Future of film. Still vs Motion

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

marc
Senior member
Posts: 1931
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 12:01 am
Real name: Marc
Contact:

Post by marc »

MovieStuff wrote:
marc wrote:Does it look as good as Kodachrome?
Nope. But then again, what OTHER film stocks do? ;)[/quote


THEN:
MovieStuff wrote:
marc wrote:But Kodachrome still holds it's ground with respect to discerning the difference.
Does it? Kodachrome used to be THE emulsion for print ad work. Now, most ads are shot digitally and that "Kodachrome Look" is easy to achieve, just as the funky metallic "Bleach bypass" look and the "Ektachrome Look" can be created in the computer for peanuts.
User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Post by MovieStuff »

Marc, is there a point to your post?

(Edit, here. Sorry, that was a bit terse and, upon re-reading it, didn't come out like I meant it. Sorry, again.)

When you asked if digital looked as good as Kodachrome, I said "no" because nothing really does, including any other FILM emulsion. The point being the just because digital doesn't look like Kodachrome doesn't really mean anything since no two film emulsions look alike, anyway, and certainly no other film emulsion looks as good as a Kodachrome original, but people still accept other film emulsion as valid alternatives to work with in telling a story.

But emulating the "Kodachrome Look" in print isn't the same thing as looking at original Kodachrome, which is what I assumed you meant when you asked the original question. Hell, even Kodachrome doesn't look as good in print as it does as a viewed original.

So, to be clear:

Digital (or any other format) doesn't look as good as a Kodachrome original, but then it doesn't have to.

Emulating what Kodachrome looks like when printed in an ad is very easy to do with digital. That doesn't mean you will produce a digital original that has the definition or clarity of a Kodachrome original, but the ad won't have it, either, even IF it were produced from a Kodachrome original.

Better? :)
User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Post by MovieStuff »

Okay, take a look at this:

http://www.pixelmonger.com/vip2

This is a still from a 24p camera call the "Viper". More info can be found here:

http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cam.html

Roger
marc
Senior member
Posts: 1931
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 12:01 am
Real name: Marc
Contact:

Post by marc »

MovieStuff wrote:Marc, is there a point to your post?

No, I'm pointless as allways!
User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Post by MovieStuff »

Where did everyone go? Did anyone look at this link?

http://www.pixelmonger.com/vip2
Post Reply