What DV does best

[clive]

OK -- so I'm working on a project and for it I need to really understand what DV does best as a format, from a cinematographer's POV.

It's cheapness is a given.

What I'm really interested in, is what as a format it does really, really well -- in comparison with other formats.

So, for instance, it's inherently easier to focus -- it copes with movement better than HDV etc etc.

Any thoughts at all you have about the visual strengths of DV would be appreciated.

My current thoughts all relate to how well it handles natural light -- its inherent fitness for ENG purposes.

Thanks
Clive

 

[freezer]

I said it isn't there, yet, and it's not. Who do you know who has shot a feature on Red? Also, Red does interpolated 4K. It's maximum native resolution is 2K. Assuming it remains true to it's specifications.

Red is very good on track, so I expect them to deliver the first cameras in autumn 2007. To me that is as near as anything can be. And it's native resolution is 4520 X 2540 pixels, according to their specs.

Have a look at the frame grabs
http://red.com/images/gallery-still/4k_3.jpg
http://red.com/images/gallery-still/4k_1.jpg

Although they didn't use any kind of sharpening, the images already look great. Fire up Photoshop and do an unsharp mask with 400/0.8/2 and have fun with the result.
I especially love the virtually grain free image which allows me to go wild in postproduction.

216M pixels would be much lower resolution than an 8x10 Kodachrome positive. I pull 16M pixels from a 35mm slide which is about 1/60 of an 8x10. Also, you haven't addressed exposure lattitude.

I have worked for that company some years ago, developing the UltraScan 5000. This is a highend scanner with a native resolution of 5080 dpi. I did scan hundreds of 8x10 positives and I can assure you, that with 2540 dpi you already get to see a lot of film grain. It gives you a theoretical 400 megapixel, but with a lot of noise. And as it is a positive film it is easier to break the highlights.

The 216 megapixels of the digital camera on the other hand are again virtually noisefree, giving it better definition. No problem to upscale that to 400 megapixel when needed - you won't notice, granted.

Afaik it has a wide latitude near the positive film range, but not as good as negative film.

I would say, if you do carefully select your 8x10 stock, lenses, f-stops and so on you can get really a lot out of film - no doubt. But there is no need to glorify it. Both technologies will find their market and none will get obsolete soon.

The 216 megapixel camera is used for aerial photos and there it saves a significant amount of time and money compared to the old way. If you prefer to shot landscapes on film, then just do it - I will not complain. Since I got my digital camera my Canon AE-1 rests somewhere in my room.

 

[sonnyboo]

I've just ordered some of the more successful dv movies from amazon -- The Idiots, Bamboozled, The Last Broadcast -- to see what they did with it as a format.

Be wary of using those as a comparison.... they uprezzed & color corrected at either HD or 2K, then transferred to 35mm film and then did a telecine BACK to video for DVD releases. These are NOT effective demonstrations of the camera, but also the entire post production process of studio sized budgets.

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

Freezer, this is becoming a pointless, stupid argument. My point was very simple. I did not glorify film, or video ... I was simply expressing that there are pros and cons to both. Maybe you can tell me what it costs for a 216M pixel digital camera, and you might also be able to give me some idea of how it can be practically applied to nature/wildlife photography in the boundary waters of Minnesota. I think you will see, that every tool has a purpose, and bashing one in the interest of promoting the other has no value.

Also, the way digital cameras measure dynamic range is not really applicable to film. The film latitude doesn't plateau like digital. And no, I'm not praising either technology... I use both. I prefer to have the right tool for the job, rather than get bogged down in religious arguments. Again, that was the point of my post ... I thought Knightly went a little overboard in his rave about DV.

You accepted my challenge, and I concede that you may have made a point with a special purpose, I'm guessing extremely expensive, and unwieldy camera.

p.s. They've changed the specification of Red, since I last looked at them. However, you cannot say that August 2007 is here and now. "As near as anything can be" is the camera sitting next to me. Not sometime late next year. If you had left out that statement, I'd have to concede all of your arguments. I'm afraid my customers pay me for actual results, so I'm hopelessly grounded in the tested, tried and true.

