Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
You have already been corrected many times in the 35mm thread, by people who actually work in the industry
Believe it or not, not everyone in the film industry agrees on it. What I said (which is the resolution of 35MM is roughly equal to HD, and 16MM to SD) is generally accepted mainstream in the film industry.
I would love to know who these people are. Because as a member of the Cinematographers Guild (IATSE Local 667), I don't think anyone in their right mind who works in my department would make this claim. The issue is that HD is an acceptable replacement for 35mm to audience members even though it is much lower in resolution, similar to the way 16mm could be an acceptable replacement for 35mm to audience members even though it is much lower in resolution--NOT that HD rivals or surpases 35mm, which it very clearly does not.
Originally posted by: Vigo
You have already been corrected many times in the 35mm thread, by people who actually work in the industry
Believe it or not, not everyone in the film industry agrees on it. What I said (which is the resolution of 35MM is roughly equal to HD, and 16MM to SD) is generally accepted mainstream in the film industry.
I would love to know who these people are. Because as a member of the Cinematographers Guild (IATSE Local 667), I don't think anyone in their right mind who works in my department would make this claim. The issue is that HD is an acceptable replacement for 35mm to audience members even though it is much lower in resolution, similar to the way 16mm could be an acceptable replacement for 35mm to audience members even though it is much lower in resolution--NOT that HD rivals or surpases 35mm, which it very clearly does not.
It's still considered industry standard to release non-anamorphic sourced material as non-anamorphic (many DVD's with extras feature a mix of anamorphic and non-anamorphic features). It's annoying, but it's standard.
Its actually not nowadays, because so many people watch special features on widescreen tvs. You still see non-anamorphic special features, but most of them--including trailers--and especially on big studio releases, are anamorphic enhanced.
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
The only parts replaced were the ones which used new CGI footage. The original negatives, while faded and dirty, still retained all of their picture information. Again, you are spreading bullshit here. Even if they had to replace parts of the negative with other film stock, it would still be superior to HD and of course vastly superior to 720x480.....
Oooh, now who doesn't know what they're talking about? They did permanently remove parts of the master reel which were not special edition hangs. The film would be superior to SD, but not to HD. It'll be embarrassing if I can prove this to you once all SW films are released in HD. Its actually not nowadays, because so many people watch special features on widescreen tvs. You still see non-anamorphic special features, but most of them--including trailers--and especially on big studio releases, are anamorphic enhanced.
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
The only parts replaced were the ones which used new CGI footage. The original negatives, while faded and dirty, still retained all of their picture information. Again, you are spreading bullshit here. Even if they had to replace parts of the negative with other film stock, it would still be superior to HD and of course vastly superior to 720x480.....
I'm not even sure what you are saying here. Anything shot on 35mm will be superior to HD. And not just by a little bit--by a huge margin. Why do you think 90% of the worlds movies are still shot on 35mm film??? Cinematographers arent idiots.