Film vs HD
- Thread starter Evocam
- Start date
Knoxworth
Well-known member
HD still has some way to go before film gets "phased out." If that ever happens. There are still a lot of issues with data loss, artifacts and image quality where film could be seen as the stronger media.
But I think that HD has much more room to grow that its anyone's guess how long before its better looking and more advantageous to shoot HD.
I think being a "film purist" just for the sake of nostalgia is a mistake.
But I think that HD has much more room to grow that its anyone's guess how long before its better looking and more advantageous to shoot HD.
I think being a "film purist" just for the sake of nostalgia is a mistake.
Speaking in massive generalities, who wouldn't argue that 35mm film is far superior to HD, simply because of information latitude. 4K approaches film and to the untrained eye it looks as good but still falls short.
Here is an interesting test which compared film with the high end 4K cams...
http://www.arri.com/news/newsletter/articles/267485/d-20_masterclass.htm
Too bad they didn't make more results available on the web.
td
Here is an interesting test which compared film with the high end 4K cams...
http://www.arri.com/news/newsletter/articles/267485/d-20_masterclass.htm
Too bad they didn't make more results available on the web.
td
Knoxworth said:
I know a lot of people who are fairly film/video savvy who didn't know Superman Returns was shot on the Genesis until I told them.
I think film is a great medium, but if I had a choice between 4k and film, I would definitely go with 4k.
And no, film is not the original HD. Film is film.
Shooting on film, for the REALLY professional DoP, gives them an unbelieveable amount of controll. What you see on screen is EXACTLY what the Dp wants. first they choose the stock depending on what they want to do with it in post, then they choose the lenses for their charachteristics, Then they see if they want to preflash the film to bring up the darks: SHOOT (and all that goes with it, lighting gels, filters etc): then in processing they have the options to push, pull, flash, Bleach bypass, etc.... THEN theres the DI process where the final color grading is done, Compositing, and in the final theatrical realease theres the option for changing things agin, in the Optical print back to Film.
All in all, theres alot you can do with the organic structure of film that you CANNOT do in a DI alone.
Film aint going ANYWHERE. its here to stay because its so beautiful.
That being said, i love my HD camera, but i shoot my HD camera as a HD camera w/ 35 adapter. i mnot trying to fool anyone into thinking i shoot on film.
All in all, theres alot you can do with the organic structure of film that you CANNOT do in a DI alone.
Film aint going ANYWHERE. its here to stay because its so beautiful.
That being said, i love my HD camera, but i shoot my HD camera as a HD camera w/ 35 adapter. i mnot trying to fool anyone into thinking i shoot on film.
S._Gregory_Cooke
Member
I think that Getkin has a great point here; I think that the HVXs (as well as the A-1/ G-1 with just a few HDV considerations) can hold their own with Super 16mm film. Not saying better, but hold their own in many ways! No matter how you cut it, these HD cams have begun to level the playing field quite a bit and lowered the price of admission for those of us wanting 'That Look' from our projects. In this, I feel that we all have a great situation that's only going to get better.
getken said:
Let me clarify... "could" tell the difference, not "would" There are a couple things to look for that anyone could spot. Also, if we are talking on 32" home TVs, that is a world of difference. When projected, Super16mm sticks out pretty easy over 1/3" CCD stuff. My point that I harp on... is that if their is a budget for a film out, then use a better camera unless you specifically WANT the 1/3" CCD look.
ash =o)
getken
Well-known member
I agree with you. I love working with film, but my clients don't want to shoot it anymore. I have 16mm film stock wasting away in my refrigerator in the basement. The thing is, they have the budget for it, but they want to see results immediately, and they get that by going in the tent. So I suggest film and they say no...it's going on TV anyway. I honestly think the HVX with a 35mm adapter looks great...but if I have the opportunity to use a Varicam, I will. And I'm not trying to fool anyone with the HVX. I'm saying you could because it would be easy enough to add to the already filmic look in post. I'd be wary of a filmout though. I don't think it will blow up too cleanly. The good thing is my former film client went to NAB with me and is totally sold on the RED system, which I have a reservation for. Film is great, but it is becoming a digital world.AshG said:
well you see its this smaller budget market where the RED will make the most waves.
It wont dent the Motion picture business to much.
It wont dent the Motion picture business to much.
