my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Super 16 not good enough for hi-def? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Super 16 not good enough for hi-def? Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 04-28-2007 02:36 PM                     For many years we have been told that shooting on Super 16 was a good way to protect present day programme making for future high definition broadcasting and distribution. I recently read a paper which I found on the BBC web site about high definition production formats for programme makers. I can't post a link to the document, because I can't find it again now, but it listed various formats which are acceptable to the BBC for high-definition production; these included 35mm film and various hi-def video formats, some of which I've never even heard of. Why do there have to be so many different video formats? However, one format which was clearly stated to not be acceptable was Super-16, which all those programme makers used for all those years to protect the future of their work in a high-def world, etc., etc. So, what is the position; are other broadcasters following the same path as the BBC, and rejecting Super-16? Is it good enough for hi-def broadcasting? I've never seen it in high-def, only on standard video and , occasionally, as projected film prints.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-28-2007 03:35 PM                     I think Super16 can be a good enough origination format for 720p and 1080i HDTV broadcasts, provided the material is photographed well enough. Just look at what outfits such as NFL Films has been able to do with 16mm. Keep in mind 35mm material is far better served by the 4K format rather than cheaper 2K scans. Proportionately speaking, 16mm should be able to work acceptably well in 2K standards.  |  IP: Logged Mark Ogden Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 943 From: Little Falls, N.J. Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-28-2007 05:30 PM                     I can't speak for what everyone else is doing, but at the two Viacom networks I'm involved in the rule for material intended for HD playback is: at CBS, 35mm film or 1080/60i or 24p video origination, delivery on Sony HDCAM or Panasonic D5/HD at 1080/60i (except Letterman which sometimes plays-to-air via fiber link from an Avid Nitris). Showtime/The Movie Channel dumped all film a while back, all in house production is 1080/60i or 24p with a 60i delivery. I'm pretty sure that HBO follows the same 35 and/or 1080 guidelines. The last CBS show that shot S16 was Touched By An Angel, I remember watching the S16 to HD tests and thinking they were pretty weak, especially compared to everything else coming in. I guess the powers-that-be here felt the same way, the network refused to run it in HD until they moved over to 1080/24p origination (it was their last season anyway). quote: Stephen Furley Why do there have to be so many different video formats Strictly speaking, there does not have to be. Just different equipment makers with their own proprietary stuff. It's maddening sometimes, when a piece of video comes in on a format that you don't support and you have no machine to play it back on, you've got to send it out to a transfer house and then have them bump it over. Waste of time. If I ever get handed one of those Panasonic P2 cards, I'm going to have a stroke. 16mm isn't really that hot for standard def, either. Anyone who has access to the complete run of Sex and The City on DVD, compare the first two seasons (16mm) to the rest of the run (35mm). Like night 'n day.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-28-2007 11:13 PM                     When recently talking with an exec with HBO...their rule of thumb is 16mm for documentaries and 35mm for features and series. Their stuff has always looked as good as Hollywood to me. I've run many of their shows/features for pre-screenings on film (and video) and their prints are to die for (because they are all the equivalent of EK prints). They really do a 1st rate job. Those are rules of thumb, not absolutes. A recent feature with Queen Latifah called Life Support was shot Super-16 (and the pre-release screening was on 35mm film). Anyway...as for video delivery...HDCAM and D5 are just about to fall off the face of the earth. HDCAM-SR seems to be getting the nod for future HD material. Welcome to the wonderful world of Digital Video...where the spending never ends and you are perpetually out of date. I recently worked the premier of HBO's Sopranos last season and if one wants to compare 16mm to 35mm origination in HD all one need do is look at ANY Soprano's show...the opening credit sequence was shot 16, the rest was shot in 35mm...even taking into account that with credit overlays there is an extra optical generation, the 16mm is very apparant. All this said, I think Super-16 CAN be used for HD origination with better results than typical HD video but as one pushes it with lower light situations...its 16mm ness will show more. As a rule, I can't stand video origination...it lacks depth and makes everything look incredibly flat. It is one of the big "tells" in projection too...ever do an A-B of video to film on projection...aside from the extra movment in film...Video seems like it can't keep the depth of things and flattens it all out while film represents the depth of object MUCH better. It is nice to see that for the little screen the studios have their standards...too bad they don't care as much about the big screen where 2K DIs are NOT good enough and anything less than 65mm origination is NOT good enough  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-29-2007 01:08 AM                     The thing I find shocking is just how low the movie studios are willing to allow image quality levels to decline all in the vain of chasing that "digital" buzzword. A couple current examples: Kickin' It Old Skool opened this weekend. The movie, starring Jamie Kennedy (doing yet another spoof on white guys acting black), looks very obviously sourced from video. The producers put the video through that film step idiocy. All the commercials I've seen for it have a sick, urine colored cast on it along with the usual lack of dynamic range in the image. Anything from NFL films shot on Super16 looks a damned sight better than this visual garbage. Diggers is another one of those video-sourced movies going into Landmark movie theaters, appearing on DVD and showing on the HD Net movies channel pretty much all at the same time. I don't know if this movie itself is actually any good. As far as image quality goes, it looks like shit. It's another video to film and back to video again piece of crap. Are the people who govern the standards on origination bothering to consider what is lost when a movie is shot on video, optically transferred to a strip of film and then converted back into video again? Some video sourced movies, like Sin City for instance, look quite a bit more convincing in their attempts to mimic the film look. The finishing processes they're using are digital based and probably require more time and money to render than just using the stupidly crude method of dubbing the video to a physical film strip. Honestly, I think if a video-based movie production cannot afford to digitally process the video properly then they should just have the balls to leave the video looking like video. The end result will actually look a lot better -especially in those 2K digital cinema equipped theaters.  