How does Hi-Def differ (or compare) to digital?
- Thread starter Lazlo
- Start date
D
desktopmunchies
Guest
Every type of format has an ammount of pixels in its image, the more pixels the more detail in the image. Between hi-def, digital, and film, digital has the least pixels, film is in the middle, and hi-def has the most pixels. This does not neccesarily mean its better, it just means hi-def has a sharper image, and this can be good or bad depending on the persons point of view.
D
DerekEastham
Guest
Hi-Def v Film
Hi-Def v Film
Ok... to begin with.
1) Digital is not a format all it's own.
- Mini-DV, Digital 8, HDV, and even HD are ditital formats.
2) To correct your previous reply, Film does not have pixels.
Film is a celluloid medium, and currently is the highest grade
medium to capture images on.
3) High Definitioin is quickly catching up to film in resolution quality,
yet it still has a few pixels to go before it can capture images at
a quality equal to that of film.
Hi-Def v Film
Ok... to begin with.
1) Digital is not a format all it's own.
- Mini-DV, Digital 8, HDV, and even HD are ditital formats.
2) To correct your previous reply, Film does not have pixels.
Film is a celluloid medium, and currently is the highest grade
medium to capture images on.
3) High Definitioin is quickly catching up to film in resolution quality,
yet it still has a few pixels to go before it can capture images at
a quality equal to that of film.
D
Digigenic
Guest
Well, How do you like these pixels...?
8)
"A cinematographer is shooting film at 24 frames per second. A videographer is shooting 24p electronically. Which is shooting digitally?
In digital video, a frame is divided into a grid of scanning lines and picture elements (pixels). So is an imaging chip. Film, on the other hand, has a random pattern of photosensitive grain.
Digital, however, means numerical, reduced in its most basic form to just two digits: one and zero, on or off. The sensor sites on an imaging chip are analog. Increase the light by any amount (below the limit of the chip), and the analog signal leaving will increase appropriately. There is not yet such a thing as an all-digital video camera.
Film grains, on the other hand, are purely digital. They are either exposed or not. Shades of gray are achieved by using differing sizes of grain, requiring differing amounts of light to achieve the exposure threshold.
'Film or digital?' That makes no sense. Film is digital."
:arrow: Quoted from a previous post placed by Digigenic within the Digital Cinematography Forum entitled: "Interesting Point", siting the source from Videography Magazine, IN THE APRIL 04 ISSUE ON PAGE 28, ENTITLED "THE ONLY DIGITAL CAMCORDERS"
8)
"A cinematographer is shooting film at 24 frames per second. A videographer is shooting 24p electronically. Which is shooting digitally?
In digital video, a frame is divided into a grid of scanning lines and picture elements (pixels). So is an imaging chip. Film, on the other hand, has a random pattern of photosensitive grain.
Digital, however, means numerical, reduced in its most basic form to just two digits: one and zero, on or off. The sensor sites on an imaging chip are analog. Increase the light by any amount (below the limit of the chip), and the analog signal leaving will increase appropriately. There is not yet such a thing as an all-digital video camera.
Film grains, on the other hand, are purely digital. They are either exposed or not. Shades of gray are achieved by using differing sizes of grain, requiring differing amounts of light to achieve the exposure threshold.
'Film or digital?' That makes no sense. Film is digital."
:arrow: Quoted from a previous post placed by Digigenic within the Digital Cinematography Forum entitled: "Interesting Point", siting the source from Videography Magazine, IN THE APRIL 04 ISSUE ON PAGE 28, ENTITLED "THE ONLY DIGITAL CAMCORDERS"
D
DerekEastham
Guest
Digi... good information,
however, I believe the article was only attempting to explain the similarities to the processes behind film and digital mediums.
However,
A digital medium is one that records 1's and 0's. Your digital camcorder is digital because it writes 1010111000, and then reinterprets those numbers into images.
Although film operates in the same basic way that digital does... on or off... film is still a celluloid analog exposure system. It does not record the on or off information in 1's or 0's, but it records instead a visual imprint on the celluloid medium an exact replication of what it sees. Just like a still film camera.
So, although a comparison exists... film is still not digital. That's all I was attempting to explain here.
however, I believe the article was only attempting to explain the similarities to the processes behind film and digital mediums.
However,
A digital medium is one that records 1's and 0's. Your digital camcorder is digital because it writes 1010111000, and then reinterprets those numbers into images.
Although film operates in the same basic way that digital does... on or off... film is still a celluloid analog exposure system. It does not record the on or off information in 1's or 0's, but it records instead a visual imprint on the celluloid medium an exact replication of what it sees. Just like a still film camera.
So, although a comparison exists... film is still not digital. That's all I was attempting to explain here.
I think it's the reproduction technology that counts. Digital video can be reproduced digitally for a perfect copy, whereas even though film may be a 'digital' medium, you can't then extract and reproduce that digital information... copies are made in an analogue manner, and you lose quality evey generation.
