PDA

View Full Version : HD vs Film


Nucleo
04-22-2005, 10:46 AM
Hello

Anyone knows if HD cameras like the Panasonic AG-HVX200 and Cannon XL2 have reached the quality of Film? It seems that using film is pointless now because these cameras offer much more flexibility not to mention the price but iam yet unsure if the quality will be even close with that of the Film.

I know that i would be willing to replace film with a dv because of the flexibility it offers, even if that means that the quality of the cam will be a little less than that of the film.

L8r

greyface
04-22-2005, 12:05 PM
Well, I don't know for video, but to give you an example, 8MP Camera sensors are equal or better than the best camera film - thats a resolution of 3000+ * 2000+ pixels, which is more than HD, so I guess HD doesn't equal film, but digital as usually a better signal/noise ratio and therefore can be better in that way.

desty

fwtep
04-22-2005, 03:25 PM
There is, so far (at least outside of a lab), no video format that matches or surpasses 35mm film in resolution and, just as important, lattitude. Lattitude is rarely mentioned, but it's one of the key reasons that professional DP's don't like working with video cameras (analog or digital). Nothing matches the exposure lattitude of the human eye, which can see details in shadows and highlights at the same time, but film comes much closer to that ability than video. In video, if you expose for the highlights you can be pretty darned sure that you're not going to get any info in the dark areas, and vice versa. So you're extremely limited in what you can do in post as far as adjusting brightness, contrast, gamma, etc. If you need the image to be brighter, the black areas will just go gray-- solid gray with no detail at all.

Fred

Matty2Phatty
04-23-2005, 03:56 PM
Anyone knows if HD cameras like the Panasonic AG-HVX200 and Cannon XL2 have reached the quality of Film?


The canon XL2 isn't HD. It's DV. The difference is in the resolution. If what you shoot is only ever going to be on DVD then you won't be able to tell the difference between an HD camera and an XL2 (i shoot on one), but if you were to get a theatrical release, THAT'S when it matters what resolution you shot on.

The difference between film and HD isn't really a question of quality. If we were just talking quality then HD has already surpassed it, but i suspect you're actually referring to 'the look' which you just can't get by shooting digital.

This topic has been discussed so many times, but briefly:

A wise man once said 'video (DV and HD) is what the eyes see, but film is what the mind sees'.. this is why you look at DV footage and it looks like a home movie, because what you're looking at is essentially what the filmmakers saw when they were actually there.

film, however, shoots at a slower FPS, causing things to move just slightly unnaturally. There is an extremely shallow depth of field due to the length of the lens and filters etc, so anything behind what you're focussed on is essentially blurred out. DV can't do that without a telephoto lens, and HD can only do it once you start going high end ($100 000 or so) so you can attach a telephoto lens to that too. And lastly, film captures colour very differently to DV, so film looks slightly unnatural, but strangely, audiences just accept it as normal, and DV as strange.

I could be wrong about any of this, anybody feel free to correct me.

Ruairi_Robinson
04-26-2005, 12:24 AM
>>>>>>The canon XL2 isn't HD. It's DV. The difference is in the resolution. If what you shoot is only ever going to be on DVD then you won't be able to tell the difference between an HD camera and an XL2 (i shoot on one), but if you were to get a theatrical release, THAT'S when it matters what resolution you shot on.

XL2, and Dv in general, is compressed much more than HD, both in terms of image compression, and colour space. And HD is pretty crap in terms of both of these too. But there's a major difference in quality between the two, and it's pretty apparent even viewing at TV rez.

>>>>>The difference between film and HD isn't really a question of quality. If we were just talking quality then HD has already surpassed it, but i suspect you're actually referring to 'the look' which you just can't get by shooting digital.

You reckon? maybe you need to see a clean 65mm film print then... HD is nowhere close. Even 35mm is far higher resolution than HD (somewhere in the region of 4k, give or take, it's just that several generations later, and many viewings later, the prints you tend to get in cinemas ain't up to much...


>>>>>>>>A wise man once said 'video (DV and HD) is what the eyes see, but film is what the mind sees'.. this is why you look at DV footage and it looks like a home movie, because what you're looking at is essentially what the filmmakers saw when they were actually there.

except that detail in our eyes doesn't clip out in an ugly way like the linear colour space of video and HD. So I completely disagree. fields make it SMOOTHER to play back, so yes, as you say it's a lower FPS, sort of... the look of fields tends to make motion SMEAR in ways that, subjectively, make it look, err... "cheap" I think is the technical term :)

film, however, shoots at a slower FPS, causing things to move just slightly unnaturally. There is an extremely shallow depth of field due to the length of the lens and filters etc, so anything behind what you're focussed on is essentially blurred out. DV can't do that without a telephoto lens, and HD can only do it once you start going high end ($100 000 or so) so you can attach a telephoto lens to that too. And lastly, film captures colour very differently to DV, so film looks slightly unnatural, but strangely, audiences just accept it as normal, and DV as strange.

Film is gonna be pretty sharply focused if you use a wide angle lens too. video has a finite depth of field too, it just tends not to be quite as shallow as film, but it depends on the amount of light and exposure settings too (and what lenses - anamorphic lenses have particularly shallow DOF)

suspend
05-05-2005, 06:06 PM
15 million film grains vs, 1 million-5 million pixels...film hands down in the theater but on tv you can't even notice.

scrimski
05-05-2005, 07:43 PM
Film is definitely better. Beside that it is a medium developed over a lot of years it has the unbetable advantage that you can grab it and strangle the director if needed. Try this one with a HD-Camcorder, you will see wha I'm talking about.

digital19
05-05-2005, 08:29 PM
It looks like you will get about 8 minutes of footage with P2 cards for the Panasonic, and these cards are very expensive.

