HD Camera/Resolution Question

[delux247]

Ok, so I apologize if this has already been answered, but I'm at work on some anicent computer that freezes up when I try to use the search function.

Basically, I'm wondering what the deal is with cameras and their resolution. I've seen posts asking about the quality of older movies and responses that state that it just has to be remastered, because when a movie is filmed, even with the older cameras, it's above HD resolution already. However, if that's true, then how come everyone makes a big deal whenever a show is filmed with "HD cameras" (i.e. Planet Earth documentary). Thanks for any insights, this forum has been nothing but incredibly helpful so far.

[theknub]

the main thing is that HD cameras have no grain. you tend to have a very high quality picture with extraordinary detail at close to medium range. longer distances may leave something to be desired, but since there is so much detail up close, you tend to not notice. another downside, IMO, is that night scenes tend to be filled with artifacts. see miami vice in night scenes (that's at least where i noticed it). it looks like grain (to me when i saw it in the theater), but my understanding is that it is artifacting present in the film itself.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

I believe another benefit to shooting with HD cameras is the speed in which titles can be released to the home video market. I think it allows one to skip steps in the process of converting film to digital information. It also eliminates the studios issues with the proper storage of film to prevent decay. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

I believe another benefit to shooting with HD cameras is the speed in which titles can be released to the home video market. I think it allows one to skip steps in the process of converting film to digital information. It also eliminates the studios issues with the proper storage of film to prevent decay. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Not really. If your film has any sort of CGI, it'll have to be added in.

The real value in shooting in HD is reduced cost. Tapes are cheaper than film stock. Some systems don't even use tapes but hard drives.

The other value is you can view the dailies right after the take off the tape/HDD. Instead of waiting for precious time to see if the focus is correct, you get to see it right there on your on-the-set plasma/LCD display.

If the movie is meant for direct-to-BD/DVD market and has minimal CGI, then that does expedient things some.

As far as archival work is concerned, it is easier to store. You just can make multiple copies of the uncompressed movie on tape/HDD and store them in various vaults you have.


fuad

[Greenmatiz2]

Planet Earth shifts between film footage and HD camera footage constantly. The film footage is softer, and will show grain. The HD footage suffers in situations as mentioned above. It also seems to have more issues when compressed (more blocking, etc) although I can't claim that is 100% true.

I prefer the HD video footage. It's just gorgeous -- especially on PE.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by delux247

I'm wondering what the deal is with cameras and their resolution. I've seen posts asking about the quality of older movies and responses that state that it just has to be remastered, because when a movie is filmed, even with the older cameras, it's above HD resolution already. However, if that's true, then how come everyone makes a big deal whenever a show is filmed with "HD cameras" (i.e. Planet Earth documentary). Thanks for any insights, this forum has been nothing but incredibly helpful so far.

The big deal is that HD cameras record digitally while film is analog (If you know something about audiophilia, you might begin to see the parallel) so recording images has the digital advantages while filming has the analog disadvantages. And the oppossite is true, recording has the finite digital limitations, and filming has the the potential of analog's "infinite" qualities. They are different ways (or approaches) of recording and processing information (in this case a reproduction of an image). Before "HD cameras" you recorded images in low quality Standard Definition cameras. Or you used film, which in 35mm or 70mm tends to be highest quality but expensive to get optimum results. Film is an mechanical/optical/chemical analog process, can't be reused, and when copied, the analog copy is not as good as the original, so the original (the film negative) has to have a very high quality, the highest you can get, to ensure the end result still looks great. Digital recording tries to use a limited amount of data but chosen at an amount deemed to be enough for it's purpose (example: if you display data as 1080p you only need to do a pefect 1080 capture, or record and transmit at a 1080p level, no more) so there's no waste and since it's data it can be transmited copied and manipulated easier. The "problem" with digital since it has a limit, is to make sure your chosen "limit" is enough for your end purpose, as it's mantained till the end result. The problem with analog, is to make sure you start with enough quality so when it degrades (for example when making prints), you end with enough for the end result. As digital technology advances, it's finite "limit" ("resolution", pixels, bitdepth, etc) has advanced to the point the end result rivals the analog (35mm filming) proccess' end results, which may be a 35mm print projected on a theater compared to a 1080p display at home.