January 18, 2014

Kodak's Modern Film Stocks Go Head to Head in These Magnificently-Shot Comparison Videos

Earlier in the year, Kodak emerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy, thus preserving the future of film as a capture medium, at least for the time being. While a vast majority of us don't have the resources to be able to shoot celluloid on a regular basis, or even at all, it's still an incredibly viable capture medium in both high-end filmmaking and independent filmmaking alike. For that reason, it's still important for modern cinematographers to have a grasp of not only how to shoot film, but also to know the subtle aesthetic differences in various film stocks. For most of their modern stocks, Kodak has produced in-depth comparison videos to showcase the abilities and differences of the new stocks against their older counterparts. Here are a few of my favorites.

Here are a few comparisons for Kodak's Vision3 line of film stocks. In this first one, Daryn Okada, ASC compares the Vision3 500T Color Negative 5219 stock to its predecessor, the Vision2 5218:

In this video, Fred Murphy, ASC compares the Vision3 250D Color Negative 5207 stock to the Vision2 5205:

And in this final video, Kodak cinematographer Christopher Hart, compares the Vision3 200T Color Negative 5213 stock to the Vision2 5217:

What becomes immediately evident after watching these videos, which are a few years old at this point, is that film is still an absolutely gorgeous capture medium that provides an incredible amount of image flexibility. Many would be quick to say that digital technology has finally caught up to celluloid (especially with the DRAGON sensor), and that there's little reason to choose film anymore. However, modern film stock technology, which is still progressing, has managed to keep film as relevant as ever due to the fact that these stocks are wildly versatile and powerful in the hands of a good cinematographer.

Additionally, for budding cinematographers who might not have had a formal education in shooting with film, videos like these help to build a foundation for creating knowledge of the subtle aesthetic differences in these various stocks. Just like Sony, Canon, and RED cameras all produce slightly different aesthetics through their various sensors and image pipelines, film stocks each have their own unique image characteristics that can be used to better serve the story that you're trying to tell.

Even if you're not planning on shooting film any time soon, a knowledge of the aesthetic differences in these stocks can still come in handy, especially considering that digital film emulation technology is pretty advanced these days. With programs like FilmConvert that allow to choose the stock that you want to model, a basic knowledge of film stocks can help you understand what's happening to your digital images as you make them look more like film.

What do you guys think about these comparison videos? Do you still shoot film, and if so, what are some of your favorite stocks, and why? Is it important for cinematographers to still have knowledge of the aesthetics of these various film stocks? Let us know down in the comments!

Link: KodakShootFilm Channel -- YouTube

Your Comment

67 Comments

What I don't understand is why Kodak doesn't commission some top-tier cinematographers and directors to shoot camera tests between their film stocks and popular digital cameras? Most younger film makers just don't understand what film has to offer. Most low-budget producers get sucked up into the marketing hype by Canon and Red. Why not SHOW THEM why film can still be a superior capture format to the Red Epic, or the Canon 5D, overwhelmingly (in Los Angeles at least) the preferred cameras of low-budget producers and DP's.

Imagine if somehow Kodak had the marketing budget that Red has, or that Canon has, or if either of those companies manufactured a film camera. I think the landscape would be quite different. Kodak has just never taken the time to try and appeal to younger filmmakers. Film is a superior camera format. Market it properly.

January 18, 2014 at 7:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

"What I don’t understand is why Kodak doesn’t commission some top-tier cinematographers and directors to shoot camera tests between their film stocks and popular digital cameras?"

To play Devil's Advocate, it is possible that something like this was attempted, and cutting edge digital came out on top.

I'm much more of a photographer than a filmmaker, so I don't know the technical side of digital video outside of HDSLR shooting, but my D600, for still images, is every bit as good as most of the films I used. Black and white negative films like T-Max 400 still have a 5-stop advantage over digital, but colour negative films like ektachrome only ever had 14 stops of latitude, and that's what digital gives me today. And I think digital does shadow detail better (and highlights worse). It's finally reached a point where it isn't about sacrificing quality for speed and convenience, it's now about two equally capable tools, each having a different look.
The fact that digital vs. film is being argued so passionately demonstrates that they are finally on level playing ground, and unfortunately, I think "cheaper" is going to win out over "best tool for the job".

