-
kowalski
Your "three stops under to one stop over" rule cannot be applied in general terms. Generally speaking, a neg material will offer a latitude of -1 to +2, this being either side of the true ISO rating of the material, not necessarily of that which is stated.
The latitude of modern motion picture stock is 12 stops - 7 stops over, 5 stops under. That's the norm - Kodak Vision3. This shit, bulk loaded into you 35mm camera and you'll be taking sweet pictures.... How about a film vs. digital debate??? How about I be quiet? ;-) x
-
jonaent (Jon) [quote]kowalski
Your "three stops under to one stop over" rule cannot be applied in general terms. Generally speaking, a neg material will offer a latitude of -1 to +2, this being either side of the true ISO rating of the material, not necessarily of that which is stated.
The latitude of modern motion picture stock is 12 stops - 7 stops over, 5 stops under. That's the norm - Kodak Vision3. This shit, bulk loaded into you 35mm camera and you'll be taking sweet pictures.... How about a film vs. digital debate??? How about I be quiet? ;-) x[/quote]
Only till you try to process it...
Your own figures don't support your earlier statement, and defo don't apply to still photography.
I never cease to be amazed at the investment in technology and expertise that you motion dudes have relative to us still types. If still photogs had to work to cinematography standards most of them would be screwed.
Well have the film/digital debate if you fancy, but not without beer backup ;-)
I'll see you debate and raise you a Christopher Doyle.
-
kowalski If still photogs had to work to cinematography standards most of them would be screwed.
totally... I know this and I don't even work in the camera department! It's a little world all to itself with great gothic laboratories working through the night running reams of plastic with pictures on it through baths of chemicals.... it's like burning money, but yet it still goes on and everyone loves it, like a little private club!
Well have the film/digital debate if you fancy, but not without beer backup ;-)
I'll see you debate and raise you a Christopher Doyle.[/quote]
I'll buy us a beer, see your Christopher Doyle and raise you a can of Vision3!
-
35mm movie film (remember the frame is smaller as it's running the other way*) and HD are very low resolution something akin to a consumer digital camera (i guess around 5mpixel? maybe less?) so the set builders/dressers/lighting cameraman can get away with stuff not being perfect plus things are moving, i have shot on film/ad sets and often what's needs to be photographed just doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of 6x6/5x4/10x8 film or 39mpixel digital.
i still like watching movies though :-)
*i think movie frames are 21mm x 16mm
-
35mm movie film at 1.33:1 is the equivelant of 4800 lines high, on it's shortest side, 6700 on it's longest (this is calculated with exposable silver halide as apposed to pixels) - thus A 35mm frame is equiv to 30.7megapixels.
When scanning negatives for what is called a Digital Intermidiate (DI) for computer effects and colour grading a 4K scanner is used to scan the negative at as close to native 4000 lines high on the shortest side - work is then done on the digital frames. Then, using RGB lasers, a new roll of print stock is exposed frame by frame replicating as close to the original as possible.
HD at it's best quality is only 1920x1080 (2.1 megapixels)
-
one day i will have one of those wheels dedicated to me.
-
"35mm movie film at 1.33:1 is the equivelant of 4800 lines high, on it's shortest side, 6700 on it's longest (this is calculated with exposable silver halide as apposed to pixels) - thus A 35mm frame is equiv to 30.7megapixels."
so are you saying that the image from a scanned piece of neg film 21mm x 16mm is the equivalent of a Imacon or phase one digital back at 30mpixel? (they make a 30mpix and a 39 which is the biggest)
maybe kodak is such a big company that the motion picture part doesn't share it's technology with the digital imaging part who make the sensors for phase and hassleblad? because if film can do that then all the advertising jobs i shoot can be shot on 35mm and i don't have to invest 15k in a digital back, I can't believe kodak and fuji have been conning photographers this way.i did some work on restoration spotting movie film for a friends company in soho using PF-Clean so got to look at frames close up 100% the quality was up there with some of the best camera phones from sony-erricson and nokia but nowhere near comparable to a 178meg 16bit tiff from a phase one p30
-
MrSmith ...so are you saying that the image from a scanned piece of neg film 21mm x 16mm is the equivalent of a Imacon or phase one digital back at 30mpixel? (they make a 30mpix and a 39 which is the biggest)
No, not quite - it's just relative. An original 1st exposed print that has never been through a projector is the equivalent of 30 megapixels - it essentially has 4800 rows of exposed chemicals on average, it will vary depending on the shot. The scan is incomparable really, as it's all down to the resolution of the scanner.
A big budget modern movie like Superman will be scanned fame by frame at 4000 lines high will contain digital files equivalent to 30 megapixels. It costs £5000 per 400ft to scan, and then hundreds of thousands to go back to film.... It's the price of the processes means that digital is better for stills.
My Girlfriends father owns Elichrom lights, u must know them if you are a photographer.... and The Flash Centre in Bloomsbury who deal in PhaseOne, and specialise in digital. His main issue these days is that the top digital backs can produce such excellent image quality in the chip that even the best Blad lenses cannot realise it unless you shoot right through the sweet spot of the glass in the center of the lens!!
One thing I know for sure is that the movie industry will not be going digital for a long time - film is what everyone knows, and also (even though there is a camera in the works that shoots 4k at 24fps - the RED camera) who would swap 39 megapixel quality for the 2.1 megapixels of HD??
-
jonaent (Jon) [quote]One thing I know for sure is that the movie industry will not be going digital for a long time - film is what everyone knows, and also (even though there is a camera in the works that shoots 4k at 24fps - the RED camera)
I have been pushing a director I work with towards trying out a RED, he normally goes 35mm then scanned at 2k (TV ad work) - I am shocked at the image quality of the RED, it is nothing short of stunning.
jonaent (Jon) [quote]who would swap 39 megapixel quality for the 2.1 megapixels of HD??
It's not even quite 2.1 MP !
But, as I am sure you know, resolution is not the only game in town when it comes to Digital video, I would rather work with a 4:4:4 720p signal than a higher resolution 4:2:2 1080p signal - if quality (a nebulous term at best) is what I am after. Assuming the HD signal is not compressed in any way things like lenses, the type of sensor (and the amount of sensors / 1 CMOS v 3x CCD etc) and so on contribute much to the perceived quality.
hippy
jonaent_(Jon)
kowalski
deleted
big_daddy_wayne
tynan
photoben-
Post a reply
About
Nikon portrait lens
Posted by
@chris_crash
what's a circle of confusion?