Film vs HD

One thing that always seems to be left out of this sort of discussion is that film is a moving target...Kodak and Fuji keep coming out with improved film stocks that are faster with less grain and more range.

Me I'm happy to work bioth sides of the street shooting S16 and 35MM when it makes sense and HD when it makes sense and works for the project.
 
LooseMoose said:
One thing that always seems to be left out of this sort of discussion is that film is a moving target...Kodak and Fuji keep coming out with improved film stocks that are faster with less grain and more range.

Me I'm happy to work bioth sides of the street shooting S16 and 35MM when it makes sense and HD when it makes sense and works for the project.
Click to expand...


Correct. Not to mention Grain, specially these days, is an aesthetic choice by the DP.

Again tools. seems a couple people are ignorant of that.
 
Yes, we all wish/hope/love to shoot 35mm film, but of course the issue of high $ is involoved, thats why i look forward to the red cam, a famous dp stated that the red cam exceeded the resolution of 35mm film and is very close to film's dynamic range--11.5 stop vs 13 stops....thats pretty damn close, my point is if ultra hd can excel in these areas:

Latitude
Resolution
Color Rendition
FPS
Contrast

and then is color graded, the cinema goers aint gonna know or care what the heck it was shot on

please refere to this by the Red Cam maker himself
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2111&highlight=red+vs+film
 
CLearly youve never paid 1100$ and hour for Pro Color Correction...... RED footage will cost just about the same in the end. Plus you still need the film to distribute right now. So youre gonna pay for it anyway.........
 
Thats the only major costs are at the end, the ccing and print to film, but forget processing, answer prints, etc.

i'm sure in the end you'll end up saving tons of money.

i love film, but in 2007 we have other alternatives, the dalsa,d20, genesis,f350 have all shot features that you and me watched on the big screen, and not for a moment complained about its videoness.

i also like to mention that if your film is top notch, then the distributor will pay for all your prints etc.
but by shooting 2k or 4k, you would have more of a chance of your film being distributed vs 720 or 1080

P.S. you can also do your own color grading in the redcine utility itself if you wanted, or do it in ae before printing your frames to cineon:thumbup:
 
Last edited:
killfilm said:
Thats the only major costs are at the end, the ccing and print to film, but forget processing, answer prints, etc.

i'm sure in the end you'll end up saving tons of money.

i love film, but in 2007 we have other alternatives, the dalsa,d20, genesis,f350 have all shot features that you and me watched on the big screen, and not for a moment complained about its videoness.

i also like to mention that if your film is top notch, then the distributor will pay for all your prints etc.
but by shooting 2k or 4k, you would have more of a chance of your film being distributed vs 720 or 1080

P.S. you can also do your own color grading in the redcine utility itself if you wanted, or do it in ae before printing your frames to cineon:thumbup:
Click to expand...


I dont disagree entirely with this post. It points to the same thing I and others have said...just another tool in the box.

The Genesis and D20, etc are getting really good. But they still have times where its a dead give away that its digital. Most people wont notice but we do. It'll get better over time, no doubt.

But if you think you get rid of answer prints etc. You are very wrong. You think the first time you make a master print its going to look exactly how you CC'ed it on a computer??? Maybe if your Gordon Willis and you know how to call your timing lights to a T. There are different print stocks...much like shooting stocks. And what you see on your monitor might not translate exactly to what you get on the print.

So, yeah you will still have the cost of answer prints.

I have argued this point in the past. The money is not saved in studio feature filmmaking, and not even that much in indie filmmaking. Super low budget features, perhaps. Television, commercials, and music videos...yes.

So, like I said time again in the thread. Another tool in the box.
 
I'm not being sarcastic, i'm wondering if anybody has thought any of this through cuz I'd love to know the added expense of this. Film VS. HD like most other things really comes down to a question of budget. If you have the budget then you have the option. If you don't have the budget then HD is the best you can afford.

I hear many people talking of the RED camera which could be great but the rest of the workflow has not suddenly become cheap.

What do you plan to use to "edit" your 2k or ........ 4k footage?
What editing software lets you work with this resolution without compression?
How will you monitor your footage to see the color correction or even a fade or dissolve?
 
Last edited:
Well thats the issue now. FCP will cut Redcode once its been transcoded to Prores422, but will it retain 4k imaging... who knows.... it hasnt been released yet.
 
