Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Martin Howard wrote: > While I undertand chemical still photography, I don't understand why someone > would be interested in shooting on 16mm film, rather than digital HDTV. > What am I missing? Well, there are a few reasons. Film can handle blown highlights better, so it is easier to light. Film subjectively looks better, meaning that audiences tend to associate a film look with a better quality production. Film can be cheaper, given that HDTV cameras and post-production facilities are still hugely expensive to rent. Film can be projected in theatres easily. Film prints of video/HDTV material cost a bundle (400 to several thousand dollars per minute, depending on the technology used ). Film is reputed to have better resolution than HDTV. Whatever the reasons are, most dramatic television series and nationally-run commercials in the US are shot on film instead of video. The negatives are transferred to video, and everything is digital from there until the images get to your television. You can bet that they will be shooting HDTV as soon as the economics justify it, but that hasn't happened yet. Leica content: I've heard that Panavision lenses are made in Canada at the same facility as Leica lenses. Can anybody confirm this? Bernard