Re: Halide emulsion vs digital. Was RE: Warning of major NHS IT overspend

[Brian Beesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Tuesday 02 November 2004 22:04, Alex Tibbles wrote:
>  --- Owen Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One of my boys decided that his thing in life would
> > be to make films. He has
> > a fair artistic bent but had a very limited
> > technical education. He insisted
> > on making his first short on 35mm stock (the
> > professionals' choice and soooo
> > much superior to anything else. Digital? Spit!).  He
> > now has a business that
> > digitally edits video and hasn't touched emulsion
> > for some years.  Does
> > anyone still shoot movies on 35mm stock?
>
> AFAIK yes. You'd still struggle (ie more expensive
> than film) to find hard drives that can muster 24 *
> ~10MB frames per second, continually (mildly
> compressed images of comparable quality to 35mm), so
> for high-quality footage (eg. feature films) it is
> still extensively used.

AFAIK feature films are usually shot on _70mm_ stock! They're then compressed 
horizontally for release on 35mm, there's a special "anamorphic" lens 
required to do the compression and decompression.
>
> IIRC Lucas shot Star Wars I exclusively on digital
> (and was the first film that was digital from start to
> finish, if you went to a digitally-equipped cinema).

Except for films "shot" from direct computer animation?

Brian Beesley