|
|
Posted by Martin Heffels on 11/01/06 21:54
On 1 Nov 2006 12:57:39 -0800, "carlmart" <carlmart@centroin.com.br> wrote:
>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.
Excuse me but now you're talking about an advantage for wide-screen of S16
vs 16. The frame-height in S16 is the same as in regular 16. So blowing up
a 4:3 won't give you any advantage.
>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.
What? This comparison has nothing to do with frame-size, but all with the
image resolution. Standard definition video is roughly 570 lines, while
16mm film is rated at 1200 lines. So DV won't match 16mm film's resolution
at all, while HDV comes close (in 1080). The resolution is the same for S16
and regular 16.
>> 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.
Yes. But I was thinking more about an interchangeable lens of better
quality. They would be more expensive than the whole camera. The lens on
the Z1 is fixed.
>> >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.
I see. You are dazzled by the technology in the pictures of the higher
budget films too ;-) There is quite a lot of misery to see in there as
well, grain, image-weave. Just pay attention the next time, and don't get
too distracted by Scarlett Johanson :-))
cheers
-martin-
--
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|