DV to film related cam decision questions

[Frank Granovski]

What would you think of recording some everyday stuff on your PV-DV953 as a test so I can show it to the film labs here to judge how the camera resolves daylight and maybe some natural lighted places, like a mall? (For DV to Film transfer)

I have been reading a lot all over and I can't make up my mind on buying a DV953/GS100 or wait to have more money and for a 3 x 1/3" CCD type. Not even one person could I find that tried one on a professional job.

With living down here you can't go take a test in a store, as you can't even find that model. So I don't have many options other from buying the camera, which may become an expensive bet.

C. E. M.

[Frank Granovski]

C.E.M.,

Of course a 1/3" X 3 cam will perform better in "some natural lighted places, like a mall." Other than that, a PV-DV953 or GS100 should be just fine as a cam for eventual transfer to film. Also keep in mind that the 953 and GS100 have very high resolution, which is a good thing, but almost no control over DOF, which could be a bad thing.

[John Gaspain]

talken to yourself again Frank? ;)

[Frank Granovski]

No, that's an email I received. I posted it so that he can get more advice (not just from me). I didn't include his full name, since he sent the email to me. Feel free to offer advice for this fellow.

[Carlos E. Martinez]

No, John, Frank was not talking to himself. And he is probably right in taking this matter here.

Some weeks ago I raised the question of using small CCD cameras, like the DV953 or GS100, on projects intended for film blow-up.

My intention is both personal and investigative, as I am already involved on a project with very low low budget and would like to apply some of my findings on it.

On the other hand I am also working on a research of non-pro equipment and methodologies to use them when they are not expected to do just their "basic thing".

Some members of this Forum already helped me with their objective ideas on these cameras and their limitations (thanks Alan! thanks YowCH!), which made me think twice on what to do.

As I live in Brazil, it's almost impossible for me to try these cameras here, because the importers are not selling them. That would be easy to test if they did.

What I am thinking of doing is getting some stuff shot with these cameras in several situations, which I would describe. I would then take the test tape to a film lab and a cable channel to see if quality is fine and could be accepted on an actual film or program.

Of course I would report the results here and provide more information on what is demanded and up to where we can get using these cameras. The actual squeeze.

Of course I would pay for the tapes and shipping.

Anyone willing to help?



Carlos E. Martinez

[Carlos E. Martinez]

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : C.E.M.,

Of course a 1/3" X 3 cam will perform better in "some natural lighted places, like a mall." Other than that, a PV-DV953 or GS100 should be just fine as a cam for eventual transfer to film. Also keep in mind that the 953 and GS100 have very high resolution, which is a good thing, but almost no control over DOF, which could be a bad thing. -->>>

Which control over DOF are you talking about ?

DOF is related to lens angle and lens stop.

+ wide angle = + DOF
+ tele = - DOF

large lens stop = + DOF
small lens stop = - DOF

As a rule, if you intend a "film look" you should use a 1/60 shutter and if you need to close the lens stop use the internal NDs or add external ND filters. Your stop should be kept at F4 maximum, except on long tele shots where you can go higher or if you really need a deep DOF.

Doing that you will have a shallower DOF and also a cleaner image. A wide angle and a large stop are not too good for image quality. On a small screen you may not see it, but you will if you blow up to film.

In fact, if anyone plans a "video to film" project, the camera zoom should be tested for every angle and with every stop, using a lens chart. This result should be then taken to the film lab and viewed after blow up. Zooming should also be tested, at the best stop (usually two stops from wide open), to see if resolution is good all along. If it's not it should be written down and used carefully.


Carlos

[Frank Granovski]

This is a huge thread about DV cams and depth of field: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ght=DOF+Skinny

Regarding your "test" request, I don't own a PV-DV953 or GS100. So, I would have to rent one for 1/2 a day to perform those tests. I can only rent the the PV-DV953, however, not the GS100. Since Tommy Heapfear just bought a GS100 (I don't think he recieved it yet), you might try asking him. When I did play with the PV-DV953, for at least an hour, and few times since that, I noticed razor-sharp resolution and no noise, along with exceptional color saturation (including throughout its zoom range). And according to Allan Rejoso, everything is slightly improved with the GS100. If I would want to do a DV to film transfer, I would certainly not hesitate in using either a PV-DV953 or GS100, if the transfer method used DV interlaced video. If the lab specialized with progesssive, I'd go the PAL MX500 route and shoot in frame mode. Perhaps this helps a little.

[Carlos E. Martinez]

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : This is a huge thread about DV cams and depth of field: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ght=DOF+Skinny
-->>>

There's also an article elsewhere, which I don't know if it was written before or after this discussion.

In any case there's nothing new over that issue for me, either on the discussion or the article. At least no different from what I learnt in film.

The only element I missed to add on my short explanation on my other mail over DOF was that it was related to the size of the image. So for the same image quality (size, perspective, etc.) corresponds a different lens value. E.g.: a "normal" lens in 35mm film was the 50mm lens, which had its equal in 16mm film on the 25mm lens.

Panasonic (and most brands) are quite careful to correspond a 35mm lens correction value when they specify their zoom lenses. E.g.: on the DVX100 (1/3" CCD) the 4.5 to 45 mm would be a 35 mm equivalent to 32.5 to 325 mm. To get the same image quality on a 1/6" CCD, like the DV953, the zoom would have to be 2.25 to 2.25mm. As you can see we only get 2.85-28.5 mm.