 

[clive]

Be wary of using those as a comparison.... they uprezzed & color corrected at either HD or 2K, then transferred to 35mm film and then did a telecine BACK to video for DVD releases. These are NOT effective demonstrations of the camera, but also the entire post production process of studio sized budgets.

Thanks Sonnyboo -- that's one of the most useful pieces of information I've had so far.

 

[Will Vincent]

it really doesn't matter about quality.

Careful... that's the kind of (no offense) careless attitude that causes people to view DV as an inferior 'low-end' option. If lit properly, shots are composed well, etc... the quality will be there, perhaps not the same resolution, but hey, Blair Witch and Open Water got theatrical distribution, parts of BW, and all of OW were standard def DV.

Granted, those are poor examples because they weren't properly lit and such, but hopefully I've made my point, no matter how irrelevent it may be.

By the way, I'm sure you meant the quality of the final image (as in resolution, scalability, etc) and not overall production quality -- But, no reason to give 'em any excuses to continue to believe that DV is just a 'cheap' format, because it certainly needent be.

For the record, I love the look of film, and always will. It's like the difference between CDs and Vinyl, some people can't tell, but it's there.

 

[Loud Orange Cat]

it really doesn't matter about quality. DV works

In that case, you can have my P.O.S. JVC MiniDV camera.

 

[knightly]

Any wide release DV feature will have had tons of time and money thrown at it in post to make it project well...but it has been done. Most of the time if DV is used, it is specifically used to emulate the ENG, video look (28 days later, collateral). I feel these are not representative of the possibilities of DV as they were specifically handled to have a non-cinematic look to them to increase the feeling of immediacy.

The post work will all contain uprezing it, doing blurring and sharpening to it to remove jaggies and smooth gradients into the new colorspace, The motion characteristices are purely a function of exposure time per frame and frames per second...these can be estimated (but never quite accurately reproduced) in post. Heavy color grading work is also done to estimate the colorspace into a more filmic response curve. Given these techniques done to good footage, comparable footage (true not as high native rez, and not as wide native lattitude) is quite possible.

I don't feel I've gone overboard with my arguments - perhaps the tone of them, apologies (No, really, I'm not just trying to justify the last 5 years of my creative pursuits ).

Clive, do you have any specifics about shooting environments, lighting setups, moods, etc. that you will be looking for. That would help target the advice.

 

[clive]

Clive, do you have any specifics about shooting environments, lighting setups, moods, etc. that you will be looking for. That would help target the advice.

Not at the moment -- I'm just absorbing as much info as I can about the format, in my normal sponge like manner!

When I've got some sense of what the format can do -- and how it is done, then I'll go out and do camera tests until I know absolutely I'll be able to achieve what I want to achieve.

If I can't get what I want, I'll choose another format.

What I'm up to, is I'm planning and preparing a feature length movie -- with the intention of having significant commercial success, but I'm restricting my budget to $1000.

No, I didn't mis-type that, I have set myself a One Thousand Dollar budget to complete the production.

Obviously, with that kind of budget, DV is the most achievable format -- but I haven't made any decisions yet.

I'm very aware that DV presents massive technical and commercial barriers to the kind of distribution I want for the film -- and I've made no firm decisions yet -- like I said -- at this moment I'm just soaking up all the relevant information and letting it percolate.

I am on this issue incredibly open minded.

Except about the budget -- on that there is NO moving -- it will not be one red cent over $1000.

Trust me -- there is method in this madness.

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

For what it's worth, I've never felt that my DV (miniDV) camcorder was the weakest link in my movie production. I am with Knightly (although it may not seem that way, at times), in that there are so many factors that play into the quality of a production that it's ridiculous to pigeonhole the medium used to record images.

Having said that, I think DV is super for web-delivery, since I generally end up downscaling anyway. I'm not sold on uprezzing. However, I'm 100% positive, that resolution is only one piece of the puzzle. If you're shooting for iMax, or National Geographic, image quality may be 80%, but for telling a story, I'd only give it 15 to 40%, depending on the material.

