Film vs digital part 2

[StopMoWorks]

I searched this forum and I see that this has been discussed within this topic and others. I like Film best, but renting the dvd 28 Days Later and seeing it for the first time a few months ago, I just assumed it was film and only recently found out it was shot miniDV with the XL1's. I am not such a diehard purist about film and saying nothing can look like it, and I have to say, 28 Days fooled me as I am sure most of the public who do not scrutinize this sort of thing could not also tell. I saw it, not knowing it was a video medium. If I had known beforehand, I might have been more critical watching it but probably still could not detect if it was video. It looked good, on a large size TV. IMO, I did like the story and creators had good cinematic eye, composition, editing, pacing, etc. So, I also find out this was originally distributed for theatrical large screen release? Hard to believe that. Maybe kind of pushing little ol' miniDV to the limit? Well like I said, on TV screen, I think it held up well. This may be old topic but had to comment. I just found this American Cinematographer article about 28 Days, if you had not seen it before....

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/

[downix]

Well, certainly it's not my intention to come off as "pro-digital", because I love film and always have. I'm just reminded of how the nay-sayers of 20 years ago dismissed 16mm and Super 16mm as novelties and were collectively shocked when Nestor Almendros and others cropped up at Cannes with several entries that had been imaged on 16mm and blown up to 35mm with results that were stunning.

Actually, the same can be said about Super8 as well.

I don't think Hollywood is ignoring Digital. After all, several major features this year were released shot on digital, some with marketing budgets in the hundreds of millions. From my perspective, they're rushing to put Digital "into its place" too soon, before the technology really has finalized, which will hurt Digital in the long term.

[timdrage]

but renting the dvd 28 Days Later and seeing it for the first time a few months ago, I just assumed it was film

Yeah, but if you'd seen it in the cinema as I did you might not have assumed that.

[VideoFred]

I just assumed it was film and only recently found out it was shot miniDV with the XL1's.

I'm very glad you say this... I had the very same thing with a DVD someone send me... I tought it was transfered Super-8.. couldn't believe my eyes... Such a quality! Unbelieveble! Wait a moment, didn't I noticed some hotspot? Yes, just a little bit....

It wasn't Super-8 al all..just a movie, made with his digital camera.
Judging analogue versus digital is very subjective... This is also the case with music.

Digital is getting better and better... And this evolution goes very fast, these days... Soon it wil be better than analogue, you can't stop this evolution (why should we?)

But who cares? Film is more fun! It wil never dissapear, there shall always be people who are prefering working with film above digital.

The old vinyl records are also still there, with the specific awesome warm sound. Digital and analogue can excist together at the same time, having the benefits of both.

Fred.

[Carlos 8mm]

I saw 28 Days Later in a Cinema Theatre and yes, It was shot in standard DV, not S8 or 16mm. I must to admit that in the big screen 28 days later looks pretty good, as an old low resolution 16 mm color footage.

Carlos.

About The Viper HD camera, it was used in the last Tom Cruise´s film (Collateral), shoted using interlaced 25 fps (not 24p).
Really looks good in the big screen, unnoticeable grain, but of curse, less resolution than 35mm. (very close to 16mm).

Carlos.

[nasq]

About The Viper HD camera, it was used in the last Tom Cruise´s film (Collateral), shoted using interlaced 25 fps (not 24p). Really looks good in the big screen, unnoticeable grain, but of curse, less resolution than 35mm. (very close to 16mm)

Collateral was shot with many different hd-cameras including Sony's, too. Ans I have to say the first couple of minutes I was shocked how much noise it had. The motion was quite videoish sometimes. But I think it's one of the best movies of this year, and the look was just right for it

I think both have their uses, video and film. It's only just an another artistic and most of the time economical, decision, too.

By the way, about 20% of Collateral was shot in film.

[Scotness]

The only thing that ever makes me think that video will be as good looking as film is the recent advances in Quantam computing - imagine when that kind of computing power is placed in camcorders - it will be well and truly over for film then - possibly 15 years away I'd say -- until then I'll stick to my Beaulieu's (or something quieter!)

Scot