of digital noise reduction without that awful chroma smear.

I've done it in my editing studio. Perhaps D.N.R. should be done before the a D.I. is made.

If you can afford it, I would have to echo the super16 route as well. With a qualified, and complete crew you will be able to move much faster than shooting video, because film lights faster and easier, and is so much more forgiving than video, when it comes to ratios, and highlights. Audio is also uncoupled from the camera, so it is less of a hassle. You also get the benefit of a colorist and correction on a real telecine (video originated footage also benifits greatly from a telecine session, and should be given consideration as part of a video "film" workflow), and your footage is bullet proof for the future, meaning you can output it to virtually any format in existence, or yet to be devised. These, and other benefits already described are the strong points of film. The drawback is cost. Also, your project is likely to be taken much more seriously if it originates on film, all other things being equal. Film is still the main medium of filmakers, in general. Video is gaining acceptance, for instance, Nancy Shriver ASC's performance at Sundance with a DVX originated project.

(don't get me wrong... I'm very excited about the HVX)


Depends on what you are shooting---ever have to stop every eight minutes, and load a new mag---and mags, at least in the day when I shot 16 weren't cheap. I hated shooting16mm for verite type documentary work but I did like the results.

Well, actually a 400 ft mag for Super 16 lasts 11 minutes, and there are 800 ft mags available these days for a 22 minute run time...interestingly, the exact same time available at 720/24p on an 8 gig P2 card.

I once had to shoot some documentary footage of Bob Dole walking through a town in New Hampshire during the primaries, with an Arri SR3 on the Steadicam. We couldn't afford to lose our coveted place directly in front of the candidate, so the assistant would just pull one mag and slap on another while I kept walking, for about 30 minutes! Talk about a hot-swap!

Quien es mas macho? Charles or Ricardo Montalban?

You da man Charles!!

Quien es mas macho? Charles or Ricardo Montalban?


That depends entirely on how well Charles can say Fine Cordoban Leather.

Not as well as Ricardo--but it was actually "Fine Corinthian Leather". However, you were close with the Cordoba reference....

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fine%20Corinthian%20leather

Depends on what you are shooting---ever have to stop every eight minutes, and load a new mag---and mags, at least in the day when I shot 16 weren't cheap. I hated shooting16mm for verite type documentary work but I did like the results.


I am referring in this instance to feature or commercial production,
although if I was going to run and gun, and I could have a loader, and enough mags, and budget, I would go with 16mm over any video because properly exposed film is going to handle uncontrolled lighting situations
better than video. If I didn't have the budget, or had to shoot very long takes with just myself, I would choose video, and deal with the lattitude issues as best I could. On alot 35mm of second unit stuff I work with 400 ft loads that last about 3 minutes or so, after the head and tail, and we get by fine, so I would agree, it does totally depend on what you are shooting, and also, what the limits of your production are. Some types of production can not afford film, costs aside, but for many others it would be the single easiest way to improve production value. Not very many people experienced with both film and video, choose to shoot video over film on the basis of the image, but rather other criteria.


>Originally Posted by Radek Svoboda
That's exactly. HD gives 70 mm sharpness and 16 mm resolution.

Radek<

I must admit I don't understand this either. I would say that trying to compare a largly organic process with an electronic one is difficult, at best.
I find it amusing that so much effort is put into evolving a format to look like another that aready exists. I just wish as much engineering effort would be put into lattitude as has been put into buttons and menus and resolution and compression. Personally, I don't need much more than a 3200 and 5600 preset, and please could these cameras stop making noisy muddy blacks. If its dark, let it be dark. And to qoute Richard Crudo- When did cameras become Chrismas trees? I'm still very much looking forward to the HVX. I feel like Panasonic designed this camera with me in mind.

>Originally Posted by Radek Svoboda
That's exactly. HD gives 70 mm sharpness and 16 mm resolution.

Radek<

I must admit I don't understand this either.

HD looks sharp, clean, looks like 70 mm, but when examine picture closely, resolution is only good as 16 mm. Apparent sharpness is there because lack of grain. If play again Once Upon a Time in Mexico in some theatewr, go see. The sharpness is amazing.

Radek

" I've been losing sleep over is HVX vs. Cinealta (or Varicam for ease). I'm going to be shooting a feature this winter on a 100k budget....I'm wondering if the 1/3" chips of the HVX are simply not large enough to compete with the Cinealta. "

OK i'll lets get you some SLEEP !!! the HVX image is not going to compete with Cinealta !! you already know it but you keep HOPING it will.. 1/3" CCD's are not going to compete with 2/3" CCD's ... a camera with electronics & lens costing 7K is not going to equal (or near) a camera with electronics , lens costing 100K ++++ ... HOWever for your 100K feature the HVX will have the most VALUE for the $$$ .. it will look better then any hand size SD camera and probably any handsize HDV camera ... if you have seen any of the features shot on dvx100 the HVX will look much better !! now all that is viewing on teh BIG screen ( as in theater ) .. move over to TV viewing and things just got better for you.not sure if one could see difference between 720p or 1080p ?? on a SD TV ??

"not sure if one could see difference between 720p or 1080p ?? on a SD TV ??

You won't see difference even on HDTV.

Radek

Not as well as Ricardo--but it was actually "Fine Corinthian Leather". However, you were close with the Cordoba reference....

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fine%20Corinthian%20leather


Gah!! Blasted memory, doesn't work like it used to.