Hd or film ?

[luc]

hi folks,

i want to know your opinion. For a pub in SD resolution. If you have choice, to you like to work in hd for it flexibility, or you prefere to work in film ? ( in real life and budget condition )

In my opinion: I’m thinking to work in Hd because you can gets a Hd capture card for really cheap price with no compromise on the quality and grab in full rez 4:4:4 12bits.

1rst: save the film price
2nd: save the telecine
3nd: have full controle of your grading whit the 12bits
4nd: more flexibility on set

for the same price you get more control and more footage to work on, and also more time to work. Most of the time is too expensive the print full size film resolution footage. In film, i work most of the time whit digibeta 8bits Sd resolution.

If you have any opinion about that, i’m curious to know them, mostly if you have already done a project from A to Z whit full resoltion 12bits Hd.

thanks for your participation.

luc julien

[eltopo]

Well if the final project is for SD I completely agree with you. HD is a better choice, because it gives a lot of advantages and very little compromise.

it is said that in order to achieve Fill resolution, you need to process it at 4000 lines per frame (4K). The best digital camera has a resolution of aprox 3300 lines.
When you shrink that to 525 lines, that 700 line difference is non-existent.

By the way are you going to use DVCPro HD or Betacam Digital HD?
I you use HD be sure to use cinema lenses and not TV if possible.

[-k]

Check the HD guide here on FXguide. Will give some information.
As for the HD Bit depth, you should not forget that there are only few ways to capture >8 Bit HD Video.
Sonys HDs only to 8 Bit (at least that’s what you get on the tape) with quite some compression (in case of HDCAM).
I just shot something with Thomsons Viper which does uncompressed 10Bit RGB. But then it’s not a camcorder and you have to record somewhere (to harddiscs in my case) which ist not very convenient for many shootings.
So, although todays video-cards are able to capture 10 or 12 Bit only few cameras can (or at least store it to tape).

-k[/quote]

[Anonymous]

If you plan to work for TV you right. But for the film industry the rest of pluses (3nd: have full controle of your grading whit the 12bits & 4nd: more flexibility on set) is very disputable.
In-first, you must not confuse with 12 bits. Bits in digital cameras and in negative is differs. Both measure the accuracy of dynamic range’s representation. But dynamic range of digital cameras smaller than film’s range ([email protected] and [email protected] vs 13-17D for different Kodak emulsions). Especially, CCD sensors lose details in hilites in compare with negative.
2. Don’t forget about smaller size of this sensors vs 35mm framesize which produce the worser depth of field.
3. Sometime DigiBeta SD picture looks better than HDCAM picture (for the same scene) due to the 3:1:1 color model of HDCAM.
4. What you mean by “flexibility” ? Digital cameras require more accurate light installation on the set. If you over- or underexpose the picture while shoot you have smaller capabilities in post-production to correct these artefacts. The negative film allow to correct ±2 F-stops mistakes with almost no artefacts. The same mistakes for digital cameras produce unacceptable results.
Example for -2 F-stops mistake with negative.
Example for +2 F-stops mistake with negative.
Example for -2 F-stops mistake with HDCAM.
Example for +2 F-stops mistake with HDCAM.
Compare CC results for -2 F-stops mistake.
Compare CC results for +2 F-stops mistake.
We have a movie shooted in HD and printed to film. I can say you that HD content alone can be printed onto the film with small problems but with smaller grading capabilities. The biggest problem is combining HD and 35mm source material if you want to have a same look.

[-k]

Quote:

In-first, you must not confuse with 12 bits. Bits in digital cameras and in negative is differs. Both measure the accuracy of dynamic range’s representation. But dynamic range of digital cameras smaller than film’s range ([email protected] and [email protected] vs 13-17D for different Kodak emulsions). Especially, CCD sensors lose details in hilites in compare with negative.

I got different numbers / experience :
HDCAM ~7 fstops, Viper ~8-10, Film ~14

btw.: there are HDR sensors out there which can capture 26 f stops (had the pleasure to use this for onset capturing environments for CGI). Although it produced quite some noise at the ends of the range, I wonder when we do see higher range CCDs in digital movie cameras. That would however add to the bandwith problem 😉

Quote:

2. Don’t forget about smaller size of this sensors vs 35mm framesize which produce the worser depth of field.

Yip. But there are adapters to give you 35mm DOF and you can use those lenses. Whether that’s a practical solutions is a different question 😉

-k[/quote]

[Anonymous]

-k wrote:

I got different numbers / experience :
HDCAM ~7 fstops, Viper ~8-10, Film ~14

The difference still exist.

-k wrote:

there are HDR sensors out there which can capture 26 f stops.

There are 4K digital projectors and OLED large-screen displays, 500G rewriteble Blue-ray discs and many other experimental laboratory devices which not yet implemented as end-user products 🙂 We are talking about commercial cameras, am I right ?

-k wrote:

Yip. But there are adapters to give you 35mm DOF and you can use those lenses. Whether that’s a practical solutions is a different question.