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 04-29-2007 09:53 AM                        For the record, the program Touched by an Angel used four shooting formats through its run. They started in regular 16mm. Then, in the middle of the 3rd season (starting in January 1997) they switched to Super 16. (So... the crew had to suddenly protect the 16:9 frame, although nobody off the set ever saw the extra material!) Then, in the fall of 1999, they switched to Super 35 and they were the first CBS series to kick off that season in HD. They did 3 seasons shooting super 35 and CBS showed those in HD. Then, for the final season, in the fall of 2002, they switched to 24P-HD origination with the Sony F900 camera. ...And it took a long time for anyone on the crew to get used to video production. The DP was frustrated beyond measure. The make-up department actually resorted to air-brushing the faces of the cast. It was not a seamless transition on the set. There was a guy on-set at all times from Plus 8 Video (now known as Plus 8 Digital) who was the only guy to truly understand all-things-digital. Whenever there was a malfunction, it was all on his shoulders and none of the regular camera crew could help... while the DP who refused to learn anything about video would curse the whole situation. Anyway... about 10 days ago I saw the big debut of the "Red Camera" at NAB in Las Vegas. Anyone interested in this little beast? The "test footage" they were showing (with a Sony 4K projector) was a World War I mini-epic written and directed by Peter Jackson. It was 12 minutes long and, as usual with Mr. Jackson, he could have told the story in half that time. But it wasn't about the story, I guess. It was just about seeing that this goofy camera really can "deliver the goods" in 4K film-like video. The turn-around time on the entire project was less than 2 weeks. The Red company seems to be very interested in feature film work but, by presenting stuff at NAB, they're obviously trying to break into episodic TV work and even flirt with independent video guys. (I wouldn't be surprised if guys who do wedding videos will seriously consider the investment... until they realize that the base price doesn't include nearly enough attachments.) So... they're tweaking the noses of the more-established camera companies. They're also trying really hard to make this look like a movie camera instead of a video camera. So... maybe people who insist on using film will be attracted by this camera's functionality and the company's different attitude when it comes to pushing their products on film people. We'll see.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 05-02-2007 12:44 AM                        Super-16 can produce excellent HD transfers. Best to stay with the mid and slower speed films, and give a "rich" exposure to hold shadow detail and reduce graininess.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-02-2007 10:19 AM                     quote: Greg Anderson Then, in the fall of 1999, they switched to Super 35 While the crew may have called it that it wasn't actually Super 35. The Arri BL 4's were just set up for 3-perf 35mm mainly to save on raw stock costs...saves about 25%. Super 35 is for extracting a scope image out of the full width of the camera negative image area. I suppose the 3 perf format coulda been used to extract a scope image but it translated pretty well right over to 16X9 and thats what they were after. Funny thing is they actually printed alot of this as 3 perf 35mm dailies and cut it on a flat bed equipped for same... woulda thought it was cut on an Aavid even back then or something similar. I still have some footage around someplace from a couple of shows I worked on. I remember meeting you at one of them Greg.... BTW: I am amazed at how inexpensive the Red Camera is. They must be using still camera sensors or similar... If this thing's for real it will sure put a dent in the likes of Panavision and Arriflex! Mark  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-02-2007 07:15 PM                        Strictly speaking, I don't know what the definition of "Super 35" really is. But some of the Panavision cameras I saw which were used for movies-of-the-week or Everwood had plaques on them which said "Super 35." I can't specifically remember any markings like that on the Arriflex cameras at Touched by an Angel. Incidentally, I thought Touched by an Angel primarily used 535B cameras instead of BL4s. Anyway, they were set for 3-perf pull-down so... I guess that's what I meant by "Super 35."  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-02-2007 07:30 PM                     Technically, Super-35 means any 35mm movie film photography where the area normally occupied by the soundtrack is used for picture area. M. Night has shot most of his features in Super-35 but with a 1.85 ratio. There is no reason why one couldn't shoot Super-35 with an intended ratio of 16:9 (1.78) Steve  |  IP: Logged Cameron Glendinning Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 845 From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 05-02-2007 07:57 PM                     I think super 16 would be fine for HD, unfortunatly it would need to be low asa stocks, plenty of lights and prime lenses. I am sure that it would be quicker and cheaper to use 35mm high asa stocks, less lights and zoom lenses! Time is the big expense on set. quote: John Pytlak Super-16 can produce excellent HD transfers. Best to stay with the mid and slower speed films, and give a "rich" exposure to hold shadow detail and reduce graininess. Rich exposure? does this translate to over exposing the neg by a stop or two? quote: Steve Guttag There is no reason why one couldn't shoot Super-35 with an intended ratio of 16:9 (1.78) I worked on a telemovie 10 years ago that shot super 35mm, duel composed in 4.3 & 16.9 for future proofing.  |  IP: Logged Jeff Taylor Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 601 From: Chatham, NJ/East Hampton, NY Registered: Apr 2000 posted 05-03-2007 02:15 PM                     AFAIK NBC/Universal is still using super 16 for all three of the Law & Order variants, which broadcast in 1080.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-03-2007 05:05 PM                     A lot of the Yorkshire Television british mysteries are shot super16 as was the hornblower special  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-04-2007 07:28 AM                     quote: Gordon McLeod A lot of the Yorkshire Television british mysteries are shot super16 as was the hornblower special Yea, but its hard to tell after they have gone through the PAL to NTSC converter... some of them look like they've been bounced off the surface of the moon and back.... Mark  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-04-2007 08:56 PM                     Funny up here TVO does there own telecine transfers  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.