ChainsawAsh said:
Yeah, Janskeet, no one in their right mind, now or then, would ever do CG on a film meant to be shown theatrically at less than 1080p (honestly, less than 2K is crazy IMO, though 2K and 1080p are so close the difference is almost negligible). Even on films like T2 from 1991 would have been done at 2K (I think, but don't quote me on that, I could be wrong).

I wonder if this is why the CGI work looked so good in T2 compared to more recent films. The artists (yes, they used to have artists in the business) were so contientious of the CGI blending in with the film they actually put enough time into it to look good at 1080p an beyond. I wonder if the CGI designers working for Lucasfilm, ILM, and the entire industry in general even consider that their work will eventaully be viewed at high resolutions. I didn't see Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer (or whatever the hell it was called) but the silver surfer looked terrible in it. If I was oblivious to movies I would've predicted that the silver surfer was created before the T-1000.

If you ask me, digital cinematography sucks. It's ideal for amatuer filmmakers and home recordings, but if you are really serious about making a film than you should use film. I'm a little confused though what constitutes cinematography as digital or film? I've worked with cameras that had a film media (tapes that were like audio cassestes but made for video recording) and were instantly playable on computers after recording. I don't know if they analog or digital?