I hate digital video, it looks horrible compared to film

[Musicat]

@Hail_Ants

I’m not sure what you mean. TV and film are all shot directly onto some kind of digital medium (tape, hard disk, memory etc.) with digital HD video cameras, not film cameras.

Then it wouldn’t be film, would it? Film is filmed on film. The term “film” does not mean “record,” although it’s often used that way incorrectly.

For that matter, people say I am “taping” a performance, when recording tape is not part of the process in any form whatsoever (I record to a memory card or direct to a computer).

[Hail_Ants]

@Airk

Right; And this thread isn’t about comparing a movie as viewed in the theatre to a movie as viewed at home, as far as I can understand it.

This thread is about comparing movies filmed on film to movies filmed in digital.

So all the digitization degradation stuff applies equally to both sides and is therefore irrelevant to the comparison, contrary to what you seemed to be asserting in your initial post.

I’m not really disagreeing with you. The point I’m making is that although ostensibly DV doesn’t (or shouldn’t) suffer gen-loss like analog media, because of the enormous amount of data being manipulated compression & decompression are utilized at nearly every stage: shooting, editing, mastering, playing, broadcasting etc. Although there are some DV cameras which can in fact capture uncompressed, ‘raw’ video data, it’s still gonna be downhill from there. IOW you can’t really judge all DV the same as it can & does vary in its compression use and therefore quality.

@Musicat

Then it wouldn’t be film, would it? Film is filmed on film. The term “film” does not mean “record,” although it’s often used that way incorrectly.

Well yeah, but come on. For the foreseeable future the word ‘film’ will still remain a synonym for ‘movie’ regardless of the actual shooting medium.

[Sleel]

One thing that definitely is different is that film has better resolution of details, and those details correspond better to what our eyes see. Digital recording can only resolve details up to a certain point, after that, everything is dithering and software guesswork. Film records details coarsely when it reaches the limits of its reaction, but it records something. Film possesses color information down to the finest individual grain of detail. Digital, obviously, does not.

To equal the full resolution of even 35 mm film, you’d need a sensor capable of about 175 megapixels, and most pro level films are definitely not shot on film stock that is that low of a resolution. IMAX films are shot on 70 mm stock, and represent the high end of what is commonly used, but even an intermediate film stock records much, much more information than even the very best digital cameras available right now.

Digital keeps getting better, but film is currently the best visual recording medium. You can see some of the progress in old films that have been scanned. Older (i.e.: a few years old) scanning technology isn’t as good as what we’ve got now. The original, classic Star Wars movies will keep looking better for probably decades as scanning tech improves and someday matches the fidelity of the original film stock, whereas SW:E1, 2 and 3 will still look like c. 2000 digital photography, and will never, ever look any better.

[Hail_Ants]

@Sleel

To equal the full resolution of even 35 mm film, you’d need a sensor capable of about 175 megapixels, and most pro level films are definitely not shot on film stock that is that low of a resolution.

*One hundred and seventy five?! *I read years ago that 35mm film only requires about 15 MP equivalent.