HD_Test

Test test test?

Ever seen the film versus HD comparison test where the DP lights a set for a film contrast ratio then shoots with a film camera and a HD camera side by side?

Surprise surprise the HD camera has burnt out highlights!

Somebody should have shown these DPs how to light for ccd cameras before making jackasses of themselves in public... and for whose benefit?

Most are friendly folk willing to learn and explore but taking the advice of a friendly DP experienced in shooting video rather than a film manufacturer or telecine house is a less embarrassing option. It is the telecine house that takes the poorly lit HD images and tries to grade the image to look like film.

Never have I seen such washed out shadows and burnt out highlights on HD as in these comparison tests!

Slowly word spreads back that in some of the most well promoted tests that the DP wanted "to see how far HD would go in the highlights". So DPs with many years of film experience properly expose their film images and often using the HD camera for the first time plumb the width and depth of digital exposure, a dangerous occupation, even when you are familiar with the HD camera set-up.

The frames on these pages reveal a typical HD frame. Compare them with some of the laughable frame grabs on websites. Then for a glimpse of the not too distant future visit www.dpreview.com and see 4 k digital pictures.

Sure at the point of acquisition 35mm film is superior, but DPs will learn that the power of HD is unleashed in post from both the budget and creative perspectives. Bear in mind that there are many losses in getting film to the big screen, far less losses with HD.

There is more to the story than a highlight comparison test!

Panavision's side by side test shot by DP Alan Daviau is a better example of how controlling the the exposure and lighting can produce a result that even an audience of DPs find hard to distinguish between film and HD. And that was using the mark one Panavised f900.

The goal for the DP is to learn what HD is capable of and work within its limits, in the same way that DPs have worked for decades within the limits of film. The scope for the comparison spreads much wider than contrast ratio because many other factors that effect what is presented to the audience and these factors become relevant to the DP when he shoots digital.

Post houses with a vested interest in film, those with $1 million telecine suites for instance, will refer to HDCAM as highly compressed. It is. But no one is working to 4 or 5 generations on HDCAM.

Also they will say that two thirds of the colour information is "thrown away". What does this mean? That their are two thirds less colours? That the detail in colours is reduced? Far from it. Checkout this comparison between HDCAM and HDSDI and decide for yourself. As I've said before, try and spot the difference betwen a live HD picture and a replay from HDCAM. The comment that two thirds of the colour information are thrown away ignores the fact that compression throws away that which is needed the least.

Film manufacturers have zeroed in on the most obvious limitation of HD, its highlight handling characteristics. OK we get the message! and for the thousands of DPs who have been working on video for decades it is banging the drum (to the corporate tune) that is irksome.

It is not as thought those banging the drum have always used the finest quality film systems and promoted the use of highest quality distribution. Far from it. They have gone for the "good enough" approach despite the corporate advertising that promotes them as the keepers of the gate or only the best will do. Why aren't we watching 70mm in cinemas?

The digital target is moving with improvements in highlight handling coming from innovative advancements such as Fuji's new two pixels per photo site, one pixel is two stops less sensitive than the other, creating a increased contrast range. So the test of today is just that... the test for today.

With all the noise the digital developers may be setting their sights too low! Virtually unlimited contrast range will be with us within a decade. Yet the ASCs test to explore future digital cinema standards did not include images from any digital camera!

Lets hope that in 50 years the new industrial process will have retained the best of the process of making movies garnered in the previous 50. Hopefully new companies with new ideas that will serve the audience better than ever before.

(That's pretty easy to do when it comes to the second rate cinema experience most audiences endure)

Digital has taken off in still photography where the photographer is also the equivalent of producer and director. The still photographer can see all the benefits of shooting digital and profits from them both artistically and financially. Working around the pitfalls and making the most of the medium.

Perhaps this is a clue to where the roles of the digital DP and director may be headed?

Although digital is merely another tool to make the most of it requires a painterly approach to image making that is often better achieved away from the camera. This shouldn't be confused with taking care to get most out of the system during the shoot.