16mm Film vs. Digital - Test 1

No description available.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• 16mm
• digital
• test
• Dallas
• Texas
• Eclair
• ACL
• Kodak
• 250D
• 500T
• panasonic

[vladthekicker]

Just because you've heard of RED, Phantom, or Sony's Cinealta, does not mean you shot with that equipment, therefore, the only thing I'd recommend for you is to shoot with all the above mentioned cameras, and train your eye to see the difference. Film, 16mm or 35mm, has more latitude and film equipment does not require 4 assistants and a tent for the use. In this video I simply show extremes of the mediums, I am not trying to make digital or film look good. Shoot film and see the difference!

[jpdeclaiterosse]

@PalferyMusic This subject pops up time again and always leads to kicking one another in the balls.

Its untrue you require a larger crew to shoot 16mm. For a teaser there was me, Aaton, backpack, tripod, actress, on foot. Larger scenes might have more crew.

Weve shot everything, Red, broadcast and most are heavier than the Aaton and often require more crew than 16mm to carry kit, (DiT), backup, drives, more batteries etc.

Its not just about pixels, its colour depth, dynamic range, stability.

[Dvon5000]

If this is just one small part of a much larger test encompassing different formats, I think it could be fairly interesting, but why on earth would you compare a 1080 HD telecine of Super16mm film to 480p miniDV? With a mostly unlit night exterior, no less? What could you possibly learn from this test?

[PalferyMusic]

Lmao, MiniDV? You know that records onto tape, right? And is a consumer/prosumer format with very little practical application when put up next to virtually any other commonly used format (bar beta, lol)? This whole video is stupid. You can't call this a Film vs Digital 'test' because there is no competition. Either you don't know a damn thing about cameras, or are deliberately trying to trick people who don't know any better. And for the record, film requires the bigger camera dept, not digital

[nickdrummer2004]

I knew just about everything you said. But in all honesty this isn't a fair test. Anybody can tell you that the digital you shot on can't match film. If you wanted to show extremes, why not be an IMAX vs digital test. This test really doesn't make any sense at all. Just seems like a waste of time.

[nickdrummer2004]

whoa

you cant compare super 16 to mini dv

that just isn't fair

put the 16mm up against a red or a phantom or a cinealta

like seriously yeah 16 mm is obviously better than both of those but still thats a fair fight...

this is just stupid

[gmanmp1821]

alright! I'm convinced....the difference is absolutely stunning!