Digital Cinema

Dongle_Dave · Post by **Dongle_Dave** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:34 pm

I know this is probably heresy to post here, but it's an interesting read, none the less...

http://www.howstuffworks.com/digital-cinema.htm

Dave

Post by **crimsonson** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:05 pm

I am a big proponent of digital but this article has inaccuracy [like DoF for example], incomplete info [like cost] and just plain wrong [ease of use].
The DoF a 1" CCD HDCam is about the same as S16 and NOT 35mm.
The cost - HDCam post production aint cheap.
Ease of use - no matter how you cut it computers are complex. The ease of use is really because of we have grown up in a period where computer and computer technology is part of our lives much more than ever. A generation or two ago, filmmakers would have no problem understanding ASA, shutter angle, and push/pull processing. Different times, different technologies.
Anyway if digital was so easy, why is everyone complaing about Avid's interface? ;)
And it seems like digital has not made DoF, lighting ratio, 180 rule and other cinematic related topics easier to understand or use.

Post by **mattias** » Sat Jan 04, 2003 11:42 am

crimsonson wrote: The DoF a 1" CCD HDCam is about the same as S16 and NOT 35mm.

well, since a 35mm frame is about one inch across and a s16 one quite a bit smaller i can't see how that would be. i'm not entirely sure how the one inch is measured though, so i'd be happy to be enlightened...

/matt

Post by **S8 Booster** » Sat Jan 04, 2003 12:07 pm

Just sort of additional info:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/moti ... llis.shtml

QUESTION: What about picture resolution?

WALLIS: When you scan film on state-of-the-art equipment, you can get 4,000 pixels of information across the horizontal axis of 35 mm color negative. This 4K image compares quite favorably to the 1920 pixels across the horizontal axis of the new 24P HD digital cameras. Super 16 mm color negative film has 2000 pixels of information across its horizontal axis.

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/moti ... lowP.shtml

Motion picture film excels in resolving power, with both 35mm and Super 16 exceeding the sharpness of HD video by wide margins. To electronically capture the resolution of 35mm film, a scan of at least 5,000 pixels would be required (2,500 for Super 16). For HDTV, 1,920 is the calculated maximum, with HD cams well behind at 1,440. Imagine a show comprising only close-ups and medium shots. All the subtlety those wide vistas with small features or distant action could offer is lost when the recording medium can only distinguish coarse detail.

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/moti ... nfly.shtml

In 1999, John Christian filmed a feature Tomten, directed by Kjell Sundwall on Kodak Super 16 stock. The negative was turned into a digital intermediate in a Philips Spirit DataCine TM and printed onto 35mm, the first Scandinavian film to be treated this way. He said, "I thought then that we had pushed the 16mm negative to the edge. However, Dragonfly, took the Philips Spirit DataCine TM route, using the Super 16 format, framed in 1:2.35 on the ground-glass, then 'squeezed' from 1:1.66 to 1:2.35 CinemaScope in the computer, pushed the limits even further. And yet, my tests look fantastic."

Credibilty?
Interesting reading? - yes

R

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:51 pm

S8 Booster wrote: WALLIS: When you scan film on state-of-the-art equipment, you can get 4,000 pixels of information across the horizontal axis of 35 mm color negative. This 4K image compares quite favorably to the 1920 pixels across the horizontal axis of the new 24P HD digital cameras. Super 16 mm color negative film has 2000 pixels of information across its horizontal axis.

Yes but the difference - and this is a BIG difference - is that the resolution is being compared on a single frame of S16 and HD only. When S16 is projected at speed, you have the additional accumulative resolution that comes from the random grain pattern of motion picture film where 24 frames are piled on top of each other due to persistance of vision in the eye. Accumulative resolution will increase the visible resolution quite a bit.

If you locked off a movie film camera pointed at an optomistrist's eye test chart, you will positively find that lines of type too small to read on a single frame of motion picture film can be read quite easily when the film is running at 24fps. In fact, running the very same film at 30fps will pick up even more lines.

The resolution of HD is the same whether running at speed or being viewed on a single frame. This is because HD (like all video) has a fixed pixel pattern. Therefore, proponents of HD really need to be a little more honest when doing their comparisons between HD and film.

No doubt the HD is coming along fast but until the resolution of a single frame of HD compares to the accumulative resolution of 35mm film running at speed, the resolution can not be considered the same for theatrical use. Even S16 will have higher resolution at running speed than current HD technology, based on what I've seen.

Maybe the HD makers need to use a prisim to spread the same image across three different imaging arrays that are slightly offset from each other, pixel wise. Then they could simply rapidly switch between them from frame to frame to create the same sort of "randomness" that moving grain patterns create on film. It still wouldn't be as random but might be better? Just an idea.

No doubt they're reading this due to the incredible weight I carry in the HD industry. ;)

Roger

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jan 04, 2003 7:47 pm

mattias wrote: well, since a 35mm frame is about one inch across and a s16 one quite a bit smaller i can't see how that would be. i'm not entirely sure how the one inch is measured though, so i'd be happy to be enlightened...

/matt

Because the claim of CCD size is of course marketing, which makes it a lie. The actual usable area on a CCD is much smaller than the nominal diagonal measurement.

According to the angle-of-view charts at http://www.edward.grabczewski.btinterne ... f_View.xls, a 2/3" CCD is actually smaller than a Regular16 frame. And by extrapolation (because a 1" CCD isn't listed) a 1" CCD would have a true diagonal measurement around 15-16mm. A Super16 frame has a diagonal measurement of 14.41mm so I'd say Crimsonson is right on target: a 1" HD camera will exhibit nearly identical depth of field characteristics as Super16.