A bit late to this, but:

If we talk about resolution it has been shown that projected 35mm film in theatres has less resolution than1920x1080 HD. Camera original might have more, theatre projection copy, no. 2k is even better and 4 k MUCH better. If practically all digital postprocessing for 35mm films is done in 2k or similar, why shoot the original any better? We can not spot the well done digital effects even now.*)

DOF, or actually the lack of it when wanted, has nothing to do with film or digital, it is the result of focal length and f-stop. Optical laws do not know where the photons are going to hit, emusion or CCD. If the sensor is same size as film frame ans same optics are used, the shallow DOF possibilities are identical.

It is clear that digital cinematography will prevail soon, in less than 10 years very little film is going to be shot. In professional still photography the swithcover happened in about 3 years when the good cameras came out (Canon EOS-1D). Digital cameras are just so much better and real money is saved all the time. More money is invested in movie industry machinery, thus the change is a bit slower.

I have spoken.

*) many arguments do remind me of the early days of digital audio. Hiss and harmonic distortion was seen as "warmth" (grain...), in England purists complaned 16 bit digital was not good enough, not even as good as BBC analog radio broadcasts. Untill BBC told that they had been using 14 bit digital relays for years...
 
I think one thing to remember here is we have only scratched the surface of digital, whether it be HD, 2K or 4k. Film has had over 100 years to achieve the quality of film we have today. I really feel the digital formatts are catching up to film very fast and think if you asked the average person walking out of a theater today, they wouldn't be able to tell the differance between them. Yes I know film has better res and colors but I don't think the average person is seeing this differance ( I know my wife isn't, lol).
 
Film does not have better resolution, 35mm original is better than 2k but worse than 4k. Colors, we are used to film colors, but it is getting possible to get more colors with digital and make it look like film in post, if wanted. Latitude, film used to be better here, but no more for long, red is supposed to have almost 12 stop latitude, several stops more than film, not to mention projection copies.

We should compare comparable tecnologies here, not 35mm to HDV or even HDTV, but 35mm film to uncompressed 2k and 4k shot with large sensors.
 
Who here has the money for Vision2 stock?!? Even major studios won't pay for top dollar stock for middle and lower budget films. (good night and good luck...)

Also, if film's color is so great then why did Jean-Pierre Junet pull his hair out trying to get the right look for Amilie until hit did a 2k DI?

If film has SUCH an advantage as some people here would have you believe, why does 'roger and me' look like ****?

When you ask top dollar pros in film what they think, the answer is usually something to the effect of, "I prefer film, but it's up to the shooter. You can get stunning results with HD. It just has to do with the skill of the filmmaker(s)."

People with an agenda, who don't want to admit that digital is outpacing celluloid in terms of development... different answer.

Last but not least, anyone who's read a white paper on theatrical projection knows that the average print people see in theaters has between 500-1000 TV lines (equivalent quality), with a median of 800 or so. Let's say for the moment, that the purists are right; film negatives are worth a billion megapixels :) . What good is that when the audience is recieving such a poor image that 35mm projected digitally is a superior experience?

How much resolution does film lose after the first generation, alone?

Quality has gotten to the point where HD, depending on the camera, is about the same, in quality, to s16mm or 35mm. If the film purists want to continue the fight, fine. But they'd have a lot more friends if they'd admit that at this point it's a matter of preference.

If you love film, shoot film, but touting falsely excaggerated merits and bashing digital as inferior is disingenuous at best. To each his own. let's not let insecurity interfere with progress, eh?
 
arrestthisman said:
Who here has the money for Vision2 stock?!? Even major studios won't pay for top dollar stock for middle and lower budget films. (good night and good luck...)
Click to expand...

How many studio movies have you worked on or been apart of? I'm guessing none. Because a comment like this is hearsay and unfounded. The movie I just came of was a LOW BUDGET studio film at $26mill....yes they consider they consider that low budget. And we shot over 500,000 feet of Vision2 stocks. And yeah, the studio paid for it.

If film has SUCH an advantage as some people here would have you believe, why does 'roger and me' look like ****?
Click to expand...
1) Roger and Me is a documentary. When has any of Michael Moore's stuff looked amazing?
2) It was shot on 16mm with a 35mm blow...and in 1989 I wouldn't expect it look very good either.

When you ask top dollar pros in film what they think, the answer is usually something to the effect of, "I prefer film, but it's up to the shooter. You can get stunning results with HD. It just has to do with the skill of the filmmaker(s)."
Click to expand...
whats your point with this? its true.

