Film Vs HD

[blood_boy]

there seems to be a love, hate relationship between film and HD in the film world. i want to use HD (not HDV) for a film project i am working on, but my DP wants to use film, which will take all the money i have for this project... he says that 35mm has a better quality than HD...

 

what do you think is film better than HD?...

 

for small productions where you are paying for everything you self why should you take all you money to use film... a lot of movies we see today are made with HD, can you tell the difference... i cannot...

 

så HD eller film?

Greig

http://www.lotusfx.se

[R.R Studio]

well....it depends what quality and look u wanna reach. Is it a personal project??....a commercial movie?....and how much money do u want to spend on it?.... Basically I would put it like this..: If you want to make a movie so that it "looks" like a movie and not like a "tourist shoot"....use film!!!...You are able to see a big differens between HD and Film, the depth of field (DOF), fps and much more ....To film on 35mm is very very expensive, but the quality is worth it..:)... Almost every movie nowadays are filmed with 35mm and its the standard for movie productions....and the movies which aren't filmed in 35mm are filmed with CineAlta ( its a digital hd format...but the cameras costs as much as ey film camera so no big deal anyhow....:P....)

 

I had the same problem once. I worked on a film project and the same questions came up....film or hd??...my solution was to shoot on super16mm film...it is much cheaper than 35mm and if you not gonna show it in cinemas....no big deal....:)....

 

to achieved all this...I would use film, 35mm or super16mm.....altho I have'nt tested e a CineAlta....so check it out...;)

 

 

ps. sorry for my bad english.....:D

 

 

| R.R Studio |

[Dr_Strange_Love]

I agree, definately go with film if you want to achieve the cinematic look. Like R.R. Studio said give super 16mm a try its a professional format and provides extremely good quality for its price. Super 16mm is actually not only used in tv shows, its quite popular with low budget feature films such as ''The station Agent'' & that penguin movie I keep on forgetting the name of, anyways I'm sure you will be very satisfied with the super 16mm format if you give it a try.

 

//dr Strangelove

[blood_boy]

you can write in swedish if you like i understand all the same, i just don't like to write på svenska... first of all what does the DOF and fsp have to do the the quality of the shot. i know that there are some differences in the was HD captures the frame, it will capture all everything and tends to fade less, so you could have too much info in the frame... super16mm maybe... i have used 35mm in the past and you have great quality but you are limited by your budget... re-shoots and extra takes are usually limited... it puts pressure on everyone you are forced to get the shot in a few takes.. with HD, you just shoot until you get what you want... it only tape that don't cost anything and there is no developing cost...

it's not that i don't want to spend money for film, but why should i go for 35mm if i can get the same from HD...

 

the last star wars movie was that done on film on 35mm or with HD? not the digital characters and stuff, i mean the actors.. and yes i know about the greenscreen.. but was it a film or HD cameras being used...

[Dr_Strange_Love]

[citat=blood_boy]you can write in swedish if you like i understand all the same, i just don't like to write på svenska... first of all what does the DOF and fsp have to do the the quality of the shot. i know that there are some differences in the was HD captures the frame, it will capture all everything and tends to fade less, so you could have too much info in the frame... super16mm maybe... i have used 35mm in the past and you have great quality but you are limited by your budget... re-shoots and extra takes are usually limited... it puts pressure on everyone you are forced to get the shot in a few takes.. with HD, you just shoot until you get what you want... it only tape that don't cost anything and there is no developing cost...

it's not that i don't want to spend money for film, but why should i go for 35mm if i can get the same from HD...

 

the last star wars movie was that done on film on 35mm or with HD? not the digital characters and stuff, i mean the actors.. and yes i know about the greenscreen.. but was it a film or HD cameras being used...[/citat]

 

 

I preffer english my self...

 

I'm pretty sure George Lucas filmed Star Wars Episode III on HD.I personally thought that it looked awful, especially when it came to the motion, it was horribly blurry and well...UGLY, but I guess I cant really blame the format, it was more the CGI that bothered me.

 

 

And I have to disagree with you on your statement that you can get the same from HD when you were comparing it to 35mmm. The best way to compare the quality of HD and film is by going a bit early to the cinema to watch the previews and comericals, there you can see the difference between HD & film quite clearly.

 

by the way, don't you think a 4:1 ratio is good enough to create something useful? I mean with a bunch of rehersals it shouldnt be a problem.

 

Just a thought

 

// dr Strangelove

[R.R Studio]

If you want to shoot on digital tape, try the CineAlta....I think, for example, it were used in Star Was II....and all shoots I've seen made by a CA camera looks good....Sony got some cams....can't remeber the names so try googling...:)

[_nemo_]

Jag tycker personligen att alla är för besatta att få "filmlook", speciellt i amatörvärlden. Är det lågbudget så satsa pengarna på andra saker än film och använd HD istället. BTW så tycker jag att Starwars-filmerna ser hur bra ut som helst.

[R.R Studio]

[citat=_nemo_]Jag tycker personligen att alla är för besatta att få "filmlook", speciellt i amatörvärlden. Är det lågbudget så satsa pengarna på andra saker än film och använd HD istället. BTW så tycker jag att Starwars-filmerna ser hur bra ut som helst.[/citat]

 

Personligen så tycker jag att kvaliteten på själva filmen är den viktigaste....det värsta du kan göra är att begränsa dina möjligheter till en super bildkvalitet, det är ju ändå det som ögat ser och uppfattar...:)..Det är ju inte kvantitet till material som räknas utan kvaliteten på materialet....Star Wars, II och tror III, är filmat med, som jag nu har sagt ett par gånger, CineAlta...det är en digital inspelningsmöjlighet med HD....problemet är att sådana kameror inte är billiga och kostar lika mycket som om man skulle spela in på 35mm...

[Clown]

Är inte historian och berättandet viktigare än utseendet? Iofs har väl utseendet en hel del med berättandet att göra men kvalitén är väl inte det viktigaste - iaf inte i amatörvärlden :-)

[Dr_Strange_Love]

Glöm inte att det första man ser är utseende och det är just utseendet som skapar intresse, inte historien bakom filmen.

[R.R Studio]

[citat=Clown]Är inte historian och berättandet viktigare än utseendet? Iofs har väl utseendet en hel del med berättandet att göra men kvalitén är väl inte det viktigaste - iaf inte i amatörvärlden :-)[/citat]

 

Visst, håller delvis med...:D....men vi talar ju nu om estetik, skillnad mellan HD och film....och det har ju inget med handling eller innehåll att göra...:P

[tuco]

Det finns väl egentligen ingen dålig kamera - det beror väl helt och hållet på vilken produktion man ska göra.

Till vissa projekt kan nog DV passa bättre än 35mm

Göra nåt på 35mm som ska streamas på nätet vore ju ganska meningslöst.

Ska det göra effekter kan det väl finnas en fördel att hålla det digitalt.

Men det handlar ju såklart om budget. Om man nu vill köra slowmotion så är det ju film som gäller (även om undantag finns - tex varicam osv..)

Sen kan man väl köra 3 perf för att spara lite film.

Personligen skulle jag hellre lägga pengar på bra skådespelare än bra teknik.

Men så är jag funtad. Och återigen - det beror ju helt på vilken film det är man ska göra. Projektet/budget avgör.

Fast film är ju onekligen snyggare än video.