The digital vs film argument is one which will be around a while, but don't let anyone fool you about certain truths. Theoretically, when digital cameras have enough resolution and are used correctly, the results can be as good or possibly better than film stock.
But today, at the beginning of the 21st century, the digital medium still does not deliver the quality film provides. First of all, early and even 2nd generation Sony cameras (and others) do not have superior resolution to film, at least not yet. And second, no theater in the world can show a digital sourced movie with the same color, contrast, and depth as real film stock. There just aren't any projectors, DLP or otherwise, that can produce the stunning blacks, absolute grey scale, etc. that projectors can with film. (Experts who compared the last episode of "Star Wars" projected digitally and on film overwhelmingly preferred the latter. Reason: the quality of the projected image in a theater was far superior.)
Nonetheless, Lucas and other visionaries know that one day digital technology will catch up with film and eventually, even surpass it. Until that day however, film will continue to rule the Hollywood roost. Digital capture, delivery, and projection may eventually become standard business practice in Hollywood
Digital vs Film
-
HDTV Forum
- Archives
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 4:39 pm
- Location: HD Library
- Contact:
-
HDTV Forum
- Archives
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 4:39 pm
- Location: HD Library
- Contact:
Jeremy makes many good points.
Digital is soo good that Hollywood really doesn't know what to do with it because they are not in the reproduction business - they are in the art business. It is too realistic and captures too much detail they say. Film stock, camera bodies and lenses are the directors and camera mans pallette and are chosen not for "real" pictures but for artistic effect. Currently many in Hollywood are experimenting with digital to see what it does and how it can be manipulated for artistic effect for fulltime use. Many others have said they will only do film but that means their creations will also be much more expensive.
Reproduction issues only come into play when you watch the movie at the theater or at home. It is here that the advantages of digital are overwhelming and why it is being pushed. In digital form the theater can receive it via satellite instead of on reels - $$. Picture and sound quality is always the same no matter how many times played - $$. Reduced maintenance costs of projection equipment - $$.
Unfortunately the problem lies in the projector at the theater - not enough pixels yet.
Richard F. Fisher
Digital is soo good that Hollywood really doesn't know what to do with it because they are not in the reproduction business - they are in the art business. It is too realistic and captures too much detail they say. Film stock, camera bodies and lenses are the directors and camera mans pallette and are chosen not for "real" pictures but for artistic effect. Currently many in Hollywood are experimenting with digital to see what it does and how it can be manipulated for artistic effect for fulltime use. Many others have said they will only do film but that means their creations will also be much more expensive.
Reproduction issues only come into play when you watch the movie at the theater or at home. It is here that the advantages of digital are overwhelming and why it is being pushed. In digital form the theater can receive it via satellite instead of on reels - $$. Picture and sound quality is always the same no matter how many times played - $$. Reduced maintenance costs of projection equipment - $$.
Unfortunately the problem lies in the projector at the theater - not enough pixels yet.
Richard F. Fisher