I saw El Mariachi
 

I saw El Mariachi on cable the other night. I think most of El Mariachi was shot on the two highest rated or next to highest rated ASA negative films that Kodak makes, and El Mariachi was originally shot on 16mm.

No Grain!

Grainless!

I think Digital noise reduction techniques that have been in place for a decade can do magic with film grain. Digital noise reduction techniques that were developed for video actually work better on film that has been transferred to video because the A & B field of each individual video frame are both scaned from the same film frame, plus every fourth video frame is doubled. The result is one can add a bit of digital noise reduction without that awful chroma smear.

I've done it in my editing studio. Perhaps D.N.R. should be done before the a D.I. is made.

Depends on what you are shooting---ever have to stop every eight minutes, and load a new mag---and mags, at least in the day when I shot 16 weren't cheap. I hated shooting16mm for verite type documentary work but I did like the results.

Well, actually a 400 ft mag for Super 16 lasts 11 minutes, and there are 800 ft mags available these days for a 22 minute run time...interestingly, the exact same time available at 720/24p on an 8 gig P2 card.

I once had to shoot some documentary footage of Bob Dole walking through a town in New Hampshire during the primaries, with an Arri SR3 on the Steadicam. We couldn't afford to lose our coveted place directly in front of the candidate, so the assistant would just pull one mag and slap on another while I kept walking, for about 30 minutes! Talk about a hot-swap!

Quien es mas macho? Charles or Ricardo Montalban?

You da man Charles!!

That depends entirely on how well Charles can say Fine Cordoban Leather.

Not as well as Ricardo--but it was actually "Fine Corinthian Leather". However, you were close with the Cordoba reference....

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...hian%20leather

I am referring in this instance to feature or commercial production,
although if I was going to run and gun, and I could have a loader, and enough mags, and budget, I would go with 16mm over any video because properly exposed film is going to handle uncontrolled lighting situations
better than video. If I didn't have the budget, or had to shoot very long takes with just myself, I would choose video, and deal with the lattitude issues as best I could. On alot 35mm of second unit stuff I work with 400 ft loads that last about 3 minutes or so, after the head and tail, and we get by fine, so I would agree, it does totally depend on what you are shooting, and also, what the limits of your production are. Some types of production can not afford film, costs aside, but for many others it would be the single easiest way to improve production value. Not very many people experienced with both film and video, choose to shoot video over film on the basis of the image, but rather other criteria.


>Originally Posted by Radek Svoboda
That's exactly. HD gives 70 mm sharpness and 16 mm resolution.

Radek<

I must admit I don't understand this either. I would say that trying to compare a largly organic process with an electronic one is difficult, at best.
I find it amusing that so much effort is put into evolving a format to look like another that aready exists. I just wish as much engineering effort would be put into lattitude as has been put into buttons and menus and resolution and compression. Personally, I don't need much more than a 3200 and 5600 preset, and please could these cameras stop making noisy muddy blacks. If its dark, let it be dark. And to qoute Richard Crudo- When did cameras become Chrismas trees? I'm still very much looking forward to the HVX. I feel like Panasonic designed this camera with me in mind.

HD looks sharp, clean, looks like 70 mm, but when examine picture closely, resolution is only good as 16 mm. Apparent sharpness is there because lack of grain. If play again Once Upon a Time in Mexico in some theatewr, go see. The sharpness is amazing.

Radek

" I've been losing sleep over is HVX vs. Cinealta (or Varicam for ease). I'm going to be shooting a feature this winter on a 100k budget....I'm wondering if the 1/3" chips of the HVX are simply not large enough to compete with the Cinealta. "

OK i'll lets get you some SLEEP !!! the HVX image is not going to compete with Cinealta !! you already know it but you keep HOPING it will.. 1/3" CCD's are not going to compete with 2/3" CCD's ... a camera with electronics & lens costing 7K is not going to equal (or near) a camera with electronics , lens costing 100K ++++ ... HOWever for your 100K feature the HVX will have the most VALUE for the $$$ .. it will look better then any hand size SD camera and probably any handsize HDV camera ... if you have seen any of the features shot on dvx100 the HVX will look much better !! now all that is viewing on teh BIG screen ( as in theater ) .. move over to TV viewing and things just got better for you.not sure if one could see difference between 720p or 1080p ?? on a SD TV ??

You won't see difference even on HDTV.

Radek

Gah!! Blasted memory, doesn't work like it used to.