Jump to content

Andrew Ko

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Andrew Ko

  • Rank
    New
  • Birthday 06/20/1992

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    Toronto
  1. Very interesting observation. The idea of the digital vectorscope having a more diffuse point cloud somehow rings true for me thinking about a certain flatness to digital compared to film that I notice. Thank you for your response, and everyone else as well.
  2. I see, interesting. They did mention in the article a lot of bout skin tones in reference to film and digital, something about "letting it go red," but I forget the details. Thanks for your insight!
  3. Wow! A very interesting answer, one that I've never heard before as far as the digital debate goes. Thank you for taking the time to write this, it certainly seems like insight with a deeper understanding of the systems at play. P.S. How do you even get to know this stuff?
  4. In the latest edition of American Cinematographer, colorist Yvan Lucas says that the amazing saturation achieved in Tarantino's latest film "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" comes: "partly from the print stock, 2383. Kodak came out with it about 20 years ago. This film print is very colorful, and the primary colors are really separated and very pronounced. It's almost astounding. You get true red, green, and blue - and Quentin told me 'When I see those colors, that's when I know it's film.'" My question is, what exactly is meant by "separation" on a technical level? Is this not possible on digital? What qualities would this film stock have that simply shooting with 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 video wouldn't be able to achieve? I've also felt that color is what separated film from digital, but I can't seem to understand why. Does anyone have any insight into this? Would be very much appreciated!
×
×
  • Create New...