Makes me glad I'm going to study film production at a university that offers me the chance to work both with 16mm film and with RED ONE setup. I want to experience the best of both worlds.
I'm confused... Film editing is non-linear too. I think the transfer of the film edit is a not a very good one either so that affects it quite a bit as well.
The motion blur is present on the digital more than the film because the film camera uses an actual shutter. But you could fix this with a shutter rate on the digital camera before 24p in post or native. I've worked with both. There's defo a big change in look to them apart from the obvious scratching and gate wobble. BUt you may have had the digital transfered to film by the lab. Who knows. :)
I guess I should have had a longer name like Optically Printed manually taped and spliced film, magnetically taped then shot off a wall then digitized video vs. rushed wall transfer non-linear video motions and graphics edit, but then again it is youtube.
RE: combatphil Neither transfer was telecined professionally. The original film rushes were shot on 16mm B&W 7265 film. The first "print" was edited on a JK 16mm Bolex Frame by Frame printer, so intern your correct about it not being a linear edit. But, in the final post process when all of the optical effects were applied in one solid go, the film still needed to be cut, MANUALLY, meaning reel to reel, taping and splicing, hence the term Linear
This is a really confusing comparison. Where they both telecined professionally? or was only one professionally telecined and the other printed then telecined by recording off the wall? What do you mean "linear"? Do you mean the actual editing technique? Because linear editing is a video term, not a film one. Or did you mean the fact that one was printed instead of editing directly with a digital editing system. I don't mean to complain or anything, it's just bothering the hell out of me.
I can see now that the digital camera captures a LOT of frames that the film camera doesn't. That's probably one of the reasons the digital camera captures more "real-looking" (and usually TOO real-looking) footage.
The digital version seems to capture "more frames" because it was recorded off of a projection on the wall at 23.98 The projector projects at 24fps, so it appears to be "more real looking," because it is closer in frame rate to the original FILM rushes. The "film camera" version was edited on a 24fps interface, but transferred to digital at 30fps, so in contrast to your comment of "the digital camera captures a LOT," it actually captures less, but looks crisper because of the 23.98 match capture
Makes me glad I'm going to study film production at a university that offers me the chance to work both with 16mm film and with RED ONE setup. I want to experience the best of both worlds.
GeorgeMaier 1 day ago
16mm is a micro-format, used for low-budget films and commercials. Everything smaller than 35mm is a joke for a comparison.
photoallergic 2 months ago
Nice this is Chicago
BlackShades1977 2 months ago
Film still the best.
le0401 2 months ago
Why does the linear version have brighter brights and darker darks?
dtwhitney 2 months ago
if someone says "did you film this with a toaster" I'll fucking kill you!
PresidentDRCI 2 months ago
@PresidentDRCI it appears that it was filmed with something more along the lines of a potato.
TheGuyInUrCloset 2 months ago
@TheGuyInUrCloset excuse me while I throw a grenade in my closet (;
PresidentDRCI 2 months ago
I prefer the visual 'warmth' of film over digital.
I prefer the warmth of record over cd.
I prefer analog synths over digital.
I prefer my girlfriend naked at all times.
DIGITALSCREAMS 2 months ago
@DIGITALSCREAMS And I prefer measurable data over sentimentality!
pope1870 1 month ago
RED digital and digital cinema is realy good for now . the film is not bad but is oldshit !
jonvoxofficial 3 months ago
@jonvoxofficial Film is definetly more difficult than a tiny SD card..
shockwave2468 3 months ago
@jonvoxofficial Go to a profesional grading suite and ask their opinion. No one thinks RED is (better) than the "oldshit"
Kinematographer 1 month ago
say what??
FootLooseSocietyJerk 3 months ago
Try it with 70 mm film. you would get around 120 mega pixel. Film still the best for now.
tvlam59 4 months ago
I'm confused... Film editing is non-linear too. I think the transfer of the film edit is a not a very good one either so that affects it quite a bit as well.
VictorGParra 4 months ago
clearly better contrast with film
EvolutionSoothsayer 6 months ago 6
@EvolutionSoothsayer
Until you start playing with the Arri Alexa, then it's screwed.
Usul573 2 weeks ago
The motion blur is present on the digital more than the film because the film camera uses an actual shutter. But you could fix this with a shutter rate on the digital camera before 24p in post or native. I've worked with both. There's defo a big change in look to them apart from the obvious scratching and gate wobble. BUt you may have had the digital transfered to film by the lab. Who knows. :)
kezadrone 7 months ago
Comment removed
kezadrone 7 months ago
I guess I should have had a longer name like Optically Printed manually taped and spliced film, magnetically taped then shot off a wall then digitized video vs. rushed wall transfer non-linear video motions and graphics edit, but then again it is youtube.
pooinashoea2 10 months ago 17
RE: combatphil Neither transfer was telecined professionally. The original film rushes were shot on 16mm B&W 7265 film. The first "print" was edited on a JK 16mm Bolex Frame by Frame printer, so intern your correct about it not being a linear edit. But, in the final post process when all of the optical effects were applied in one solid go, the film still needed to be cut, MANUALLY, meaning reel to reel, taping and splicing, hence the term Linear
pooinashoea2 10 months ago
This is a really confusing comparison. Where they both telecined professionally? or was only one professionally telecined and the other printed then telecined by recording off the wall? What do you mean "linear"? Do you mean the actual editing technique? Because linear editing is a video term, not a film one. Or did you mean the fact that one was printed instead of editing directly with a digital editing system. I don't mean to complain or anything, it's just bothering the hell out of me.
combatphil 10 months ago
I can see now that the digital camera captures a LOT of frames that the film camera doesn't. That's probably one of the reasons the digital camera captures more "real-looking" (and usually TOO real-looking) footage.
EGarrett01 11 months ago
The digital version seems to capture "more frames" because it was recorded off of a projection on the wall at 23.98 The projector projects at 24fps, so it appears to be "more real looking," because it is closer in frame rate to the original FILM rushes. The "film camera" version was edited on a 24fps interface, but transferred to digital at 30fps, so in contrast to your comment of "the digital camera captures a LOT," it actually captures less, but looks crisper because of the 23.98 match capture
pooinashoea2 11 months ago