|
|
Posted by Martin Heffels on 11/02/06 00:19
On 1 Nov 2006 15:55:09 -0800, "carlmart" <carlmart@centroin.com.br> wrote:
>
>Martin Heffels wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>I wonder if we talking about the same thing. What I was trying to say
>is that S16 was primarily created as blow-up only system. And yes, as
>such it was to used on regular theatrical ratio, which is 1.85 and
>considered wide screen.
>
>When you tried to do that with four-perforation 16mm negative instead
>of two-perforation 16mm negative you lost almost half the total area
>trying to get the same wide-screen ratio.
You are mixing-up some things here. 4perf and 2perf are related to 35mm.
16mm is one perf, whether regular 16 or super 16.
Let me explain what you are on about:
Regular 16mm is 1:1.33 (4:3) aspect ratio (AR). So, if you frame for a
1:1.85 AR, you won't be using part of the film.
Super 16 is 1:1.77 (16:9) AR. So if you frame for a 1:1.85 AR, you are
loosing less, so putting that same image on a wider area.
Now, if you blow-up that wider image of S16, you will have less loss than
blowing-up the image of regular 16.
>That is the blow-up ratio was diminished when using super 16, which
>improved grain resolution.
Actually what helped more is better film-stock, because since the
finer-grained Kodak Vision 2 stocks are out, more and more gets shot on
S16.
[...]
>What I meant is that DV became the tool of the independent filmmaker,
>like what the Bolex16mm had been in the past. And that HDV might well
>become what Super16 came to be, bringing the indie into the big movies.
Why didn't you say so in the first place :-)
>But S16 is on a different league than HDV altogether. To compare S16
>you have to go to the Cinealta cameras.
>
>> 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.
>
>Not necessarily. Even if they were experimental, have you seen the FX1
>modified to use fixed lenses, like the Nikon?
>
>http://www.eidomedia.com/hdve/
Yes, with hardware hacking they can be changed, true. But off the factory,
they can't. And for those people who do not wish to hack their camera's in
such a rigorous manner, there are camera's like the XL1, where you can
change the lenses.
>Nikon or Canon prime lenses are not that expensive. And they would be a
>lot better than the lenses used on these cameras.
True.
>The question is that there should be a camera that could let you use
>them without any adapters. And of course there's the issue that the
>focal lengths should be different for video.
They can be converted.
>
>> I see. You are dazzled by the technology in the pictures of the higher
>> budget films too ;-)
>
>No, I (as probably everybody that goes to a film theatre) like image
>quality. Technology is just a way to get there, which is quite
>affordable now. There are practical things in video that you can't get
>in film. And as you can see film is the reference for everybody. So how
>can you live with these technologies? IMHO knowing the limits of video
>and playing with them. That I will try to imitate film behavior? Of
>course and as much as I can.
Well, like I said before (and many others as well, like Richard Crowley),
you can try to imitate film behaviour, but that is just part of getting
there. The movies which were shot on mini-DV/DVCAM and eventually get
blown-up and transferred to 35mm, also took great care with their
art-direction and lighting to create the "film-look". You need to take that
factor into account as well.
Current e-cinema camera's, are getting pretty close to imitating film, and
even look better. So much better that the stars are getting weary to work
with HD, because it shows their blemishes and wrinkles merciless, which due
to the filmgrain, are kept out of sight. Check out the recent Michael Mann
stuff, which was shot on a variety of e-cinema camera's.
cheers
-martin-
--
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|