Film vs. Video - there's no going back!

[Janke]

I've uploaded two documentaries I've made, one shot on 35mm film with an Arriflex, the other shot with a HV30.

You can watch them both, here:

http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?4...p-Rudolf-Koivu

To be honest, the making of the later, electronic production (using HV30, iMovie6 and Final Cut Express) was much more streamlined, and the quality, as broadcast, is in fact quite a bit better - and it looked great projected in HD, on a 15-ft screen...

There's no going back!

[Almohada]

one shot on 35mm film with an Arriflex

Oh yeah!

[Janke]

Oh yeah!

Actually, I prefer working with the HV30 and the T2i/550D... Seriously!

[pro-hobbyist]

I had a lot more fun shooting Super 8 than AVCHD. But you can't beat the video quality of a modern HD camera.

[Almohada]

You definitely can never beat the quality/look of film. It's beautiful.

[Janke]

But you can't beat the video quality of a modern HD camera.

You definitely can never beat the quality/look of film. It's beautiful.

Both statements are true, in fact - if you just remove that "never"....

But I believe the day will come when the response of digital sensors can be made virtually similar to film - but you'd probably need at least 4 f-stops more latitude (range of bright to dark without over- and underexposure)...

Edit: Almohada, On the page linked to in post #1, I added a little clip showing the 35mm Arriflex in use with a little flicker-inducing gadget, and how I hand-developed and "aged" some of the film.

[pro-hobbyist]

I was comparing the quality of AVCHD and Super 8, not film in general. I think digital will never really equal film, because computers can't create a truly random pattern and that takes away the organic feel from the movie.

[Khaver]

I was comparing the quality of AVCHD and Super 8, not film in general. I think digital will never really equal film, because computers can't create a truly random pattern and that takes away the organic feel from the movie.

It may be possible for a sort of random look to digital video if you could move a slightly larger sensor randomly a small amount between frames and encode that XY displacement with each frame. Then in post a program could read the XY displacement encoded with each frame and reverse the displacement. This would give movement to the pixels in a random fashion.

[jet]

Progamns on tv now made with digital cameras are FAR superior to when they were made with grainy film,i used super 8 crap is all i can can call it,living in the past is past.Janke why are your youtube films are 480P .

[Bertzie]

Film is really no longer necessary for video production. With the quality of the two being so similar now, the extra production required to shoot with film is enough to bump it out even for many large productions. Given that the highest resolution the average person will have is 1920x1080, and a handful of people with 2560x1440, there's really no visual benefit for film. Even theaters these days have a largely digital projection at 2k so any improved visual quality there isn't going to be seen at the end viewing.

[jet]

Plus i believe third generation anolague prints are what are shown,why digital HD programns are sharper as well as cleaner than HD film programns is another point.

[Janke]

Janke why are your youtube films are 480P

I transfered them both from PAL DVD. I de-interlaced since Youtube can't handle interlaced stuff (AFAIK?).

The 35mm stuff has never been transfered to HD video, but the "Koivu" film was shot and edited in HD.

However, the only subtitled version I have is PAL SD - thus, only 480 resolution...

[jet]

Thanks

[Halsu]

But I believe the day will come when the response of digital sensors can be made virtually similar to film - but you'd probably need at least 4 f-stops more latitude (range of bright to dark without over- and underexposure)...

Cameras like Red Epic and Arri Alexa are there already - with both the usable range is better than with film (film may have similar range in measurements but it gets so grainy in shadows that it's really just theoretical). Red beats 35mm in resolution too, it's closer to 70mm. Digital can be made virtually undistinguishable from film by adding grain and other arifacts - but the same doesn't work in the opposite direction, you can't get footage that's as clean and neutral as digital with film.

As someone like youwho's worked with both film and digital, i too prefer digital.

[vadis]

I especially miss loading film into my Kranogorsk-3... that was a real joy ! All I have left of it is its fantastic handgrip-shoulder support (like here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...lder-mount-mod), great to use with a dslr.

[Krane]

Progamns on tv now made with digital cameras are FAR superior to when they were made with grainy film,i used super 8 crap is all i can can call it,living in the past is past.Janke why are your youtube films are 480P .

The grain in film is part of its artistic nuance. Similarly, something that is a nuisance in ENG, is an artistic masterpiece in cinema.

Film is really no longer necessary for video production. With the quality of the two being so similar now, the extra production required to shoot with film is enough to bump it out even for many large productions. Given that the highest resolution the average person will have is 1920x1080, and a handful of people with 2560x1440, there's really no visual benefit for film. Even theaters these days have a largely digital projection at 2k so any improved visual quality there isn't going to be seen at the end viewing.

Wrong! film is still alive and well and competing. Not to mention we know it will last 100 years and that it can be played anywhere in the world with little to no modification. Try that with video from even the last 20 years.

[Almohada]

The grain in film is part of its artistic nuance.

It is beautiful.

[Almohada]

The grain in film is part of its artistic nuance.

It is beautiful.

[cgbier]

Almo, I think we got it already the first time

[Almohada]

Almo, I think we got it already the first time

Shoot, I didn't mean to double post. The site crapped out and didn't even load after I clicked reply.

Hey... I just saw some text on the right of the Quick Reply box that said "Auto Save" highlighted in yellow. I like this version!

[cgbier]

For quick reply you better wait until the auto safe goes off. Otherwise, your reply gets f'd up...

[jet]

Strange the film lovers are not using it ,and 100 years for film life digital will last forever it can be continualy copied.

[Janke]

digital will last forever it can be continualy copied.

Provided that players for the formats are still available in the "forever" future...

Let's take an audio example: What do you think will be easier to get to play in the year 2112 - a 33 rpm vinyl record, or a DAT tape, if you don't have a working player?

[Jim E]

Provided that players for the formats are still available in the "forever" future...

Let's take an audio example: What do you think will be easier to get to play in the year 2112 - a 33 rpm vinyl record, or a DAT tape, if you don't have a working player?

Yep. All you need is a very fine sewing needle and a rolled-up cone of paper.

And I bet there are some young'ns here who don't believe that.

[Almohada]

Yep. All you need is a very fine sewing needle and a rolled-up cone of paper.

And I bet there are some young'ns here who don't believe that.

I believe it!