
- Time
- Post link
Presumably, one of the reasons Lucas shot digital was to reduce the generational losses inherent in working with film. If you're comparing fine-grain camera negative, I agree that there's no scientific basis for arguing against the fact that film has more resolution than HD. (HD at 1080p, anyway). But by the time the results are up on the screen? Well, then, I think it's far less of a slam dunk for good ol' film.
Of course there is generational loss--there is generational loss in HD as well. But because film starts off with such a high-resolution that even by the time it gets down to the release print it still holds a tremendous amount of detail, many times more than HD, which also gets degraded as its put into a computer and printed back out to film.
You just totally missed the point. 16mm is still better. HD lacks the inherant softeness that film--any size film--has, because the edges are harsh, the image is very clear, and the exposure lattitude creates more contrast. Thus the image becomes crisp and sharp-looking and fools the eye into looking higher-quality than it actually is. Think of edge enhancement on a DVD--an untreated image and a sharpened image have the same resolution, but the edge enhancement creates the impression of a higher quality image. If you were to examine a resolution test chart you would see that 16mm and HD are about equal (again, resolution is also dictated by the lens and stock choice but as far as inherant limits of the format, 16mm has the advantage over HD in theory).
And there isn't ugly "too sharp" shots in Superman Returns.
Of course there is generational loss--there is generational loss in HD as well. But because film starts off with such a high-resolution that even by the time it gets down to the release print it still holds a tremendous amount of detail, many times more than HD, which also gets degraded as its put into a computer and printed back out to film.
Originally posted by: boris
The fact is I'm not saying you can't get 6000 lines or more from 35MM - but the level of detail in 35MM is about the level Lucas achieved with his digital filming. I don't see my views as "extreme" - like I said, look at the DVD transfer for Last House on the Left - now it wasn't made from the original camera negatives - but they did use the highest quality sources for the movie available - and the film was shot in 16MM - it's not meant to have a lot in common with SW, except to say that the film was in relatively bad condition. There's no grain removal either, and in my opinion the level of detail in the film is fully bought out by the DVD resolution, which means that the level of detail in the theatrical print reels they used is less then the level of detail expressed by DVD resolution. That's how it was shown theatrically - and the sources they used were the best quality ones they could find.
I already addressed this--shoe-string budget using 1970 technology versus ultra-high-budget 2005 technology. My previous post debunks this and actually comes from first hand experience and not home video viewing. I noticed you ignored it.
The qualitys created by an anamorphic lens are considered desirable, and as for the apparent increase in depth of field, this is also considered a very beautiful quality and is one of the strongest assets of the anamorphic format--DP's are usually fighting for less depth of field, not more.
"Let me tell you something though--HD, and AOTC and ROTS obviously, do indeed appear sharper and more detailed than 35mm because HD gives that impression."
Then why are you saying 16MM is better? If it "gives that impression" that's all it's supposed to do.
The fact is I'm not saying you can't get 6000 lines or more from 35MM - but the level of detail in 35MM is about the level Lucas achieved with his digital filming. I don't see my views as "extreme" - like I said, look at the DVD transfer for Last House on the Left - now it wasn't made from the original camera negatives - but they did use the highest quality sources for the movie available - and the film was shot in 16MM - it's not meant to have a lot in common with SW, except to say that the film was in relatively bad condition. There's no grain removal either, and in my opinion the level of detail in the film is fully bought out by the DVD resolution, which means that the level of detail in the theatrical print reels they used is less then the level of detail expressed by DVD resolution. That's how it was shown theatrically - and the sources they used were the best quality ones they could find.
I already addressed this--shoe-string budget using 1970 technology versus ultra-high-budget 2005 technology. My previous post debunks this and actually comes from first hand experience and not home video viewing. I noticed you ignored it.
Now as far as I know, they mastered the LHOTL DVD from 35MM prints - which are "blown up" from the 16MM negatives, and those 35MM prints will hold the quality and detail in there better then a 16MM print will, if that makes sense. You know, like if you get a photo developed onto A4 it'll hold more detail and quality then if you get it developed onto you standard sized photo, because there's more information in there. With SW you don't get that - it was transferred from 35MM anamorphic negatives to 35MM prints - so the prints are at the same level of detail and quality as the source (or less detailed if anything).
If LHOTL was indeed blown up to 35mm for the DVD this actually degrades the original image. It introduces grain and softens the image, and then the scanning of the print introduces more errors. If they had gone back to the original 16mm originals the film would look much better, but again, this is a shoe-string budget fourty year old film.
Well yeah, thats what Super-35 is--it exposes the whole frame but then there is an optical step where it is cropped and blown up. When comparing it to anamorphic widescreen this then indicates a 2:35 AR, so there is indeed extensive cropping and blow-up.
And anamorphic filming presents its own problems that are created by stretching the image vertically onto the film, such as depth of field - which will always be expressed better using a non-anamorphic lens.
