Jump to content

Film or HD


Geovane Marquez
 Share

Recommended Posts

If money is no issue, 35mm is still the superior format, unless you really want a digital look.

 

Arri's D-21 is actually the better comparison with 35mm film, as it was designed for feature work, different sensor with a spinning shutter/mirror and optical viewfinder etc. The Alexa is a notch down, designed more for TV work.

 

But between you and me, if you can afford it, I reckon you'd be mad not to shoot film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Arri's D-21 is actually the better comparison with 35mm film, as it was designed for feature work, different sensor with a spinning shutter/mirror and optical viewfinder etc. The Alexa is a notch down, designed more for TV work.

 

 

The RAW output Alexa would do for feature work. The jury seems to be out if the optical V/F version will come, but in other respects the Alexa is a step ahead of the D21.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the story, and the look we're going for with it, then it would be whichever system, as a whole, gets that look onto the screen in the most satisfying way. You'd have to take into account, look, locations, lenses, and distribution.

 

The looks we are trying to perceive is a film look but that's sharp as HD. We want to show a girls skin's flaws, such as extreme acne, wrinkles etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

That's almost a mis-nomer as part of the "film look," has to do with it's softer feeling -v- the clinical look of HD. That being said, 35mm, slower film (100T '12 or 200T '13, or 50D) coupled with great lenses, such as Master Primes, or Ultra Primes on a film camera would look pretty spectacular and give you the "film look," which up until now really can't quite be represented in the digital realm. Of course, a lot will depend on how you choose the post this work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not just starting another film vs. digital discussion, are you? To answer your question, it depends on many things. As for the "film look", it's easy: People shot HD and make it looks like "film", but you never see people shot film and make it look like HD. So why not just shot film in the first place? Get my point? Shooting HD is always a compromise, unless there's a very specific emotional or stylistic purpose in doing it. To me, these decisions are based on the conceptuality and aesthetics of the script.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

You're not just starting another film vs. digital discussion, are you? To answer your question, it depends on many things. As for the "film look", it's easy: People shot HD and make it looks like "film", but you never see people shot film and make it look like HD. So why not just shot film in the first place? Get my point? Shooting HD is always a compromise, unless there's a very specific emotional or stylistic purpose in doing it. To me, these decisions are based on the conceptuality and aesthetics of the script.

 

 

Totally agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Forum Sponsors

Film Gears

Serious Gear

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

VidGear.com - Broadcast Video Warehouse

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...