January 18, 2014 at 7:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

ektachrome was a slide film and I'm very doubtful it ever had 14 stops of latitude.

January 18, 2014 at 10:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
MG

Slide film is a completely different beast. Most slide films rarely broke 12 stops, if I'm not mistaken. Negatives, though, are pretty standardly 14 stops these days.

January 19, 2014 at 1:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Kenneth Merrill

Slide film usually gives you 2 stops of lattitude. It's much less forgiving than digital or film- but the clarity of the color and images made up for it.

January 19, 2014 at 12:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Bryce

I agree. shot plenty of E100 back in the day. 10 stops would be a good day. digital generally captures more DR

January 19, 2014 at 6:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply

"get sucked up into the marketing hype by Canon and Red"

In saying that you presuppose that people are stupid. Can it be they are making intelligent decisions and they see celluloid loses out to digital?

January 18, 2014 at 8:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
Gene

Also, why didn't you include ARRI with Red and Canon?

January 18, 2014 at 9:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

8
Reply
Gene

Arri is still making a ton of money on their film cameras. That's why.

January 19, 2014 at 1:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Kenneth Merrill

I'm not sure that was his reason.

January 19, 2014 at 1:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

You also presuppose that people are stupid?

January 19, 2014 at 7:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

Arri is making only digital cameras these days. The people making money off of Arri's film cameras are studios and rental houses like Able Cine.

January 24, 2014 at 10:33AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
John Stephens

Sometimes, but also people do get sucked up by marketing and have no idea what they're talking about. I see it all the time.

January 19, 2014 at 6:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

found out about kodak filming while in College…and after shooting on film I really was happy with the results..film is STUNNING! AND I LEARNED HOW TO SHOOT FILM ON A VERY SMALL BUDGET…MY KNOWLEDGE OF FILM was the reason I was able to get into the union and for my own show reel start shooting very high end commercials…I LOVE KODAK!

January 19, 2014 at 7:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

6
Reply
DIO

Did you ever think maybe the reason people choose the cameras they do is in part because of budget concerns? Shooting 35mm film is a couple grand per hour of footage.

Low budget filmmakers don't get sucked up by marketing, they get sucked up by economics.

January 19, 2014 at 9:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Jake

agreed…super 16m…is a poor man's arri alexa….noticed in Sundance the films shot on arri alexa and super 16mm…where the look of super 16mm was equal…or better..and producers saying how much money they saved shooting super 16mm….. digital is not CHEAP..
after buying the super 16mm camera your budget will be 1/4 of what it would be with an arri alexa or red epic..and you don't need the post those cameras need

January 21, 2014 at 4:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DIO

What? Unless Kodak gets different per inch print ad rates than Red or Canon, Kodak's ad budgets far exceed Red and Canon's (assuming Canon's motion picture division, not their ads in stills photo mags.)

January 30, 2014 at 6:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

I think everyone knows film is superior, but the cost to shoot it is out of reach.

January 18, 2014 at 7:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

6
Reply
stewe

No, not everyone.

January 18, 2014 at 8:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

Funny that digital photography that bankrupted Kodak was invented at Kodak in the late 70's. The Kodak engineer that invented it called it "Filmless Photography".

This 7:42 minute video explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwfwr8eYP50

January 18, 2014 at 8:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

The first video compares 5219 to 5218. I watched it expecting them to be comparing the 35mm version to 16mm and instead got them doing a comparison of the Vision 3 vs. the Vision 2 stock.

January 18, 2014 at 8:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
MG

To elaborate, with Kodak stock numbers a number starting with 5 denotes 35mm and one starting with 7 means 16mm.

January 18, 2014 at 8:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
MG

Oh man, I feel like a complete doofus for messing that one up. Will correct it now.

January 18, 2014 at 11:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
avatar
Rob Hardy
Founder of Filmmaker Freedom
4503

Thanks, and while I'm not going to get into the film vs. digital debate in this comments section I will say I'm happy to see articles about film on this site. As a super low budget film shooter I feel like film takes a huge backseat despite the fact that it still looks great compared to all of these new low budget raw cameras. Thanks for making this post!

