View Full Version : DVX100a blown up to 35mm -VS- original 35mm


Allen Nash
June 16th, 2004, 06:03 PM
Does anyone know how DVX100a footage blown up to 35mm compares to footage shot on 35mm originally (as relates to sharpness)? I've heard some say that the DVX100a footage looks comparable to 16mm but nothing more, certainly not 35mm. Have any tests or anything psuedo-scientific been done for comparison purposes? thanks

Richard Alvarez
June 16th, 2004, 07:07 PM
Yup. Kodak has done plenty of them, and I've seen a few. I think saying it compares favorably to 16mm, is... generous. Much depends on which filmstock you are comparing it to. Certainly not the new vision 200/500 stock.

No way does it come close to generating the quality of 35mm.

Ken Tanaka
June 16th, 2004, 07:52 PM
You'll be interested in this current thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27320).

Allen Nash
June 16th, 2004, 10:42 PM
i think the kodak ones would obviously be biased. kodak has a lot to lose from the developing DV capabilities. But you're saying it's comparable or maybe a little worse off than 16mm, from what you've seen? that's what i've been hearing. I just wanted more opinions.

Ken, I already read that thread but didn't get much from it, since they used the mini35 and anamorphic adapter. i'm looking for results without those.

Ken Tanaka
June 16th, 2004, 10:56 PM
Keep your eye out for the release of "November". It was shot with the DVX100 (sans Mini35) and won the Best Cinematography award at Sundance this year.

Allen Nash
June 16th, 2004, 11:14 PM
oh yeah, i now remember hearing about that. thanks ken

Barry Green
June 16th, 2004, 11:42 PM
As Richard says, "No way does it compare to 35mm". It does look an awful lot like 16mm blown up, but it is definitely not 35mm.

The test you want to read is from the American Cinematographer magazine, where they blew up DVX footage and compared it to 16mm and 35mm.
http://theasc.com/magazine/index.htm

Allen Nash
June 17th, 2004, 12:59 AM
Barry, is that particular article online on their site? I couldn't find it anywhere. I don't usually visit, so I wasn't sure where to look...

Ken Tanaka
June 17th, 2004, 01:08 AM
This may be the article (http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm) that Barry referenced. I bookmarked it last year, although I cannot find a navigation path to it through ASC's less-than-top-notch site.

Allen Nash
June 17th, 2004, 01:20 AM
thanks for the help, ken!!

Rob Belics
June 17th, 2004, 06:13 AM
The new Vision2 stocks are said to make 35mm, now, a cut above past years. Vision2 16mm stocks are being compared to 35mm of a few years ago.

Even Super8, using Vision2, is being compared to 16mm. So I doubt a prosumer camera could compete with 16mm originated film.

Nowadays 16mm film is being used by indies to shoot features for theatrical release if they can't afford 35mm.

As an aside, Technicolors website says 70mm productions are increasing. I once posted that a new theatre down the street from me is being constructed with a room for 70mm projection. Not IMAX domed screens but a standard screen.

Tom Hanks is producing one and, I think, James Cameron is releasing one next year.

Richard Alvarez
June 17th, 2004, 06:31 AM
Bob,

I saw a comparitve screening at Worldfest of the old and new vision stocks with side by side comparisons of 16 and thirty five. Yes, the new vision stocks are an amazing step forward.

DVFILM is a great company, and they do great work. I think if you want to shoot DV and then do a blow up, using the 35 adapters are the way to go. It's really hard to compare stock lenses on any prosumer dv camera to panavision lenses and cameras and expect them to be "comparable".

I am not against shooting DV and transferring. It's just important for people to understand the limitations, work around them, take the time to shoot the DV feature with the same care and attention to detail that you would shoot a film feature with. The devil is in the details.

Rob Belics
June 17th, 2004, 08:44 AM
Exactly Richard.

I've been accused of being anti-digital with some of my posts about film and I can see how people would get that impression. However, the real point I'm trying to make is too many think all they have to do is get a good camera, shoot a feature and all they gotta do is blow it up to 35mm and no one will notice the difference.

What they forget is that the worst DP for any movie they've ever seen is probably ten times better at what he does than anyone they know. Ten times the effort was also put into creating the image on the film.

Then, on top of all that, the original image starts out better than a video image.

It's a lot to do to compete with all that but to start out with a prosumer camera you are at a decided disadvantage right out of the gate.

Glenn Gipson
June 17th, 2004, 10:49 AM
It looks like slightly soft 16mm blown up to 35mm. But what is really good about the DVX100 blown up to 35mm vs. other MiniDV cams, is the motion. The fact that the DVX100 shoots in 24p means that there are no motion artifacts or ghostly character movements when transferring to 35mm film.

Michael Struthers
June 17th, 2004, 09:21 PM
Not to sound like a killjoy or anything, but dvx100a footage blown up...it's not even close to film. Doesn't even match super 16mm.

However, it does have it's own look and feel which could be effective.

The sundance award was probably given as a shout out to the new technology, perhaps not that it looked better than other films.

Glenn Gipson
June 17th, 2004, 09:33 PM
Well, not only have I worked with 16mm before, but I have also seen the DVX100 blown up to 35mm, and it does come close to 16mm blown up to film.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7879&highlight=DVX100+transfer+to+Film

Ken Tanaka
June 17th, 2004, 09:47 PM
I seriously doubt that Sundance gave the cinematography award to 'November' as a "nod to the new technology". If anything, the award was made in spite of the technology. Nancy Schreiber is an experienced film and video cinematographer who basically enthusiastically embraced and leveraged this little camera's limitations and features.

Allen Nash
June 17th, 2004, 10:23 PM
Bob, I asked this question with the assumption that the same care of proper lighting and filming technique would be given to DVX and 35mm footage. Don't say that DVX footage will be worse just because most people who use a DVX don't take the same time to set up lights and so forth.

To anyone who is anti-digital, I'd like to point out that CCD's will just keep getting finer and more detailed as time goes on, and new formats will be created to facilitate higher resolutions. This is just a function of technology, it's always progressing. It's only a matter of time before digital matches 35mm film. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Anyway, digital gets a bad rap sometimes so I'd like to thank Glenn and the others who actually saw a comparison of the two and are trying to be unbiased in helping me out.

Rob Belics
June 18th, 2004, 06:22 AM
CCD resolution is only one part of the battle. Dynamic range of contrast and color space has not been addressed yet and is even further behind in development than resolution. It will still be years before HD can approach 35mm. In the meantime, 70mm film is showing a spark of being revitalized so the bar could be raised higher once again.

So, at the moment, dv is still a poor third behind 35mm and 16mm and not the preferred medium.