B
BenB
Guest
MarkG said:
You actually lose generational quality with digital. Every time a video file is opened, it must be un-compressed by the NLE to be useable. Once edited, it is re-compressed. Remember, every time it is compressed, more data is thown away. Open, alter, and close the same digital video file too many times and it'll show generational age. Photoshop gurus have been working with this issue with still formats like JPEG and TIFF for years.
No it's not, unless you change the video in some way, or it uses inter-frame compression. DV editing using straight cuts will simply copy the digital data from the original file into the new file.
Note the 'alter'. Most editing requires at most one stage of 'altering' the file (e.g. color correction, adding titles, etc), so the generation loss is small. If you just cut the movie and output back to tape without altering the video, then the generation loss is minute (due to tape dropouts and Firewire dropouts).
B
BenB
Guest
MarkG, I actually technically and factually correct. But you're intitled to your opinion.
No you're not.
You're perfectly correct that if you open a JPEG file in Photoshop, edit it and save it back to a JPEG file you'll lose quality. But you're 100% wrong in claiming that if you do a cuts-only edit of DV footage that the editing program will recompress the footage that hasn't changed.
B
BenB
Guest
That's your opinion, and I appreciate it. But, aside from being a retired IT Engineer, I've also been part of tests that show compression is compression, be it still, video, or otherwise, it all works the same. I won't get into a pissing match over opinions, I only state what I know to be technical fact. But then, you're probably right.
I'm sorry, but many of us here have been editing DV for years, so I'm afraid that claiming that cuts-only editing of DV footage causes any degradation other than due to dropouts on the tape and Firewire will just make you look silly. This is a simple fact, I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend it's an opinion.
HDV, yes, it's MPEG-2 so there's little alternative to recompressing if you're mad enough to output the edited footage back to HDV tape. But DV compresses each frame individually, so there's no point in recompressing to output back to tape unless you've altered the footage by color correction and the like. That was one of the biggest selling points of the format in the first place.
HDV, yes, it's MPEG-2 so there's little alternative to recompressing if you're mad enough to output the edited footage back to HDV tape. But DV compresses each frame individually, so there's no point in recompressing to output back to tape unless you've altered the footage by color correction and the like. That was one of the biggest selling points of the format in the first place.
S
SALLYNABIL
Guest
i'd just like to note that usually digital cameras work by 25 fps whereas film shoot by 24 fps. yet hd cameras now has added this film characteristic to the digital medium so images are captured on the digital chip by 24 fps
S
SALLYNABIL
Guest
i'd really like to know if there are lenses for the digital and others for the film cameras? for example, is there a 35 mm lense for film and other 35 for digital ?
David Mullen ASC
Active member
You have to be more specific. There are lenses that cover different target areas like 35mm or Super-16, although a lens that covers the 35mm frame would therefore also cover the Super-16 frame.
However, since the average focal length is longer in 35mm to obtain the same field of view, there are now some lenses in the modern line-up of Cooke S4's and Zeiss Ultra and Master Primes -- used on both 35mm and Super-16 cameras -- that are shorter in focal length made specifically for Super-16 cameras to get you wide-angles that don't cover the 35mm frame.
The digital cine cameras with single sensors the size of a 35mm negative or Super-16 can use lenses made for 35mm or Super-16 shooting, and often have the same lens mounts (PL-mounts.)
Lenses made for 2/3" 3-CCD video cameras with prism blocks are designed a little differently, so it's hard to use them directly on a film camera or a single-sensor digital camera without adaptors and whatnot, plus a lens that is designed to only cover a 2/3" CCD would vignette on a 35mm-sized sensor or film frame. 3-CCD cameras use a prism block, so the lens has to be designed for the red, green, and blue wavelengths to focus on three different CCD's rather than one film plane or sensor. Plus a lens built for a prism-block camera has a different flange depth than one designed for a spinning mirror reflex camera.
However, since the average focal length is longer in 35mm to obtain the same field of view, there are now some lenses in the modern line-up of Cooke S4's and Zeiss Ultra and Master Primes -- used on both 35mm and Super-16 cameras -- that are shorter in focal length made specifically for Super-16 cameras to get you wide-angles that don't cover the 35mm frame.
The digital cine cameras with single sensors the size of a 35mm negative or Super-16 can use lenses made for 35mm or Super-16 shooting, and often have the same lens mounts (PL-mounts.)
Lenses made for 2/3" 3-CCD video cameras with prism blocks are designed a little differently, so it's hard to use them directly on a film camera or a single-sensor digital camera without adaptors and whatnot, plus a lens that is designed to only cover a 2/3" CCD would vignette on a 35mm-sized sensor or film frame. 3-CCD cameras use a prism block, so the lens has to be designed for the red, green, and blue wavelengths to focus on three different CCD's rather than one film plane or sensor. Plus a lens built for a prism-block camera has a different flange depth than one designed for a spinning mirror reflex camera.
Adam Rench
New member
okay - I'm not a really technical person but as far as the difference between film and video is that film is well... film - just like you put into a 35mm still picture camera. Digital records through a lens, just like a film camera, but it gets recorded onto a chip (or sometimes multiple chips).
