Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The way movement looks in Film vs Digital

Thomas Church said:
I don't think so.

I watched Antichrist on two different theaters and while I thought it looked great I also noticed this.
Click to expand...

Antichrist was definitely shot using a slow shutter (i.e. greater than 180 degrees). This is the quickest way to make any digital camera look like cheap video (see also, Miami Vice, Collateral, Public Enemies).
 
Julio Quintana said:
Antichrist was definitely shot using a slow shutter (i.e. greater than 180 degrees). This is the quickest way to make any digital camera look like cheap video (see also, Miami Vice, Collateral, Public Enemies).
Click to expand...
I know that look. It's a valid creative choice -- Michael Mann no doubt prefers it -- but I have to admit, it's a very "electronic" look, for lack of a better word. You can get a similar smeary kind of look even in film if the shutter angle goes above 180 degrees, with a lot of blur on each frame.
 
Marc Wielage said:
I know that look. It's a valid creative choice -- Michael Mann no doubt prefers it -- but I have to admit, it's a very "electronic" look, for lack of a better word. You can get a similar smeary kind of look even in film if the shutter angle goes above 180 degrees, with a lot of blur on each frame.
Click to expand...

In film cameras the shutter angle cannot go beyond 180 degress - hence the 360 degree blur is unique to digital cameras.
 
Julio Quintana said:
Antichrist was definitely shot using a slow shutter (i.e. greater than 180 degrees). This is the quickest way to make any digital camera look like cheap video (see also, Miami Vice, Collateral, Public Enemies).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but Anitchrist did not look anything like "cheap video". Public Enemies on the other hand... I'd say that had a bit more than shutter speed working against it.
 
Jake Bastian said:
I'm sorry but Anitchrist did not look anything like "cheap video". Public Enemies on the other hand... I'd say that had a bit more than shutter speed working against it.
Click to expand...

Antichrist did'nt look like cheap video but the motion was definitely a bit "videoish".......
 
M Most said:
Well, yes. There has to be time to physically move the film to the next frame with the shutter closed. That doesn't happen instantly.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info...
 
It's a good thing that people keep wanting/craving that analog look from digital, complete with gate weave, subtleties of motion, etc. Eventually there will be perfect in-camera simulations of all those aspects and defects! Someone will put in the work to make all those things possible and I'll be the first to line up to have fun shooting and viewing!
 
Matthew Bennett said:
It's a good thing that people keep wanting/craving that analog look from digital, complete with gate weave, subtleties of motion, etc. Eventually there will be perfect in-camera simulations of all those aspects and defects! Someone will put in the work to make all those things possible and I'll be the first to line up to have fun shooting and viewing!
Click to expand...

For better or worse, we are just craving for imperfections! Gate weave, grain, 24 fps etc. - these are all technically, as you put it, defects - and not how our eyes see.
 
I also think that there is a difference in motion. But I have not seen enough digital material yet. I can almost always tell if something (with movement) is shot with a DSLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top