'Small Time Crooks'
- Status
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
They both look very good, probably because Woody Allen and Robert Redford don't like vasoline on the camera lenses. 
I think 'Small Time Crooks' looks a little sharper.
This is about as good as 'image constrained HDTV' gets I believe.
Frank
I think 'Small Time Crooks' looks a little sharper.
This is about as good as 'image constrained HDTV' gets I believe.
Frank
"This is about as good as image-constrained HDTV gets".
O.K. Frank, now I feel better. I couldn't live with a post from you relative to HBO HD without the words "soft" "inferior to DVD" or "image constrained". I can get on with life again! I guess you do have the same setup.
O.K. Frank, now I feel better. I couldn't live with a post from you relative to HBO HD without the words "soft" "inferior to DVD" or "image constrained". I can get on with life again! I guess you do have the same setup.
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
Quote:
I'm glad you're feeling better now, Ken.
By the way, did you see 'Small TIme Crooks'?
If so, what did you think?
Frank
| O.K. Frank, now I feel better. I couldn't live with a post from you relative to HBO HD without the words "soft" "inferior to DVD" or "image constrained". I can get on with life again! I guess you do have the same setup. |
By the way, did you see 'Small TIme Crooks'?
If so, what did you think?
Frank
Frank,
You know I love to tease you, but we still love you. Even though I usually disagree with your perceptions, I totally agree with you on this one. It was indeed amazing. I only caught the last 15 minutes or so, but the transparency was utterly amazing. I almost felt like I had to turn DOWN the sharpness. Now I know you'll eternally disagree with me, but I felt this was only a notch or so above The Patriot! That's how good I though the Patriot was. I've always said that at this level of clarity, the transfers look like something between film and live HD, a totally different format.
You know I love to tease you, but we still love you. Even though I usually disagree with your perceptions, I totally agree with you on this one. It was indeed amazing. I only caught the last 15 minutes or so, but the transparency was utterly amazing. I almost felt like I had to turn DOWN the sharpness. Now I know you'll eternally disagree with me, but I felt this was only a notch or so above The Patriot! That's how good I though the Patriot was. I've always said that at this level of clarity, the transfers look like something between film and live HD, a totally different format.
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
Ken wrote:
Quote:
I might agree with you depending on your definition of a notch.
How many notches would you say are between 'The Patriot' and 'Smart Traveler' on PBS?
Frank
Quote:
| Now I know you'll eternally disagree with me, but I felt this was only a notch or so above The Patriot! |
How many notches would you say are between 'The Patriot' and 'Smart Traveler' on PBS?
Frank
Frank wrote:
"I might agree with you depending on your definition of a notch."
Notch= a bit, perhaps 10%
As far as the difference between the Smart Traveler and The Patriot, remember we are talking about two different mediums. You know video will always look better and more "live", so the comparison isn't fair. However, I will say that The Patriot was pretty close to being the best HD FILM presentation I've ever seen. Obviously, as I said before, "Small Time Crooks" was a bit better.
"I might agree with you depending on your definition of a notch."
Notch= a bit, perhaps 10%
As far as the difference between the Smart Traveler and The Patriot, remember we are talking about two different mediums. You know video will always look better and more "live", so the comparison isn't fair. However, I will say that The Patriot was pretty close to being the best HD FILM presentation I've ever seen. Obviously, as I said before, "Small Time Crooks" was a bit better.
Quote:
I agree with you, Ken. I fail to understand why so many continue to compare video and film based HD. We know they inherently have different appearances and I just don't see the basis or rationale for trying to compare the two unless someone is advocating that all material, including movies, be video based.
| Originally posted by Ken Ross Frank wrote: As far as the difference between the Smart Traveler and The Patriot, remember we are talking about two different mediums. |
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
Quote:
Why not compare them?
The two biggest differences between HDvideo based material and 35MM film based material is :
1. Depth of field
2. modulation transfer function
'Small Time Crooks' has an almost infinite depth of field in most cases, just like HDCAM.
That leaves MTF.
I have seen 35MM films that look every bit as detailed as HDTV video based material like PBS shows.
However, I have not seen any film transfers that look near as sharp as 'Smart Traveler'.
Perhaps the reason is because of the accumulated loss of contrast through the various stages of production.
I would really like to know the reason.
Frank
| I agree with you, Ken. I fail to understand why so many continue to compare video and film based HD. We know they inherently have different appearances and I just don't see the basis or rationale for trying to compare the two unless someone is advocating that all material, including movies, be video based. |
The two biggest differences between HDvideo based material and 35MM film based material is :
1. Depth of field
2. modulation transfer function
'Small Time Crooks' has an almost infinite depth of field in most cases, just like HDCAM.
That leaves MTF.
I have seen 35MM films that look every bit as detailed as HDTV video based material like PBS shows.