S._Gregory_Cooke
Member
Red will Probably change the film industry
Red will Probably change the film industry
:thumbup: Whoa! Man, I'm thinking Just The Opposite!!! I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd bet the farm on this one!!! Don't think for a minute that folks like Peter Jackson (Lord Of The Rings, King Kong, AND the Red Video shown at NAB), George Lucas, Robert Rodreguez, or any of the technically savvy producers, and directors that see the advantages of shooting Red over film aren't going to give this cam SERIOUS CONCIDERATIONS. I think that Red is going to have a huge impact on the film industry. It wasn't a coincidence that so many people at NAB were around the Red display. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/smilies/thumbup.gif
Red will Probably change the film industry
TimurCivan said:
:thumbup: Whoa! Man, I'm thinking Just The Opposite!!! I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd bet the farm on this one!!! Don't think for a minute that folks like Peter Jackson (Lord Of The Rings, King Kong, AND the Red Video shown at NAB), George Lucas, Robert Rodreguez, or any of the technically savvy producers, and directors that see the advantages of shooting Red over film aren't going to give this cam SERIOUS CONCIDERATIONS. I think that Red is going to have a huge impact on the film industry. It wasn't a coincidence that so many people at NAB were around the Red display. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/smilies/thumbup.gif
Until the workflow holes are filled the technology guys at the studios won't be sticking their neck out by suggesting these brand new technologies. Nothing plays back a 4k (4000 line) file real time today. 2k with no effect in the Avid world requires a Nitrus. You're talkin Terrabytes per scene.
Those with the least to loose will jump on board first (small Idie's) - at least, that's how it usually works.
Those with the least to loose will jump on board first (small Idie's) - at least, that's how it usually works.
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
I like the thoughts I am reading from people in this thread. Usually on these types of forums its a lot of people with little to no knowledge of celluloid making comments and criticisms with no foundation.
Anyway, lets all remember that these are all tools. The tool that is best suited to the job (to tell a particular story) is the tool that should be chosen.
Now, because there are several tools to choose from with more on the way. Many people have choices. But, they always have even with film (Anamorphic, Super 35, Flat.)
I have just come off a feature for Sony and we shot Super35. The last movie the production company shot (which is coming out in theaters in Aug) had a lot of the same crew, and was shot on the Genisis. Different DP's, different choices, and different tools.
And cookester...I do not think RED will make a giant impact in the film industry. You would most likely lose your farm. The three directors you named are the three directors in the industry who can pretty much do whatever they want without fearing cost. Jackson loves celluloid. Rodriguez has personally bought into Sony HD Cam and shoots with the Genesis now (Planet Terror.) And Lucas....he'll do whatever he wants...and even he couldn't convince he producing pal Spielberg to not shoot film for the 4th Indy flick (Anamorphic just like the prior 3.)
Its an interesting time technology wise...but in the end they are all just tools.
Anyway, lets all remember that these are all tools. The tool that is best suited to the job (to tell a particular story) is the tool that should be chosen.
Now, because there are several tools to choose from with more on the way. Many people have choices. But, they always have even with film (Anamorphic, Super 35, Flat.)
I have just come off a feature for Sony and we shot Super35. The last movie the production company shot (which is coming out in theaters in Aug) had a lot of the same crew, and was shot on the Genisis. Different DP's, different choices, and different tools.
And cookester...I do not think RED will make a giant impact in the film industry. You would most likely lose your farm. The three directors you named are the three directors in the industry who can pretty much do whatever they want without fearing cost. Jackson loves celluloid. Rodriguez has personally bought into Sony HD Cam and shoots with the Genesis now (Planet Terror.) And Lucas....he'll do whatever he wants...and even he couldn't convince he producing pal Spielberg to not shoot film for the 4th Indy flick (Anamorphic just like the prior 3.)
Its an interesting time technology wise...but in the end they are all just tools.
ksteiger
Well-known member
This whole agrument reminds me of the old Anaolg Vs Digital discussion in audio. People get so used to the characteristics of the medium itself that they tend to lose track of the original goal of acurate reproduction. Miles Davis recordings from the 50s still sound great because of great technique. But I can do without the tape hiss and speed problems no matter how "charming" it may seem in 2007.
As digital aquisition improves the line will become increasingly obscured. Are people biased against an image that doesn't have enough "noise or "grain" because they are not used to it? All I know is that the images from the Red vs. 35 mm have been pretty damn impressive.
Like amp modeling in audio we will shoot in digi then apply film stock and lens plug in filters in post...
...when we are shooting in 2117 on the Panasonic HEX 8000 that shoots raw 8K images to the 4 terrabyte P2 cards in the DVCPRO EXHD codec.
Some may miss film when it goes....I sure don't miss 2" reels of tape...Try and buy some. Onward and upward!
As digital aquisition improves the line will become increasingly obscured. Are people biased against an image that doesn't have enough "noise or "grain" because they are not used to it? All I know is that the images from the Red vs. 35 mm have been pretty damn impressive.
Like amp modeling in audio we will shoot in digi then apply film stock and lens plug in filters in post...
...when we are shooting in 2117 on the Panasonic HEX 8000 that shoots raw 8K images to the 4 terrabyte P2 cards in the DVCPRO EXHD codec.
Some may miss film when it goes....I sure don't miss 2" reels of tape...Try and buy some. Onward and upward!
arrestthisman
Well-known member
I might as well weigh in if everyone else is...
Frankly I don't know what most people here are smoking. You have film veterans walking out of the 4k nab presentation from Jackson saying it was more IMAX than 35mm.
