[RU.08 said:]
Yep, I just clicked-through his 1hr second video and he never compares how they look in motion, all he compares is how they look zoomed in on a screenshot.
??? He was arguing against the merits of a specific trend in the industry… basically the spin by equipment manufacturers that higher pixel-count pipelines equates to a clearer picture in a way that is noticeable to an audience. Motion resolution is a completely different subject.
[RU.08 said:]
Steve never mentions the problems of aliasing or other strobing artefacts caused by lower digital resolutions,
Why should he? He isn’t arguing for SD capture/presentation or any nonsense like that.
[RU.08 said:]
He also doesn’t specify what film stocks he used… Especially given that he had 4 different types of digital sensor, but only one type of 35mm film.
He mentioned the IMAX and 35MM being the same stock. In any case, I’m quite content to trust that this guy, who…
-has shot 13 features on film,
-is been somewhat nerdy about his tools,
-is part of the AMPAS Science and Technology Council,
-had their conclusions endorsed by the president of the ASC,
-is lensing the new SW film,
… probably knows enough about what he’s doing such that the question of “if he used the right film stock/scanned it correctly” isn’t one worth asking.