January 19, 2014 at 12:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
MG

I'm just glad to see a test that was actually shot using a wide range of skin tones.

January 18, 2014 at 10:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Most established cinematographers - with a few notable exceptions like Roger Deakins - would still prefer to shoot a non-CGI feature on film. Considering that the 35 mm equivalent digital cameras haven't been around that long - at most, a couple of years - there's a lot of accumulated experience behind film. It is pretty odd though how Kodak went into the toilet while its competitors prospered in the field it has invented. IIRC, someone in the early 2000's, Kodak had the camera with the most megapixels. They should have stuck with the premium product, then slowly expanded into the meat of the market, while continuing to work on their imaging business. Nowadays, Sony owns the sensor market and Canon/Nikon/Sony own the consumer photography. Plus, there is medical, security/military, automotive, smartphone areas as well and each is worth billions upon billions of dollars.

January 18, 2014 at 11:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DLD

Which movies are today non CGI, those where you can recognise it or those where you didnt know about any digital manipulation?
https://vimeo.com/83523133
https://vimeo.com/69796715
All movies are heavily digitally manipulated over 20 years.

January 19, 2014 at 9:33AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
kuk

I wouldn't call these "Wolf of Wall Street" VFX as heavy. And this actually proves my point. Film works fine for this type of major, heavily set-based production. But you wouldn't use it on the "Fast and the Furious" action flicks.
.
PS. The Brainstorm VFX were, obviously, very well done. Whereas, in something like "Life of Pi", the effects were quite obvious, here they were flawless. Now, I don't know what the Brainstorm charged for that but it surely helped save a lot of money for Scorsese. At some point arriving soon, a few effects here and there can make a very affordable release achieve the look of a major blockbuster,.

January 19, 2014 at 6:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DLD

HERE ARE COUPLE TIPS I FOUND OUT ABOUT SHOOTING ON FILM FOR CHEAP!

1.super 16mm (buy a super 16mm camera for almost nothing) the stock for 16mm is cheap…plan out your shoot and you will be amazed by the images…(film is good out of the can so film doesn't involve the post production)
2. you don't need a colorist…film is good out of the can…just the one light you'll get back from the lab is great
3. labs will give you great deals
4. for 35mm (you can buy a film camera for super cheap) just follow (1) (you can also find 35mm short ends that will help save money)
5. the main thing for me that has saved money is buying the camera and having a well planned shot list and storyboard. (film is a lot cheaper than renting an Alexa or red and going through the post work)
6. Film has no marketing…so you have to find out these things on your own…like my professor said " don't believe anything..especially hype ..go out and find out for yourself"
7.film is unique and beautiful..you work will stand out and be remembered

January 19, 2014 at 7:10AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DIO

3. labs will give you great deals...

Labs are going out of business, so they must give deals, shouldn't they? Hopefully they rolled with the changes and have already spent time educating themselves, and upgrading to computers, for handling digital.

January 19, 2014 at 8:46AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

7
Reply
Gene

single light transfers are always detuned. I've had transfers ( on tape ! ) where you could see at the very head of the tape nice color / contrast for a few frames. then see the same shot in the actual transfer and its now lower contrast / lower sat.

shooting 1 roll of 16mm giving you about 11 minutes of material will cost about $400 - film, process, xfer single light. 33 min of shooting = $1200 or that easily covers rental of a good cinema camera and some glass. sorry but the number don't work for 16mm, and they certainly don't work for 35.

I've shot16 and 35. as much as the discipline of shooting that way was great, the costs where crazy. It also required a lot more lighting = more gear / crew / genny ect. try a pretty grainy ISO500 16mm vs a canon C series or Alexa at native 800 ISO. no comparison. the digital cameras may require a bit more contrast control than some film stocks, but count on film to have more DR. there are so many factors involved - proper or should I say ideal exposure, lab processing ( it does vary ! ), transfer quality - which machine because they are not all equal by any means. once you factor all that in, film may NOT have the same DR of some digital cameras which are far more consistent day in day out.