People with an agenda, who don't want to admit that digital is outpacing celluloid in terms of development.
Click to expand...
I dont know anyone who has denied this.

If you love film, shoot film, but touting falsely excaggerated merits and bashing digital as inferior is disingenuous at best. To each his own. let's not let insecurity interfere with progress, eh?
Click to expand...
Your last sentence works both ways. I'm in the "top dollar" end of the film industry and at this day in age I don't really see anyone bash digital anymore. I do see people who prefer one method over another. Or some that love digital, some that love film, most who shoot whatever is needed to get the job done the way they feel best.

In other words there aren't many insecurities. There isnt too much digital bashing anymore. Everyone is interested in the newer technologies by far.
The only insecurities I've read on here are coming from digital fanboys such as yourself who have no real experience dealing with celluloid or big budget. Yet you people speak as though you know what's going on inside our industry.
 
arrestthisman said:
Last but not least, anyone who's read a white paper on theatrical projection knows that the average print people see in theaters has between 500-1000 TV lines (equivalent quality), with a median of 800 or so. Let's say for the moment, that the purists are right; film negatives are worth a billion megapixels :) . What good is that when the audience is recieving such a poor image that 35mm projected digitally is a superior experience?
Click to expand...


90% of that is the theatres fault. Poor maintenence, poor focus, outdated projectors. Believe me they will screw up "4k" projectors too. The only theatre ive ever been in where the projections was actaully good was the Zeigfeld theatre in NYC. the image was RAZOR sharp, and the projector palcement was proper. EVERYTHING looks great in the zeigfeld. Film or not.
 
TimurCivan said:
90% of that is the theatres fault. Poor maintenence, poor focus, outdated projectors. Believe me they will screw up "4k" projectors too. The only theatre ive ever been in where the projections was actaully good was the Zeigfeld theatre in NYC. the image was RAZOR sharp, and the projector palcement was proper. EVERYTHING looks great in the zeigfeld. Film or not.
Click to expand...

There is also the Arclight in Los Angeles. The DGA theater is probably one of THE best projected shows anywhere

I've seen 4k projection screwed up...at a huge 65mm, 35mm, 2k, 4k, 8k scan to 4k ASC demo at UCLA.

It is the theaters fault. Cost cutting. Untrained projectionists. I don't know how many times I go out at normal theaters to tell them to focus the lens. Why...because its ever so soft that most people can't really tell, but one they finally fix it, its a world of difference.

They also never replace bulbs when they should...which makes a HUGE difference. The bulbs are expensive so the theaters run them til they die, which is terrible.

Lens are old and fogged, or dirty. Optical Glass isnt cleaned. Take your pick. There are many factors.

And this just doesnt affect things shot on film. It affects things shot digitally transfered to film.
 
I live in knoxville, home of Regal Cinemas. Regal doesn't replace their bulbs fast enough in my opinion.

But while I lived in Austin TX I was always pleased to go the Alamo Drafthouse which along with its many features including QTFest - always replaced their bulbs and maintained their equipment. God bless Tim league.
 
The Sarlacc said:
How many studio movies have you worked on or been apart of? I'm guessing none. Because a comment like this is hearsay and unfounded. The movie I just came of was a LOW BUDGET studio film at $26mill....yes they consider they consider that low budget. And we shot over 500,000 feet of Vision2 stocks. And yeah, the studio paid for it.
Click to expand...

Good for you then! You know that studios are always pinching pennies, and it is rare that DPs get carte blanche on equipment. Just because the low budget movie you worked on set aside enough money for prime stock, doesn't mean all movies do.

My experience is with MOW work in Vancouver, so low budget to me is different than low budget to you, but, yes there were studios backing them. I'm happy you are in the top tier, if that is truely the case, but I don't understand why you are so hostile to my comments when you agree with most of them.

Of couse it's heresay. It's MY OPINION! nothing more. That should go without saying. And the same goes for everyone else's comments unless it's directly from a whitepaper.

It's fantastic to hear that in your circle there isn't any digital bashing, but you know for a fact that is not the case everywhere.

My comment about vision2 stock is directed mostly at indies.

You know it occurs to me that it sounds like you are a far too important person to be spending your time on internet boards. I'm really sorry to take up your time.
 
knoxworth knows me toooooo well........


In ohter words.... Take it easy. Remebr your e talking about rolls of celluloid vs, a computer chip. No need to get agitated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top