Interesting article on 24P....
 

What the hell was the point of that article? He was honestly just changing his opinion and approach all the way through it, it was a complete and utter waste of time. Why write something if you have nothing to say. And on that note i will stop writing as well.

Zac

hmm, having just read through that article - twice, I honestly can't say what the author's point was. What exactly is he arguing? On one hand he says there is no difference between 24p and 60i, then he goes on to say how no audience will accept narrative shows shot in 60i because of the look. This man has no coherent argument in this article.

Sorta reminds me when they came out with the first Digital controlled analog keyboard. Because the real analog keyboard sound is what everyone is after.

Actually if not done right, the film look can look out of style. Plus he also forgot to mention lighting. Lighting is key to making something look good. Go rent your self a movie done in video (like Personal Velocity) and it will change your mind about film. Film can not get the detail Video can. The future is video, not film.

my 2

"Film cannot get the detail video can"

Not sure I follow your logic. In what sense do you mean video can capture more detail.

During macro close-ups, video wins over film for detail. Because film is to soft. Just because it's a digital image, it's flawless and more clearer.

For a good example of macro shots, see that film I mentioned called Personal Velocity. There is shot at the end where the you can see right thru the girls cornea in her eyes. Also there is a car seen in the rain and you can see so much detail in skin texture and hair. They look digital. Done with the PD-150.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/mgm/personal_velocity/medium.html

The cleanest movie I have seen yet on film is new one out now called "The Hours" with Nicole Kidman.

http://www.thehoursmovie.com

I always thought film would be sharper because its equvilent to like 12 million pixels, and the highest digital or hd camera goes up to like 2million pixels, but they will get higher pretty soon. I would think that more pixels would yield more detail but I could be wrong and am curious as to how.

You're not wrong, film is capable of capturing much more info and detail than any video format currently available.

Video cameras usually have a "sharpening" circuit in them to overcome their otherwise way-too-soft picture. This sharpening circuit enhances and defines edges, and it's possible to apply the effect in post as well, usually there's a "sharpen" filter available in the NLE. The artificial sharpening is what makes video look like it has higher detail, and you could apply that look to film if you wanted.

Mark, just because an image is digital makes it flawless and "more clearer"? If that were true, than any MPEG or digital video file I download from the internet would be flawless and kill film as far as image quality is concerned. After all... it's digital.

I've always had the thought of "If it was produced on video, it'll look best presented on video". You are comparing Quicktimes from Apple's site and using them to judge the difference between video and film.

FWIW, 35mm film can have what would approximate to 4,000 "lines" of resolution in video terms... meaning that's how high video resolution would have to be to match film. How do I know this? Studies at Kodak have proven it. Do I have a link? No, sadly I do not. :(

Anyway go rent a movie shot on video like, say, Blair Witch Project.... or better yet Full Frontal. Now go out to the theater and watch, oh I dunno, Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm.

if film was THAT inferiro to DV/HD/DVCam etc, ALL filmakers would have already made a switch.

Each have their own uses and purposes...