March 17, 2012
February 28, 2012
March 27, 2012
Arriflex supports the move toward higher resolution too. 4k is the emerging gold standard for theatrical release. Every major chain in my hometown switched to 4k digital last fall. 36 screens.
2k is good, but not good enough to replace film.
April 10, 2012
Good enough to replace 16mm and S16 and early 35mm stock. Hence, a Bolex.
Having been shooting with JVC's QuadHD camcorder, I notice FullHD productions are free of video's typical edge sharpness and no artifacts. Essentially it is oversampling by 2X -- which a 2.5K camera can't do.
To get modern 35mm film stock -- or 4K projection -- we need 4K which means a 6K to 8K camera. That's why RED and Sony F65 are what they are.
All of the 2K to 2.5K are steps on the way to 4K needed to provide FullHD. To replace 35mm film, we are a long way from that with 2K to 2.5K cameras. These are for making BD or broadcast HD where you don't want a "video" look because they look SOFT.
Folks mistake softness for looking like "film" when, in fact, modern 35 film stock is not soft. But, if it works for you -- great!
PS: I've been shooting film and what you get is grain which the 2K to 2.5K cameras lack. Adding a slight bit of grain in post should get a good emulation of S16.
Most Users Ever Online: 122
Currently Online: h.thomas, M. Ryan, Striets of SF
Currently Browsing this Page:
James M: 600
Harry Lime: 438
Ari Davidson: 369
Guest Posters: 1
Newest Members: JAZZ.CAM, Ann Bromberg filmmaker, Timucin, IbaiE, camalot, Nikita, alexmtz, rick_101, tim, unstrucksound
Administrators: StenRidley (3), elleschneider (67), joerubinstein (1782), toby (7)