Have people forgotten what film looks like?
- Thread starter Matthew W Phillips
- Start date
David W. Jones
Veteran
We're you able to acquire more film after the 200' you shot as a test?
Also i forgot to say i have the blu Ray of the beatles magical mystery tour and some Jimi hendrix BDs all filmed with 16mm,the quality is laughable compared to modern Digital quality barely mini dv,if people want to say black is white fine but i am realy glad i watch tv filmed with digital now.
>Edward<
Member
back in the days Kodak, Agfa and Fujifilm didn't produce the film the way they did in the last decade. Nowadays, if I look at 500T film stock shot with right exposure setting, you pretty much can't notice any grain at all. Besides that, digital, once it's shot can't be rescanned in higher resolution. let's say u record in 1080i, it will not go any higher, but film can be rescanned into a much higher resolution, since it's a celluloid strip. A pixel-grid stays a pixel-grid. And Grain compared to digital noise is way easier on the eye... you could say "more organic"
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
David W. Jones
Veteran
Also shooting 1080 and up-resing to 2K is common practice for movies, think The later Star Wars movies for example.
And if you were to shoot 500T 16mm or even super 16mm and up-res to 1080 or 2K the grain would stick out big time. I know from experience.
And if you were to shoot 500T 16mm or even super 16mm and up-res to 1080 or 2K the grain would stick out big time. I know from experience.
The films you watch shot on digital must be VERY VERY different to what i see on tv,most simply great compared to horrible 16mm stuff of the past,also if as has been said 16mm can be rescanned to a much higher resolution why is it not done for BD and HD tv,i dont hate film full stop,35mm in most cases looks good,some super 16mm fair,but 8mm & standard 16mm sucks IMO,AND statements like hating digital because everything looks the same is silly,Digital got there a way back,its all tv makes its dramas etc with here and it shows.Imax is another story though.
Last edited:
Lil Chillbil
Member
I like film, but I got a t3i and its great
Digital has its own unique aesthetics as a medium. You can emulate, but not duplicate the photochemical response of film stocks. For instance the photochemical reactions aren't instantaneous, they react to light stimulus over a period of time that begins after the initiation of exposure and actually extends beyond the shutter exposure time.
Frankly current generation cameras are capable of more usable latitude and DR than any 16mm film stock I ever shot. But color rendition is not as good for well exposed footage. As the 16mm shooter commented above, there is texture, depth and refined tonality to film that digital has not quite achieved yet.
Frankly current generation cameras are capable of more usable latitude and DR than any 16mm film stock I ever shot. But color rendition is not as good for well exposed footage. As the 16mm shooter commented above, there is texture, depth and refined tonality to film that digital has not quite achieved yet.
G
Guest
Guest
I was watching film projection, and noticed the how much more movement there is in a locked off frame. The grain is dancing all about, and the frame itself has a slight shift and wiggle to it as it rolls through the projector pulled by the geared teeth. In that way, it becomes so much more eye-catching, much in the same way a fire is. Whereas digital and its pixel perfect projection can be so still and clean, the eye gets bored easier. And on 2k projection, the pixels stand out when there is a smooth gradient or solid color.
That said, I still prefer shooting on digital, and have never done film outside of photography. My main thing with film in the past was highlights, but that will soon be a none issue hopefully. The Genesis/dragon/alexa/f65 all look to make that less of an issue. And on the low end, if nikon could just unlock those amazing sensors and make their cams more motion friendly in ergonomics...
Anyway, last post for a while. I should go outside more often. I'll head up to the local hackerspace and tool some camera gear.
Somethings haven't changed here in 3 years:
-5mk2 is still the best sub $2.5k camera for aesthetics
-Sony f3 is still not exciting, but best bang for buck
-Canon still hasn't responded to the 5d/7d cine crowd, and the new Cine's are still over valued and under spec'd, and the same fanboys since before purchase are still defending them. After all, who is really beating them?
-Panasonic still listening to users, and still giving us what we are asking for, but just can't deliver on the sensor yet.
-All cameras which truly compete with film are prohibitively expensive. (despite film being dead, it is time for quality to get to the consumer.)
-Nikon still won't unleash a basic image recording beast that we all know they could.