January 19, 2014 at 6:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply

here is a couple more reasons..
8. film excels in the digital world of big budget films and effects…STAR WARS ..TRANSFORMERS…
9.the billion dollar digital business honors kodak by trying to imitate it..but film is still way more beautiful, cheaper and faster to use…thanks KODAK!

January 19, 2014 at 7:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DIO

Is digital honoring film by adding grain, etc., or are they easing their way into the digital look and out of 'filmic', not wanting there to be too sudden a change in look?

Michael Bay will be using the new IMAX digital camera for Transformers 4 for the big scenes, and for the rest of the shoot mostly digital, and 'some' film. The IMAX digital is supposedly 8k+ though I don't know if I believe it. I'll have to read up on it.

Michael Bay says, "I'm gonna sell my film cameras soon". He doesn't sound optimistic about getting a good price for them. 3 minute video of Michael Bay interview at the link:

http://collider.com/transformers-4-imax-digital-camera-michael-bay/

January 19, 2014 at 7:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Gene

I keep reading that digital 4K is a 'push' into creating its own market and is not organic. But to believe it is just a marketing push you have to believe that people are stupid and are just going along with what cunning advertisers are telling them. I suppose there were people who believed that about BluRay in its beginnings. I see that even Hulu is going to start making its own original tv shows in digital 4K, not film, talked about near the end of this article:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/ces-sony-touts-netflix-pa...

Amazon will be shooting all of their new original tv shows in 4k. If anyone knows the internet search/interests of people it is Amazon! Will they top Netfilx?

article:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/16/amazon-studios-4k/

Standing room space for celluloid becomes smaller and smaller.

January 19, 2014 at 8:32AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Gene

cheapest way for stunning look is buy a 35mm camera or 16mm camera…the imax camera is $$$$$$$$…also bay has a post company now…so that slants his view…at this time

January 19, 2014 at 9:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DIO

Gene..check out the commercial I posted below…this is shot on kodak and is STUNNING….!
for a little money you get beautiful results with film…with imax and the post involved..you're talking…$$$$$$$$
even for the average independent filmmaker shooting on an alexa…with the post involved is …$$$$$$ way too expensive..the cheapest way is film but carefully planned..it's stunning…and you have also archived your worked.

January 19, 2014 at 9:10AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
DIO

I've seen it more than once before. Yes, it looks really great.

January 19, 2014 at 12:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

DIO,

I'm glad that film is working really good for you. I really am. I hope you continue getting lots of business and making beautiful work.

I am not wanting to be negative toward film. I am only saying there is still a big move toward digital. And with so many original shows being made for the internet digital is still in its infancy. With the low cost of buying a very nice digital camera, and that price will continue to go down, and with the low cost of posting those shows on the internet (even costing nothing to upload to YouTube) digital will still keep growing. Just about anyone can make digital shows and movies. The $2000.00 Sony 4K camera shows high resolution is available to a fairly large part of the population. And that price will continue to come down. I even saw that Nikon may have 4k video in the next Nikon 1V camera for well under $1000.00 when it comes out---if those rumors are right. And the video from that camera so nice. The only drawback on that camera will be that ridiculous 30 minute limit.

I'm just pointing out that digital still has immense potential for growth.

And I say again for you, more power to you with film! I hope you have lots of work to come! Do you have anything on the internet that I can watch?

January 19, 2014 at 1:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

this is prime example of celluloid fanboy, I bet you love instagram filters like PTA

January 21, 2014 at 11:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

7
Reply
Natt

January 19, 2014 at 7:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DIO

what is the cost to shoot on film. is it even practical to do this as an indie filmmaker??

January 19, 2014 at 8:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Howard L Hughes

this is what we did in school…
buy the camera 16mm or 35mm then ….
the stock (if you use 16mm is cheap..for 35mm you can get short ends..)
if you use the film EL MARIACHI…it was shot super 16mm for around 5,000
ARNOSKY'S first film on 16mm the same…
you have to carefully plan your shoot…storyboard shot list…it really is cheap because no camera rental and you really don't have to do post…coloring etc..
take your time…and you will get a unique film that stands out at festivals

January 19, 2014 at 9:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DIO

El Mariachi shooting kept going in stops and spurts because Rodriguez kept running out of money for film stock. Not a good example.

