Originally posted by: zombie84
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.
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. THIS IS ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT.
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.
Here here! I've shot a lot of 16mm film and dabbled into HD a bit, and all I can say to Boris and anyone else who has a half-assed opinion based on technology they have no personal experience in - only one based on articles they read on the internet - don't try to argue. You just end up looking naive and ignorant. Laserman and zombie84 have put my opinion and knowledge of cinematography in better words than me, and plus there's no reason to be redundent.
PS: Laserman, it's good to have you back. You're like the wise grandfather that brings reason to occasional chaos around here.