Kodak profitable again thanks to Star Wars

[segagamer12]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Because as of now film is still the best looking capture medium. That would be a good enough reason...correct? I understand some indie filmmaker that has a very limited budget or even a big budget film maker who is shooting in conditions that would make it necessary to shoot digital, but as of now big budget films and tv shot digitally looks like dead image $%%#. Hell my wife was watching The Holiday a few days back and I marveled at how nice and crisp the cinematography of a comedy looked for something shot on film back in 2006, which if it was made now would almost certainly be shot digitally. There's a life and depth to the image that looks better in that kind of forgettable romantic comedy from 10 years ago than some of the big budget stuff shot digitally now.

But that is the myth, you can't magically add more picture data to the scanned image that is my point, YES you will get a higher resolution image but you won't get more detail than what was already there to begin with. You can scan it in at any resolution you want but it is not that different than upscaling. They can take a movie that was shot at 2K digital, print that onto a 34 mm film strip, scan that back into the computer and 4k and the resulting image is no different than doing the same thing with something shot on film. There is just a lot of misinformation out there by people who never studied light or physics or any of the science of film, just angry old timers who believe the marketing lies and the industry buzzwords and talking points, and whatever else they want to believe. 35mm film, or film of any kind, will never allow for as much detail as digital no matter what resolution it is scanned at because you cannot physically, magically, add more light than what was physically capable of passing through the damn thing in the first place.