s35 film stocks in the 1970s is about the same as 1080p in terms of resolution

[zlfan]

just watched the godfather and dune on amazon on a 50 inch Sony 4k tv. dune 1 seems significantly clearer than godfather 1 2. 

film stocks in the late 1990s and early 2000 seem at 4k level. 

it is overkill to use a 8k camera to scan even the latest negative. significantly more storage, very little gain.

 

the fashion of using the film seems nostalgia, in stead of true technical advantage. 

 

 

[MrSMW]

Dune should. It's been nearly 50 years!

I can't remember, what did they do with this? Shot it on film, scanned it, made the tweaks, put it back to film...or something?

[eatstoomuchjam]

Does anybody make the argument that film has higher resolution than digital?  In full frame 35mm photo terms, I thought it was generally accepted that 24 megapixels or so was equal to (or greater than) the resolution of most film.  That means 6k is closer to Vista Vision.  There are a few exceptions that people will cherry pick to show it - but if using a high-quality film scanner with around 4,000dpi resolution (4000x6000 - 24 megapixels) - and if using a glass carrier to keep the negative perfectly flat, the grain on almost any film stock is easily visible at 100%.  If using ISO 400 or above, it's even more obvious.

With that in mind, the actual resolution of even a very modern 35mm film stock (academy) is about 8 megapixels at 4,000 dpi - so 4k.

But even with a fully digital pipeline, I'll choose my C70 (4K S35) over my EOS R5 (8K FF) almost every time.  Resolution is far from the most important quality of an image and there are plenty of reasons (including much better highlight rolloff) that people shoot on film.  Plus if we're talking cinema, it might surprise you how many theaters are still using 2K projectors, rendering the capture resolution even more moot.  😄

[Clark Nikolai]

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

With that in mind, the actual resolution of even a very modern 35mm film stock (academy) is about 8 megapixels at 4,000 dpi - so 4k.

But even with a fully digital pipeline, I'll choose my C70 (4K S35) over my EOS R5 (8K FF) almost every time.  Resolution is far from the most important quality of an image and there are plenty of reasons (including much better highlight rolloff) that people shoot on film.  Plus if we're talking cinema, it might surprise you how many theaters are still using 2K projectors, rendering the capture resolution even more moot.  😄

I think the main reason to scan film at a super high resolution is to see the individual grain particles. It once was a thing to try to avoid but now it's a cool thing to have (and there's all this interest in fake film grain plug ins).

When shooting digital for narrative cinema, 2K is plenty (if the camera is good in other ways.) Shooting at a higher resolution in order to punch in of course is useful.

[Benjamin Hilton]

Yeah digital's been able to easily match and/or exceed that of film stocks here for a while. 

[JulioD]

I think the argument is that the original film probably has more resolution.  That’s not what you’re watching though.  
 

i have seen many home film scanners now are based on using a Fuji GFX cameras…
 

 

[Benjamin Hilton]

Yeah the original film probably has more resolution than what you're seeing in the final production today. That being said, I think we're long past the argument that film has any technical advantage over digital. It's a look, one that can be nearly replicated in post with the right technicians to perfection, or a look that can be partially copied while still retaining some of the advantages of digital. I think that's the future right there for most projects personally. 

I really have very little interest in perfectly replicating the "film look" in many of my projects. I bring in some of the characteristics of film in my grading, but leave out others. This "hybrid" look is what we're seeing in a lot of modern films and such and I think it's working really well. 

[inde]

There's the scan and then there's the film as has been noted above. I remember in the early thousands being told by an emeritus prof in astronomy that they were finding digital was sharper than film. These were low resolution dgital sensors but worked better in low photon capturing. Remember, digital doesn't suffer from failure of reciprocity. I was shocked at the time.

My guess is today, above 100 iso, digital is better than s35 at 1080p for resolution on a sensor without an OLPF. However, digital colour is not as rich generally and much worse on a standard sony sensor. Dynamic range is better on film even if just because it has a proper toe and shoulder. There I said it.

[Benjamin Hilton]

44 minutes ago, inde said:

There's the scan and then there's the film as has been noted above. I remember in the early thousands being told by an emeritus prof in astronomy that they were finding digital was sharper than film. These were low resolution dgital sensors but worked better in low photon capturing. Remember, digital doesn't suffer from failure of reciprocity. I was shocked at the time.

My guess is today, above 100 iso, digital is better than s35 at 1080p for resolution on a sensor without an OLPF. However, digital colour is not as rich generally and much worse on a standard sony sensor. Dynamic range is better on film even if just because it has a proper toe and shoulder. There I said it.

Dynamic range was certainly better on some of the best film stocks for quite a while, but I don't think you're seeing much of an advantage over the Alexa sensors these days. (most other high end digitals aren't far behind) Plus with most decent cameras a good highlight rolloff isn't hard to pull off in post if you know what you're doing