4 ms·
This really misses the mark. Any 2-3k camera beats the image most movies had 20 years ago. The reason Hollywood uses expensive gear is because the human cost i
by alexashka 5y ago
This really misses the mark. Any 2-3k camera beats the image most movies had 20 years ago.
The reason Hollywood uses expensive gear is because the human cost is so enormous, that any improvement in gear to reduce human cost becomes a no-brainer.
- asimpletune 5y ago> This really misses the mark. Any 2-3k camera beats the image most movies had 20 years ago. Do you mean beats any digital camera 20 years ago? Because I think film cameras back then were phenomenal.
- KennyBlanken 5y agoI think you mean lenses. In any case, it doesn't matter how phenomenal the lens and camera were; film had a lot of limitations unless you shot really low ISO film, and that meant tons of light. I think for filmmakers it was less about technical ability of the cameras and more about workflow and getting the look right; no film grain, no weave to the image as the film shifted slightly in the camera, way more dynamic range, different behavior around darks and highlights, etc. One of the reasons a lot of newer films look so gorgeous is because modern cameras have such low noise at higher ISOs that they can employ a lot less artificial lighting, and high bit depth gives them much more flexibility in grading/coloring.
- nullc 5y agoA lot of film->digital transfers that people see are really poorly done by modern standards because they were done a decade or more ago, causing people to underestimate how good state of the art film looked.
- throwawayboise 5y agoA studio-quality 35mm movie camera is roughly equivalent to 4K digital in terms of resolution. It is only 16 frames per second though so rapid motion is not as smooth.
- radford-neal 5y agoAccording to wikipedia, standard 35mm movies are at 24 frames per second. It also says there are 16 frames per foot of film, which may be where you go that number.