How much impact do film stocks have...

David Mullen ASC · March 6, 2004

Let's just agree that it's a bit of a gray area -- technically a digital video signal is also a digital data stream. So one could say that digital video is a form of digital data, while it is a little less accurate to say that all digital data of moving images is a form of video... unless you have a pretty generalized definition of video.

Also, some forms of video have been used for D.I.'s -- such as HDCAM for "City of God" (and all the attendant problems because of that...)

However, the general industry practice is not to refer to a string of RGB data files of scanned film frames as "video", mainly as a way of separating the two approaches of handling moving images digitally in discussions. On the other hand, most dictionary definitions of "video" are pretty vague, just referring to moving images being captured, stored, or displayed "electronically."

Rob Belics · March 6, 2004

Personally I only think of the capture mechanism. If it's captured using ccds then it's video no matter how it gets stored, digitally or analog. If it's captured by film then it's film.

Fredrik Backar FSF · March 6, 2004

a shot of Audrey Hepburn that had a big white speck on her neck that was digitally erased. It's not like when you see that movie in a 70mm print on the big screen, you say when that shot comes up "what in the hell happened to Audrey Hepburn's skintones??? They went all two-dimensional..."

Hehehehehe :D

Here is a fact.... On the note of cinematographers seeing release prints or not. IF they saw their work as presented in print here in sweden; they would be very unpleased I can assure you! Some french lab does most of it I think, and half the time it looks very bad as compared to a copy I saw of any film in LA while I lived there.

And mr belics. I second your oppinion!

Otherwise; using the other logic; one might as well shoot high def video very soon and have it look as good as film.....

Must add a point though!

There is a huge difference between CRT and CCD for some reason...

Working in the millennium as opposed to the spirit data crap is a big difference I find. The crt has much more of an organic feel than a compareable ccd.

This also goes for the old Ursa gold as opposed to the data cine.....

Tenolian Bell · March 7, 2004

There is a huge difference between CRT and CCD for some reason...
Working in the millennium as opposed to the spirit data crap is a big difference I find. The crt has much more of an organic feel than a compareable ccd.This also goes for the old Ursa gold as opposed to the data cine.....

This is also a simplification. CRT and CCD are two tools that can be used in two different ways. I've been shooting a lot of music video lately. And as glossy and high produced as videos are supposed to be CRT's just don't work for me, I need a Spirit or Shadow. When I'm working on a narrative and going more for an organic soft tone then the Spirit CCD works a bit against me in that it's too sharp and too glossy. Then I opt for the CRT.

I certainly wouldn't say CCD is crap. I agree with Phil in that this is electronic digital data helping film. Most film purists wouldn't want to admit to that, or even all out reject it. But honestly its a great tool to have. Being able to shoot film and digitally mainpulate the image is a powerful combination.

Fredrik Backar FSF · March 7, 2004

True as you say about scanning.

If you want it to "look" ccd then its ok of course.

AND. The DI is a great thing for a dp, but I´m still waiting for it to develop into something better then right now, so I´m not looking to turn the other cheek forever hopefully :D

Cheers

Luke Prendergast · March 7, 2004

There is a huge difference between CRT and CCD for some reason...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I do think a CCD is only an input device (say in a film scanner), and a CRT is only an output device (in a film recorder). They aren't performing the same task.