DIY Home Telecine: HD or SD??

[mattias]

Thanks for bringing this back to telecine. The only reason i ever mentioned cameras was to point out that *that's* where the difference is, not in the format. Please explain how the low quality of the z1's lens and ccd would be of any importance at all to someone using hdv as a recording format in *telecine*. In that rhetoric question you'll find my entire point and thus i rest my case.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

Please explain how the low quality of the z1's lens and ccd would be of any importance at all to someone using hdv as a recording format in *telecine*.

Because the context of the original discussion is low budget super 8 film telecine where the liklihood of a Z1 being used as for HD telecine is more likely. In fact, if you read the very first post of this thread, that very question was asked:

With the advent of consumer HD camcorders and the general trend today to HD TVs, how much better would such transfers be using a HD camcorder

metaT8 replied:

Maybe true HD if that's where your projects are headed and you can afford it. But NOT HDV!

His answer may be techincally flawed but was never the less totally understandable, given the artificial distinction promoted between HDV and "true" HD by the industry. Since the original poster asked the question in the context of perceived quality differences between using a consumer HD camcorder and a consumer SD camcorder, the quality of the z1's lens and ccd are actually more relevant to this discussion than how a Cinealta or any high end HD scanner works, since it is highly unlikly either would be used in the DIY venue being discussed.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

I think transfering old home movies from 8mm to HD is overkill (and would need black bars on the sides due to the wrong aspect ration). Remember old home movies are very seldom perfect in quality, slightly off focus, slightly more grain, not perfectly exposed and so on. I think scratches and grain would be much more apparent in a HD scan and the imagequality itself would not gain so much in quality (if any) that it would be anything to hunt for. In my humble opinion.

I understand your point and I agree, to a degree. However, the worse the original 8mm footage, the better the system needs to be to reproduce the image accurately. If everyone shot their 8mm home movies with balanced lighting, soft boxes, makeup, low contrast wardrobe with no bright whites, you could probably transfer everything with a decent 1CCD camera and it would look fine. But contrasty and under/overexposed footage really needs the wider latitude of a 3CCD camera. Even then, the 3CCD head doesn't have the resolution nor latitude to handle the heavy D-max found in most Kodachrome, especially when it is not exposed properly to begin with, but it is going to be better than transferring the same footage with a lesser system. Thus, the idea of going to an even higher quality system is an understandable goal in the minds of the consumer. To that end, we have done some experiments with the Sony HVRZ1U and the difference between that and a standard 3CCD camera is quite noticable, in terms of added detail, and I'm not talking about just grain, either.

And, of course, whether you or I consider transferring 8mm to HD is justified is academic. Customers are already interested. We get about a dozen phone calls a week asking if we transfer to HD and twice that number asking if we are developing any affordable HD telecine equipment for 8mm and 16mm. So we are.

Roger

[mattias]

Because the context of the original discussion is low budget super 8 film telecine where the liklihood of a Z1 being used as for HD telecine is more likely.

well, i obviously never suggested that it would be a good idea to use the z1 as a telecine camcorder, and you know that. the hdv bashing by some people clearly suggested that it was the format that sucked and not the camera. even yourself were talking about "high end telecine" to hdv as something bad, and tried to explain that by suggesting that people's prejudiced opinions based on the performance of the z1 camera had something to do with it. it doesn't.

and an angle that i forgot to address before is that people's ignorance obviously is a strong incentive to tell how it really is, not vice versa. don't you think?

/matt

[npcoombs]

even yourself were talking about "high end telecine" to hdv as something bad, and tried to explain that by suggesting that people's prejudiced opinions based on the performance of the z1 camera had something to do with it. it doesn't.

Wouldn't a telecine to HDV be a bad idea, since HDV compression acts like a supersensitive reversal film its performance is only good if exposure and colour balance is spot-on.

Isn't the point of a quality telecine to give you the maximum room to correct colour balance and gamma curves?

Surely HDV would be poor for this purpose, whereas less compressed HD formats would be more suitable. Or are the HDV codecs so advanced that they match the equivalent of miniDV in SD, which is generally acceptable.

[MovieStuff]

Because the context of the original discussion is low budget super 8 film telecine where the liklihood of a Z1 being used as for HD telecine is more likely.

well, i obviously never suggested that it would be a good idea to use the z1 as a telecine camcorder, and you know that.

Sure. Never suggested you did. But you asked what the relevance was regarding the quality of the Z1 CCD and lens to DIY telecine, as if that had nothing to do with this conversation and it obviously does; more so, in fact, than any additional information you have provided thus far in this thread, no matter how accurate.

the hdv bashing by some people clearly suggested that it was the format that sucked and not the camera.

Some people in the industry clearly think so.

even yourself were talking about "high end telecine" to hdv as something bad, and tried to explain that by suggesting that people's prejudiced opinions based on the performance of the z1 camera had something to do with it. it doesn't.