However, I have not seen any film transfers that look near as sharp as 'Smart Traveler'.
Perhaps the reason is because of the accumulated loss of contrast through the various stages of production.
I would really like to know the reason.
Frank
Quote:
I think the processes are so inherently different they can't be compared to reduced to a few variables such as DOF or MTF. Images recorded on film are just different than images recorded electronically on video. Clumps of silver, etc create an image on film. Video is very different. They just can't be compared on the same level regardless of any resolution measurements.
Jerry
| Originally posted by Frank Why not compare them? The two biggest differences between HDvideo based material and 35MM film based material is : 1. Depth of field 2. modulation transfer function Frank |
Jerry
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
How do you explain the fact that HDvideo always looks so much more detailed then film transfers even though 35MM film is capable of so much more?
'Small Time Crooks' looks fantastic to me and yet the show I just saw about Denmark on PBS looks almost an order of magnitude sharper.
Frank
'Small Time Crooks' looks fantastic to me and yet the show I just saw about Denmark on PBS looks almost an order of magnitude sharper.
Frank
Quote:
I don't know what the theoretical 'resolution' of HD video is compared to 35mm film and I'm not even sure a true comparison can be made. We all accept that all things being equal, video always looks better than film. Is that because it's sharper or are their other reasons for this observation? I don't know the answer to that question. I just feel that they are such different media, that they can't really be compared. You can compare one video based production with another. You can compare on HD film transfer to another. But I can't accept a statement that says that an HD film transfer doesn't look as good as a video based production.
Jerry
| Originally posted by Frank How do you explain the fact that HDvideo always looks so much more detailed then film transfers even though 35MM film is capable of so much more? 'Small Time Crooks' looks fantastic to me and yet the show I just saw about Denmark on PBS looks almost an order of magnitude sharper. Frank |
Jerry
The "Film vs. Video" debate ranks right up there with "Tubes vs. Transistors."
First, a few comments -- Depth of field has to do with the optical system, NOT the recording medium, although image size does factor into the equation. Modulation Transfer Function is a good item to look at, but when you look at the total system you find that HD video is very similar in MTF to a 35mm film release print.
Unless you are deliberately setting up a controlled film vs. video test (as CBS, Sony, and others have over the years) you can't compares apples to apples. Film has a transfer function (not MTF) with a "knee" and a "toe" that compress the image at the light and dark extremes. Film cinematographers exploit this to give the project the "look" they want. Video cameras have circuits to simulate these effects, and some would argue that these are more effective because they can be manipulated in real time.
I think the biggest difference is in "apparent sharpness" which is heavily influenced by the contrast in the scene. Images that have more contrast will APPEAR to be sharper, regardless of the actual resolution of the image. Bright, contrasty images (such as many live events and "happy" TV shows) will often appear to be sharper than a darker "moody" film drama episode. And you must also factor in the film to video transfer, as most of us can't watch 35mm film at home.
Bottom line -- Yes, they are different, but "better" is in the eye of the beholder.
Disclaimer: Because I've seen so much video (HD and SD) I tend to prefer it to film, even though I know that film (in the camera) is capable of much higher resolution than we can see in HDTV. But there is a silver lining here -- perhaps in the future we will be able to use HDTV (as it improves) to allow us to actually deliver the resolution that exists in the camera negative to the home and theatre, but is lost in the production and exhibition process.
First, a few comments -- Depth of field has to do with the optical system, NOT the recording medium, although image size does factor into the equation. Modulation Transfer Function is a good item to look at, but when you look at the total system you find that HD video is very similar in MTF to a 35mm film release print.
Unless you are deliberately setting up a controlled film vs. video test (as CBS, Sony, and others have over the years) you can't compares apples to apples. Film has a transfer function (not MTF) with a "knee" and a "toe" that compress the image at the light and dark extremes. Film cinematographers exploit this to give the project the "look" they want. Video cameras have circuits to simulate these effects, and some would argue that these are more effective because they can be manipulated in real time.
I think the biggest difference is in "apparent sharpness" which is heavily influenced by the contrast in the scene. Images that have more contrast will APPEAR to be sharper, regardless of the actual resolution of the image. Bright, contrasty images (such as many live events and "happy" TV shows) will often appear to be sharper than a darker "moody" film drama episode. And you must also factor in the film to video transfer, as most of us can't watch 35mm film at home.
Bottom line -- Yes, they are different, but "better" is in the eye of the beholder.
Disclaimer: Because I've seen so much video (HD and SD) I tend to prefer it to film, even though I know that film (in the camera) is capable of much higher resolution than we can see in HDTV. But there is a silver lining here -- perhaps in the future we will be able to use HDTV (as it improves) to allow us to actually deliver the resolution that exists in the camera negative to the home and theatre, but is lost in the production and exhibition process.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