It is only adapter to use existing lenses. The differense in sizes still exist. You can see it when checking image on the screen. You can see it if print onto the film original negative and digital source. I saw it on real content.
Here are examples from “The Postgroup”, UK: On the set, “Car” example, “Woman” example and from ARRI, Germany: On the set, Depth of Field.

[-k]

Quote:

-k wrote:

I got different numbers / experience :
HDCAM ~7 fstops, Viper ~8-10, Film ~14

The difference still exist.

yes, I would’nt deny, it’s just not as extrem as your numbers might suggest.

Quote:

there are HDR sensors out there which can capture 26 f stops.

There are 4K digital projectors and OLED large-screen displays, 500G rewriteble Blue-ray discs and many other experimental laboratory devices which not yet implemented as end-user products icon_smile.gif We are talking about commercial cameras, am I right ?

Oh, yes. You can buy the camera I mentioned. It’s just stillphoto panorama cam.
http://www.spheron.com/products/SpheroCamHDR/spherocam_hdr.html
So, I was just wonderin…

Quote:

-k wrote:

Yip. But there are adapters to give you 35mm DOF and you can use those lenses. Whether that’s a practical solutions is a different question.

It is only adapter to use existing lenses. The differense in sizes still exist. You can see it when checking image on the screen. You can see it if print onto the film original negative and digital source. I saw it on real content.

I think this is not true. The whole point about it, is the rotating mirror inside it on which the image is projected thus giving you a bigger area of projection -> 35mm DOF. From what I heard however this technique softens the overall image a bit. Haven’t really seen it though.
Check Pro35 under
http://www.35digital.com

-k

[Xavier]

I just want to point out that what most people are saying about HD is based on tests done with 4:2:2 HDCAM (and sometimes DVCPRO HD) material, not 4:4:4 HDCAM-SR.

Having worked with both for theatrical release, I must say that SR is quite an improvement in terms of compression artifacts, color sampling and noise over “regular” HDCAM.

If fishka’s (excellent!) underexposure test had been shot in SR, we might be hard pressed to see the difference with 35mm. (Overexposure would have been the same problem, however).

Of course, SR doesn’t help at all with lens-related issues like depth-of-field and field-of-view.

If you guys want to hear a director’s opinion in favour of HD (and digital video in general), I suggest you check out what Robert Rodriguez has to say in the bonus material on the DVD Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

He highlights the fact that resolution, depth-of-field and dynamic range usually AREN’T the main concerns of directors and that there are a number of reasons to use HD besides trying to save money.

Hopefully, in the near future, we’ll see large-CCD High Dynamic Range vari-speed lossless-compressed cameras appear, and negate the last few advantages of that 100 year old photochemical process we like to call film. 🙂

— Xavier

[Anonymous]

Xavier wrote:

…had been shot in SR, we might be hard pressed to see the difference with 35mm.

No, it is usual HDCAM, not SR, which really 3:1:1. Also, if you know, the real resolution (on the tape) is 1440 which on-the-fly rescaled to 1920 and back. One my friend was write custom program to input-output HD over SDTI like HDCAM-codec used in flame. He found such resolution after reverse engineering this codec.
I’m not stay against digital technologies. I want only to say that after 100+ years of using film the exchange process will take 10-20+ years and both technologies will coexist some years (decades, maybe…) after the moment when digital cameras will reach parameters of negative film.
This is not only changing the technology. It is changing the mind. I work in the developing lab and I see that new generation directors actively experimenting with new technologies but his movies is also experimental. Old generation directors and DOPs use film due to its good explored workflow. I mean statistical figures, nothing personal to Rodrigues and Lucas 🙂

[Xavier]

fishka wrote:

No, it is usual HDCAM, not SR, which really 3:1:1. Also, if you know, the real resolution (on the tape) is 1440 which on-the-fly rescaled to 1920 and back.

Yeah… Sony doesn’t say that too loud! However, I believe HDCAM-SR is really 1920×[email protected]:4:4. Like I said in previous post, a very welcome upgrade to HDCAM.

fishka wrote:

One my friend was write custom program to input-output HD over SDTI like HDCAM-codec used in flame. He found such resolution after reverse engineering this codec.

This is impressive! Good work!

fishka wrote:

I’m not stay against digital technologies. I want only to say that after 100+ years of using film the exchange process will take 10-20+ years and both technologies will coexist some years (decades, maybe…) after the moment when digital cameras will reach parameters of negative film.

I agree on principle… but I believe that for general mainstream purposes, within 10 years 35mm film is gone. Just look at how fast digital (still) cameras are evolving. Could you have imagined in 1994 that only 10 years later we’d have 17 megapixel cameras?

Oh… and one more thing. Everytime I read or hear about HD vs. Film, it ticks me off that nobody ever mentions a simple fact: the general public never has seen film negative. By the time it gets to the movie screen, all that nice film resolution is pretty much gone due to all the steps between the camera and the megaplex in Bushwack Wisonsin. Digital cinematography (including digital projection) promises a much “cleaner” path from camera to effects to color correction to editing to distribution to projection.