If like I said a wide lens has more DOF, then in fact we should have LESS DOF than a DVX100 has.

<<<--
Regarding your "test" request, I don't own a PV-DV953 or GS100. So, I would have to rent one for 1/2 a day to perform those tests. I can only rent the the PV-DV953, however, not the GS100. Since Tommy Heapfear just bought a GS100 (I don't think he recieved it yet), you might try asking him. When I did play with the PV-DV953, for at least an hour, and few times since that, I noticed razor-sharp resolution and no noise, along with exceptional color saturation (including throughout its zoom range). And according to Allan Rejoso, everything is slightly improved with the GS100. If I would want to do a DV to film transfer, I would certainly not hesitate in using either a PV-DV953 or GS100, if the transfer method used DV interlaced video. If the lab specialized with progesssive, I'd go the PAL MX500 route and shoot in frame mode. Perhaps this helps a little. -->>>

First of all you can't shoot in frame mode if you are transferring to film. It works as an effect if you want to do a "film effect" in video. In film you get problems.

I'm sorry on my request to you: I thought you did have a DV953, and I wouldn't ask you to rent it.

Of course I will wait for some way to do this test, perhaps with some participant of this Forum. That would be great.


Carlos

[Frank Granovski]

First of all you can't shoot in frame mode if you are transferring to film. It works as an effect if you want to do a "film effect" in video. In film you get problems.

No, this is incorrect, but it would depend on how the lab is set up. The best DV to film results with 25P progressive, unless you have the Pana 24P. Read that film look article at dv.com. Also, at least 1/2 of transfers in the US were done with PAL.

[Fred Garhart]

You do not have to go to a lab to watch your film from a PV-DV953 professional camcorder. I'm planning to transfer my PV-DV953 films to high resolution video with my VCR, and then watch them on my television. If this is good enough for me, then this should be good enough for everyone. That is what I think.

[Frank Granovski]

He wants to shoot DV to transfer to film because it's cheaper to shoot/edit DV than it is to shoot/edit film. I think.

[Carlos E. Martinez]

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : No, this is incorrect, but it would depend on how the lab is set up. The best DV to film results with 25P progressive, unless you have the Pana 24P. Read that film look article at dv.com. Also, at least 1/2 of transfers in the US were done with PAL. -->>>

As far as I know my comment is not incorrect and it does not depend on how the lab is set up. I think you are confusing film look with video for film. The former is used to make video look like film when seen on a TV screen. The latter is how to deal with video when you will be transfering it to film later on.

I had read that DV article, but it deals with film look... for video. Frame mode does not provide the same information to the CRT monitor that you use to transfer video to film. That is you need both fields for each frame on a film transfer, or you will get a jerky image. Particularly on pans. Frame mode cuts one of the fields.

You are absolutely right that PAL is being used in the US for a large number of productions, which shouldn't have happened if PAL wasn't better (strong opposers that Americans seemed to be against PAL). PAL has two advantages: you don't need any software to convert the 30 frames to 24, as in NTSC (which makes transfer cheaper and more natural) and it has more lines (625 vs 525). You only habe to be careful with the audio, which has to be pitch corrected by 4% or made in two stages, doing final mix after blow-up.

But there's one thing that surprised me, which is when I heard the lab comment on: a transfer from a PAL DVX100 (that is 25p) looked better than a transfer from a transfer captured from same DVX100 camera at 25 frames. If possible I will try to see those results to comment a bit more about it.


Carlos

[Carlos E. Martinez]

On this site there are some rules that should be followed on video for film projects:

http://www.digitalfilmgroup.com/index.htm?http://www.digitalfilmgroup.net/camerasetup.htm

In my opinion there's a lot more to it, like how to handle contrast, what you should avoid, etc. But it's a nice introduction.

They are not true to themselves when they say PAL is not better than NTSC, as they contradict themselves there. But nobody's perfect...


Carlos

[Frank Granovski]

That film look article does talk about preparing footage for DV to film transfer (shooting progressive or deinterlacing). Read the whole article. It also says that PAL gives slightly better results because of PAL's higher resolution. This common knowledge. However, different labs use different methods. If you'd like, I'll find the link to that article again.

[Frank Granovski]

'DV Magazine' article Link: http://www.dv.com/features/features_...02/jackman1202

Here are some excerpts:

It's also the kind of topic that lends itself to Internet forum flame wars...You'll be more successful using 24p with 3:2 pulldown if you start with PAL footage rather than NTSC footage. One product to investigate is DVFilm Atlantis (http://www.dvfilm.com), software that converts PAL 25i to NTSC 24p with 3:2 pulldown. For a more detailed overview of the plug-ins I tested, read the "Film-Look Plug-Ins" sidebar on page 32....

"DV to Film Transfers" - Low-light and poorly lighted video translated into rotten-looking film...the old rule about "garbage in, garbage out" is still in effect...The real magic, however, is what the software does to the frames before printing to film. DV frames typically are deinterlaced and interpolated up to 2 K, or 2048 x 1556-pixel film resolution, creating new data...the quality of the camera made a lot of difference, but the most obvious difference was the craft of the camera operator...PAL footage printed a little sharper, and the best images came from a well-operated Sony DSR-500WSP PA DVCAM camera. From, How to Make Video Look like Film ---The Rev. John Jackman

Again, I strongly recommend re-reading the article again.