HD -- 35mm -- DI

[Kenny Doughty]

I'm in the process of having to make a decision on my format for my 1st feature. Do I shoot on 35mm and go the traditional way OR shoot on 35mm and use DI for post and then back to 35mm OR shoot on HD, probably using the Panavision Genesis and then scan it to 35mm.

 

I'm interested in the pros and cons of 35mm vs HD. What would be the major differences of look, cost, and time?

 

Would love to know your thoughts.

 

Cheers.

[Kenny Doughty]

I'm in the process of having to make a decision on my format for my 1st feature. Do I shoot on 35mm and go the traditional way OR shoot on 35mm and use DI for post and then back to 35mm OR shoot on HD, probably using the Panavision Genesis and then scan it to 35mm.

 

I'm interested in the pros and cons of 35mm vs HD. What would be the major differences of look, cost, and time?

 

Would love to know your thoughts.

 

Cheers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By the way -- I have read a lot of people saying use 35mm OR there's no difference but I can't find anywhere what those differences are. That's really what I'm asking. Has any DP out there shot on both 35mm and HD? And also used DI?

[David Mullen ASC]

Three different looks: 35mm with photo-chemical finish and contact printing; 35mm using a D.I. (and those vary wildly too in look); and 24P HD transferred to 35mm.

 

Not to mention the other variations, like Super-35 optically printed to anamorphic, digital projection of film, digital projection of HD, etc.

 

Good D.I.'s cost a LOT of money, so the question is do you really need one?

 

It's probably not even an option for you anyway, unless you've got an extra $100,000 or $200,000 or so lying around...

 

To simplify, you should be comparing standard 1.85 35mm edited with a photochemical finish in mind and contact-printing all generations, versus shooting in 24P HD, doing an HD post, color-correcting digitally, and transferring to 35mm.

 

Truth is, if you shoot the 35mm well, it would generally look better than 24P HD in most categories (grain, sharpness, contrast, color, etc.)

 

So just like the question regarding a D.I., you should ask yourself what HD gets you that you can't get in 35mm using a photochemical finish. For example, do you need digital color-correction and a 35mm D.I. is not an option due to budget? Do you need a high shooting ratio and doing that in 35mm is not in your budget? Are the odds high that you will never need a 35mm print at all, and perhaps it will end up cheaper to shoot in HD if you never end up going out to film?

[Max Jacoby]

Renting the Genesis is more expensive than renting any state of the art 35mm camera, so unless you have a big budget, you won't be able to afford it.

[Kenny Doughty]

Thank you for that. I'm sensing 35mm will be best suited for my project.

[Michael Most]

II'm interested in the pros and cons of 35mm vs HD. What would be the major differences of look, cost, and time?

 

You will never be able to get a sensible answer about "differences in look" on an Internet forum. You need to look at the results from each methodology and decide for yourself, hopefully shooting those tests yourself.