Film stock dynamic range

[alohype]

I was reading this:
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publ...ILM/ONFILM_Interview_John_Schwartzman_ASC.htm

"There’s not a digital camera in the world that can handle the difference between 20,000 footcandles in the highlights and six footcandles in the shadows, especially when you’re walking through a jungle."
John Schwartzman, ASC

So what is an actual dynamic range of film stock? Could someone elaborate on this?

 

[combatentropy]

So what is an actual dynamic range of film stock?

15 f-stops

20,000 footcandles in the highlights and six footcandles in the shadows

11⅔ f-stops

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Digital cameras have reached the lattitude of the most modern Kodak film stocks, which means exceeded pretty much all the film we grew up watching and take for IQ benchmark.

I personally believe 12-13 stops is maximum needed to get a genuine film look, and after that it looks digital, unnatural, to a way similar to HFR and 4K.

 

[Rainer]

There's probably more misinformation on the film vs video topic than any other. Which film stock? Which movie? How viewed? Dynamic range of film stock increased over the years. I doubt that 1970's Kodachrome 40 reversal when viewed had a DR of more than 8 stops, and some people still rave about that look. In my view the "film look" comes not from the capture medium but from the subliminal strobing resulting from the way 24 fps film is projected. Sure you can view projected anamorphic vs DCI and say the former has more of a film look, but it's no way a fair comparison. I understand Mr Schwatzman's nostalgia, after all, he's put a lifetime into shooting film. Not too many people are saying video has a better look than film, so if you personally think film looks better enough to justify the cost and the post futzing, you may as well shoot film.[h=1][/h]

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Yes people forget film had pretty average DR during it's life time, only reaching the 14-15 stops with modern Kodak stocks. The last time I shot film in 2003 the most modern stock wad 10-11 Stops at best, while video had 7-8 stops at that time.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

But of course film does have other quality aspects different than digital.

 

[maranfilms]

I think it's about the gradations that film captures that make it so beautiful, even film stock with less DR than video has such a smooth roll off that's appeasing to the eye. Only a high bit rate, codec, or raw acquisition can compare in terms of gradations and nice smooth highlight roll off. It's when we notice the inherent flaws of a sensor, codec, (clipping, artifacts, banding) where we begin to see the noticeable differences. Camera technology is the best it's ever been (digital) and only since the arrival of the Arri D-20, F-35, Alexa, Red, ETC... have we been able to have an equal playing field that's continually been improved upon, at least to where it's considered "as good", However there will always be those that will never feel a digital image will be as good as emulsion even if it technically is.