|
|
Posted by carlmart on 11/01/06 20:57
Martin Heffels wrote:
> S16 has the same "resolution" as regular 16mm, it only delivers a wider
> picture, as the gate is wider. So the comparison you read in the other
> forums, is nonsense. It is correct however to compare HDV with 16mm,
> resolution-wise.
Not really. S16 was created to be a blow-up solution. As the area to be
blown-up was larger for S16, grain would be smaller and we could say
resolution (for the resultant 35mm film) would be better. In 16mm you
would be wasting a large area that wouldn't be used in projection. OTOS
you could no screen S16 in any 16mm projector, and cutting tables were
also a problem. Things got better for S16 with modern telecine and
computer editing.
About the comparison being correct or not for DV or HDV, it's a matter
of opinion really. But DV is a 4:3 (without anamorphic lens) as 16mm
was, and HDV is 16:9 (with no lens) as S16 is.
> Tally ho! For them they invented the zoom lens :-) A decent lens on a small
> camera, will cost more than the camera itself. But you throw away all the
> advantage with a compressed format.
Not all of it. People are complaining on the zoom JVC is using on its
camera and praising the Zeiss on the Z1. So a better lens will improve
the image.
> >No, but I think we should avoid tale-telling how you shot your film. Or
> >it may become a distraction.
>
> ? No capice
I believe common people (not "experts") can see and hear more than they
think. It's only a question of being presented with the better image
and the better sound. Film technology has got to a very high level, and
movie going people have seen that. So when you use simpler technology
and screen on that same theater, "distortions" due to that technology
may interfere with the story, distract them. Things like too much grain
or too much noise, or a poor audio quality, etc. may be against your
film "to get there". That's my feeling.
Capice?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|