Contrast in Video v. Film

Michaelrosenblum

Michaelrosenblum

Well-known member
I have read that film is capable of recording 8 stops of contrast from black to white, while video can only record 3.5 stops, hence it has a much shallower range.

Is this true? Does it remain true in digital and HD?

thanks
 
Lensmith

Lensmith

Member
Michaelrosenblum said:
I have read that film is capable of recording 8 stops of contrast from black to white, while video can only record 3.5 stops, hence it has a much shallower range.

Is this true? Does it remain true in digital and HD?

thanks
Click to expand...
It depends on the camera.

If you have a RED camera...you're good to go.
http://www.red.com/cameras/

If you have lesser, you get lesser when it comes to contrast and range.
 
N

Nino

Well-known member
The 8 stops brightness range of film vs. the 3-4 stops of video were the numbers we used as reference back in he mid 80s when we started the transition from film to video. These numbers were also the reason why most mid-to higher end productions stayed with film for many years, video just did not have the latitude than film had.

With professional digital HD cameras these number can be manipulated to greatly extend the brightness range, very close to what film was. I haven’t worked with film or seen any of these comparison specs in 25 years, I imagine that film and processing has also greatly improved.

I can tell you for sure that with all the menus adjustments at our disposal today, the obtainable brightness range on my HDX900 is far superior of what it was on my BVW600 BetacamSP.

This is why we’ve been telling for years that there’s an enormous difference between professional and prosumer equipment. Those who say there’s no visible difference have no clue about equipment, luckily clients know.

I get cold sweat when for whatever reason I have to use my Sony Z1U outdoor. I imagine most prosumer cameras are the same or probably worst. I wont even mention consumer cameras. The brightness range on these cameras really sucks no matter how fine tuning I try to do with the limited menu adjustment. In an attempt to alleviate this problem I have bought a set of 4x4 Tiffen low contras filters in several grades. I always use them mostly outdoor where I have no control on the brightness range as I would indoor with lighting. Please keep in mind that here in Florida and across the Caribbean the Sun/contrast factor is considerably higher, except maybe trying to take good video in early spring on the Colorado Rockies.

What these filters do they raise the values of the blacks, I then stop down the lens to bring down the blacks to where visually they should be but by doing so I also reduce the brightest areas of the image thus effectively reducing the contrast range.

To really fine tune all these adjustment a good monitor and preferably also a good waveform monitor will go a long way.
 
SimonW

SimonW

Well-known member
The best Alan Roberts usually manages with cameras such as the Varicam and the F900R is around 11.5 stops, scientifically measured for BBC applications.

Alan also wrote an in depth white paper when he worked for the BBC analysing the precise differences between HD video cameras and film. The reason that programmes such as Planet Earth look so good is all thanks to Alan.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP034.pdf
 
H

Hiding Under Here

Well-known member
Tippster I have to ask. How is the Format Wars article "dated"? Just curious.

From my perspective although the article was written in 2001 and updated in 2002, the essential information is still technically correct and relevant.
 
D

Douglas

Well-known member
Hiding Under Here said:
Tippster I have to ask. How is the Format Wars article "dated"? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Here's a few things I think are dated, but don't take this as a criticism of the article. I think overall it is still relevant and worth reading.


"A lot of the potential HD image quality is lost by reducing the data rate, and also by using various lossy compression schemes, to reduce the size of the overall data stream sufficiently so it can fit onto ordinary video tape. The video tape itself seems to be the weakest link in the chain with current HD technologies, as it tends to limit the potential quality of the overall system."

-- Most HD these days does not involve tape at all, and the compression ratio and codecs are much improved from 2002. 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 with extremely efficient codecs are here to stay.


Film has more image forming elements (grain) compared to current HD images (...now around 2 million pixels or picture elements).

--- Ever hear of 4K? I would argue 4K at 4:4:4 is better than film.


Instead of using a Super 16mm-size CCD like in the current Sony HDCAM cameras, use a CCD closer to the size, or the same size as, a 35mm frame . . . already, the German Arriflex company is experimenting with making a fully digital camera with a 35mm-sized CCD.

--- Already done: There's the F35, RED, Arri, 5D, and others on the way.
 
Tippster

Tippster

The Fly on the Wall
What Doug said. There are also umbilicals and super drives (Viper Cam, eg) to capture 4:4:4 in real time. Solid State Memory cards have fast enough read/write speeds to handle what the article said still "needs" to happen, and with 128GB cards coming out (and bigger - 2TB SDXC cards are coming soon and if they can be arrayed as "normal" SD cards currently are in P2 cards then capacity could go up to 32TB per P2 card, with write speed only limited by bus speed. Think about that.
 
Last edited:
H

Hiding Under Here

Well-known member
All valid points. On the whole though, in terms of addressing video versus film on a gross level (because not a lot of people will be shooting with Red cameras and Mike R. was asking a general knowledge question), the article does a good job. Again, it was written in 2001.

But thank you both for your responses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top