Topic: Never mind 3D, what about digital film?

The Prophet, shamefully overlooked by the Oscars, is filmed in digital and is meant to be as good as BluRay.

Would that be better than 70mm, the format for Lawrence of Arabia? I always thought if I had a shot at doing a Bond film ajb007/biggrin I'd push the boat out and do it in 70mm, but maybe it's only really good for desert scenes.

What do you think?

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017


Re: Never mind 3D, what about digital film?

Don't think this belongs in the QoS forum, Nap. . .please excuse my dust as I do some moving!

Vox clamantis in deserto


Re: Never mind 3D, what about digital film?

Oops, sorry, my bad. ajb007/crap  ajb007/smile

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017


Re: Never mind 3D, what about digital film?

I wonder how much of a difference it makes when a film is shot on film then converted to play on a digital projector. Would I be able to tell the difference between a film shot digitally compared to a film shot on film and converted to digital format? I'm also surprised more films aren't being shot digitally. I think Star Wars E.II was shot digitally. Not sure how many other films are or were shot digitally. If the difference is noticeable I'm all for the next and rest of all films to be shot in digital format.

Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope


Re: Never mind 3D, what about digital film?

Even though I am a film student, I am not all that clued up on the technology, but here it is as far as I understand it. Apologies if there are any mistakes.

Firstly, you probably would be able to tell the difference between something shot on film and shot on digital even when converted to digital projection, because of the difference in things like grain between film and digital. This varies hugely though as some film stocks are grainier than others, but for an obvious comparison compare the look of The Godfather vs Public Enemies. Movies on similar subjects with a vastly different look based on the way it was shot. In a digital projection of The Godfather you would still keep that classic film look.

Regarding the resolution, since the advent of HD digital cameras the quality and resolution have approached that of 35mm film, and at this point I think the technology, such as the Red camera are able to deliver the same resolution as 35mm. As for 70mm, as far as I know the resolution would be much higher than the digital cameras used today. The Red One camera can shoot at a resolution of 4K, significantly higher than say your BluRay resolution, but still roughly similar to 35mm film.

The pros and cons of digital will continue to be debated for some time to come I think. At this point I think it is mainly an aesthetic debate, as the practicality and economy of digital has been well proven. There is a difference in the look, and many, myself included like the look of celuloid, but I think that this sort of thing can now be digitally simulated, so digital as the standard is probably not far away.


Re: Never mind 3D, what about digital film?

We should sincerely hope that Bond 23 is NOT shot digitally. It's a bit of a myth that shooting digitally offers better quality. I've recently been involved with productions that have decided to shoot on super16mm film rather than go digital because the producers found the look far more attractive.

It's true that the latest digital cameras have resolution comparable to that of 35mm film, but digital still can't handle a lot of stuff that film does fantastically well, such as shooting in daylight. It's also a bit of a myth that digital is much cheaper than film. On a big-budget production like a Bond film, it would make barely a difference to the cost.

For a truly cinematic feel, you have to shoot on film. Digital just has a nasty, harsh electronic look to it that's just not pleasing and - to be perfectly frank - looks cheap.