GIJoe wrote:you should post questions like these at creativecow, highend2d or similar.
doesn't discreet have some FFI discussion boards?
GeneratriX wrote:Hello Moe29;
ARRILASER and ARRISCAN are both part of one of the world's highest quality Digital Intermediate System, and I think you can't be dissapointed buying that. As far as I know, ARRILASER supports 4K/10-bit data, so, the high image quality is insured, along with a nice subjective resolution and dynamic range because the tri-laser printing.
Just to add, if you really have a trained eye, maybe you'll notice the difference between optically printed film, and digitally printed film... If I were to choose, I could choose any day to only use digital film prints for those visual effect scenes where it can't be avoided... but to my own eyes, those digital printings are looking with less contrast relation compared to any good camera take under similiar situations, using the same film stock (either Kodak 5245, Kodak Vision2 100, or Fuji 64 and Fuji 125)
Seems that all the recently produced movies using almost exclusively digital intermediate/printing are with the same problem:
Anyway, I'm not an insider of the movie industry, so, it is just my 'aficionado' oppinion!
But if I just could take the choose, I really could want to see more 'only-optical/chemical-film-production' movies!
Moe29 wrote:don't you wish!
Evan Kubota wrote:The simple fact is that film looks *better* for movies. Ridley Scott is blowing smoke out of his ass, in the typical 'video is in so I'll switch' mentality that some directors have been infected with. It's kind of sad to hear that from a director whose best films (Blade Runner, Alien) depended so heavily on the look of film. Imagine Blade Runner without the grainy, classic look of film - it'd be pristine digital garbage.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest