Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Scarlet 2/3 (Digital to 35mm Transfer Quality)

For Beginners, the new NIKON's d3100 dslr out there for very-low-budget filmmaking. Lack of detailed manual control but its OK for beginners also for under controlled cine style filmmaking.
 
Wesley Scoggins said:
28 Days Later still looks great to me, and it was shot mostly with an SD camera. ...
Click to expand...

I never understood all the love for "28 Days Later." I thought it looked absolutely horrible. Did not realize it was shot on DV and assumed there was a problem with the print. Really, one of the worst looking films I've ever seen, from an image quality point of view.

... Anyway, no offense Wesley.


As for other cams, I think the new Nikon D7000 could be a good choice. Canon's XH's use pixel shifting and 1440 (not 1920) sensors, but they do look good and have higher resolution than an HVX, so they are a decent choice. The interlaced sensors may be an issue as well, but these cams do take very nice pictures. The EX1 is a step up from the XH's. The new Canon XF's are very very nice, but pricy @~ $7K for a 1/3rd" camera.

If you give the chip enough light and don't bowout too much of the highlights, any of these cameras can take very nice pictures. Good enough for a filmout, I really can't answer that.
 
Pankaj said:
As You ask about GH1, it's sensor size is very small and here the final result will be going to display through a 35mm film projector, so the cinema scope size of 35mm motion film projection is 22mX9MM as more wide in now days and the standard size is 22mmX12MM. about the 24p and 25p of canon 5d its released in sep 2010.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the above - a lot of blockbuster movies have been shot with 2/3" sensors, which are much smaller than the GH1 sensor.

...this said, there are other reasons why GH1 isn't necessarily too good a choice for a feature film.
 
Peter Moretti said:
I never understood all the love for "28 Days Later." I thought it looked absolutely horrible. Did not realize it was shot on DV and assumed there was a problem with the print. Really, one of the worst looking films I've ever seen, from an image quality point of view.

... Anyway, no offense Wesley.


As for other cams, I think the new Nikon D7000 could be a good choice. Canon's XH's use pixel shifting and 1440 (not 1920) sensors, but they do look good and have higher resolution than an HVX, so they are a decent choice. The interlaced sensors may be an issue as well, but these cams do take very nice pictures. The EX1 is a step up from the XH's. The new Canon XF's are very very nice, but pricy @~ $7K for a 1/3rd" camera.

If you give the chip enough light and don't bowout too much of the highlights, any of these cameras can take very nice pictures. Good enough for a filmout, I really can't answer that.
Click to expand...

Canon's new XF series are full 1920 x 1080p and produce very lovely images for a 1/3" video camera.
 
Yes, very true plus they use a 50 Mbps Long-GOP codec that you can open and edit natively in Avid, FCP, etc.. I think the XF's might be the nicest 1/3" cameras made today, and if given enough light, seem to outperform Sony's EX's (with Sony still having the edge in DoF control b/c they use 1/2" chips).

The XF's have also been approved by the BBC for broadcast use. Which has never happened before w/ a camera that cheap. But they are really more geared to ENG and sports b/c of the small chip size.
 
As a point of reference, Gareth Edwards shot Monsters on Sony EX3 and Panasonic P2 using the Letus 35mm lens adaptor. This was blown up to35mm for theatrical release.

I saw it only on HD but it looked pretty good.
 
Pankaj said:
As You ask about GH1, it's sensor size is very small and here the final result will be going to display through a 35mm film projector, so the cinema scope size of 35mm motion film projection is 22mX9MM as more wide in now days and the standard size is 22mmX12MM. about the 24p and 25p of canon 5d its released in sep 2010.
Click to expand...

I think you are mixing up sensor size and resolution...

The only thing inherently determined by sensor size is depth-of-field. For digital recording, resolution is determined by the number of pixels a sensor has as well as other factors like OLPF and demosaic. The 5D resolves only about 1.2K, whereas the Scarlet will probably resolve around 2.4K. 35mm film is resolves somewhere between 3K and 4K I think.
 
Peter Moretti said:
I never understood all the love for "28 Days Later." I thought it looked absolutely horrible. Did not realize it was shot on DV and assumed there was a problem with the print. Really, one of the worst looking films I've ever seen, from an image quality point of view.

.
Click to expand...

I think that's a valid perception of the movie, but it's entirely subjective. I liked the look of 28 days a lot. I think the gritty look works with the gritty subject matter.

I liked that look better than the look of Public Enemies, which was just a bit to clean and crisp for the subject matter, IMO.

I think Black Swan, shot on S16mm and DSLRs, was an artistic choice. I can't imagine that the difference between shooting on a Red or Film would have made a huge difference to the budget of that film percentage wise.

I don't want everything to look like 28 days. I think the clean crisp look of Inception worked great for that movie. They shot a lot of it on 65mm film.

I also really liked the look of District 9, shot on a Red.

So, just depends, but I did like the look of 28 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top