F900/3 Compared To 7218 Test

When I was in Austin, TX a few weeks ago for a workshop at UT Austin, I shot a side-by-side test of some simple lighting set-ups using a Sony F900/3 HDCAM and Arri-SR3 using 7218. The S16 footage was transferred to 23.98PsF HDCAM (same format that the F900 was shooting so I could play both back on the same deck) and it was surprisingly noisy/grainy. I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to look at a frame grab I could email and tell me what they think the problem is -- or if 7218 is supposed to look like that.

If the problem is a poor transfer, I may want to retransfer the material (one 400' roll, less than 10 minutes) to HD in Los Angeles, so if any facility reading this may be interested in helping out for free on this simple student exercise, please tell me.

I'm just curious as to the results but I don't want to judge the S16 inaccurately.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles

I shot some 7218 a while back--super 16, rated at 400--and transferred on an old BTS Quadra. It looked great, very tight grain.

The effective ASA might have been a bit more like 320. I rate at 400 but I've been known to nudge the stop open another third just for thickness sake.

Art Adams, DP [film|hidef|video]
Mountain View, California
San Francisco Bay Area - "Silicon Valley"
http://www.artadams.net/
Local resources : http://www.artadams.net/local

Steven Bradford wrote :

> We Just did a test of 7218 exposed 250 and pull processed to 250, and >it looked incredible in the print, and also in the neg transfer to Standard >Def.

If we're talking SD, I recently shot tests of all sorts of stocks, and the 7218 looked great on Rank/Ursa Diamond. Rated it at varying test ISO's from 250-500. The lower ISO gave cleaner gammas, but slightly noisier highlights, but we're talking minutes amounts of difference. 18 is a very clean high-ISO stock. Ascent Media was the lab and their soup is very good for a thick neg, densitometer readings indicate one could easily rate it at 400-500 ISO. Encore Hollywood for Telecine.

Nothing beats the venerable 7245 though. Still a great stock for many applications. Was amazed how great that still looks.

I've seen some of my S16mm xferred to HDCam & D5 (via Spirit) and am amazed how well it holds up in HD - looks very clean, and its refreshing to see in-camera slo-mo & varying capture rates possible.

Not everyone gets to mess around in an Inferno bay for several hours to get a similar feel out of HD footage.

Mark Doering-Powell
Director of Photography

> the same deck) and it was surprisingly noisy/grainy.

David,

I have also Shot 5218 and Sony F900/3 side by Side during a Giant Fireball Explosion looking at detail and exposure latitude and color pallet. There shouldn't be that much difference with S16 in quality of that Film stock.

The 5218 looked very Good and more like a 160 ASA looking grain rather than a 500 ASA. I was doing some very specific Frame for frame looks at the activity on both formats.

I rated the 5218 at 400 ASA and the F900/3 DCC ON at 400 ASA I found that since I color correct the Sony In Camera I had lots of room to move the Film to match the Color and contrast of the Sony rather than trying to go the other way (move the thing that moves a lot to match the thing that canâ€™t move that much) especially when it was already set exactly where I wanted it.

I found that I could also do a Noise reduction Pass and clean up the Film almost to the point of making it look as clean as HD.

5218 has incredible range and it would be difficult to shoot it badly sounds like the transfer or the processing may not have been ideal.

Glad to see that you tested it first.

You are welcome to have a look at my OCN and or my OCN To HDCAM Transfer and the HDCAM Shot by Sony F900/3 when you get back in Town.

BTW I did the 2 shots aligning the cameras to build a 3D shot with Convergence at the explosion and a 2 ft interocular. so the FOV's of both match exactly.

B. Sean Fairburn SOC

High Definition Cinematographer
Castaic Ca
www.seanfairburn.com

David Mullen wrote :

> I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to look at a frame grab I could >email and tell me what they think the problem is -- or if 7218 is >supposed to look like that.

David,

Where can we see a frame grab? I just shot some 18 recently and xfer-ed on a spirit so I have an idea what that looks like.

Mark Smith

We Just did a test of 7218 exposed 250 and pull processed to 250, and it looked incredible in the print, and also in the neg transfer to Standard Def.

Steven Bradford
Collins College
Tempe Arizona