Super 16mm versus HD versus 35mm!

[curious_69_george]

Personally, I would use HD. I like the ability to see exactly what I am shooting and not have to wait for daily's.

Film has a wider dynamic range. But that is about the only advantage it gives.

As far as colour and look though, anything can be achieved in post with any of these formats.

It all boils down to what you are most comfortable with. And the workflow you want to go threw.

[fwtep]

HD will be the easiest to work with, BUT you'll need to worry abou the lighting much more. HD doesn't have the lattitude of film, so you'll need to expose for the brightest part and use a lot of fill to keep detail in the shadows. If you don't do that, either the whites will burn out or the shadows will be pure black.

Fred

[ZaKKoS]

16mm (or super16) would be my choice. And the latitude is not the only advantage. A lot of things are involved in making this the preferable choice for me.

[SKODA]

Film is good for location shooting in real sunlight, HD is better for studio work than film due to long tape runtime and access to large HD and waveform monitors.

Expense is an issue as well. With 16 and 35mm, the cameras are much cheaper. You can sometimes get a nice ArriSR3 package and a truck full of lights for 5 or 6 thousand a week, or a nice AATON LTR for One thousand per week. You have to pay for stock and transfer, but it's worth the extra dough.

Call around the various HD rental houses, and I'm sure you'll find they won't budge from a price of around $2000 plus per day. That’s because nobody expects that the current HD cameras will even be working in a few years, where as film cameras work for decades. Rental houses have to charge top dollar to recoup the investment on video camera before it becomes obsolete or glitchy.

We can debate the various attributes of film and HD, but the real decision comes down to "How many pages do I want to cover in a day." If you are a TV show and MUST shoot 10 pages a day, and roll off 4 or 5 hours of material, HD is the way to go, because that's 5 tapes for a few hundred bucks, as opposed to 30,000 feet of raw stock. Which would cost around $40,000 to buy and process.

If you are shooting montage, time-lapse, more artful material. If you want to "run and gun," for several days on an undefined budget and loose schedule, and you can get what you need in 1000 or so feet (25 min) film is way cheaper than HD.

For desert, jungle, or some other exterior location shoot, HD is not that great. Location light is very high-con and unpredictable. With HD you have to do lots of Silking and bouncing if the sunlight to bring the contrast into range. Film handles uncontrolled sunlight very well. Also, film cameras are much simpler machines and are less likely to fail under adverse weather conditions or due to airborne, moisture or extreme temperatures. Also, with film you can run the camera at very high speeds. 120 fps.

The fact that you don't know exactly what you're picture looks like doesn't matter all that much if you are a competent cameraman. People have been using light meters to shoot film for a century and it's worked out very well. The film captures so much detail in the highs and shadows that you can really spend some valuable time in the comfort of a transfer suite making it look perfect. It just takes a bit of practice. On set is not the time to quibble over ire units and containing sunlight into video space. It's better to know the stocks, use a light meter and master the look in Telecine.

There are some advantages in working in HD for FX though. The lack of grain and perfect registration helps quite a bit. Also, when shooting green screen, it's very useful to work off of a waveform.

One very common complaint about HD is it’s high depth of field. Even when shooting on long lenses with a wide open aperture, things are very sharp. Some DOPs who are used to the soft look of film and want to get that on HD are forced to cheat actors and set pieces unnaturally far apart and shoot on very long lenses to get that sense of shallow focus.

That’s a big problem for Art department people too, because before when shooting on film, things went blurry in the background, you couldn’t help it. Now with HD you can see everything in the background very sharply. They have to be much more careful.

So in short… HD or Film? be familiar with both of them and hold them in equal regard. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Choose your weapon carefully for what you want to accomplish.

I recently shot a DOC which took place in Mexico. We shot the montage material, jungle stuff, desert stuff, The Running of the Bulls in San Miguel, some aerials etc. all on an Aaton. That camera took a hell of a beating and kept on working. No video tap, just eyepiece and lightmeter. We got that thing for $1000 for 3 weeks.

