Hey guys, we're only 12 days from IPIFF and well past looking at all the entries, but I did want to pass on some interesting observations I have seen, for this time only on the methods of acquisition and how they appear on SD DVD.
Now we got somewhere around 150 submissions for IPIFF so I got to see a lot of different camera qualities.
1) Mini-DV. Low end Mini-DV is really not very good, compared to everything else. Well lit, it can look OK, but poorly lit or if it has excessive jaggies its really not that good.
Higher end Mini-DV from say DVX100a or GL2 or XL2 were nice. In fact, several times we made the mistake of thinking the image was in fact 16mm because of the representation, but while looking for grain we didnt see much so we were able to make the correct call out of the box. Still though, if you're talking about a camera for SD purposes, the DVX100 and other top end Mini-DV's are quite good.
Now we saw a few DVCam productions as well and to be honest there was no discernable difference from the top end Mini-DV's to the DVCam, in my estimation.
2) Film. Film is great. It just has "that look". We've selected a film called "Show and Tell", a documentary, and although the overall picture resolution and clarity of the 8mm image is not as good as the DVX or something, it also doesn't look like video at all. There is no mistaking the difference in latitude and lack of any digital artifacting.
16mm is on par picture quality wise with the higher end DV's, but of course, you have a film image. Again this is so very different in perceptable quality than DV in terms of there is absolutely no feeling of digital image whatsoever.
S16 - We had some films shot on s16 submitted to us - beautiful, they were professional pieces with proper lighting and cinematography. They held up well to their 35mm counterparts.
35/S35 - Tough to tell the difference between these two picture quality wise from a DVD. Its the real thing, what can I say? When you see the Extremely shallow DOF and huge range of latitude and incredible color representation, well, its the real thing. It adds something to the film, definitely.
3) HDCAM - We saw a number of films shot on HDCAM and to be honest, it stacked up resolution wise to the s16 images, but I think when you get that level of clarity there is something else going on there.. I dont know how to explain it but it seems like across the board you need to light HD different than anything else.
4) HDV. This was the biggest shocker of them all for me. Those that know me know I have been a huge supporter of consumer level HD since day one. I felt like downrezzed HDV to SD would allow HDV cams to rival even their most expensive Standard def counterparts. And I was right. We did not accept one and accepted two films shot on HDV, one called "Art Seymour: Solo Performance". This short doc shows this world reknowned bead crafter in the process of making his beads and also showing them off. The quality is absolutely incredible. Crystal clear, incredible detail and seemingly increased range. The narrative we did not accept was equally stunning in quality, and the filmmaker had gone high con for the exterior bright scenes which was a trip, but unfortunately it had a couple of other issues.
So in summary of all the films we looked at what stood out to me was:
- On a SD DVD, higher end Mini-DV's have just enough resolution and picture control to fool the eye for a moment thinking it could be film or at least distancing itself fairly far from low-end DV's.
- Well shot 16mm/s16mm/35mm/s35mm has obvious added flair. It features no digital problems which at least on screen is more what we are used to seeing in cinema.
- HDV was a huge shocker in the quality of image, myself. If I was shooting a doc I would not hesitate for a second to shoot it on HDV or another prosumer format.
All that being said, I can tell you image quality doesnt amount to a hill of beans if your story sucks and your actors aren't. Take care of those first.
Now we got somewhere around 150 submissions for IPIFF so I got to see a lot of different camera qualities.
1) Mini-DV. Low end Mini-DV is really not very good, compared to everything else. Well lit, it can look OK, but poorly lit or if it has excessive jaggies its really not that good.
Higher end Mini-DV from say DVX100a or GL2 or XL2 were nice. In fact, several times we made the mistake of thinking the image was in fact 16mm because of the representation, but while looking for grain we didnt see much so we were able to make the correct call out of the box. Still though, if you're talking about a camera for SD purposes, the DVX100 and other top end Mini-DV's are quite good.
Now we saw a few DVCam productions as well and to be honest there was no discernable difference from the top end Mini-DV's to the DVCam, in my estimation.
2) Film. Film is great. It just has "that look". We've selected a film called "Show and Tell", a documentary, and although the overall picture resolution and clarity of the 8mm image is not as good as the DVX or something, it also doesn't look like video at all. There is no mistaking the difference in latitude and lack of any digital artifacting.
16mm is on par picture quality wise with the higher end DV's, but of course, you have a film image. Again this is so very different in perceptable quality than DV in terms of there is absolutely no feeling of digital image whatsoever.
S16 - We had some films shot on s16 submitted to us - beautiful, they were professional pieces with proper lighting and cinematography. They held up well to their 35mm counterparts.
35/S35 - Tough to tell the difference between these two picture quality wise from a DVD. Its the real thing, what can I say? When you see the Extremely shallow DOF and huge range of latitude and incredible color representation, well, its the real thing. It adds something to the film, definitely.
3) HDCAM - We saw a number of films shot on HDCAM and to be honest, it stacked up resolution wise to the s16 images, but I think when you get that level of clarity there is something else going on there.. I dont know how to explain it but it seems like across the board you need to light HD different than anything else.
4) HDV. This was the biggest shocker of them all for me. Those that know me know I have been a huge supporter of consumer level HD since day one. I felt like downrezzed HDV to SD would allow HDV cams to rival even their most expensive Standard def counterparts. And I was right. We did not accept one and accepted two films shot on HDV, one called "Art Seymour: Solo Performance". This short doc shows this world reknowned bead crafter in the process of making his beads and also showing them off. The quality is absolutely incredible. Crystal clear, incredible detail and seemingly increased range. The narrative we did not accept was equally stunning in quality, and the filmmaker had gone high con for the exterior bright scenes which was a trip, but unfortunately it had a couple of other issues.
So in summary of all the films we looked at what stood out to me was:
- On a SD DVD, higher end Mini-DV's have just enough resolution and picture control to fool the eye for a moment thinking it could be film or at least distancing itself fairly far from low-end DV's.
- Well shot 16mm/s16mm/35mm/s35mm has obvious added flair. It features no digital problems which at least on screen is more what we are used to seeing in cinema.
- HDV was a huge shocker in the quality of image, myself. If I was shooting a doc I would not hesitate for a second to shoot it on HDV or another prosumer format.
All that being said, I can tell you image quality doesnt amount to a hill of beans if your story sucks and your actors aren't. Take care of those first.
