Differences in movies shot with digital cameras

[diamondfoxxx]

I was hoping someone could clarify why movies shot on high definition digital cameras look different: to the casual viewer, when watching 'Apocalypto' (as an example) on a high definition format like blu-ray it will look absolutely gorgeous. But show another movie shot with high definition digital camera--let's say 'Miami Vice'--it looks like a movie shot incompetently with all the grain around. I understand that these two movies were shot on different cameras AND that artificial grain was added in 'Miami Vice'.
What I want to know is this:
1.) If Mann decided to NOT add artificial grain to Vice would it have looked like Apocalypto?
2.) When shooting digital during low light scenes, does video noise always pop up?

[Objectivity]

This will probably answer most of your questions.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ice#post559128

[diamondfoxxx]

Thankyou.

[ryoohki]

Film have grain, Digital have Noise... when you up the gain of the sensor on a digital camera (to get more light in dark scene) you add noise. Just like any consumer electronic digital camera out there on the market.

The advantage of Digital is that you can play with the gain on the fly. While with film, you have to own different stock film and generally they only buy one set. So if you're movie is 70% in the dark you'll probably buy ISO400 film and film the daylight scene with them. That's what happen with POTC, they used fast film everytime even in the day so it cause more grain even in the day. That film was often filmed with Candle Light lighting so it needed fast film. + With Digital there's no developping of the film and such it's faster. You also get full 1080p Outakes and deleted scene on the fly without adding the cost of processing those scene. With film they rarely do that because of the cost of developping and processing.

A great example of this is Superbad. During properly lit scene it's picture perfect... when they are in the night, the gain was probably augmented and you can see digital noise in the background...

[diamondfoxxx]

And with film, if try to get rid of grain you compromise detail; on the other hand when filming with digital even if noise appears you can use DNR (like they did with 'Zodiac') later and get a clean look--am I right?
With so many advantages why are A list directors like Spielberg, Stone, Ridley Scott still claiming to stick with film? Are they worried about preservation?

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by diamondfoxxx

And with film, if try to get rid of grain you compromise detail; on the other hand when filming with digital even if noise appears you can use DNR (like they did with 'Zodiac') later and get a clean look--am I right?
With so many advantages why are A list directors like Spielberg, Stone, Ridley Scott still claiming to stick with film? Are they worried about preservation?

DNR used on film and video will have a similar cost and result. Done to extremes, it'll cause a bland smooth look. And you don't want that. See Ultraviolet.


fuad