DVX100 vs.... 16mm film at DVinfo.net

Dylan Couper · May 16th, 2003, 02:40 PM

Has anyone seen a direct comparison between the picture/video from a DVX100 versus that of 16mm film?

Stephen van Vuuren · May 16th, 2003, 03:25 PM

Search Duart in this forum for the thread.

Yang Wen · May 16th, 2003, 04:48 PM

Search for the ACS review of the DVX100 on Google. They did direct comparison of the DVX100 to 16mm and 35mm. Unfortunately, it makes the DVX100 look very bad. But I guess that's expected.

Stephen van Vuuren · May 16th, 2003, 04:58 PM

I thought the ACS review was pretty fair. I thought it did not make the DVX100 look "bad".

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm

Here's a quote:

"We were all amazed by how good the DVX100 footage looked. The images were very sharp ? not quite as sharp as 16mm, but still very crisp. "

I'm not sure where you read "bad" in that statement...

Dean Harrington · May 17th, 2003, 01:50 AM

a one third CCD camera image compared to 16mm or 35mm for that matter with any amount of interest? The fact that this cam has been taken seriously enough to do so is a sign that it is comparable.

Dylan Couper · May 17th, 2003, 09:11 AM

Stephen, great article, exactly what I was looking for They treated it very fairly, and if anything, made the DVX100 look good, not bad.

Too bad they don't have any video of the clips they took.

Very interesting point they make, about it costing almost the same to deliver a film to a theatrical 35mm print, whether it was shot in 35mm, 16mm, or miniDV! The only benefit the DVX100 delivers in that case, is that you don't have to pay the $80,000 up front.

I think I may try and get my hands on one of these cameras in Vancouver and demo it.

Yang Wen · May 17th, 2003, 01:07 PM

It does look bad when compared to film. Trust me.

http://www.24p.com/ASC_Pictures.htm

Stephen van Vuuren · May 17th, 2003, 01:21 PM

Those are pictures on a web-site. The pictures in the magazine look better, plus I trust the ASC reviewers who shot and reviewed the original footage.

Additionally, I have shot 16mm myself and own a DVX100. It's the closest thing to 16mm in mini-DV. It's not 16mm, but it's the closest thing.

Rick Spilman · May 17th, 2003, 01:45 PM

Anything with a 4:1:1 color space has a tiny fraction of the color information of 16mm or 35mm film. Nevertheless some very good looking footage is being transfered from DV to film. Does it look as good as film? Maybe not. Does it look good? Yes.

Yang Wen · May 17th, 2003, 05:02 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : Those are pictures on a web-site. The pictures in the magazine look better, plus I trust the ASC reviewers who shot and reviewed the original footage.

Additionally, I have shot 16mm myself and own a DVX100. It's the closest thing to 16mm in mini-DV. It's not 16mm, but it's the closest thing. -->>>

What are you talking about!?!?! those are the pictures from the ASC review!! you think someone made up these fake ones!?! if anything, the website version of the pics you saw in the magazine would be more representative of what the original frames looked like. Who knows how many layers of processing they've done to those pics in the magazine before printing.

Stephen van Vuuren · May 17th, 2003, 05:50 PM

The photos on the web are jpg 500 X 338 at 96dpi, compressed to 51Kb.

The photo's the magazine are probably uncompressed TIFF's printed at 133 line screen, probably scanned at at least 300 dpi. They would be converted to CMYK, but that only affects color mix, not sharpeness, contrast etc.

We don't even know how they made the screen grabs - the better source is the eyes of the professionals doing the reviews. The DVX100 frames might be a quick print-screen out of software and the film frames scanned on a high-end scanner.

Did you even see the pictures in the magazine? Do you you own a DVX100? Have you shot 16mm?

Why do you think you value judgements of the pics carries more weight that ASC reviewers?

Yang Wen · May 17th, 2003, 10:48 PM

Look at the pics and make your own judgement. "These frames have not been corrected, they are the from the original transfer/capture. The footage was captured in an Avid Symphony at 24p 1:1 (uncompressed NTSC) and then exported as TIFF. The TIFF files were then saved out as JPEG for posting." The image produced by the DVX100 looks good, but when compared to the other formats, it's obvious it's still far from film quality. That's all I'm saying.