So, in the end, DV (or film) can do anything you can do. Like anything, the more you put into it, the more you'll get out of it. I get really depressed when I hear a neophyte say, "I need a better camera", when I know that the camera he/she has is already capable of much more than they'll ever do with it.

 

[Loud Orange Cat]

For what it's worth, I've never felt that my DV (miniDV) camcorder was the weakest link in my movie production.

Well said. Personally, I think the quality of video isn't as important an issue as sound. You can have beautiful, crisp video and absolutely ruin the production with crappy sound (like using the built-in mic embedded in the camera, producing a high-pitched squeal that muffles all other sound in your production).

 

[Shaw]

First, my goal isn't to promote digital over film here just adding some thoughts about RED:

RED is certainly not here now but it don't see it failing yet either. The specs have changed slightly, nothing drastic and they were very upfront fromt he very beginning that this was a work in progress and likely to change. I'd love to get my hands on one but I just don't have the money right now.

Also, Red does interpolated 4K. It's maximum native resolution is 2K. Assuming it remains true to it's specifications.

Yes, true, but I feel we should be careful to define what you mean by interpolate. The camera doesn't uprez in any fashion, it works just like the high end Canon digital cameras by using a bayer pattern. It's a proven technology that produces great results. Heck, all we have to do is look at the images to see that resolution isn't going to be a problem. Nor is chroma sampling.

<mod edit...links to competing forum deleted as referenced in the FAQ>
http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/comps.jpg

All of these were quick, one click keys. That's pretty damn impressive in my book and truly the reason I want one. I'd love to shot a sci-fi piece with this camera.

----

Clive, good luck man! A feature on 1K is quite a feat to achieve!

 

[Loud Orange Cat]

I have a question about the RED camera.

I've been hearing about this camera for many years now. There's still no physical product out there so I always believed it to be vaporware.

With the extreme resolution its hyping, what's the uses for it? There's no televisions with a resolution higher than 1080. What's the market for it?

 

[freezer]

Freezer, this is becoming a pointless, stupid argument. My point was very simple. I did not glorify film, or video ... I was simply expressing that there are pros and cons to both. Maybe you can tell me what it costs for a 216M pixel digital camera, and you might also be able to give me some idea of how it can be practically applied to nature/wildlife photography in the boundary waters of Minnesota. I think you will see, that every tool has a purpose, and bashing one in the interest of promoting the other has no value.

Sorry if my writing came out like bashing - it wasn't meant so. It isn't always easy to argue in a foreign language.
I am perfectly aware that you cannot use this camera for your purpose
It is meant to be mounted below an airplane ...

Also, the way digital cameras measure dynamic range is not really applicable to film. The film latitude doesn't plateau like digital. And no, I'm not praising either technology... I use both. I prefer to have the right tool for the job, rather than get bogged down in religious arguments. Again, that was the point of my post ... I thought Knightly went a little overboard in his rave about DV.

You accepted my challenge, and I concede that you may have made a point with a special purpose, I'm guessing extremely expensive, and unwieldy camera.

Afaik the camera costs about $ 300.000 - so it won't be the kind of gimick you will get at Walmart. And you might need some more people to carry it around as it weights the same like a grown up. Not exactly that kind of camera you would put into your bag for some nice landscape pictures

As far as I can see, we both have made similar points - if you reread my earlier post.

p.s. They've changed the specification of Red, since I last looked at them. However, you cannot say that August 2007 is here and now. "As near as anything can be" is the camera sitting next to me. Not sometime late next year. If you had left out that statement, I'd have to concede all of your arguments. I'm afraid my customers pay me for actual results, so I'm hopelessly grounded in the tested, tried and true.

Red announced they will roll out the first units in April - so I made my estimation based on my own experience in how things can go wrong on a schedule. I expect that I can afford a complete set not until 2008 and then I need another 4-6 months to get the experience and workflow.

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

There are 3 reasons I'd want Red, if it were available at a price I can justify ...

1) the size of the sensor is the same as 35mm film, so you get the same depth of field (or lack of DOF), that we associate with 35mm. Of course, this enhances selective focus, follow focus, and subject isolation.