Now HD - it's digital just like SD (the resolution that we knew as TV before HD came around) except that it's got a bigger resolution. It just looks WAY better than SD. But, even though we shoot on film, what do we watch our footage on? I tell you what I LOVE to watch my movies on... an HDTV!! HD is a format. Film is a format. Film can be played on an HD format TV. While a camera can shoot in film format but a different camera can shoot in HD format.
Now film if I heard this correctly, if scanned gets to something like a 4k resolution. I'm probably off here but I think it's around there.
HD is about 1k. So yeah film is still the big guy on campus. However there is one camera that I know of called "Red" that is digital and can capture 4k resolution. Check out a clip of it's footage here.
There are a few great cameras on the market that are affordable to purchase if you can scrape up enough $$ for that are HD.
I'm currently battling through the decision to purchase one of these two cameras - the Panasonic HVX200 and the JVC HD110U. Both are HD. the JVC has slightly higher true resolution than the HVX200 but the HVX200 can, like a film motor can, shoot at variable frame rates. That's a great plus.
Okay - enough about the cameras. There was also mention of lenses. Yes, you can use a 35mm lens on almost every "prosumer" and "professional" HD camera out there. You can't just pop them on though. You have to use an adapter. For example. For the two cameras that I'm looking at purchasing, I can use one of a few different kinds of adapters, one being the M2. Click here to see some neat footage samples shot by different cameras using still camera lenses.
I am definately getting the M2 for whichever camera I do choose to get.
Now, let's go back to the Red camera. This camera can use PL mount lenses without an adapter. This camera also costs 17k just for the body whereas the other cameras that I'm mentioning cost something in the range of 4.5k to 5.5k. As you can see though from the sample footage from both that they all look really good.
So, yeah film is still the way to go if you want the really REALLY great quality however you can totally get away with shooting digital. Most of the time when someone watches a movie shot on digital they don't even know what that means and actually don't think about it. When you get someone that actually knows the difference, if the story is a good one, about 3 minutes into the movie, they forget that they are watching a digital picture.
Well, that was long winded. Oh well, it was fun to type.
Let's just say this. If I had 100k to spend on a camera. I could easily pick up a used 16mm or 35mm camera and shoot beautiful movies. However that 100k would soon dwindle away to heavy cans of film. On the other hand, with my 100k I could spend 50k on a full 'Red' camera packge - prime lens set and all and never have to purchase any thing else for it again (unless I wanted more addons to it) because there's no need to use film. Plus, this thing shoots 4k resolution which is either meeting or creeping up to the resolution of digitized film.
Cheers
Now HD - it's digital just like SD (the resolution that we knew as TV before HD came around) except that it's got a bigger resolution. It just looks WAY better than SD. But, even though we shoot on film, what do we watch our footage on? I tell you what I LOVE to watch my movies on... an HDTV!! HD is a format. Film is a format. Film can be played on an HD format TV. While a camera can shoot in film format but a different camera can shoot in HD format.
Now film if I heard this correctly, if scanned gets to something like a 4k resolution. I'm probably off here but I think it's around there.
HD is about 1k. So yeah film is still the big guy on campus. However there is one camera that I know of called "Red" that is digital and can capture 4k resolution. Check out a clip of it's footage here.
There are a few great cameras on the market that are affordable to purchase if you can scrape up enough $$ for that are HD.
I'm currently battling through the decision to purchase one of these two cameras - the Panasonic HVX200 and the JVC HD110U. Both are HD. the JVC has slightly higher true resolution than the HVX200 but the HVX200 can, like a film motor can, shoot at variable frame rates. That's a great plus.
Okay - enough about the cameras. There was also mention of lenses. Yes, you can use a 35mm lens on almost every "prosumer" and "professional" HD camera out there. You can't just pop them on though. You have to use an adapter. For example. For the two cameras that I'm looking at purchasing, I can use one of a few different kinds of adapters, one being the M2. Click here to see some neat footage samples shot by different cameras using still camera lenses.
I am definately getting the M2 for whichever camera I do choose to get.
Now, let's go back to the Red camera. This camera can use PL mount lenses without an adapter. This camera also costs 17k just for the body whereas the other cameras that I'm mentioning cost something in the range of 4.5k to 5.5k. As you can see though from the sample footage from both that they all look really good.
So, yeah film is still the way to go if you want the really REALLY great quality however you can totally get away with shooting digital. Most of the time when someone watches a movie shot on digital they don't even know what that means and actually don't think about it. When you get someone that actually knows the difference, if the story is a good one, about 3 minutes into the movie, they forget that they are watching a digital picture.
Well, that was long winded. Oh well, it was fun to type.
Let's just say this. If I had 100k to spend on a camera. I could easily pick up a used 16mm or 35mm camera and shoot beautiful movies. However that 100k would soon dwindle away to heavy cans of film. On the other hand, with my 100k I could spend 50k on a full 'Red' camera packge - prime lens set and all and never have to purchase any thing else for it again (unless I wanted more addons to it) because there's no need to use film. Plus, this thing shoots 4k resolution which is either meeting or creeping up to the resolution of digitized film.
Cheers
Similar threads
Network Sponsors
