Has video reached the same quality level as 35mm? Old school filmmakers say "no" because the image capturing ability of 35mm is a "gazillion" times greater than video. Is this really the case?
http://www.filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm
www.laweekly.com
article on Hollywood being forced to change to digital.
"It costs $1500 to copy a feature length film on to one reel of film"
Their are two factors that can be compared: color and resolution. Most casual observers will agree that, assuming a quality TV monitor, HD color is truly superb. To avoid a longwinded mathematical argument, let's accept this at face value and focus on comparing resolution, which is the real spoiler.
Resolution is the visible detail in an image. Since pixels are the smallest point of information in the digital world, it would seem that comparing pixel count is a good way to compare relative resolution.
Film is analog so there are no real "pixels." However, based on converted measures, a 35mm frame has 3 to 12 million pixels, depending on the stock, lens, and shooting conditions. An HD frame has 2 million pixels, measured using 1920 x 1080 scan lines. With this difference, 35mm appears vastly superior to HD.
This is the argument most film purists use. The truth is, pixels are not the way to compare resolution. The human eye cannot see individual pixels beyond a short distance. What we can see are lines. background info on the differences between film and digital
Takes skill, timing, experience, and all the other things that take years to develop. Not that this is a bad thing, but, it is a bit disappointing when only one or two out of thirty-six images makes the grade. What could you do with your real skill, if you could see each image as you made it? Think about it!
http://www.cleanimages.com/Article-Digitalvs35mmFilm.asp sdI like this one since it shows how hard you have to work to be able to use film,
panavisions websites shows rental costs for a 35MM film camera cost around $4000 weekly not including film costs and processing costs.
The new Star Wars film will be looking to the past with a Seventies aesthetic, after it has been announced it will be shot entirely on 35mm film.
Star Wars Episode VII may evoke the Seventies feel of A New Hope. However, while 2002's Attack of the Clones was one of the first to be shot completely on a high definiton digital system and Revenge of the Sith followed suit three years later, fans won't be totally surprised at the move back to film
"If film were to go away – and digital is challenging it – then the standard for the highest, best quality would go away." JJ Abrams
http://voices.yahoo.com/shooting-35mm-film-hd-whats-difference-5961806.html?cat=40
six of this year’s Best Picture Oscar nominees were shot on Kodak film: Argo,
http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/premature-burial-for-35mm-film
“Despite the fact that I photographed four films last year on the Arri Alexa (two of which were at this year's Sundance) I am and will be a film person until there is no film available to shoot. It is a different medium than digital by the very nature of the image capture process.The pixel array of digital is static, a fixed grid, and bears resemblance to the concept of a tile mosaic. Film grain is random, no two frames having the same structure, so it is organic, alive, vibrant. Next time you are at a digital projection walk up very close to the screen and you will see the pixels, just as when you blow up a digital photo too much. I believe the mind's eye, if not the physical one, ‘reads’ this difference. Many digital colorists and cinematographers add an overlay of random "digital grain" during the DI finishing to break up the static pixel array, simulating as best they can the vibrant "look" of film grain.
“Film is by definition self-archiving. I recently supervised a new 4K remastering of Groundhog Day at Sony Colorworks with colorist John Dunn. The scan from the original 35mm film negative was so clean and crisp—and we both agreed that the negative still contains more than 4K information.”
http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/premature-burial-for-35mm-film
Most filmmakers don't believe they can use 35mm on an ultra-low budget film. So when my director Sean Ackerman on The Diary of Preston Plummer said he wanted to use 35mm for a portion of the film, I thought, that sounds expensive!
And it may have been if Panavision weren't so supportive of new filmmakers. They go out of their way to help indie filmmakers afford to use their cameras. They have a New Filmmakers Program that allows you to check out their 16mm and 35mm cameras and use them for an extremely low check out fee. When I say low, I mean low.
researched how much it would cost to use this progrem, 1,500$ plus insurance, however on in the US
