Originally posted by: boris

Originally posted by: zombie84
THIS IS ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT.

Dude calm down, it's not horseshit it's an opinion. I've shared my opinion, and I've shared Cameron's opinion.

I'm not blasting you, I'm just blasting Cameron for spreading completely ignorant anti-film propaganda. And yes, it is an opinion. BUT ITS WRONG. If my opinion is that 2+2=5, well thats my opinion, but its wrong. HD is nowhere near film, not even 16mm, and certainly not 65mm. As someone who works in the cinematography department, who has experience with both digital and film and who has a political prejudice against neither, Cameron's statement first made me laugh out loud because it is so ridiculous and then made me angry because i realised people will listen to him and believe him.

Let me put it to you this way: no cinematographer would ever argue that HD can approach 65mm. Hell, its been a half-decade uphill battle just to get it up to 35mm standards and we are still a long ways off. HD has its benefits and those are that is quick and cheap to shoot and has a simplified post flow. Nobody ever uses it for image quality and resolution. As i said, 16mm film yeilds higher resolution than HD video--and not only is it higher res, it also looks gorgeous as well.

Sorry to derail, I'm actually out shooting right now which is why i haven't really been here lately, but i just thought I'd pop in and CORRECT this dangerous and ignornat statement by Cameron.