4 ms·
> 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
by 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.