Filmwise

[AnnieS]

Unforuntly isn''t all tv systems getting the works this year in the US. I forget what they are doing. And it doesn't happen here untill a few years time here in Canada!!!

Can anyone remember what it is called??

[jenks]

I justed watched a S4 SG1 and it was GRAIN O RAMA, I don't want to go back to that

HD looks good, so much detail. Love it.

It looks horrible, that's why none of the big shows use it.

I don't suppose that it matters to me. I have no intention of getting a HD TV. They use way more electricity, and I have a very good conventional TV.

We're not talking about the resolution (film is higher resolution than what those HD cameras film in anyway), we're talking about the cameras that are used to film it. The digital ones cost less to film with and that's why Stargate started using them, but they look cheap and tacky and lose the richness of film.

Example:

Film


HD

[JoeRocks]

I agree that I always preferred the texture that film gives, over digital. Especially in TV.

OT

Spoiler:

II just wanted to say how much I love your siggie, as a fan of Star Trek as well.

[TraK]

Example:

Film


HD

Jenks, i think that is a bad example of HD. It looks weird in that image because that scene was lit in a specific way because it was an interview. 'Regular' lighting of a scene (like the one above it) would not produce an image like this.

[terr]

I justed watched a S4 SG1 and it was GRAIN O RAMA, I don't want to go back to that

HD looks good, so much detail. Love it.

You may not be just seeing the difference between film and HD. The early seasons of SG-1 were done in 16mm film. Then, they switched to 35mm, which looks much better. I'm not certain when they made the switch, though.

[Cree]

hehe yay my thread was on the gateworld front page for once and it seems popular!

anyways i agree with jenks completely.
Also shows like BSG heroes and Lost all look great because as someone said ealier they are characters in a story not actors on a set (PERFECT way of describing it btw)

[stargatefan234]

I agree... sort of.

The problem with HD Cameras when they first came out was that make up artists and costumers had to adjust how they did things because the cameras were so crisp they could pick up things like makeup particles on the face and tiny discrepancies in fabric/costumes that would be impossible to see on a grainier, richer format like film.

However, fort he most part, new technology and colour timing techniques have all but eliminated this. I like the HD... but what they REALLY have to do is lose the rear screen projected puddle. It looks baaad.

Very BAD.

[Splitsecond]

This is like when people prefer vinyl to mp3. Vinyl has some roughness to it because it isn't digital and the medium has impurities, but you don't have the problem of data loss from compression. The same is true for film, film can have impurities in it, which makes it slightly more rough, but there's no problems with cheap compression techniques.

[quade_1]

I like the old way before HD, it has its benefits but when you can see the pores in an actors face, that is just too much.

[jebus]

This is like when people prefer vinyl to mp3. Vinyl has some roughness to it because it isn't digital and the medium has impurities, but you don't have the problem of data loss from compression. The same is true for film, film can have impurities in it, which makes it slightly more rough, but there's no problems with cheap compression techniques.

I prefer FLAC to both of those, lossless codecs wont lose data from compression. As space gets cheaper, it will eventually become affordable to have HD video using only a lossless compression technique too in reasonable space.

[WishIwasJoes]

Very easily. Digital cameras look too much like a live feed on a news station or something, they don't have the richness of film, it's like you're watching actors on a set rather than characters in a story. I too hope they go back to film, I'll be disappointed it they don't.

Well said! Digital just looks so fake its crazy. But there it is.