Posted by carlmart on 11/01/06 23:55

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.


That is the blow-up ratio was diminished when using super 16, which
improved grain resolution.

> 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.

First of all my comparison was not intended to be really accurate,
comparing exactly DV with 16 and HDV with S16. DV never got close to
16mm film in any area and HDV doesn't get there either. But you insist
on comparing 16 with S16. S16 was resurfaced by Aaton in the late '80s
so people would shoot film to be used in later times, when HDTV came
along. And why: because the useful area was larger and filled the whole
16:9 frame. 16mm only did that if you zoomed in the telecine, losing
more than 40% of the negateive area.

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.


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/

Nikon or Canon prime lenses are not that expensive. And they would be a
lot better than the lenses used on these cameras.

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.

> 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.

>Just pay attention the next time, and don't get
> too distracted by Scarlett Johanson :-))

I certainly pay more attention than you think I do. But let's leave it
there.

[Back to original message]