Anyways, trying to emulate film with digital technologies is not a good approach in my opinion. Hopefully, more people will have the more creative attitude of using HD for what it is: a new medium. Instead of trying to copy a 100 year old look, why not try to use that new technology to do stuff you just couldn’t do with film?

My .02$…

— Xavier

[Anonymous]

Xavier wrote:

Just look at how fast digital (still) cameras are evolving. Could you have imagined in 1994 that only 10 years later we’d have 17 megapixel cameras?

Let me not agree with you. Still cameras are for usual peoples but HD/film cameras are for the pros. Pros has more conservative position. And don’t forget about producer who’s opinion has the same importance as DOP/director’s opinion. He is not creative man, he must control the whole project. Good explored film way much better for him than new unknown technology. As he control the finances, creative staff must apply a lot of arguments to include some experience in filmmaking business plan. Thats why “switch to digital” process for motion pictures will take more time than for the still cameras.

Xavier wrote:

Instead of trying to copy a 100 year old look, why not try to use that new technology to do stuff you just couldn’t do with film?

Continuing from the above, some teams try to use this new look but how much time need to convince producers of success such new look ? I think that before the moment when digital cameras will reach film capabilities (at least), it must try to simulate film look as the standard for 100+ years. The same argument found in “Quantel DI guide”.
In any area of human activities new standard must, in-first, achieve old standard. After that and if it can move farther, it can become the new standard. Sorry for a small piece of philosophy 🙂

[Xavier]

fishka wrote:

Let me not agree with you. Still cameras are for usual peoples but HD/film cameras are for the pros.

I seriously doubt that “usual people” buy Canon EOS 1Ds-MarkII cameras for their Christmas pictures. Pros are using digital photography too!

fishka wrote:

And don’t forget about producer who’s opinion has the same importance as DOP/director’s opinion. He is not creative man, he must control the whole project.

I’m convinced that in 10 years, the cost of doing today’s HDCAM style work will be similar of doing DV when the VX1000 and the XL1 came out. By then, the producer will very gladly use digital video for cost saving measures alone!

fishka wrote:

Thats why “switch to digital” process for motion pictures will take more time than for the still cameras.

Unfortunately, unless one of us has a crystal ball or a time machine, we’ll have to wait to see who’s right! 🙂

fishka wrote:

In any area of human activities new standard must, in-first, achieve old standard. After that and if it can move farther, it can become the new standard. Sorry for a small piece of philosophy 🙂

True… but what about the areas where HD already dominate film:

– Tape length
– Gate weave
– Dust/scratches
– Capacity to record audio on the same medium as video
– Timecode
– Lens information recorded on tape
– WYSIWIG video assist
– Instant dailies
– Capability to separate camera body from recorder to put lens in tight spots or remote spots
– Real-time capture for effects work (as opposed to film scanning)
– Real-time capture for digital colour correction.

As far as resolution is concerned, I would say it is a tie between film and HD. Yes *theoritically* 35mm film is 4K, but in real life, on the screen at 24fps, it rarely is. Gate weave already kills a good portion of that resolution by “shaking” the image up and down. Grain (on typical 35mm stock… of course not 25ISO!) is much higher on film than HDCAM-SR, killing another good portion of resolution. Having worked on both HD and film (including 4K) plates on Inferno, I say that as far as detail is concerned, it’s a tie.

True, film has better dynamic range. True the CCD is smaller, creating the lens problems noted in your previous posts. True you still can’t shoot 1000fps super-slo-motion with HD. But for how long? You say it’s going to take more than 10 years for Sony, Panasonic, Thomson etc… to solve this? Because when these 3 issues are solved, I dare anybody to give me a good reason to shoot in film.

— Xavier

[Anonymous]

We are involved now in full-length movie’s DI process, which was shooted both on the HD and film with a portion of VFX. In our schedule the January marked as deadline. I will return to show my new impressions. Ok ?

[John Montgomery]

The future really isn’t far away for a digital cameras that can hold their own against film (or come quite close in a very acceptable way) We’re working on a story for the site about the Dalsa camera and hopefully will be published in the next several weeks. Keep your eyes posted 🙂

You can check out information about the camera at:
http://www.dalsa.com/

[Xavier]

johnmont wrote:

The future really isn’t far away for a digital cameras that can hold their own against film (or come quite close in a very acceptable way) We’re working on a story for the site about the Dalsa camera and hopefully will be published in the next several weeks. Keep your eyes posted 🙂

You can check out information about the camera at:
http://www.dalsa.com/

Well, if the hype on Dalsa’s website is true, then 2 out of 3 concerns for HD (sensor size and dynamic range) are gone. However, 36 fps won’t impress any film advocate…

Now the bottleneck is in the storage area. How long until a [email protected] VTR? 🙂

— Xavier

[Author]

Posts