Shot using HD camera vs. copied from film

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by bobcarla

Yet I read again and again that movies shot with film and then scanned into an HD format should look every bit as good as those, like Planet Earth, filmed using digital HD camera. Their argument is that film has more than 4 times the resolution of the best HD camera.

First, you shouldn't really be making any "video is better than film" statements unless you really know for sure how the movies you are comparing were photographed.

Lots of people see some great image quality on Blu-ray and since Blu-ray is "digital" they have this silly knee-jerk response assuming the movie was shot in "digital."

Movies shot on 35mm still look better and sharper on Blu-ray than those shot on digital video. Recent BD releases to get top PQ scores, such as I Robot and No Country for Old Men were shot on 35mm film. Not video.

The process of how a 35mm movie is transferred to HD will make a big difference on image quality. If it is simply run through a HD-quality telecine then details will be a little soft and color won't be as good. If the studio spends the extra money to put the 35mm negatives through a digital intermediate process the end result will look a lot better.

Originally Posted by skrill

I think Mission Impossible III was shot on HD cameras (I was just watching it last night). I have to say that I think it is one of the highest quality HD media discs out there (mine happens to come in a red box).

Mission Impossible III was shot on film, not video.

Originally Posted by wallendo

1) Digital video (as opposed to digital movies) are shot at a higher frame rate (30 fps vs. 24 fps) which produces more fluid movement.

Wrong. There are numerous video camera models that can shoot video at 24 frames per second. All video cameras used for feature movie production use the 24fps frame rate.

Originally Posted by wallendo

2) Movies (including digitally recorded movies) are shot with a narrow depth of field - much of the image is intentionally out of focus, while much digital video is shot with a wider depth of field, and most, if not all, of the image is "in focus".

Incorrect. Depth of field is a different issue. Digital video cameras really don't perform as well as film cameras in low light settings. You're more likely to need a more wide open apeture settings (and resulting lower depth of field) using a video camera than you would with a film camera. If you under expose a film camera image, the imagery is simply dark looking. Under expose video and you'll get all sorts of digital noise (red and green pixels popping out of the shadows even) and image quality problems resolving motion. Film doesn't have that problem since you have a truly discrete image for each frame.

Originally Posted by dvdvision

The OP got it wrong, most if not all recent films use a digital intermediate before being ported to film, therefore, technically, they are all are sourced from HD.

That's an over-generalization. Even if a 35mm negative is scanned and processed thru digital intermediate at the same resolution of a HD video camera, it's probably still going to feature better image quality.

Originally Posted by Sonny

Example: David Letterman & Jay Leno in HDTV , CNN HDTV . Those shows along with many others now have the 'strait' HD Cameras & that PQ is soon perfect especially for TV

Top of the line, huge, HDTV studio cameras in very well lighted TV production studios can yield really great video image quality. But it still looks like video, not film. Problems do occur with video image quality when it is reprocessed to mimic the film look. Honestly, I think the folks making movies with video cameras and making claims that "digital" is better than film ought to leave that video imagery unaltered. But then viewers might be turned off by their movie looking like the six o'clock news or an afternoon soap opera.