Later we had to shoot interview footage. We booked all the interviews to happen all in 1 weekend. We sat the people down and shot around 5 hours of HD interview footage, of which we only used 5 minutes. It was great to use HD for that because we could light it to match the film stuff, and we only had to pay a 1 day rental on the HD package.

Get it? 3 weeks with the Aaton cost us half what 1 weekend with HD cost. But with HD you can shoot hours of stuff. That’s the tradeoff.

Lots to think about.

[Chupacabra]

Skoda, this is the best reply i EVER got in any of the forums on the net. Great advices. I know i can trick some film look in the post - i'm earning my money with that. But looking at edited video, i always have that feel of cheap TV shows back there in 90's. It's much about the shutter speed, lenses and colors; not to forget that background blur you mentioned!
It's like the story of HiFi Audio - people were used to scratches and "blures" of the records so nobody liked HiFi Audio first. Maybe we'll get used to crystal-sharp HD imagenary.
But in the moment, there's too much Hollywood in our heads.

Thanks for Feedback,

Khan

[curious_69_george]

"The fact that you don't know exactly what you're picture looks like doesn't matter all that much if you are a competent cameraman. People have been using light meters to shoot film for a century and it's worked out very well."

I agree 99%, except for this statement. Competency has nothing to do with it. It is simply a matter of speed. Using a monitor eliminates the tedious nature of using a light meter. Removing that stage of setup makes for many more setups in a day.

For independant production, I would say that the speed and confidence you get with having the monitor right there makes up for any reliance on the DP for guessing the light. The tape is right there, if it looks bad reshoot. That is an immediate response to problems that can arise that not even the best DP or camera operator can for see. Rather then having to wait until the film is processed.

You can also ask to test the equipment before you rent. Some places will give you that oppurtunity. Then you can see for yourself. Or take a look at some movies shot in each format.

ie. Collateral = Thomson Viper, Once Upon a Time in Mexico = HD 4:2:2, Star wars Episode 3 = HD 4:4:4, almost everything else in Film.

In the end it is entirely what you think looks good for your project and you won't know that until you have seen what each can do for yourself.

[ZaKKoS]

mmm...even if i'm on video i would never shoot without the lightmeter, it's just a priceless aid. With the monitor you can look at the scene and try but with a meter you can do a lot more, more precise be creative...this is not related to the question film/digital though :)

For what he have to do especially if it will be projected i would go with film hands down. Skoda pointed out a lot of right things not least the economical aspect. In the end probably is just a matter of taste.

[SKODA]

What is the one thing that ALL working film cinematographers would agree on when shooting film?

Don't look at the video tap as a reference for the final look. Composition only!

When clients come onto set and look at the monitor, they always say. "Oh that light is too hot." or "Will it really look that dark?"

You inevidably hear the dop or gaffer say "It won't look like that, don't worry."

I've known of a few DOP's who totally screwed up shoots because they looked at the LCD mon on the camera for reference, and then found out later that their highlights were at 40 or 50 units ire. That's like underexposing 3 stops.

The only way to get a reliable image with any camera is to bench it with a light meter. You have to shoot a grey card with a light meter and decide how many stops over and under you can light before losing detial in Highs and lows.

You have to do this with film where you have 7 stops range, and you especially have to do it on video because you are clamping your exposure range to 4 or 5 stops.

The other reason is consistancy. Shooters who just evaluate from the monitor end up with crappy lighting continuity. The shots drift in values and ratio all over the place. Those scenes don't cut together well. Shooters who have a standard shoot stop and Key/Fill ratio and use meters to verify, always deliver very consistant material that you can cut without worry of bad continuity.

S

[K. Scott Gant]

I'm wondering though, is anyone working on a HDRI HD system to fix the shorter dynamic range that HD has over film? Couple that with an HDRI monitor system.

