HD vs 35mm film, which is more expensive?

Question

Like for a TV series, that means you'd probably have to take into account how expensive they are to keep the master tapes in storage & also to convert it for DVD purposes.

Additional question: what is the best picture quality of them all (based on frame rate & pixel count)? I've heard they've got these new RED digital camcorders & "ultra HD".

Additional thoughts: I always said to people that HD was a stupid name for it since every time there's something better you've got to call it something like 'very HD' which is what they've done now with 'ultra HD' - ridiculous.

Answer 1

The cheapest camera that can record broadcast quality video out of the box is the Panasonic GH2. HD and Super HD only tells you how many pixels they record, for broadcast quality you need high bit rates too. With a hack the GH2 can record in cinema quality (44Mb/S) and even higher. It's by far the cheapest option. The higher bit rates capture more data in every frame.



Being an interchangeable lens camera they also have the advantage of being able to use most any lens with an adapter (manual focus), high quality wide aperture lenses are cheap on eBay which increases quality and low noise performance in dim conditions for a few 10's of dollars.



I don't know anybody you uses 35mm film stock these days, buy and process 30 minutes of 35mm film stock will cost you more than a GH2, the GH2 exceeds 35mm film for image quality and resolution, you have all the advantages of instant re-play and editing, and no grain and there is a 24fps setting and you can use 1/50th of a second shutter speed which will give your videos that film look (just the right amount of blur in each frame).



Shooting digital footage is different to film, you have far more control over every frame, both in recording the footage and in the post processing, but the downside is you have to do the research to get the best out of it, shooting video is a lot more technical than shooting stills. In short there is a learning curve.



Chris

Answer 2

Film has the ability to capture the most data of any visual medium. 35mm beats out any digital medium in resolution for moving pictures.



Here is a video that will make it clearer: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/index.htm



Film is the best quality. Most of the major blockbusters such as the new Batman series, were shot on film. Digital seems cheaper but it costs more in the end. You have to have workstations, programs, more people, etc. Film has been around for over 100 years and its not going anywhere soon.

Answer 3

Oh most definitely digital will be cheaper, even if you're using the latest 4K or 8K cameras it doesn't actually take long for you to recoup the costs. This is in part because the lenses for film cameras are still stupidly expensive, and the film and other consumable costs are also hideously expensive these days.



However for the movie industry, when there is a specific need for using analogue technology they still use it, and really it's only in movies where you see the continued (albeit reduced) used of film.