>>212053314THIS.
digital anons really don’t understand analogue film at all, and think light is just magically captured on chemical coated plastic in super perfect reproduction and clarity and color. You can make a very good case about the aesthetics of different film stocks, and lenses and all the things that make up the art of cinematography, but the fact is digital now captures all aspects of an image better. That’s literally what slog3 or cinetone do … captures detail, high dynamic, deep color references. And things like color grading gives filmmakers the tools to get the image they want, artistically. And that includes the looks and feel of vintage film stock or … if they want … harsh, modern, aesthetics.
the fact is analogue film is massively limited; it will crush blacks, overexposure can’t be corrected, and the whole idea of “HDR” doesn’t even exist. And the digital “resolution” of an analogue film is meaningless. It may be transferred in 4K or 8K, but none of that matters because the ability of analogue film to capture light is completely dependant on the film stock used, the film size (35mm, 70m, etc), fine grain or not, the iso, lens quality, and even how the film roll was developed, etc.. Roughly, a 35mm film .. shot with good light, by a pro Hollywood cinematographer … is about 20-24 megapixel digital image, approximately equivalent to 5.6K.
Now no one is going to argue early digital, 20 years ago, was the same. Or that when films were shot on analogue, but digitized for editing and post and master output (in lower quality that we have now), isn’t problematic now. I’m sure there a lot of directors and DP that would love to rescan the dailies to today’s standard and re-edit and etc to bring it up to snuff; but they only have a final master outputted from the old digital scan work with. Not that will make analogue autists happy; all of Lucas’ Star Wars are new scans of original film footage, and it only highlight the limitations.