Originally posted by: zombie84
[M]ost still prefer 16mm over HD--the resolution is almost the same (16mm actually has a bit more)

Hope boris doesn't see this! You might have to try to convince him that no, DVD isn't better than 16 mm film...

I appreciate your arguments and your expertise. Like someone said about two pages back, this has been one of the more fun and interesting threads around here in a while!

I guess we're already seeing a move to higher-resolution cameras and workflows -- 'Superman Returns' used a camera with a 12.4 megapixel, native 16:9 sensor that's the same width as 35 mm film. It hasn't been that many years since George used Cinealtas at just 1920 x 1080, so things are already improving.

In fact, I suspect your estimate on timing is probably slow. I can imagine (although I'm not exactly in a position to predict) that once a few more pictures are done on HD and the idea of HD sort of reaches its "tipping point" (thanks, Malcolm Gladwell), then motion pictures will go the way still cameras have gone in recent years. Could anyone have predicted in 1996 that just 10 years later, digital would be king in the consumer camera market? I bought my first digital camera in 1997, and my friends and family thought digital photography was certainly intriguing, but not ever going to be worth their own hard-earned cash...