I never made any such connection, Mattias. My position is that low budget super 8 shooters are not going to pay for a high-end HD transfer to a miniDV HDV tape any more than a low budget HD project is going to shoot with a Cinealta. Thus, when someone says they are working on a budget project in HDV, they are giving you information the tells you something about the calibre and quality of the equipment they use, even if they don't give you specifics about the exact camera or system. To presume that they are using a Cinealta for their low budget project because they didn't give you enough information is just as silly as assuming someone used 35mm when they said they shot movies of their kid's graduation. Both are possible but, even without the experience you have in HD, intuitively unlikely. You can act like you don't understand, just to make a point, but the context of this thread was known from the beginning to be DIY telecine. Even I understood and I know less than you about HD. ;)

and an angle that i forgot to address before is that people's ignorance obviously is a strong incentive to tell how it really is, not vice versa. don't you think?

Of course. Personally, I think the information you gave me was great and I am very appreciative but, at this point, you have addressed nothing that the original poster asked about. As such, your opinion about the Z1 (or any consumer HD camcorder) would be more valuable and more relevant to this discussion than any additional information you provided about high end HD systems that few, if any, of the forum members will ever have access to for their DIY telecine or low budget production efforts.

Roger

[filmamigo]

I think the incendiary nature of this whole conversation is the result of one statement:

"HDV is not HD"

I find that statement usually comes from people with two different agendas:

1) HDV shooters who are slagging the manufacturers, trying to prompt them to produce even better gear for a lesser price...

or

2) People guarding against the barbarians at the gate. (i.e. Discovery Channel waving off thousands of potential producers by using a very simple filtering mechanism.

"HDV is not HD" is a false statement -- but it is the kind of false statement that people use to put down others. It's like the Ferrari owner telling the guy driving a Chevy that "that's not a car." Of course they are both cars, both street-legal for highway driving... but one of the drivers has a lot invested in making sure that NO ONE EVER mistakes the Chevy for his Ferrari.

It has been my observation that independent filmmakers are exactly the kind of people who take umbrage with such statements. They react against having doors closed on them.

I feel for your situation with the acquisition execs Roger. There are two possible reactions: you can learn "the rules" as set out by those folks, or you can challenge "the rules" and call them out when they are inaccurate or wrongheaded. Of course, the second option does little to help your career in the short term :lol:

[MovieStuff]

I feel for your situation with the acquisition execs Roger. There are two possible reactions: you can learn "the rules" as set out by those folks, or you can challenge "the rules" and call them out when they are inaccurate or wrongheaded. Of course, the second option does little to help your career in the short term :lol:

It is aggrivating. But, also, when they say, "We don't accept HDV, only HD", I also know what they mean, even if they are not being equipment specific. They do not want something shot on a Sony FX1 and handed to them on an HDV minDV tape. Thus, my previous remark that the term "HDV" is becoming a competing concept within the industry to signify lower quality results bears some relevance here. It may not be technically accurate but, within a given context, you know what is meant by it.

Roger

[Evan Kubota]

"They do not want something shot on a Sony FX1 and handed to them on an HDV minDV tape."

So get a posthouse to dub it to another tape format ;)

Festivals are pretty stupid about this also. Most want a digibeta copy for screening. No one cuts on digibeta at the very very low-budget level. The simplest solution, it seems to be, is to cut from a regular miniDV transfer (or 10-bit, whatever) and then just dub the finished copy to digibeta. Stupid festival issue solved with the least possible cost...

[filmamigo]

"They do not want something shot on a Sony FX1 and handed to them on an HDV minDV tape."

So get a posthouse to dub it to another tape format ;)

Festivals are pretty stupid about this also. Most want a digibeta copy for screening. No one cuts on digibeta at the very very low-budget level. The simplest solution, it seems to be, is to cut from a regular miniDV transfer (or 10-bit, whatever) and then just dub the finished copy to digibeta. Stupid festival issue solved with the least possible cost...

Unfortunately, Discovery Channel are very clear about controlling the acquisition format. How they audit that is a question for a "Discovery-approved" producer, I suppose.

Of even more interest to folks here on the Small gauge film forum is that Discovery also forbids shooting on 16mm or Super 16. 8O

[audadvnc]

HD is not a single X * Y format, or a single compression
scheme, it's an open-ended set of digital formats that exceed
current SD resolutions. Handy for marketeers, HD is whatever
they say it is. As an acquaintance put it recently, some "HD"
is merely widescreen VHS.

[Janne]

Of even more interest to folks here on the Small gauge film forum is that Discovery also forbids shooting on 16mm or Super 16. 8O

They don't accept regular 16. You must shoot super 16.

[Janne]

Discovery Channel accepts the following formats:

Sony Betacam SP
Sony Digital Betacam
Sony MPEG IMX 50 mb (tape)
Sony MPEG IMX 50 mb (XDCAM)
Panasonic DVCPRO 50 (tape)
HVX200 DVCPRO 50 (P2)
Sony HDCAM SR
Panasonic DVC PRO 100 mb (HD)
Panasonic HD-D5 (Film Transfers)
Sony XDCAM HD (35 mbps only)
Sony HDCAM
Super 16 MM Film
35 mm film
70 mm film (IMAX)

[audadvnc]

Can someone please provide a link to Discovery's acceptable formats page?

[Janne]

http://www.discoverychannel.ca/_include ... s.logo.doc