It would be interesting to see the results of something like that. Though I don't know if that would do anything with the DOF problem that also plagues HD.

But speaking of DOF, wouldn't HD lend itself better to miniatures shooting with it's high DOF?

[curious_69_george]

If you have a properly calibrated monitor, there is no reason why your shots should be incorrect.

If your shots are not coming out properly when they look fine on the monitor, then your monitors are not calibrated correctly.

I am not saying "Don't use a light meter" I am saying "you don't have to."

Just because everyone else is doing something doesn't mean it has to be done that way.

This entirely boils down to what you can get away with and what you are comfortable with.

Some painters paint with oil and some with acrylic. The medium is not what people are attracted to, it is the content.

Just a side note, Skoda, I cut the promo for the show "The Alma Drawings" for VisionTV.

Small world.

[Velk]

I'm wondering though, is anyone working on a HDRI HD system to fix the shorter dynamic range that HD has over film? Couple that with an HDRI monitor system.

It would be interesting to see the results of something like that. Though I don't know if that would do anything with the DOF problem that also plagues HD.

But speaking of DOF, wouldn't HD lend itself better to miniatures shooting with it's high DOF?
As I understand it this may be less desireable since all the detailing on objects farther back have to be at the same quality as the ones meant to be the shot focus. It also makes faking distance more diffucult, or at least breaks with the film perception of distance.

[SKODA]

It's not really necisary to shoot in full HDRI that would be overkill, I'd settle for shooting to 12 bit LOG though. That would be amazing.

I have High hopes for our friends at ReelStream making an Andromeda to 10 or 12 bit log setting.

Let's cross our fingers and give them support.

C

[SKODA]

But speaking of DOF, wouldn't HD lend itself better to miniatures shooting with it's high DOF?[/QUOTE]


HD cameras don't really lend themselves to shooting Miniatures due to the fact that

1 The camearas are bulky and prime lenses are expensive.

2 There's no shooting offspeed or single frame. With mineatures there is often the desire to roll offspeed to cancel out the scale issue. 1/4 scale means you have to shoot at 96 fps.

3 The frame rate and interval and exposure time can't be controled remotely by a motion control rig or intervelometer.

These days many animation shops are using Digital SLR's to shoot stop motion or miniatures. They are relatively cheap, shoot very high res and can get into tight places. And you can shoot to RAW files, which is allowing you to clamp the exposure later.

[Kai01W]

What some of you seem to forget is the fact that there really are various flavors of HD! :)
As for the DOF for instance:
The Arri D20, the Panavision Genesis (the one which is used for shooting superman returns) or the DALSA camera have sensors the size of 35mm film so you'll get exactly the same DOF!
Plus you can use adaptors for most other HD cameras (losing a bit of detail though)

Dynamic Range also varies (though in generall you can say its (much) less than film) Apparantly the look of the Genesis comes close to film though.

Then Compression: from HDV, DVCPRO HD, HDCAM, HDCAM SR to direct to disc (10 bit log 4:4:4) with viper, D20 and others you'll get different image quality and "color res"

So there are lots of differences between the HD formats which needs to be taken into account for ones specific case. As for digital FX: the stable image (not only registration but also in frame movement), little noise, etc make uncompressed HD a pleasure to work with. But sometimes you might need the higher res of 35 or more.

-k

[SKODA]

I didn't forget, I just know the contents of my pocketbook.

[thatoneguy]

If budget and time were of no concern (which really doesn't even happen on massive budget movies) I would shoot Film. It just looks better and is more flexible. For indoor studio shooting, I would use HD just because I could set up all of the HD infrastructure so much easier. There's just so much shit to go along with an HD shoot now adays, It would be too much hastle in the middle of the desert.

If you're shooting with a video camera I would say a light meter is helpful for lighting the scene, but not really necessary for exposure etc since the Camera IS a lightmeter. Hook up your camera to a computer or waveform monitor, you'll get all of your "real" info there. Just think of your HD Camera as a spot meter.

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.