New Indian adapter screenshots

Yeah I can't handle when people say that film is soft and hd has too much res so it doesn't look film-like. Wow.
 
I think the softness that ppl think is film is the dof, and then they think soft is all. So a soft image = good for them.
 
it's not that film is sharper, it just has a ton of resolution with random grain, which means no pixels. So the image comes from grain that is non-uniform, while digital is uniform on set pixels, which gives it the sharp jaggies syndrom. Film has more detail, digital just looks sharper.
 
Been a long time since i've seen film "grain". Where are you seeing grain on these new vision stocks. No Country and Assasination are so clean its ridiculous. But they are a different clean from say Crank which looks amazing as well.
 
cinebuddy said:
Been a long time since i've seen film "grain". Where are you seeing grain on these new vision stocks. No Country and Assasination are so clean its ridiculous. But they are a different clean from say Crank which looks amazing as well.
Click to expand...

PaPa isn't saying that he sees grain or that film looks grainy, he's saying that images on film are made up of randomly dispersed grain instead of uniformly lined up pixels.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
24p is mandatory. I subscribe to that hugely.

I have started to be more flexible on whether or not the moving image has a shallow DOF or not. Of course, it helps immensely, but the big thing I find that works is contrast and latitude.
Click to expand...

Not sold on 24p being the best frame rate. It only came about because in the first days of sound, 24 fps was the slowest you could run a projector and not get a noticeable fluctuation in sound (wow and flutter). Prior to that 18 fps was the standard as people felt is was the slowest you could run and not get unacceptable motion blur.

I've shot some film projects at 30p and at stops high enough and lenses wide enough to get everything in focus. And guess what? It didn't look like video. Still looked very much like film. What it had that video doesn't is better highlight compression and texture. Nobody would ever accuse Citizen Kane of looking video like even though it as shot for deep focus beginning to end.

Regarding resolution, in the 70's one of the Japanese electronic giants tested its HD sets against SD sets before a test audience of lay people and engineers. Virtually all favored the SD image. The one variable that made them go for the SD image was deeper contrast. It had a bigger impact than resolution.

Granted resolution mean something once you get to big TV's, but I feel contrast is perhaps one of the most important variables rarely mentioned. I still have my 200lb Sony trinitron in my living room because I love the picture despite being Sd.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top