Is HD "too good" for docs?

[ESTEBEVERDE]

You guys don't use those newfangled 3/4 inch cameras? Hey, it was late when I posted! Of course I was talking about 2/3 inch chips. And I didn't mean to leave you out Estebeverde...it was just easier to reference Jeff than type 7 more letters for your name! Sheesh...tough crowd in her:>).

No worries Man!

 

[someday]

HD is never too good. We have to remember that video is still missing the film latitude, which makes the real difference .
When working with video i always work in HD and apply color correction to give it a more filmic aspect. But nothing compares to 70mm and 35mm, maybe it compares with 16mm

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

To each his own.

Personally I can't remember very many docs actually being shot on 35mm let alone 70mm.

But, thanks for chiming in!

 

[otari_99]

i always work in HD and apply color correction to give it a more filmic aspect. But nothing compares to 70mm and 35mm, maybe it compares with 16mm

Whoa...I feel the ol' film vs video argument coming on. I know, I know, this is a little off the subject, but...

Actually, (and I'm certainly no expert), I quite agree. I believe Silver Halide still has the edge on exposure latitude. However, new tools such as the HVX add another dimension to our creativity. Heck, I'm into S8 now, too! Man, there's something about that grain!

I read a quote by Allen Daviau where he said something like, "Ive been shooting High Def for 30 years...It's called film". Interesting.

 

[oqion]

My Canon 20D still camera has much more resolution than most HD cameras, and people look great on it. Can someone with a more technical bent than me explain why this is?

With your still, the subject is stationary. When a 2d picture moves, any difference in hue or contrast will be viewed as a moving speck of something. In this case a blemish.