>I really don't
want to start a video V film battle again but I'm interested in looking
at HD as if it was another film stock, i.e. what are it's contrast
handling characteristics, what's it's tonal range like etc etc.
The interesting thing
about this question is that it raises one of the biggest differences
between electronic imaging and film. With any video system,
the format itself has very little impact on the contrast &
tonal range, simply because the image is formed by the camera
and not by the stock, whereas with film the image is formed
by the stock and not the camera. So when people using video
talk about cameras it most comparable to film people talking
about stocks. My theory is that this is a major point of misunderstanding
and conflict when people start comparing film and digital.
Video people tend to talk very intensely about different cameras
because this dictates the palette they have to work with.
But to a film person this can often appear as useless technobabble.
I guess my point is that in order to compare HD as a filmstock,
you have to discuss specific cameras. (Made slightly easier
at this stage by the limited number of HD models).
a very interesting topic, but I think we have to be careful
when translating between film jargon & video jargon. Perhaps
more significant is the different ways and effects of manipulating
the image forming process in HD. The contrast and tonal range
in almost all the newer cameras can be altered, just as the
contrast and tonal range of a negative can be altered by using
different techniques and processes.
my 2 cents (Aus) (or 0.9p (UK)) worth.
got an HD Bolex" Allan.
Perhaps more significant is the different ways and effects
of manipulating the image > forming process in HD.
>I would like
to know if a film transfer would pull more out of the shadows of HD than
a is evident in a electronic projection or on a HD CRT. In respect to
gammas, the latest digibeta and the new F900 can be switched between different
curves at the touch of a button, so comparisons between curves are easily
viewed. I have found this very useful. Although on paper some of the curves
don't look that much different the results onscreen, to say, a flatly
lit wall can be dramatic. How the curves compare to film stocks would
be interesting and how DPs choose which stock/which curve even more so.
In respect of digital, does one light the set then play with the curves
or choose a curve and then light the scene?
respect of digital, does one light the set then play with
the curves or choose a >curve and then light the scene?
chosen the film stock for the look I want and then lit to that.
>So I guess that
I'd choose the curve and then light to that.
>On the other
hand well, I quite like the idea of lighting a scene the way I want and
then changing the curves to fit it.
I doubt that any available digital imaging system could take the highlights!
the curves compare to film stocks would be interesting and
how DPs choose >which stock/which curve even more so.
>I have no first
hand experience with HD cameras but in "SD" the enhancement
charachteristics of the cameras can play as much of a role in lighting
choices e.g. hard/soft as do curves, gamma.. For instance, Video cameras
love softly graduated transistions. Throw something harder at them - and
- what ? (For an example of what DOESN'T work well in HD, look at
the HD scene from "The Phantom Menace" )
>If I were going
to shoot/light for HD, ONE question in my mind would be: how much of the
ability of this camera to acheive sharpness is in the CCD chips and how
much is in the enhancement circuitry and can and should this enhancement
be manipulated ? And then, how ? If not electronically, then we are going
to want to use filtration to defeat certain tendencies of the HD camera.
And, diffusion, after all, provides a select combination of in-focusness
and out-of-focusness. So, now we are up against the amount of "reserve
sharpness" (i.e. ability to create contrast in the image AS wanted)
available from the HD Camera. As compared to film - we can make fine looking
images, but we are walking on a tightrope to do so.
>i.e. if you're
going to compare HD to a film stock you're going to have to pay as
much attention - conciously or intuitively - to MTF curves as you do to
charachteristic curves and gamma, I think.
>A am afraid
that it will take still a VERY long time until any electronic on-set capturing/recording
device will be able to handle this! You just gave a exemplairy example
of one of the things where the perfomance of film origination and electronic
origination are furthest apart!
existing electronic capturing you probably would have lost this shot.
force you to grade 90% on the set. They can not (yet?) record more dynamic
range than needed for projection, like a negative film does. This makes
electronic capturing expensive and cumbersome in a lot of situations.
>If we would
like to compare HD to film stock, then we should compare it to a REVERSAL
stockat best! (or a neg printed to a positive assuming we DO NOT change
printerlights more then 5 points).
Motion Control, Stereography, Digital Imaging
people tend to talk very intensely about different cameras
because this >dictates the palette they have to work with.
most of the 'electronic cinematography' cameras have setup cards
that allow the user to change so many parameters on the camera, you really
have to talk about those setups in combination with specific cameras!
>Great for the
DP, who can create his own 'look,' but it also makes it very hard
to draw comparisons. I've never used my D600 in anything approaching
HD practically on a daily basis (The Secret Adventures of Jules Vernes
among other projects) for a bit more than a year, I could go on and on
about this thread and some comments but... been there and done that...
so I won't.
>A simple answer;
IMHO, HD (at it's present state) is as if you were using film stock
from 10-15 years ago, that had a lot less latitude and in many cases more
contrast (that sort of goes togheter does it not:-)). A lot of great images
were shot with those film stocks. Rate it at around 250-400 iso.