Yes, it all does depend on what aesthetics you value, but as far as what is "better," I have no clue why 35mm is immediately chosen as superior. I go to the movies alot. 35mm, most of the time, is grainy, soft, but also very nice, and a standard. Seeing the new star wars movies certianly looked different, but I wouldn't say worse. And I see a lot more detail in digital films in general than film.
I think the situation we have here is that in any industry, during a large transition whatever the de-facto standard for the last 30+ years has been, most professionals immediately turn into purists because people are more comfortable with familiar formats. Period.
Even Einstein wasn't happy with the idea of the quantum universe. People are generally resistant to new things, especially in professional circles.
Electronics and high-technology industries are an exception because those familiar really know that newer IS better (generally speaking).
What's more important than what professionals like, is what audiences like. After all, who is the movie for? Who pays for it in the end?
I haven't seen any polls, but if anyone has some I'd like to see it. In a standard size theater, with at least a hundred random people, watching the same scene, HD vs. Film, I'd seriously bet that 40+ year old people prefer film, and the younger generally prefer digital.
I think the quality of digital I admire the most is the fact that it can achieve virutally any look because it is so malliable in post. Yes most films go through a DI anyway, but you're still held to the original look of the stock.
With a digital RAW workflow the options are almost limitless.
I've been in still photgraphy for over 10 years (which, alright isn't that long), and yes the original DSLR cameras were not up to par, but dollar to dollar, I vastly prefer a RAW digi-cam now than film. Even with my cousin's dark room at my disposal; there's just more options with digital.
If the goal is to aquire and record the artist's vision, then you probably want a format that can yield to manipulation. Nuff said.
If you prefer film, by all means, knock yourself out, but the digital-bashing I hear from film purists is almost comical at this point, and it's starting to sound like the guy who says, angrily, "it's not the size that matters!"
Frankly I don't know what most people here are smoking. You have film veterans walking out of the 4k nab presentation from Jackson saying it was more IMAX than 35mm.
Yes, it all does depend on what aesthetics you value, but as far as what is "better," I have no clue why 35mm is immediately chosen as superior. I go to the movies alot. 35mm, most of the time, is grainy, soft, but also very nice, and a standard. Seeing the new star wars movies certianly looked different, but I wouldn't say worse. And I see a lot more detail in digital films in general than film.
I think the situation we have here is that in any industry, during a large transition whatever the de-facto standard for the last 30+ years has been, most professionals immediately turn into purists because people are more comfortable with familiar formats. Period.
Even Einstein wasn't happy with the idea of the quantum universe. People are generally resistant to new things, especially in professional circles.
Electronics and high-technology industries are an exception because those familiar really know that newer IS better (generally speaking).
What's more important than what professionals like, is what audiences like. After all, who is the movie for? Who pays for it in the end?
I haven't seen any polls, but if anyone has some I'd like to see it. In a standard size theater, with at least a hundred random people, watching the same scene, HD vs. Film, I'd seriously bet that 40+ year old people prefer film, and the younger generally prefer digital.
I think the quality of digital I admire the most is the fact that it can achieve virutally any look because it is so malliable in post. Yes most films go through a DI anyway, but you're still held to the original look of the stock.
With a digital RAW workflow the options are almost limitless.
I've been in still photgraphy for over 10 years (which, alright isn't that long), and yes the original DSLR cameras were not up to par, but dollar to dollar, I vastly prefer a RAW digi-cam now than film. Even with my cousin's dark room at my disposal; there's just more options with digital.
If the goal is to aquire and record the artist's vision, then you probably want a format that can yield to manipulation. Nuff said.
If you prefer film, by all means, knock yourself out, but the digital-bashing I hear from film purists is almost comical at this point, and it's starting to sound like the guy who says, angrily, "it's not the size that matters!"
Exactly. I personally hate film. I'm not fond of going into movie theatres to watch a grainy and strobing movie for 2 hours. Of course the resolution and DOF are great, but the grain and 24p just takes too much away from it for me to thoroughly enjoy the experience.
I'm only 21 years old so I haven’t been exposed to film for a lifetime, so I'm not stuck on that old technology like people were stuck on "cassettes sounding better than CDs" technology in the 90s.
Film WILL be obsolete...its just a matter of time. Current HD standards can't meet the resolution and DOF of film, but it can beat it in the grain and strobing aspects.
ksteiger
Well-known member
patssle said:
I'm 52 and have seen all sorts of film all my life including UCLA screenings of nitrate prints of early technicolor (astoundingly beautiful and bright) I still agree with someone less than half my age.
I own a cylinder phomograph, a cutting head and blamks for this 100 year old technology. I enjoy it immensly but I don'y break it out for serious recordings in the year 2007. BTW in the year 1925 there were lots of people out there bemoaning the "strident, screechy" sounds that were inherent in this new fangled "elelctrical" process of making records.
Cheers!