Have people forgotten what film looks like?

Egg Born Son said:
Because cgi cat-smurfs would look better on film... :)



Agree. But it's not human nature. We feel the need to form tribes to justify our decisions. Those who get inspired by the art of others probably spend less time in forums haha.
Click to expand...

Actually, I spend a fair amount of time in forums, trying to improve my "game", by looking at other peoples examples.
 
35mm is too expensive for tv,any programns made in 16mm still showing rarely on tv here look crap compared to digital ones,USA prison break or UK dowton abbey great picture quality,16mm could not match the quality.
 
Gary Huff said:
Prison Break was 35mm, as well as the first season of Downton Abbey. Second season was Arri Alex shooting internally (1080p25 ProRes).
Click to expand...

Ok i rarely knock 35mm, regarding downton the last 2 series have looked superb,we have had 3 plus last xmas special,most tv is shot on digital format and the odd ones like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsomer_Murders look poor even the latest 35mm are far from the best 35mm,not that i am a fan of said programn.
 
Properly shot and transferred, 16mm still looks fantastic as does current HD. It's not a matter of which looks better, they have a different quality. 16mm can however absolutely "match" the quality of HD if shot properly, but it will still have it's own characteristics. It won't look like crap unless badly shot or intentional. Watch the trailer for Moonrise Kingdom...
 
flinty said:
35mm is too expensive for tv,any programns made in 16mm still showing rarely on tv here look crap compared to digital ones,USA prison break or UK dowton abbey great picture quality,16mm could not match the quality.
Click to expand...

Until maybe 6 or 10 years ago, the majority of episodic TV was shot on 35mm. It's only since high quality digital formats started to become available in the last few years that episodic shows turned away from film.
 
Film looks more organic because it matches contours more accurately than digitals square box pixels which produce sawtooth images. The only thing holding back film is the 8K digital format resolution wars which film could solve if 65mm were more widely adopted.

Electronic sensors could be designed to look more organic by using exotic tile designs but no one wants to pay for the research.
 
androbot2084 said:
Film looks more organic because it matches contours more accurately than digitals square box pixels which produce sawtooth images.
Click to expand...

Except that aliasing and stairstepping is usually not an issue in digital productions, unless you have a specific example in mind that can be readily duplicated.
 
With proper compression you can get rid of the interlacing and the line skipping aliasing and the macroblocking however microblocking will always exist at least at the level of the individual pixel.
 
androbot2084 said:
With proper compression you can get rid of the interlacing and the line skipping aliasing and the macroblocking however microblocking will always exist at least at the level of the individual pixel.
Click to expand...

Which film originated on digital stock are you seeing microblocking in?
 
You won't be able to see the blocks unless you magnify them. But you will be able to tell that the picture does not look organic.
 
arniepix said:
Until maybe 6 or 10 years ago, the majority of episodic TV was shot on 35mm. It's only since high quality digital formats started to become available in the last few years that episodic shows turned away from film.
Click to expand...

This i know but some were also made in 16mm which cant match the resolution of pro digital cameras,and i stand by saying the picture i get from digital camera made productions on HD tv is superior to what was made and repeated at times on film,many say film color is ore accurate but i dont agree.
 
androbot2084 said:
So you think digital is better than 65mm film?
Click to expand...

Way to shift the goalposts...now instead of digital looking like film, it now has to look like 65mm? It will, the only difference is that the resolving power of 65mm is pretty significant. Digital will get there soon enough, and then you won't have directors shooting film solely for iMax presentations as digital will be more than enough for that.

I think you can't tell the difference in real-world situations, and when you do it's because someone embraces the digital aesthetic and doesn't try to make Red, Arri, EOS Cinema, BMCC, or whatever camera try to look like film.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
Tell me that when you see your work on a gigantic screen. You may want to crawl out of the theater (I know, ive been there)
Click to expand...

There are just too many professionally made films done on “cheap”cameras that were distributed in theaters that makes this point sound rather….silly. Here’s one done on a camera you stated you know nothing about. Written, shot and starred by the same guy who made “Primer”…coming out in theaters this April. Shot on a hacked GH-2. I’m sure he’s not running from the theater. At least I don’t think anyone did when it was showing at Sundance:

 
Ian-T said:
There are just too many professionally made films done on “cheap”cameras that were distributed in theaters that makes this point sound rather….silly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, really. I mean, I think the 60D looks like crap now, but back when I was shooting on it, I had footage projected at the Alamo Drafthouse and was very impressed with how it held up...and it wasn't even HD! (DVD master made for an event).
 
Shifting the goal posts? I can remember a time when 65mm film was the mainstream format. My favorite movie was shot with 65mm film. My sisters favorite movie was shot with 65mm film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top