If LHOTL was indeed blown up to 35mm for the DVD this actually degrades the original image. It introduces grain and softens the image, and then the scanning of the print introduces more errors. If they had gone back to the original 16mm originals the film would look much better, but again, this is a shoe-string budget fourty year old film.
I've said I think 35MM and HD is roughly equal in terms of detail and quality. Now I think most 16MM films would have a bit more detail in there then LHOTL has, but it would still only be about standard definition in quality.
If the DVD of Last House of the Left is your only reference for 16mm resolution then how can you make these kinds of statements? 16mm, by scientific fact, is higher resolution than HD, and when photographed properly can rival 35mm in apparent sharpness. I say "apparent" sharpness because even though 16mm film shot with an SR3 with a Cook S4 prime lens and 50D stock will actually look similar to or equal to 35mm to the eye, in actuality it is not, and the resolution is the same as LOTL, which is about just over HD.
An example of a modern 16mm film i guess would be The Devils Rejects--i am positive that everyone who viewed this in theaters simply assumed it was a 35mm film. A film like Crash for instance, which had a kind of "dirtyness" to the image appears nearly equal to the eye to Devils Rejects in terms of image resolution.
To zombie84: Super35 is not always cropped, and can use "all the negative" without becoming anamorphic - this yields to being able to film for longer.
If the DVD of Last House of the Left is your only reference for 16mm resolution then how can you make these kinds of statements? 16mm, by scientific fact, is higher resolution than HD, and when photographed properly can rival 35mm in apparent sharpness. I say "apparent" sharpness because even though 16mm film shot with an SR3 with a Cook S4 prime lens and 50D stock will actually look similar to or equal to 35mm to the eye, in actuality it is not, and the resolution is the same as LOTL, which is about just over HD.
An example of a modern 16mm film i guess would be The Devils Rejects--i am positive that everyone who viewed this in theaters simply assumed it was a 35mm film. A film like Crash for instance, which had a kind of "dirtyness" to the image appears nearly equal to the eye to Devils Rejects in terms of image resolution.
To zombie84: Super35 is not always cropped, and can use "all the negative" without becoming anamorphic - this yields to being able to film for longer.
Well yeah, thats what Super-35 is--it exposes the whole frame but then there is an optical step where it is cropped and blown up. When comparing it to anamorphic widescreen this then indicates a 2:35 AR, so there is indeed extensive cropping and blow-up.
And anamorphic filming presents its own problems that are created by stretching the image vertically onto the film, such as depth of field - which will always be expressed better using a non-anamorphic lens.
The qualitys created by an anamorphic lens are considered desirable, and as for the apparent increase in depth of field, this is also considered a very beautiful quality and is one of the strongest assets of the anamorphic format--DP's are usually fighting for less depth of field, not more.
"Let me tell you something though--HD, and AOTC and ROTS obviously, do indeed appear sharper and more detailed than 35mm because HD gives that impression."
Then why are you saying 16MM is better? If it "gives that impression" that's all it's supposed to do.
You just totally missed the point. 16mm is still better. HD lacks the inherant softeness that film--any size film--has, because the edges are harsh, the image is very clear, and the exposure lattitude creates more contrast. Thus the image becomes crisp and sharp-looking and fools the eye into looking higher-quality than it actually is. Think of edge enhancement on a DVD--an untreated image and a sharpened image have the same resolution, but the edge enhancement creates the impression of a higher quality image. If you were to examine a resolution test chart you would see that 16mm and HD are about equal (again, resolution is also dictated by the lens and stock choice but as far as inherant limits of the format, 16mm has the advantage over HD in theory).
And there isn't ugly "too sharp" shots in Superman Returns.
There is. Superman Returns is the best-looking HD film i have ever seen, but it is still there--oh man is it still there. The fact that you cant tell the difference only demonstrates your lack of expertise in the area. But to casual viewers, they don't notice because they are not educated in film and don't have a discernable eye for the subtlties of the format--I doubt people even noticed the difference in a film as horribly photographed as AOTC.
Boris, i know your arguments seem logical to you, but they really are not. I work in cinematography, I'm professionally trained to know this kind of stuff and actually have experience working with 16mm and 35mm film as well as HD. You obviously are not any kind of professional in the field, and while you do seem to know a little about imaging systems its that little bit of knowledge that has led you to HUGE misunderstandings. No one who actually has experience in shooting would make the claims you are making. I'm not trying to belittle you or anything but you literally don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
And no, I'm not some "anti-HD" film drone. HD has its advantages in areas--but not in image quality. No one ever shoots in HD because it would yield a better image. HD can be less expensive and allow a better post flow but there is absolutely no advantage visually and it is flawed with tons of problems that will take at least a decade to work out.
As for buying a film scanner or telecine--yup, it would be more than just the price of the machine. Because aside from that you need all sorts of controllers and high-tech accessories that add up to more than the price of the machine itself.