Thread: Why film will stay the king...

Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 136
  1. #101  
    Senior Member Brice Ansel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Paris France / Pico Acores
    Posts
    1,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Ryan View Post
    Shot on Canon 5D. I think we can end this discussion now. Film is only chosen for emotional reasons anymore...

    Good on a full HD Screen, but on a theater big screen it is another story. ;-).
    Director/Editor...http://brice-ansel.com
    I have nothing to sell or rent on this board, I'm just here to share and learn.
    Science without conscience is the death of the soul.
    F Rabelais
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Senior Member Paul Russell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Malaysia and Singapore
    Posts
    1,693
    Quote Originally Posted by christopher witzke View Post
    When's that last time someone shot a dead horse with film? :)
    Speilberg shot War Horse on film :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Senior Member Terry VerHaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    6,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Russell View Post
    Speilberg shot War Horse on film :-)
    Haha - priceless response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Moderator David Battistella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florence, Italy
    Posts
    9,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Ryan View Post
    Shot on Canon 5D. I think we can end this discussion now. Film is only chosen for emotional reasons anymore...
    What is the title, again?

    "To the Wonder"ous" African Tree of Life?"

    Ok, so Malik has had a clear influence on a generation of filmmakers. That's cool. :)

    Battistella
    "Colors are the wounds of light."
    -William Blake
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    I think that digital has an almost limitless potential to improve, but film does not. It will eventually be able to emulate and probably surpass all the "magical" qualities that film currently has.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Moderator David Battistella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florence, Italy
    Posts
    9,998
    Dragon is already magic. :)

    battistella
    "Colors are the wounds of light."
    -William Blake
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Senior Member David Kuhn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Corning NY
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Philip Loo View Post
    I think that digital has an almost limitless potential to improve, but film does not. It will eventually be able to emulate and probably surpass all the "magical" qualities that film currently has.
    There will always be some who will yearn for days of yore... just look at the vinyl fanatics. Some spend tens of thousands of dollars on stabilized turntables so they can listen to a technology that's been clearly outperformed for nearly two decades. The more you push them using hard data... the more they'll retreat to 'fuzzy' metrics that can't be quantified. At least the tube guys have real data supporting the love they have for their luddite glowey amps.
    David Kuhn
    Epic-M Dragon Monochrome #1995 (Dilbert)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Philip Loo View Post
    I think that digital has an almost limitless potential to improve, but film does not. It will eventually be able to emulate and probably surpass all the "magical" qualities that film currently has.
    Let's flip that around. You could take a project shot in 1980 on film, rescan it today in 4K, and it'll look fantastic. Take a digital project shot in 2005, and let me know how it looks today... let alone 35 years after that. Digital is stuck with the picture quality of the pickup at that moment; a piece of film could potentially look better today than it ever did in its history, getting better as scanning and restoration technology gets better.

    Sharpness is not everything, and I think ultimately content trounces everything else. And neither film nor digital can exist without great lighting. I'd much rather see a well-lit piece of HD than an amateurishly-shot piece of 65mm negative, and I'd rather see well-shot 35mm negative than a horribly-exposed digital project.
    marc wielage, csi colorist/post consultant daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    844
    For a DP and the production : Today's digital camera make your life happy and easy .

    But ask to any colorist in the world if they prefer receive film or digital : they will al say FILM , why ? because looks 100 times better out of the box and is very very fast to achieve great images . with digital camera ( Alexa and RED included you never know who you get ... i got material from the same shoot that was good , some was bad and some was terrible ( for apparently no reason because was all properly exposed ) sometimes is fast to grade and sometimes takes forever because there is no richness , nor color separation etc... sometimes they all ( arri and red ) looks fantastic , but most of the times it require a lot of work . with film that is never the case

    if the sweet spot ( light conditions , contrast , image captured etc..) of film in order to get a good image as starting point is 145 degree , the sweet spot for digital is 45 degree
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    Let's flip that around. You could take a project shot in 1980 on film, rescan it today in 4K, and it'll look fantastic. Take a digital project shot in 2005, and let me know how it looks today... let alone 35 years after that. Digital is stuck with the picture quality of the pickup at that moment; a piece of film could potentially look better today than it ever did in its history, getting better as scanning and restoration technology gets better.

    Sharpness is not everything, and I think ultimately content trounces everything else. And neither film nor digital can exist without great lighting. I'd much rather see a well-lit piece of HD than an amateurishly-shot piece of 65mm negative, and I'd rather see well-shot 35mm negative than a horribly-exposed digital project.
    I think it's ironic that you would be improving a film negative through a digital medium. Best of both worlds!
    Last edited by Philip Loo; 06-24-2014 at 09:19 PM. Reason: add quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts