resolution and life of 720p vs 35mm film

[zlfan]

Just came across this written by a dp in 2010:

"The film was shot in 720p, mostly using an AJA I/O HD box and recording to a HD in Apple ProRes HQ, though a bit was recorded to tape and a few scenes (mostly in cars) were shot with an HPX170. The camera was set to FilmRec mode and we used the lowest setting that could capture the needed dynamic range of the scene. This was usually Dynamic Level 200%, but higher when necessary. This meant that the uncorrected movie looks a little bit low in contrast and saturation so the Quicktime player was set to slightly increase contrast and saturation.

I was a little bit nervous that the 720p image on such a large screen might look a little soft, but it looked amazing! Going next door to glimpse a big Hollywood 35mm print revealed that the 720p digital projection looked as detailed as the 35mm print, and much cleaner and steadier of course. The Varicam projected had much more "life" than the dull 2k DI film print in the next theater (I'm talking about basic image quality, not the cinematography 🙂 )"

 

 

[zlfan]

"Recently I had the experience of showing a small movie we shot with the 27H tape based varicam on a very large screen in a multiplex projected through Barco DLP 2k projector. The movie was still a work in progress, and so we played it on my MacBook Pro in quicktime and plugged into the projector as a mirrored computer monitor."

 

The earlier paragraph about the large screen. 

[zlfan]

"I guess I'm making these points to say that, detail wise, 720p is darned close to 1080p. And when shooting a movie almost every frame has some amount of motion blur, making the difference insignificant to the eye, even on a very large theatrical screen. The low light advantage of the 720p chips, and the slow motion capability make these cameras a true rival to any of the 1080p cameras that I saw demonstrated in the ASC camera assessment series last month. And while I wasn't able to compare the 720p Varicam directly to the 4k camera named after a color, I would say that after seeing the ASC tests, the 720p Varicam is about equal to or more detailed than that camera on a 2k projection."

[zlfan]

seems that he thinks the varicam's 720p is about the same resolution as red one on a 2 k projection. 

[zlfan]

seems to me that the resolution specs have been saturated long time ago. 

[zlfan]

although there is argument that 2k projectors can be replaced with 4k projectors or 8k ones, on the other hand, 2k projectors have been there many years and nobody complains about the lack of resolution on the big screen about the movies shot with 35mm film. 

seems to me that the current trend of shooting with 35mm or 16mm film rolls is just another way trying to differentiate but does not provide real technical advancements. 

[QuickHitRecord]

Got a link to the film (or a trailer)?

[zlfan]

i don't see that this dp provides a link to his film. 

[zlfan]

Bruce Greene, his forum name

[zlfan]

i want to point out that varicam's 720p is probably the best 720p implemented. the title may be more suitable as "best 720p vs 35mm film rolls in terms of resolution". for the organic feeling, it surprises me that varicam's 720p can be better than that of 35mm film rolls. if so, what is the point of shooting with film rolls? maybe because the film rolls are expensive, only exclusive to the big budget films? i guess i am mystery buster. lol. 

[eatstoomuchjam]

36 minutes ago, zlfan said:

although there is argument that 2k projectors can be replaced with 4k projectors or 8k ones, on the other hand, 2k projectors have been there many years and nobody complains about the lack of resolution on the big screen about the movies shot with 35mm film

I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn how many movie theaters are still projecting in 2K.  Movie theater projectors are expensive as hell and overall profits for theaters are down compared with 10 years ago.  Exhibitors aren't going to rush out to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on anything that doesn't have a direct positive impact on their profits.  Being able to count the pores in the lead actor's skin doesn't put asses in seats or sell more candy.

[eatstoomuchjam]

3 minutes ago, zlfan said:

what is the point of shooting with film rolls? maybe because the film rolls are expensive, only exclusive to the big budget films?

The effective resolution of properly-exposed modern 35mm film is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5K if I remember right.  But as above, a lot of people aren't so likely to care about that.

Unless the varicam had some sort of miracle sensor, though, 35mm negative film will have much better dynamic range and much, much more pleasing highlight rolloff.  It's still seen as king of rolloff - and on a film with a 20 million dollar budget, the cost of shooting on film vs Arri vs anything else is basically an afterthought.

[zlfan]

2 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

The effective resolution of properly-exposed modern 35mm film is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5K if I remember right.  But as above, a lot of people aren't so likely to care about that.

Unless the varicam had some sort of miracle sensor, though, 35mm negative film will have much better dynamic range and much, much more pleasing highlight rolloff.  It's still seen as king of rolloff - and on a film with a 20 million dollar budget, the cost of shooting on film vs Arri vs anything else is basically an afterthought.

varicam 27 is 3 2/3 inch ccd cam. so the color is good. not sure about the highlight rolloff. i bought mine 10 years ago, used it once or twice, as i am totally unfamiliar with this format and the learning curve is stiff. those two menus are very difficult to go through. and all those terms in the menus are strange words to me. i am still learning. i can verify the color is good. the resolution and the details are not as good as other high quality 1080p or 4k cams that i have, but because i put an old tv zooms in front of my copy of 27h. if i put some digiprime lens on my unit, and if i learn well to set up my own picture profile confidently, i think the resolution and the details should be acceptable. not sure about the highlight rolloff though. i don't have hands on experience with the alexas and the 35mm film rolls. so i don't know the best highlight rolloff. in normal conditions, seems 27h gives good images.  

[zlfan]

 

the highlight rolloff and the skin tones of that baby's face are really nice. 

 

the low res look may be due to the superzoom. "I used Angenieux zoom B4 lens, but I'm really interested to trying Zeiss Digiprime, cine lens for 2/3"."

my experience on even the canon b4 cinema zoom is not so good. no hands on experience on digiprime. i guess the digiprime will be leading a big margin in terms of clearness. 

[zlfan]

i think that baby's face is one of the challengest situations, dark shade, interwoven with the sunshine areas. this demonstrates that the 27h has some mojos. 

my point is that the film rolls may have similar situation like the closing shop arri, 5% improvement vs 10-20 times cost. for the film rolls, the cost may be 100 times more, depending on the final feature's length. 

 

[zlfan]

seems that baby's chin area, the local dr is really high, yet the highlight rolloff seems nice by my eyes. the details in the highlight area still are kept. there is no clear dead white, no clipping on the right side of the histogram. 

 

if this holds true, it is really hard to justify using alexa 35, or even 35mm film rolls. they may be even better in this situation, but 27h is good enough.