-
What gives Films their cool look ?
-
I’d agree that the resolution would require massive amounts of storage, but I don’t see why the dynamic range would. Film to video looks better than video because film is able to capture that larger latitude. Then we compress it to the range of video. So it seems that if CCDs could capture that exposure latitude then it could still be compressed into the video range of 0-100 ire and look fantasic.
I’ve seen demos of HD cameras that show how they can capture candlelight just as good as film, but that doesn’t prove much except that they’re very sensitive to low light. I’ve yet to see one say it can capture the candlight and the spotlight and everything inbetween like film.
I’ve seen some good tricks though on locked off shots. Like exposing for the sky, then exposing for the shadows, and then combining the two images in post with a soft edge wipe or a matte.
-
One major ingredient missing from this ageless discussion on the ever so after “film look” is the talent and creative contributions of those behind the camera.
Generally on a film shoot or high end digital cinematography shoot the technical and creative skills of all the principal players involved contributes significantly to the resulting stunning images.
There is no comparision when debating what a two person ENG crew can accomplish and a film crew of thirty or more persons can do.
People first technology next has always resulted in everlasting imagery that speaks for itself.
Tony Salgado
-
Ah, but what is film resolution? In practical terms, ie, a print being watched in a typical cinema, film has no more real resolution than HD, and HD will look better as it will be more stable. That’s why 2k is used for scanning, as it’s more than adequate compared to the resolution of the viewing print.
As for lattitude – Film certainly handles highlights more gracefully, but I’d say it’s a lot worse in the shadows. If you shoot video without clipping highlights, it can take almost the dynamic range of film, and even look better too. If you can’t control the highlights, film will look better, but you’re probably loosing shadow detail.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
BW,
You’ve got a lot of good opinions here. Here’s another great description of the difference between film and video written by Graeme Nattress on his Web site.
https://www.nattress.com/filmEffectsTechInfo.htm
-
Thanks. That’s a very technical way of looking at it. Artistically, the biggest difference is usually budget 🙂 And good lighting.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
Kodak and Fuji have an exposure latitude of greater than 5 stops, this has little to do with highlights and is mostly focused on the shadow area. Film is king of shadow detail, this has been known for decades. There is simply no study or article I am aware of that in anyway successfully argues otherwise.
Your argument is so shockingly against the facts I can only imagine you make it as a way of mixing things up.
And so you have!
Chris
-
Well, I attended a great HD seminar at the SMPTE in Toronto, where they showed direct comparisons between HDCAM and Film, shot in the same place at the same time, and we all saw what I described above – HD had a much more stable picture, with more shadow detail and highlights didn’t over-expose as gracefully. I find it hard to believe that film has more shadow detail when crushing your blacks on the video will give it a much more filmic look, and given the s-shaped characteristic gamma curve of film, you can see how the highlights are naturally protected and that blacks are recorded darker than they should be, compared to the relatively linear mid range.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
I think I saw the same show in New York last year at the Hilton. I also think I received a DVD or something of the same footage. It was clear to me that the film had been messed with in the transfer. I confronted the panel with my qualms and the guy who was the DP started to answer then was stopped by the Sony guy they all nervously giggled. How can you take 35mm and burn the highlights and crush the blacks and put it next to the best video and claim its a fair side by side comparison, unless your trying to sell the HD? Oh, I forgot it was a Sony show and that
-
Keep in mind that the film you are talking about, this work print, is not only what we call a one lite, with minimal color timing it is also printed on work print stock which is notoriously cheep stock. It is often run through the lab (developing baths) quickly and printed on high speed printers all conspiring to make a low quality result.
Interestingly this work print is what DPs use to see if their visual plan is working.
Chris
-
[Blub] ” It was clear to me that the film had been messed with in the transfer.”
I was going to chime in in this thread but refrained from it since I have no experience with film (at all).
But I did have the chance to do some experiements with 2K scans in 12-bit log (cineon files), and when doing the conversion from 12-bit log to 8bit linear, you have to adjust clipping of the lows and clipping of the high. I was told (right here on combustion forum) that there are standard values for this clippings, but that you can change them when dealing with over/underexposed footage.
But if you just take the black at 0 and white at 65536 (when working in 16bit), the luma range will be compressed abnormaly and you will see awfull lot of grain, with no detail in both shadows and highlights. This is of course the worst case….
So if what they showed was digital scans of 35mm footage, maybe they “tweaked” the conversion to disadvantage… they could probably have tweaked the optical print, probably.
But I *DID* see very ugly shadows in footage shot on a cinealta. Of course this was due to a badly lit scene, where 35mm would probably fail as miserably, but this does prove the idea that good lighting is essential to good picture.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up