January 19, 2014 at 6:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DLD

I think he shot it in like a week straight.

January 19, 2014 at 7:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

Mariachi was shot pretty much nonstop every day from July 31 to August 20th in 1991. They did not run out of money for film stock and they never went back to Mexico for any pickups so they filmed what they could, with what money they had for that brief period. I think Mariachi is a great example of shooting on film with a micro budget but thats not saying shooting with wild sound like they did is a great idea. Completely edit the film in your head before you shoot, know your cuts, pull the trigger right as you call action and cut it as soon as you get the shot. Definitely not cheap but its doable and proven.

January 21, 2014 at 12:31AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

12
Reply
Dane

El Mariachi was regular 16.

January 30, 2014 at 7:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Daniel Mimura

It depends. I think shooting Super-16mm might be comparible to shooting RAW 4K or maybe 2K once you factor in storage and all that.

January 19, 2014 at 7:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

Not really. 4.5 minutes of kodak stock costs about $300. Developing and scanning is about another $70. Let's say you are shooting a project that will be 90 minutes long, f you average about 6 times the amount of footage you need per project (not unreasonable considering bad takes, shooting things you think you will need but ultimately get cut), that's 540 minutes of film you will need to shoot. That equals out to about $200,000 for your film cost. Moreover, of course with film, you can't really see what you got until you get it developed. Yes, you'll have video of the takes you can watch, but you won't know if anything got over/under exposed, if you got some lens flares you don't want, etc, until days or weeks after you have shot. If there were any mistakes, now you have to try and reschedule everyone to come back and do a re-shoot and pray to God the light hasn't changed (good luck with that), and that costs you even more money and time.

January 21, 2014 at 10:18AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Ryan Maelhorn

you can shoot super 16mm film for around 3 to 5 thousand…at Sundance this year so far I counted 3 super 16mm films in the dramatic competition two of them spent less than 6 thousand…and there are two 35mm so far…the budgets for 35 are around 10,000 thousand to 12,000 for a FEATURE FILM…don't forget if I rent a arri alexa and including post I'm around 75,000…the key is buy the camera..and plan the shoot….if your shooting ratio is 200:1 like finches..then yes go digital

January 21, 2014 at 10:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
DIO

Another problem is that you can pretty mess up film shooting same as shooting on digital. Its hard to achive really good picture. You have to be good and you to know what you are doing.

January 19, 2014 at 9:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
kuk

maybe a test is best…take a roll of kodak and compare it with shooting digital…and look at the results out of the can for film…it is easier to get a top notch image from film..(working with digital..you have so many things to worry about highlights..blacks..skin tones..rolling shutter…post work and lighting it is very difficult compared to film)
unfortunately kodak has no marketing otherwise filmmakers wanting a beautiful image would only use kodak.

(if the shooting ratio is very high…let's say like fincher 200:1 than digital makes economic sense)
both mediums have there uses but I think filmmakers should keep both digital and film competing and evolving..for me film was the simple ingredient to that really made a big difference

January 19, 2014 at 9:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DIO

IMO, those dangers that you can mess up film are 1) grossly overstated---even if you're wrong on you're metering by as much as a couple stops, you still can get good results---even with my Red One, I can't be wrong that far and get something decent. And 2) *because* of the dangers, costs, everyone brings their A game. You slate quickly, the actors snap to attention when you're rolling, the directors cut before resetting...it's not thing continual long shooting style to try and grab stuff...and what that style of shooting does to composition and lighting? Same thing...you aren't usually shooting 2, 3 or 4 cameras, trying to get in more coverage (all at the expense of drastically compromising the lighting and framing of your a-camera), not mentioning what the sound guy is having to complain about (shooting a wide shot and a telephoto close up with the boom a mile away. People rarely shoot film willy nilly the way most people tend to shoot digital now where they just roll and roll, documentary style...planning on getting glimpses of stuff here and there.

