Film use

[rodgerse]

It seems to me the only thing thats changed about film in the past 100+ years is color and sound,quality probably same, just the fact that many are old makes it seem modern film is better.

Although 35mm film is good, and how it can be scanned in quality HD even many years later, when the hell is it gonna be replaced by digital?.Are simple HD cameras more expensive and troublesom than using stripps of paper?.

I don't see why digital cams haven't been used for movie and tv yet, quality, preservation and putting to dvd would be much easier.

[BStecke]

There are trade-offs between film and digital. For one, digital photography is typically not as good for darker scenes.

Also, digital photography is not a guarantee of eliminating grain. Look at Superman Returns . . . shot 100% digitally, and it still has grain, specifically in the scene where Clark is outside of his Kansas home.

[buckshot]

film rocks and it always will. death to digital.

and a lot has changed over the last 100 years when it comes to film. from the photo reactive chemicals to the processing, to simple techniques. you can see the differences from decade to decade.

digital has problems with color rendering too. my wife and I photographed a wedding in sacramento about 6 months ago. I used my cannon eos 20d my wife used her film camera a connon rebel whatever. the differences were amazing. the digital by itself looked great, until you campared it to the film. with the digital the purple flowers and blue ribbons were the same color, the skin tones were off a bit, and with dark skinned individuals (black) the digital made it seem as though they had no definition to their faces. with the film everything was spot on. I like my digital a lot its very convenient for on the fly photography. but there is no replacement for film. my favorite camera is still my pentax K1000 that I use for my black and white stuff. or my mamiya 330 I use for my really nice stuff since its medium format.

[jsteinhauer]

I'm no expert in photography or filming, but digital imaging technology is limited by the speed of electrons in conductors, which is slower than the speed of photons hitting film, and the resolution is limited by the size of a manufactured pixel, while traditional film resolution is limited by the size of molecules. Similarly, electronically generated colors are a finite spectrum of discrete colors, while the natural spectrum is continuous. I am always in awe of the those skilled in the arts of photography and filming and the ways that they can instinctively use colors, motion and light to create masterpieces.

[Brandon B]

Originally Posted by jsteinhauer

I'm no expert in photography or filming, but digital imaging technology is limited by the speed of electrons in conductors, which is slower than the speed of photons hitting film

Irrrelevant for both. THe speed of electrons in a conductor is plenty fast to take a still image, or even 24 or 30 of them per second.

and the resolution is limited by the size of a manufactured pixel, while traditional film resolution is limited by the size of molecules.

Film grain crystals are very very much larger than molecules. But your point still remains on this side of being valid. Not for long though.

Similarly, electronically generated colors are a finite spectrum of discrete colors, while the natural spectrum is continuous. I am always in awe of the those skilled in the arts of photography and filming and the ways that they can instinctively use colors, motion and light to create masterpieces.

This is where the argument you and Buckshot put forth are still very valid. Only a matter of time though, and I would wager that time is about 5 years.

BB