DVX100a blown up to 35mm -VS- original 35mm at DVinfo.net

Allen Nash · June 16th, 2004, 06:03 PM

Does anyone know how DVX100a footage blown up to 35mm compares to footage shot on 35mm originally (as relates to sharpness)? I've heard some say that the DVX100a footage looks comparable to 16mm but nothing more, certainly not 35mm. Have any tests or anything psuedo-scientific been done for comparison purposes? thanks

Richard Alvarez · June 16th, 2004, 07:07 PM

Yup. Kodak has done plenty of them, and I've seen a few. I think saying it compares favorably to 16mm, is... generous. Much depends on which filmstock you are comparing it to. Certainly not the new vision 200/500 stock.

No way does it come close to generating the quality of 35mm.

Ken Tanaka · June 16th, 2004, 07:52 PM

You'll be interested in this current thread.

Allen Nash · June 16th, 2004, 10:42 PM

i think the kodak ones would obviously be biased. kodak has a lot to lose from the developing DV capabilities. But you're saying it's comparable or maybe a little worse off than 16mm, from what you've seen? that's what i've been hearing. I just wanted more opinions.

Ken, I already read that thread but didn't get much from it, since they used the mini35 and anamorphic adapter. i'm looking for results without those.

Ken Tanaka · June 16th, 2004, 10:56 PM

Keep your eye out for the release of "November". It was shot with the DVX100 (sans Mini35) and won the Best Cinematography award at Sundance this year.

Allen Nash · June 16th, 2004, 11:14 PM

oh yeah, i now remember hearing about that. thanks ken

Barry Green · June 16th, 2004, 11:42 PM

As Richard says, "No way does it compare to 35mm". It does look an awful lot like 16mm blown up, but it is definitely not 35mm.

The test you want to read is from the American Cinematographer magazine, where they blew up DVX footage and compared it to 16mm and 35mm.
http://theasc.com/magazine/index.htm

Allen Nash · June 17th, 2004, 12:59 AM

Barry, is that particular article online on their site? I couldn't find it anywhere. I don't usually visit, so I wasn't sure where to look...

Ken Tanaka · June 17th, 2004, 01:08 AM

This may be the article that Barry referenced. I bookmarked it last year, although I cannot find a navigation path to it through ASC's less-than-top-notch site.

Allen Nash · June 17th, 2004, 01:20 AM

thanks for the help, ken!!

Rob Belics · June 17th, 2004, 06:13 AM

The new Vision2 stocks are said to make 35mm, now, a cut above past years. Vision2 16mm stocks are being compared to 35mm of a few years ago.

Even Super8, using Vision2, is being compared to 16mm. So I doubt a prosumer camera could compete with 16mm originated film.

Nowadays 16mm film is being used by indies to shoot features for theatrical release if they can't afford 35mm.

As an aside, Technicolors website says 70mm productions are increasing. I once posted that a new theatre down the street from me is being constructed with a room for 70mm projection. Not IMAX domed screens but a standard screen.

Tom Hanks is producing one and, I think, James Cameron is releasing one next year.

Richard Alvarez · June 17th, 2004, 06:31 AM

Bob,

I saw a comparitve screening at Worldfest of the old and new vision stocks with side by side comparisons of 16 and thirty five. Yes, the new vision stocks are an amazing step forward.

DVFILM is a great company, and they do great work. I think if you want to shoot DV and then do a blow up, using the 35 adapters are the way to go. It's really hard to compare stock lenses on any prosumer dv camera to panavision lenses and cameras and expect them to be "comparable".

I am not against shooting DV and transferring. It's just important for people to understand the limitations, work around them, take the time to shoot the DV feature with the same care and attention to detail that you would shoot a film feature with. The devil is in the details.

Rob Belics · June 17th, 2004, 08:44 AM

Exactly Richard.

I've been accused of being anti-digital with some of my posts about film and I can see how people would get that impression. However, the real point I'm trying to make is too many think all they have to do is get a good camera, shoot a feature and all they gotta do is blow it up to 35mm and no one will notice the difference.

What they forget is that the worst DP for any movie they've ever seen is probably ten times better at what he does than anyone they know. Ten times the effort was also put into creating the image on the film.

Then, on top of all that, the original image starts out better than a video image.

It's a lot to do to compete with all that but to start out with a prosumer camera you are at a decided disadvantage right out of the gate.

Glenn Gipson · June 17th, 2004, 10:49 AM

It looks like slightly soft 16mm blown up to 35mm. But what is really good about the DVX100 blown up to 35mm vs. other MiniDV cams, is the motion. The fact that the DVX100 shoots in 24p means that there are no motion artifacts or ghostly character movements when transferring to 35mm film.

Michael Struthers · June 17th, 2004, 09:21 PM

Not to sound like a killjoy or anything, but dvx100a footage blown up...it's not even close to film. Doesn't even match super 16mm.

However, it does have it's own look and feel which could be effective.

The sundance award was probably given as a shout out to the new technology, perhaps not that it looked better than other films.

