[rollei_list] Re: OT film advice, film vs. digital

  • From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:11:08 -0400

Exactly. To be blunt (flame suit on), these discussions always get
side-tracked by engineers who attempt to measure and quantify and
define, whereas the serious image makers can see the differences in
subtleties and nuances and textures straight away...

This reminds me of the debate between video tape and film in
television production; a debate which is about to reprise itself in
the motion picture world as soon as a digital standard is adopted. The
serious image makers always saw the superiority of film, and to this
day after over 60 years of video capture and 40 years of video tape,
film is still the medium of choice for prime-time dramatic series and
commercials (typically the most expensive productions on TV) no matter
how many "film-like" processes the engineers come up with for tape to
emulate it...


Eric Goldstein

--

On 7/17/07, Gene Johnson <genej2ster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

for me it's not the resolution.  Don't care so much.  it's dynamic
range, it's texture, it's ....personality.  Digital images have a
persistent sameness to them.  Especially with medium and large format
film, it's the ability to use selective focus more effectively.  The
sensors in digital cams are very small, and even portraits are many
sensor lengths away. For nudes and still lifes, these are two very
different media.

---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org 

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. rollei_list
  3. Archive
  4. 07-2007