January 30, 2014 at 7:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

"Your", not "you're". I didn't make that mistake. I blame Siri.

January 30, 2014 at 7:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
Daniel Mimura

I think the biggest problem is that only people who have gone to film school or risen up through working on set know how to use film cameras. And a very few self-taughts.

These days everyone has used a digital camera of some variety while film camera to them might seem like migrating from Final Cut to Premiere Pro; there has to be a really good reason for it - for PP there is. For film, for many it seems like digital is moving faster.

I'm not saying it's right or I don't think film looks amazing, because it does, but for people to jump in the deep end, there has to be real trade-offs.

Sure, at the moment many DP's still shoot on film, I wonder how many will in 30 years, unless Kodak etc. pulls a rabbit out of the hat. Just law of averages.

January 19, 2014 at 12:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply

35mm kodak is 22k..going to the lab with our professor the tech guys are like for 35mm it's just the scanner..if the scanner can up to 22k..35mm kodak is fine..so that's why i also think 35mm camera is future proof...

January 21, 2014 at 11:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
DIO

Colors, for me digital has a long way to catch colors negative and this beautiful texture. But in other hand the speed, the versatility and the cheapest value of production, place the digital in first.

January 19, 2014 at 1:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
Paulo Emilio

have you found what your looking for..?? I think you can ask this of ourselves…and in the case of digital (video) cameras…the endless firmware updates…digital (video) cameras coming out…it's endless…chasing the latest camera..there are thousand elements that go into a great production…the easiest and simplest one that improves a production much more than you would ever expect is kodak film..

January 19, 2014 at 6:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
DIO

January 19, 2014 at 7:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

7
Reply
DIO

quote from a TEXAS filmmaker…

If you've ever seen first-gen prints straight off a neg projected big and beautiful you cry at how much is just gone by the time it hits the multiplex. This is a big reason why the death of film as an acquisition format is far too premature, regardless of how good any digital camera is, because DCP of analog origination is the best looking digital presentation going. Similarly, digital origination looks nice® when printed to film and optically projected. It would be interesting to see experiments with digital origination, print to neg and then scan that negative for DI and eventual DCP.

January 19, 2014 at 7:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
DIO

You can be totally productive with terribly basic hardware when you take a disciplined approach and understand the process.

January 19, 2014 at 8:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
DIO

The reason why all these Film vs Digital tests are BS is that you should actually light a scene differently for film than you would for video. All these "tests" have the lighting the same for both.

January 21, 2014 at 10:00AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Ryan Maelhorn

Film has great handle of (over) saturated colors, dynamic range-wise Alexa, Red Dragon and F65 has a little more now, depends on how you expose both, but it's easy to match all of them for filmic looking colors. I like visual aesthetics of analog and I'm used to it, but the medium itself is outdated in this day and age. The visual aesthetics will be a gold standard for many years though. It's just you can achieve same results working in raw digital universe now.

Still no magic bullet out-of-the-oven LUT look that equals film, but you'll get there in post of you're not lazy. Then, once you get to know what is possible with Raw, you can make presets to save time.

January 21, 2014 at 11:35PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Natt

"getting there in post" is the problem, and the main factor in the fact, that very often, digital ends up as the more expensive alternative.

January 31, 2014 at 10:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

7
Reply
visualbassist

What's inaccurate with that? Super-16, assuming the director isn't one of those idiots who has everyone go back to one while still rolling continuously...etc..., is gonna be cheaper than shooting on an Alexa. Sure, digital is cheaper if you're talking about a 5d...

January 30, 2014 at 7:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Wow! After alll I got a blog from where I know how to actually get helpful facts regarding my study and knowledge.

July 15, 2014 at 2:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Awesome blog! Is your theme custom made or did you
download it from somewhere? A theme like yours
with a few simple adjustements would really make my blog shine.
Please let me know where you got your theme. With thanks

July 16, 2014 at 3:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply

Hi, yes this article is in fact pleasant and I have learned lot of things
from it about blogging. thanks.

August 23, 2014 at 6:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply