-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Lucasfilm releases more Revenge of the Sith publicity photos (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
- Status
MrPing1000
Member
Hard Toffee's the bane of the Jedi
soundwave05
Member
Digital 24P is not as high resolution as 35mm film.
The CCD chips are still not big enough to create a picture which is directly comparable to film.
Digital is used mostly right now for convienance sake or by a lot of low-budget productions. For Star Wars it lets the special effects guys insert effects a bit easier, so I guess it's a convienance thing.
I still don't like how it looks in comparision to the Star Wars films shot on film.
The CCD chips are still not big enough to create a picture which is directly comparable to film.
Digital is used mostly right now for convienance sake or by a lot of low-budget productions. For Star Wars it lets the special effects guys insert effects a bit easier, so I guess it's a convienance thing.
I still don't like how it looks in comparision to the Star Wars films shot on film.
radioheadrule83
Banned
soundwave05 said:
I think some of that depends on who you believe. Film is a chemically dependant format, where you'll make a lot of decisions based on what you're shooting: darkness, subtle light, fast action, something more still.. and you'll appropriate film type/ISO, shutter speed and so forth appropriately. There are optical effects to these choices - like change in depth of field, motion blur or lack of, noise etc. Digital, as you already pointed out eliminates many inconveniences. Outside of the cost of good 24P cameras, it also costs a fraction of what film production costs. There's virtually no noise either when output with a digital projector. For large theatres film will probably still look great for a very long time, but with home formats imparticular (which is where the bulk of movie business cash is made these days) the resolutions in digital film suffice. In fact, they're largely tailored to those resolutions. 35mm is only digitised to these native resolutions anyway.
As for Star Wars: I think part of the reason Star Wars Episode II seems unreal or cartoony to a lot of people is because they've watched traditional film all of their lives that come with traditional grain/noise. Its true that 35mm is a dense high resolution medium, but it's based on photosensitive chemicals that now, can barely change. The future is in electronic sensors capturing information. In a matter of a couple of years Lucasfilm has upgraded from 2.2 million pixel digital cameras on Clones, to 10 million on Revenge of the Sith. This can go as far as processing can go fast, and chip refabrication can make small.
I think this is why 35mm film is still being used now, but also why Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Oliver Stone, Ron Howard, Francis Ford Coppola, and Robert Rodriquez are either interested in where digital film is going or are actively pushing/using it already.
IAmtheFMan
Member
Those look pretty bright. Hopefully, the overall lighting of the film will be more akin to that of Empire.
Christoff Yurievich
Member
radioheadrule83I think this is why 35mm film is still being used now said:
Once Upon A Time In Mexico was a very good looking movie, that's for sure.
ManaByte
Gold Member
Spielberg has said that he would never go digital.
Lucas just needs to have Rodriquez explain it to him. Lucas can't explain it well enough, but if you check out the Once Upon a Time in Mexico DVD, Rodriquez goes into great detail on why anyone who isn't using digital is still in the stone age.
Lucas just needs to have Rodriquez explain it to him. Lucas can't explain it well enough, but if you check out the Once Upon a Time in Mexico DVD, Rodriquez goes into great detail on why anyone who isn't using digital is still in the stone age.
- Status