> From: Aaron F. Ross <aa...@digitalartsguild.com>
> Definitely good points. However, don't forget that any film stock can 
> now be emulated, given good enough digital source material. 
No it cannot, not remotely. I work in post, and have done for some time, with 
both film and digital source and this is not true. The mediums have a wholly 
different look, you can make digital look a lot like film, but you'll not get a 
true and accurate emulation. 
>As I said before, the moment that HDR sensors become affordable, then 
>will be irrelevant. If you start with 20 stops of latitude in a 
>32-bit floating point color space, you can push or pull it wherever 
>you want and the end result will be indistinguishable from footage 
>shot on the stock of your choice. --
Did you not read my post when you first started overstating the impact of HDR, 
and misrepresenting its purpose ? Yes the latitude of HDR will give you much 
more control in post but also you have to think about compression artifacts 
limiting what you can do. Yes you can work with uncompressed footage on the 
most expensive cameras, but as I said earlier in reply to another post of yours 
(also containing gross overstatements and misinterpretation) the switch to HDR 
sensors is a waaay off still. Surely as someone who works in Maya you can 
appreciate the difference in file size, and the difference in time that it 
takes to apply any processing at all working in a 32bit space,(assuming you've 
used a linear workflow and actually done some post other than tonemapping). Its 
a huge increase in production cost, even when the sensors become 
available large hollywood productions will not jump on a completely HDR 
workflow for quite a while (and when they do it'll
 probably be at 16bit, being as that is good enough). You're also kind of 
asking all filmmakers to shoot 'flat' to give the post guys all of that 
latitude too, HDR does have a start and end point you know, reality still has a 
wider dynamic range. One of the main advantages of digital film making is not 
really having to guess the final look with a video assist, but to be able to 
take the footage to a laptop on set and push and pull it there. With HDR 
that'll be a bit of a time sink without a considerably cash cost. Its not just 
the sensors that have to become affordable its the whole pipeline that has to 
become affordable, and also HDR has to be really advantageous at all stages in 
the pipeline too. Film is actually a much cheaper way to get a high dynamic 
range when you think about these issues. Most filmmakers here, if they do 
switch to digital will not be working with HDR footage or processes, their 
costs would actually increase dramatically.
 They'll be shooting on VDSLRs or P2s, or FS100s or equivalents thereof.
More importantly your final remark that it will be 'indistinguishable from 
footage shot on the stock of your choice' is completely wrong, it won't.  
Also, the end delivery point of film is not, and will not be for a very long 
time, HDR projectors. You are still going to bring it down to a smaller dynamic 
range to ship and show it, so why not start working closer to the end 
result (as we do in DPX and Cineon formats at 16, 12 or 10 bit) to start with. 
HDR footage will mostly be used for VFX footage, to give compositors more 
latitude and control in post first with complex shots, its general use is some 
way off. Basically, even though HDR sensors/footage is coming, the audience are 
not going to be watching full dynamic range films for a very long time. 
Another point, motion, this is very important. The look of movement on film is 
wholly different (and much better) to digitally shot footage. Maybe you should 
look at the rolling shutter tests in the Zacuto great camera shootout someone 
posted a link to here. Shooting with very high speed cameras such as the 
Phantom solve this problem (but you're not seriously going to be shooting a 
feature on one of those). Even the most expensive digital cameras suffer from 
the rolling shutter problem. Yeah, alternative approaches are on the way to 
solve this, but they aren't here yet. 
I love shooting and working in digital. The flexibility it gives me is way 
beyond anything film could ever provide me. I know my medium very well and it 
will not, ever, look the same as film does and nor should it ever try to. It 
will replace film eventually, but it won't ever look, or respond, the same way 
that film can. Go talk to a good DP Aaron who works in both mediums. Shooting 
in digital requires a different way of lighting, a different way of thinking, 
and a different set of technical limits to film. These differences 
will actually be more easily understood, and adapted to, by someone from a 
video background. In that fact you'll get a hint as to how wholly different the 
two mediums actually are and why digital ultimately has its own look and will 
never accurately emulate film.
From: Mark Longolucco <m...@squeaky.org>
> (not to mention a somewhat long and steep learning curve with film) 
There is an equal, if probably not longer and steeper, learning curve shooting 
and working in digital Mark. Unfortunately most digital filmmakers can't be 
bothered to actually educate themselves fully.
- Stray.

FrameWorks mailing list

Reply via email to