[Tig] RE: Is it just me?
Michael D. Most
Sun Oct 20 20:30:26 BST 2002
> Would you at least agree the HD format (being video) still lacks the
> hold detail in the whites...that is, shooting outdoors, for instance,
> an issue of contrast control more readily handled by negative film.
Of course I would. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they're equal by
any means. What I am saying is that under controlled conditions, properly
exposed and cared for, shot by someone willing to accept the limitations and
deal with them, HD can look very good - good enough to fool even the most
trained eye in some cases. Is it a better production tool? No, unless you're
Robert Rodriguez and value cost and convenience over pure image quality.
> Shooting a dramatic TV series with subdued, low-con lighting and nets on
> lens is becoming too common in HD circles. Give me a cleanly photographed,
> Super-16 negative "Homicied: Life on the Street" anyday over what is
> for some drama shows today.
"Homicide" never had to be delivered or broadcast in HD. If it had, the
limitations of its origination might have been more apparent. One of the
reasons for the rise in HD production is the now common requirement for HD
delivery. HD production directly yields an HD product which doesn't require
telecine transfer and never requires dirt cleanup, both significant costs
when shooting 16mm. And quite frankly, in almost every case that I've seen,
16mm just doesn't hold up in transfer to HD when compared to either 35 or HD
video. The grain just becomes too much of an issue, particularly when using
high speed film.
More information about the Tig