-Everyone is still divided about red
-film is film
-And even lame camera releases get the most comments.
-Red rock micro still sucks
-8bit, 4:2:0, 9stopsDR, is still 'good enough', and we need to stop complaining, because we have it so easy days, but the kids are stealing jobs without talent and cheap gear?????
-lighting is still king.... lighting forum is much more quiet.
-the latest buzz word still ruins a working professional's day, because there is going to be those clients that gotta have the "A".
-people are still using SD everyday (in the world).
-Red is still the one pushing prices down, and technology to market, for better or worse.
-Manufacturers still f up ergonomics on every new camera, despite there being plenty of good examples out there. Aaton??? ENG??? Arri??? or even a dslr with a slightly more sloped right handle? ( i do not like the C300 after using it, it is ok, but if i wanted to helicopter the camera all day, there are better solutions.)
( a special note to all the engineers out there: we love you guys, and you do amazing work! Incredible feat to get such lovely images. Sorry, that you get grouped in with what are probably marketing strategies from other departments)
That said, I still prefer shooting on digital, and have never done film outside of photography. My main thing with film in the past was highlights, but that will soon be a none issue hopefully. The Genesis/dragon/alexa/f65 all look to make that less of an issue. And on the low end, if nikon could just unlock those amazing sensors and make their cams more motion friendly in ergonomics...
Anyway, last post for a while. I should go outside more often. I'll head up to the local hackerspace and tool some camera gear.
Somethings haven't changed here in 3 years:
-5mk2 is still the best sub $2.5k camera for aesthetics
-Sony f3 is still not exciting, but best bang for buck
-Canon still hasn't responded to the 5d/7d cine crowd, and the new Cine's are still over valued and under spec'd, and the same fanboys since before purchase are still defending them. After all, who is really beating them?
-Panasonic still listening to users, and still giving us what we are asking for, but just can't deliver on the sensor yet.
-All cameras which truly compete with film are prohibitively expensive. (despite film being dead, it is time for quality to get to the consumer.)
-Nikon still won't unleash a basic image recording beast that we all know they could.
-Everyone is still divided about red
-film is film
-And even lame camera releases get the most comments.
-Red rock micro still sucks
-8bit, 4:2:0, 9stopsDR, is still 'good enough', and we need to stop complaining, because we have it so easy days, but the kids are stealing jobs without talent and cheap gear?????
-lighting is still king.... lighting forum is much more quiet.
-the latest buzz word still ruins a working professional's day, because there is going to be those clients that gotta have the "A".
-people are still using SD everyday (in the world).
-Red is still the one pushing prices down, and technology to market, for better or worse.
-Manufacturers still f up ergonomics on every new camera, despite there being plenty of good examples out there. Aaton??? ENG??? Arri??? or even a dslr with a slightly more sloped right handle? ( i do not like the C300 after using it, it is ok, but if i wanted to helicopter the camera all day, there are better solutions.)
( a special note to all the engineers out there: we love you guys, and you do amazing work! Incredible feat to get such lovely images. Sorry, that you get grouped in with what are probably marketing strategies from other departments)
Last edited:
GaryNattrass
Veteran
I too like the look of film but do not have the resources or budget to shoot on film so use digital, what I also try to do is keep it simple and set my cameras up to get as close to the look I require rather than relying on post or just slapping a grade or look onto the finished project. Ok they may have their uses but it all ends up being style over substance to me and I get tired of seeing that over colourised look or even worse that washed out un-saturated look that seems to be the fashion these days!
Some people even add post effetcs to emulate camera or film grain characteristics but they all look false to me and add nothing to the story and if anything become a disfraction, the over use of shallow dof is also a distraction.
Some people even add post effetcs to emulate camera or film grain characteristics but they all look false to me and add nothing to the story and if anything become a disfraction, the over use of shallow dof is also a distraction.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I shot this on a Blackmagic Pocket - and for $995, I would say, it comes pretty damed close.
G
Guest
Guest
...I stand corrected. I may join you in getting one of these. (of course, I was also referring to s35, but your short looks fantastic.)
I'm more interested in exploring the possibilities of raw digital aesthetics than trying to imitate film. It is a different medium.
