Super 16mm is still of superior quality to HD.....as in...clearer than 1920x1080 when properly developed.
16mm is much more superior to HD
I would be intersted to find out what you guys are basing your opinions on here. "Superior" would seem to be quite a general term that is poorly applied to the subject.
Now in terms of something to compare HD1080 to, I would not be choosing 16mm or Super16mm. 16mm is the poor cousin of 35mm and these days is generally relegated to cheaper TC commercials that do not have the budget to shoot 35mm, but still want to shoot on film.
In terms of clarity, HD(1080p24) is definately "clearer" (crisper is often the term used) than 35mm (and 16mm) and is sometimes so crisp that it is an issue. Whilst the general "native" resolution of 35mm fillm is considered to be 2k (2048 X 1536) in many post production houses, 35mm is telecined at 1080p (1920x1080) to fit it into existing HD workflows, so the resolution difference between the two formats becomes a moot point.
oh, the other point about variable frame rates is also a non-point these days, with formats like Pansonic's Varicam which allows variable frame rates from 1fps to 60fps, and the Red camera (mentioned later) which allows frame rates up to 120 fps. Yes, film camera's can run higher frame rates (specialised high speed film camera's can run up to 10,000fps), but the cost of buying/renting and running these things puts them way out of anyones league. Other emerging formats such as P2 & Sony's XD-CAM also allow variable frame rates up to 60fps, which seems to be what 99% of people need.
The only real points where film is preferred to HD is when it comes to contrast ability and the film colour gamut. Film is still preferred for it's ability to handle high contrast situations whilst retaining a lot of detail, and for the particular colour ideosyncracies of the film stock being shot on. Now both of those points are being worked on heavily by the HD camera manufacturers, and are almost at a stage where there is little to no difference. As an example of this, we shot two projects (12 months apart) on Panasonic Varicam. Both projects were shot using Varicam with loads of over-cranked footage. We had them graded and shot out to film to run as cinema ads. With both projects, the client & the projectionist refused to believe that the project had been shot on HD. After the second project, we gave up trying to convince them...
So even without mentioning developing technologies, the argument for shooting film is on shaky ground.
In recent years, there have been some serious developments in digital shooting. Cameras like the Thompson Viper, Sony Cine Alta, Panavision Genesis and Dalsa Origin have completely changed peoples opinions of what digital is capable of to the point that more and more films are being shot on digital. Even many of the lower budget films are being shot on formats like the Panasonic Varicam cameras which deliver amazing quality and colour for the price.
My personal favourite, Panasonic Varicam is now preferred by many film makers (at least the ones that I have worked with and chat with online), not just for the budget advantage, but because it just looks better, and is generally more flexible than shooting on film.
Now for the developing technologies. Stretch mentioned the Red camera which is really designed to destroy everything else on the market and take film with it. In short, everything that any other camera/format (film included) this camera does better. It has better frame rates, better contrast ability, better options in terms of colour gamuts, more lens options, more format options, shoots at a high resolution and uses a revolutionary codec to give you lower data rates. Oh, and it's cheap too.
(If you want a more detailed rundown on what is so cool about the Red, let me know.)
Now I realise that that was a very long winded way to "I disagree with your opinion" but there you have it.
I could have just said "No way man, Film is dead - HD is the way of the future" but I have been sitting here for the last 4 hours waiting for a render to finish, so I had some time on my hands......
Oh - some clarifications.
- when I say HD, I am talking about proper high end formats. This does not include dinky formats like HDV. HDV had promise, but the amount of compression in HDV kills it for anything but home movies. As demo said, it is often better to shoot DV on a HDV camera than shoot HDV and try to deal with it afterwards. If you want an explanation on this, let me know. I am not even going to mention formats that shoot to DVD or any other spinning media. They scare me.
- yes, I know that Varicam shoots variable frame rates at HD720p. Having said that, HD720p upsized to 1080p still looks better than most things shot on 35mm and pretty much everything shot on 16mm
- P2 is good. I like P2. The colour is good, but it is also noisy as all hell. The variable frame rates on that camera are hot. So is the fact that it shoots to solid state media. I have a HVX sitting on my desk.
Cheers, and have fun!
Al
ps - included some pics that i took a few weeks back to taunt demo_man. They were rentals for a job we were only thing better than one Varicam is two!