June 16th, 2004, 06:03 PM	#1
Allen Nash Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: S.F., California Posts: 61	DVX100a blown up to 35mm -VS- original 35mm Does anyone know how DVX100a footage blown up to 35mm compares to footage shot on 35mm originally (as relates to sharpness)? I've heard some say that the DVX100a footage looks comparable to 16mm but nothing more, certainly not 35mm. Have any tests or anything psuedo-scientific been done for comparison purposes? thanks

June 16th, 2004, 07:52 PM	#3
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	You'll be interested in this current thread. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

June 16th, 2004, 10:56 PM	#5
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Keep your eye out for the release of "November". It was shot with the DVX100 (sans Mini35) and won the Best Cinematography award at Sundance this year. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

June 17th, 2004, 01:08 AM	#9
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	This may be the article that Barry referenced. I bookmarked it last year, although I cannot find a navigation path to it through ASC's less-than-top-notch site. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

June 17th, 2004, 09:21 PM	#15
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	Not to sound like a killjoy or anything, but dvx100a footage blown up...it's not even close to film. Doesn't even match super 16mm. However, it does have it's own look and feel which could be effective. The sundance award was probably given as a shout out to the new technology, perhaps not that it looked better than other films. __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

June 16th, 2004, 07:07 PM	#2
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Yup. Kodak has done plenty of them, and I've seen a few. I think saying it compares favorably to 16mm, is... generous. Much depends on which filmstock you are comparing it to. Certainly not the new vision 200/500 stock. No way does it come close to generating the quality of 35mm.

June 16th, 2004, 10:42 PM	#4
Allen Nash Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: S.F., California Posts: 61	i think the kodak ones would obviously be biased. kodak has a lot to lose from the developing DV capabilities. But you're saying it's comparable or maybe a little worse off than 16mm, from what you've seen? that's what i've been hearing. I just wanted more opinions. Ken, I already read that thread but didn't get much from it, since they used the mini35 and anamorphic adapter. i'm looking for results without those.

June 16th, 2004, 11:14 PM	#6
Allen Nash Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: S.F., California Posts: 61	oh yeah, i now remember hearing about that. thanks ken

June 16th, 2004, 11:42 PM	#7
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	As Richard says, "No way does it compare to 35mm". It does look an awful lot like 16mm blown up, but it is definitely not 35mm. The test you want to read is from the American Cinematographer magazine, where they blew up DVX footage and compared it to 16mm and 35mm. http://theasc.com/magazine/index.htm

June 17th, 2004, 12:59 AM	#8
Allen Nash Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: S.F., California Posts: 61	Barry, is that particular article online on their site? I couldn't find it anywhere. I don't usually visit, so I wasn't sure where to look...

June 17th, 2004, 01:20 AM	#10
Allen Nash Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: S.F., California Posts: 61	thanks for the help, ken!!

June 17th, 2004, 06:13 AM	#11
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	The new Vision2 stocks are said to make 35mm, now, a cut above past years. Vision2 16mm stocks are being compared to 35mm of a few years ago. Even Super8, using Vision2, is being compared to 16mm. So I doubt a prosumer camera could compete with 16mm originated film. Nowadays 16mm film is being used by indies to shoot features for theatrical release if they can't afford 35mm. As an aside, Technicolors website says 70mm productions are increasing. I once posted that a new theatre down the street from me is being constructed with a room for 70mm projection. Not IMAX domed screens but a standard screen. Tom Hanks is producing one and, I think, James Cameron is releasing one next year.

June 17th, 2004, 06:31 AM	#12
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Bob, I saw a comparitve screening at Worldfest of the old and new vision stocks with side by side comparisons of 16 and thirty five. Yes, the new vision stocks are an amazing step forward. DVFILM is a great company, and they do great work. I think if you want to shoot DV and then do a blow up, using the 35 adapters are the way to go. It's really hard to compare stock lenses on any prosumer dv camera to panavision lenses and cameras and expect them to be "comparable". I am not against shooting DV and transferring. It's just important for people to understand the limitations, work around them, take the time to shoot the DV feature with the same care and attention to detail that you would shoot a film feature with. The devil is in the details.

June 17th, 2004, 08:44 AM	#13
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	Exactly Richard. I've been accused of being anti-digital with some of my posts about film and I can see how people would get that impression. However, the real point I'm trying to make is too many think all they have to do is get a good camera, shoot a feature and all they gotta do is blow it up to 35mm and no one will notice the difference. What they forget is that the worst DP for any movie they've ever seen is probably ten times better at what he does than anyone they know. Ten times the effort was also put into creating the image on the film. Then, on top of all that, the original image starts out better than a video image. It's a lot to do to compete with all that but to start out with a prosumer camera you are at a decided disadvantage right out of the gate.

June 17th, 2004, 10:49 AM	#14
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	It looks like slightly soft 16mm blown up to 35mm. But what is really good about the DVX100 blown up to 35mm vs. other MiniDV cams, is the motion. The fact that the DVX100 shoots in 24p means that there are no motion artifacts or ghostly character movements when transferring to 35mm film.