Matthew W. Phillips

Is this argument scientific or anecdotal? Some people swear that they can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p even on relatively small screens. Some audiophiles can also tell the difference (or claim to) between seemingly insignificant details. Are these people crazy or could it be that everyone is different and values different things?

So what you are arguing is that either 1) grain cannot be larger than 1 pixel OR 2) if grain is larger than 1 pixel for, say, full HD, the true resolution of film is less than 1920 x 1080?

Why 20 pages? Isn't brevity the soul of wit?

I no longer need one of these as I am going for a smaller/lighter camera setup. Thanks anyway.

It is amazing on a PC. Since PCs tend to have more "bang for your buck" than a Mac, you are likely to get better performance per dollar spent on a PC. Most PCs that are priced in the range of Apple products will have far superior graphics cards which will give you great performance.

That second look is beautiful. Why do films not look like this anymore?

For reference...

I wouldn't argue those points. I have personally had issues with Premiere Pro and am not a fan of it. And the BM camera issue is well documented. When you try to order an Ursa Mini from LensRentals, they actually have a disclaimer that says that the camera is not recommended for professional work.

Is it? I have never heard of this, heard of anyone having it, and never had it myself? I have made hundreds of instructional videos editing in resolve (using voice over audio) and never had this problem. I don't doubt that it happens to some but I would find it far fetched to believe that it is all that common.

I have been hearing about this for years. Sure, it is coming. But it isnt here yet and this isnt the only front that has improved. Finding ways to make the chip cooler has also slightly helped clock speed. Cache sizes have increased substantially as well. This is true...or can be. Not every chip on the market is an 8+ core chip. There are still low end chips that have only one or two cores. These chips fit in the same sockets as any other chip. They are less common because there is not much need to purchase these chips when multicore chips are so affordable. If the sell price is any indicator of the manufacturing cost then they are much cheaper. You can find entry level chips for around $60-80. These same chips might have costs several hundred 15 years ago (if they were available at all) and the modern versions run cooler. Also, chip manufactures continue to work on other things too like advanced pipelining techniques and caching algorithms to make the most of the hardware. Yes, there is a point here. I think one could make the argument that there should be able to be a way to make density of the grain larger and increase the quality per frame. But I am not even making that argument. I am only making the argument that due to the sunk cost of the machinery to make film, over time it seems reasonable to decrease cost (or at least not increase it) as you pay for the initial investment of the production equipment. Unless there is some massive ongoing cost that I am not aware of, it seems like Kodak is using the "Toll bridge" approach. The idea of the toll for the bridge is to cover the cost of making the bridge but when the bridge is paid for, the governments never seem to want to remove the toll. This is surely true. My question is why not? I have yet to hear what exactly it is about film creation that makes it have an upward pricing structure forever. The only products that usually have to be that way are 1) labor intensive jobs that cannot be automated or 2) products whose raw materials spike with inflation. Granted, film uses Silver but we have already discussed how, for the time being, silver is not a huge percentage of the cost of film.

My mistake. You wanted me to spend more than a Benjamin just to get the details that you could have told me for free. Thanks for that.

Thank you, Phil. Unlike Frank's post, you actually defend your viewpoint with logic, details, and it doesn't cost any money out of my pocket. Although I still feel that these things fall into the "cost of doing business", it does make a bit more sense where the money goes. I would be interested to know what the margin is on their film stock; say 35mm. Is film a high or low margin business (from Kodak's perspective)? What is the marketing budget like? What is the wholesale cost? I am not asking you this question but I am surely curious if there is a non-manufacturing way to "cut the fat out". Even in the semiconductor world, they keep finding a way to lower the cost and increase performance. It is absolutely amazing how long companies like Intel, AMD, Nvidia, etc have kept up the pace of doing this. That is why I am a bit less forgiving of Kodak but I suppose it isnt completely comparable. Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe film just isnt a worthwhile business at this point? Or is that blasphemy around here? Because it sounds contradictory to say, on one hand, "film cannot be cheaper! It costs so much to make!" but also say "yes, film is thriving and they are making record breaking profits!"

So are you taking your ball and going home? You think I need to spend $48 (price + shipping) to understand what is going on and you refuse to divulge the details of your own viewpoint? I think not. What a ridiculous argument.

I can support it. I cannot say Kodak hasnt done well with producing film but I can say that Kodak has sat on gold mines in patents that they never took proper advantage of. Can we also talk about the elephant in the room which was the digital camera? Oops!

I watched this video. It shows almost nothing, however, it seems interesting that everything in this video is just a bunch of automation going on and there was no talk of any special or difficult work being done. The coating was only momentarily mentioned and the only footage appeared to be machines doing their thing.