Film Camera $250,000 + $10,000 per hour of film cost/develop/timed
DSLR $1000-$5000 + digital media cost (basically free)
Although DSLR's have come a long way, the lightbulb scene and the 13 stop DR test show how far DSLR's have to go. Not just in video, but in imaging. Still amazing.
You'll be amazed at the video Phillip Bloom did towards then end. Some cool time lapse landscape footage. In one particular scene, you see a night sky and tree line. You can see the earth move as the stars spin by, meanwhile, the camera is slowly panning/zooming. The combination of extreme time lapsed smooth camera adjustments working in tandem with a high ISO low noise capture is truly stunning.
Matt, thanks for passing this link along. This was a very high end production put together with some very strong points all the way around on 70mm Movie Film and the latest DSLR's and HD video capabilities. As you stated, the Phillip Bloom production in itself was well worth the time to watch this video.
Posted by Zack Schnepf on April 5, 2010 at 12:11 AM
Very cool, thanks for posting, can't wait for part 2.
Posted by Matt Anderson on April 23, 2010 at 8:41 AM
Zacuto has posted Part 2 of this 3 part series.
I still say film looks so damn good.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 23, 2010 at 10:55 AM
...the lightbulb scene and the 13 stop DR test show how far DSLR's have to go.
I still say film looks so damn good.
I haven't had the chance to see parts 2 and 3 yet, but I agree with both of these - but my take (from part 1) is that DSLRs don't really have much further to go. They can, and will, go much further and closer to film capabilites, but don't really need to. I think the larger point of the video is that DSLRs are already good enough for real, professional, work.
I found myself way more impressed over how close the SLRs were to film, than how good the film was - I thought the improvement with film over the SLRs was pretty minor. . It's not like you'll see a movie or TV scene, and think "ooh, that doesn't look great - they must have used an SLR". As an example, the season finale of the TV show "House" was shot entirely on 5DmkIIs.
(And as an aside, is it possible to have TOO much dynamic range? The lightbulb scene was cool, and I thought film being able to capture the bulb without it blowing out was really neat. But does the scene seem more real with the SLRs, since blown out lightbulbs are actually more realistic? I know I can't see the filament in a bulb anyway...)
Discussion
5 replieshttp://www.zacuto.com/shootout
Film Camera $250,000 + $10,000 per hour of film cost/develop/timed
DSLR $1000-$5000 + digital media cost (basically free)
Although DSLR's have come a long way, the lightbulb scene and the 13 stop DR test show how far DSLR's have to go. Not just in video, but in imaging. Still amazing.
You'll be amazed at the video Phillip Bloom did towards then end. Some cool time lapse landscape footage. In one particular scene, you see a night sky and tree line. You can see the earth move as the stars spin by, meanwhile, the camera is slowly panning/zooming. The combination of extreme time lapsed smooth camera adjustments working in tandem with a high ISO low noise capture is truly stunning.
I still say film looks so damn good.
I haven't had the chance to see parts 2 and 3 yet, but I agree with both of these - but my take (from part 1) is that DSLRs don't really have much further to go. They can, and will, go much further and closer to film capabilites, but don't really need to. I think the larger point of the video is that DSLRs are already good enough for real, professional, work.
I found myself way more impressed over how close the SLRs were to film, than how good the film was - I thought the improvement with film over the SLRs was pretty minor. . It's not like you'll see a movie or TV scene, and think "ooh, that doesn't look great - they must have used an SLR". As an example, the season finale of the TV show "House" was shot entirely on 5DmkIIs.
(And as an aside, is it possible to have TOO much dynamic range? The lightbulb scene was cool, and I thought film being able to capture the bulb without it blowing out was really neat. But does the scene seem more real with the SLRs, since blown out lightbulbs are actually more realistic? I know I can't see the filament in a bulb anyway...)