2) you can never have too much resolution. Red will let you decide what resolution you need for your shot. 4K might be higher than you'd need for most work (especially considering the storage requirements), but for a chromakey shot, etc.

3) you can pick your framerate, for slowing down fast action, etc.

There are lots of other great features. I'm excited about it, but it's not real, until I can touch it.

(sorry if this post makes no sense, I got a phone call and I can't finish this)

 

[freezer]

I have a question about the RED camera.

I've been hearing about this camera for many years now. There's still no physical product out there so I always believed it to be vaporware.

With the extreme resolution its hyping, what's the uses for it? There's no televisions with a resolution higher than 1080. What's the market for it?

You should have a look at the http://red.com/gallery-still.htm and download the two 4k stills. There have also been several screenings of 4k movies captured with the first prototype. They said they will go into second prototyp in December 2006 and will deliver the final product in April 2007 (which I personally do not believe).

The uses?
Perfect images for postpro manipulation, I can take the 4k stills and go crazy with them all the way and they still look great. The market is Hollywood motion picture, indie productions, commercials. The images are meant to be projected onto a huge screen. -> http://www.hdforindies.com/archivedarticles/2006_11_01_archived_article.html

And consider this: Even if you are not able to work in 4k, you always can capture in 4k and then downrez to 2k resulting in very sharp and noisefree images. Try this with a photo from your digital camera in Photoshop: downrez it to 25% and see how little noise there is suddenly.

And the rest can be read in oakstreets post

 

[Loud Orange Cat]

I'm worried about the ability to capture at the 4K resolution. That's a helluva lot of data!

 

[sonnyboo]

Obviously, with that kind of budget, DV is the most achievable format -- but I haven't made any decisions yet.

Consider HDV. The new Canon, Sony, and JVC cameras are offering HD resolution cameras at similar pricing to the high end Mini DV cameras. These almost all have 24P mode and offer much more flxibility than standard defitinition cameras, so you will benefit from the increased picture information in post production.

HDV is NOT HD, as it's compressed natively with MPEG2 compression, but it is still vastly superior to mini DV or DVCAM/DVCPRO.

=======-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-


as for the debate erupting above....

Film is film, video is video. Story is what counts. Take it from someone who has shot extensively with both formats. I'll never forget the day in January 2000 when I met one of my idols, Richard Linklater, who asked me what was more important - owning film stock or telling a story.

Tell a story in the format that most appropriately fits your story. Sometimes that means a Panasonic DVX100A, other stories need 65mm Cinemascope celluloid. If you're making a $1,000 feature, it's unlikely the story will be reaching for film stock. In this day & age, a good story will tell itself through compelling images and performances, as well as sounds.

As Grand Moff Tarkin once said, "This debate is pointless. Lord Vader will provide us with the location of the rebels secret base...."

 

[Will Vincent]

Well said. Personally, I think the quality of video isn't as important an issue as sound. You can have beautiful, crisp video and absolutely ruin the production with crappy sound (like using the built-in mic embedded in the camera, producing a high-pitched squeal that muffles all other sound in your production).

Absolutely.. Audio is actually about 70% of the final experience. That's pretty significant, for a visual medium.

 

[Shaw]

Oops! Sorry for the link to another forum there mods. Forgot about that since the link was to an image hosted there not the forum itself!

LOC: The extreme resolution, as has been mentioned, is good for theater. On of the digital theater standards is 4K which the camera shoots. It's also possible to downconvert the raw footage (they provide software to do this) to 1080p or any other HD format. You can also shoot with only a part of the sensor for lower resolutions. As for data, it doesn't look like it will be that bad! They are using a wavelet compression scheme to get the data rate down so it's possible to edit RAW footage on a single hard drive - not even a RAID would be necessary. So far the samples of this 'codec' have been very impressive visually and space wise.

We'll see how the project turns out.

Sonnyboo - technically HDV is HD since HD only specifies resolution numbers which must be met. Many people don't consider it professional though and the Discovery channel won't take material shot on an HDV camera.

 

[clive]

I am looking at HDV, but it's a format that creates as many problems as it solves -- it's renowned for not handling movement well.