Still, it's a step in the right direction. It looks like these cameras will hold 5 of these cards. They currently hold 4 GB, but they claim advances are in the future for these to hold up to 128gb. I guarentee someone will figure out a workflow with these cameras... although it won't have the 'film look' it will have a look that is very aesthetically pleasing nonetheless.

These aren't Dalsa, Panavision or Arriflex D20 cameras... and it's not 35mm either... nevertheless, personally I have learned a ton from my Canon XL1s. While they will never compete with a 35mm they are certainly great to learn on and much cheaper than shooting film.

ZaKKoS
05-06-2005, 01:00 AM
don't forget that film grains are placed in a stochastic way while pixels are disposed on a regular grid. This gives to the video, other than the alias problem, a "strange" look which is interpreted by the brain as unnatural.

vladi749
05-06-2005, 06:45 AM
Hi Im new, Im a Video Production student.

Its true you cant really compare film and video, even though the new HD cameras offer a higher resolution then the DV they still dont come close to the 35mm. But they are good enough.

Quality is a major point, but even more is the film look 35mm posses. But these days we have software such as Flame/Flint/Combustion which allow for 3:2 pulldown and grain settings. Also not only quality effects your image and the effect your trying to convey, lighting, grain, composition, illusion etc are all key factors to film making.

If you have the cash to dish out for a film camera like the Panivision, which you cant even buy, but you can rent it for 7.000-10.000 a day, and the insurance for that sucker is up in the hundred thousands.

So your only choice would be 35mm Arri, or 16mm, or maybe 8mm or Elmo Super 8. An Arri is still expensive as hell if you factor in all the post production, such as developing the film. Again it all depends on your intended audience. This also applies to 16mm and 8mm, which arent expensive cameras, but then again 16mm and 8mm isnt 35mm.

Thats where HD fills the gap. I currently shoot with the Canon XL2 and GL2 (they arent HD, they are DV), I love these cameras, the XL2 has a 24fps option with progressive scan, and grain options to give it more film like look, which comes in handy, even though post production in Combustion can do the trick to some degree.

But as soon as Panasonic or Canon come out with an HD cam Im getting it, I just dont like Sony.

Another point is, with the new HD cameras out there some of the theaters are adding digital projectors, so you can see that while film is still dominent in the industry, digital will still take over soon. Some scenes from movies that Hollywood puts out have been shot with HD, DV, and BetaCam(which has been the standard for broadcasting for over 30 years).

suradtaylor
05-08-2005, 09:42 AM
Is Sony Handycam HDR-FX1 truly HD or just another DV?

colintheys
05-08-2005, 10:11 AM
HD is mind-blowingly better than DV because
a) resolution is far superior
b) DV compression is terrible (and thus HDV is jsut as bad, if not worse).

However, film vs. HD is a good question. The format of HD allows for more color than film and incredible contrast. However, there is no HD camera today that can shoot to that spec. And the resolution of film is much better. Even good 16mm film is generally cosidered higher resolution than HD1080.

What you will get with film, however, even if you're shooting for telecine to DV (which I just had to do, though it pained me greatly,) is much better image. Professional film stocks capture much much more contrast than modern CCD sensors and far more saturated colors. Thus, if you shoot the same scene with video and film, the video will look generally flat, with blown out highlights and/or murky dark shadows. Film will capture detail well into the highlights and blacks, creating a much richer image. You can acieve a similar look with HD cameras, but it will require very careful lighting.

Shooting film can get expensive but unfortunately, so can shooting HD!

If you're doing FX work, there are other considerations such as frame jitter, etc. that might make you look at HD, but in terms of pure image quality, I'd have to go with film.


Edit: I have absolutely no doubt that digital will come to dominate. I'm not saying that the digital formats are in any way limited. I added this edit because someone ALWAYS asks this question when we get a speaker. (Someone even asked Martin Scorsese this when he came to innaugurate the new Center for Film Studies here... of all the things to ask him...) And it always annoys me when people who answer film (which they all do) rag on digital like the notion of digitizing an image ruins it or like all digital formats will always be NTSC and shot on a home movie camera. Digital will come to do everything film does, but right now, the CCDs just arn't up to 100+ years of film development.

digital19
05-08-2005, 04:07 PM
Is Sony Handycam HDR-FX1 truly HD or just another DV?

It's HD but most everyone (in that price range of cameras) is waiting for the Panasonic AG-HVX200.

digikris
05-10-2005, 09:04 PM
Film - Apparantly i don't see any other format that is equivalent to a film look. It all depends on your budget.

DV- If you want to achieve film look in DV which is more flat and crisper and sharper. Shoot a roll of super 8mm or 16mm on a white paper or wall, import it into NLE system like FCP and while editing superimpose with the footage that you did in DV, to get the grains and other film look. Or project the dv video on a screen and shoot with film camera.

HD/HDV - HDV is doing to HD what DV did to SD. You cannot compare HD with DV. If you want to achieve the film look and depth of field use pro35 adapters to attach 35mm film lenses.

HDV is supported by FCP5 you can import using firewire cables. But HDV alone is good for projects like Hospital surgeries and other medical related projects for sharper images. If you want to have a film look use P+S technik to achieve the film look.

As far as the cheapest way of achieving film look as i explained DV with 16mm works good.

CGTalk Moderation
05-10-2005, 09:04 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.