Stephen van Vuuren · May 18th, 2003, 12:08 AM

Why do you think the reviewers gave the DVX100 a balanced, fair and favorable review and your conclusion is the review makes it look bad. If your conclusion is based only the web jpg's, while you are entitled to your opinion, it's hardly one that will carry much weight with me.

Jason Rodriguez · May 18th, 2003, 12:44 AM

I think that the only thing that makes the DVX100 look bad compared to the film grabs in the ASC case is that the film has a bunch more lattitude. Also it appears as though they had the pedistal on the DVX set at a higher setting, since the scene looks a little bit milked out. Frankly I find the comparison apples to oranges, since the film in order to be seen on a computer screen HAD to be color corrected through a telecine, especially to bring in all that dynamic range to something that you can view on the computer. So in that case, I think it would only be fair if the DVX100 also had a color correction pass on it in uncompressed space. I think when you take the DVX, and crush the blacks a little bit to give it a richer look, it starts to look very close to the other film stocks, minus the higher lattitude in the highlights that the film stocks have. JMHO.

Jason Rodriguez

Richard Alvarez · May 18th, 2003, 05:53 AM

The really interesting thing, once again, is the cost comparison. Getting the transfer BACK to film is going to wind up being close to starting with film.

That's a very important consideration for an indy film maker. Depending on the resouces available, it might be better in the long run to shoot film. I know the low cost cameras and cheap tape stock and desktop editing has put the technology in practically everyone's hands. ANd thats a GOOD thing.

But when you start to consider a feature length project, that will WIN competitions, get some legs, make some money... You have to start pouring in the same sort of resources, to get the same "looK'. (Crew, lighting, actors, locations, costumes... etc. It all adds up to production value.)

Tapestock/ filmstock, camera tental, film transfer, telecine... A lot of indy's simply assume that it will be cheaper to go digital all the way.

All I am saying, is that may not automatically be the case... and it's always worth working a serious budget around film (At least super 16) as well as DV. Once the numbers are in hand, then make the best decision.

Of course, this also assumes that the filmmaker is equally at home in film as video.

May 16th, 2003, 02:40 PM	#1
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	DVX100 vs.... 16mm film Has anyone seen a direct comparison between the picture/video from a DVX100 versus that of 16mm film? __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

May 16th, 2003, 03:25 PM	#2
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Search Duart in this forum for the thread. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

May 16th, 2003, 04:58 PM	#4
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	I thought the ACS review was pretty fair. I thought it did not make the DVX100 look "bad". http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm Here's a quote: "We were all amazed by how good the DVX100 footage looked. The images were very sharp ? not quite as sharp as 16mm, but still very crisp. " I'm not sure where you read "bad" in that statement... __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

May 17th, 2003, 01:50 AM	#5
Dean Harrington Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 898	Where have you seen.... a one third CCD camera image compared to 16mm or 35mm for that matter with any amount of interest? The fact that this cam has been taken seriously enough to do so is a sign that it is comparable.

May 17th, 2003, 09:11 AM	#6
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Stephen, great article, exactly what I was looking for They treated it very fairly, and if anything, made the DVX100 look good, not bad. Too bad they don't have any video of the clips they took. Very interesting point they make, about it costing almost the same to deliver a film to a theatrical 35mm print, whether it was shot in 35mm, 16mm, or miniDV! The only benefit the DVX100 delivers in that case, is that you don't have to pay the $80,000 up front. I think I may try and get my hands on one of these cameras in Vancouver and demo it. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

May 16th, 2003, 04:48 PM	#3
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	Search for the ACS review of the DVX100 on Google. They did direct comparison of the DVX100 to 16mm and 35mm. Unfortunately, it makes the DVX100 look very bad. But I guess that's expected.

