- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
[
Here's an excerpt from Cameron's interview with The Hollywood Reporter (I know his point of view is far from fact):
THR: How does the HD look blown up to 15-perf/70mm?
Cameron: It looks phenomenal. To say we're wildly enthusiastic would not be overstating it. One has to bear in mind, though, that it's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so it doesn't fill the entire height of the Imax screen. It chops off a bit at the top and bottom. But in a 3-D environment, you don't really notice that.
The amount of data available from a 35mm negative is much less than the amount of data available from an HD frame.
THR: Film purists argue the opposite.
Cameron: They're wrong. You can take an HD image and blow it up by double before you start to see the same amount of granularity you have with a 35mm negative. George Lucas did some tests that I flew up to see, and it corresponded to what we'd found. I'd say the Sony HD 900 series cameras are generating an image that's about equivalent to a 65mm original negative.
[
Here's an excerpt from Cameron's interview with The Hollywood Reporter (I know his point of view is far from fact):
THR: How does the HD look blown up to 15-perf/70mm?
Cameron: It looks phenomenal. To say we're wildly enthusiastic would not be overstating it. One has to bear in mind, though, that it's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so it doesn't fill the entire height of the Imax screen. It chops off a bit at the top and bottom. But in a 3-D environment, you don't really notice that.
The amount of data available from a 35mm negative is much less than the amount of data available from an HD frame.
THR: Film purists argue the opposite.
Cameron: They're wrong. You can take an HD image and blow it up by double before you start to see the same amount of granularity you have with a 35mm negative. George Lucas did some tests that I flew up to see, and it corresponded to what we'd found. I'd say the Sony HD 900 series cameras are generating an image that's about equivalent to a 65mm original negative.
Sorry just had to pop in here to say
THIS IS ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT.
This is the type of propaganda that proper cinematographers are fighting, this public notion that film is out of date, expensive or for some reason worse off than digital.
16MM FILM HAS MORE RESOLUTION THAN HD. AND IT DOESNT LOOK LIKE SHIT THE WAY HD DOES.
God. People are such fucking idiots.
HD appears to have the clarity of 65mm to mr. Cameron because it is super-crisp and thus shows detail more easily. This is actually a very ugly and undesireably trait that cinematographer have to fight by adding diffusion filters over the lens to soften it up and even this does not do much.
The Sony F900 series was a nice HD camera in its day--but it was not meant for dramatic motion picture work. It was designed for documentary-style stuff and in that respect it is a very nice camera. But everything it shoots for an actual dramatic motion picture looks like horseshit compared to film.
This type of stuff ticks me off.