May 17th, 2003, 01:07 PM	#7
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	It does look bad when compared to film. Trust me. http://www.24p.com/ASC_Pictures.htm

May 17th, 2003, 01:21 PM	#8
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Those are pictures on a web-site. The pictures in the magazine look better, plus I trust the ASC reviewers who shot and reviewed the original footage. Additionally, I have shot 16mm myself and own a DVX100. It's the closest thing to 16mm in mini-DV. It's not 16mm, but it's the closest thing. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

May 17th, 2003, 01:45 PM	#9
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	Anything with a 4:1:1 color space has a tiny fraction of the color information of 16mm or 35mm film. Nevertheless some very good looking footage is being transfered from DV to film. Does it look as good as film? Maybe not. Does it look good? Yes.

May 17th, 2003, 05:02 PM	#10
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : Those are pictures on a web-site. The pictures in the magazine look better, plus I trust the ASC reviewers who shot and reviewed the original footage. Additionally, I have shot 16mm myself and own a DVX100. It's the closest thing to 16mm in mini-DV. It's not 16mm, but it's the closest thing. -->>> What are you talking about!?!?! those are the pictures from the ASC review!! you think someone made up these fake ones!?! if anything, the website version of the pics you saw in the magazine would be more representative of what the original frames looked like. Who knows how many layers of processing they've done to those pics in the magazine before printing.

May 17th, 2003, 05:50 PM	#11
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	The photos on the web are jpg 500 X 338 at 96dpi, compressed to 51Kb. The photo's the magazine are probably uncompressed TIFF's printed at 133 line screen, probably scanned at at least 300 dpi. They would be converted to CMYK, but that only affects color mix, not sharpeness, contrast etc. We don't even know how they made the screen grabs - the better source is the eyes of the professionals doing the reviews. The DVX100 frames might be a quick print-screen out of software and the film frames scanned on a high-end scanner. Did you even see the pictures in the magazine? Do you you own a DVX100? Have you shot 16mm? Why do you think you value judgements of the pics carries more weight that ASC reviewers? __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

May 17th, 2003, 10:48 PM	#12
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	Look at the pics and make your own judgement. "These frames have not been corrected, they are the from the original transfer/capture. The footage was captured in an Avid Symphony at 24p 1:1 (uncompressed NTSC) and then exported as TIFF. The TIFF files were then saved out as JPEG for posting." The image produced by the DVX100 looks good, but when compared to the other formats, it's obvious it's still far from film quality. That's all I'm saying.

May 18th, 2003, 12:08 AM	#13
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Why do you think the reviewers gave the DVX100 a balanced, fair and favorable review and your conclusion is the review makes it look bad. If your conclusion is based only the web jpg's, while you are entitled to your opinion, it's hardly one that will carry much weight with me. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

May 18th, 2003, 12:44 AM	#14
Jason Rodriguez Trustee Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 1,095	I think that the only thing that makes the DVX100 look bad compared to the film grabs in the ASC case is that the film has a bunch more lattitude. Also it appears as though they had the pedistal on the DVX set at a higher setting, since the scene looks a little bit milked out. Frankly I find the comparison apples to oranges, since the film in order to be seen on a computer screen HAD to be color corrected through a telecine, especially to bring in all that dynamic range to something that you can view on the computer. So in that case, I think it would only be fair if the DVX100 also had a color correction pass on it in uncompressed space. I think when you take the DVX, and crush the blacks a little bit to give it a richer look, it starts to look very close to the other film stocks, minus the higher lattitude in the highlights that the film stocks have. JMHO. Jason Rodriguez

May 18th, 2003, 05:53 AM	#15
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	The really interesting thing, once again, is the cost comparison. Getting the transfer BACK to film is going to wind up being close to starting with film. That's a very important consideration for an indy film maker. Depending on the resouces available, it might be better in the long run to shoot film. I know the low cost cameras and cheap tape stock and desktop editing has put the technology in practically everyone's hands. ANd thats a GOOD thing. But when you start to consider a feature length project, that will WIN competitions, get some legs, make some money... You have to start pouring in the same sort of resources, to get the same "looK'. (Crew, lighting, actors, locations, costumes... etc. It all adds up to production value.) Tapestock/ filmstock, camera tental, film transfer, telecine... A lot of indy's simply assume that it will be cheaper to go digital all the way. All I am saying, is that may not automatically be the case... and it's always worth working a serious budget around film (At least super 16) as well as DV. Once the numbers are in hand, then make the best decision. Of course, this also assumes that the filmmaker is equally at home in film as video.