HD video or film, what's better?

Question

Let me start by saying that I couldn't find a definitive answer regarding the actual resolution one sees during a movie projection in a cinema. When it comes to the negative itself, people say the resolution can be as high as 4000x5000 (35 mm film), but given the copying process (negative-interpositive-internegative-pr... and also the projector limitations, the resolution on the screen goes down significantly to (and here opinions start to diverge) anything between 750 and 2000 lines. Now, considering state-of-the-art duplication and projection equipment on one hand, and the "full HD" 1080p stream on another, is it true to say that nowadays home cinema systems have surpassed in quality the classical theatre projections?

Note: here only the resolution has been considered, but what about other parameters such as chroma/luma, frame rate, dynamic range?

Answer 1

HD video

Answer 2

No simple answer here, very simply put film is superior to HD.

But you must qualify that statement....HD comes in many resolutions and sizes and film comes in many formats and quality

If you took a top of the line cinema HD camera like the Panavision Genesis and Put it head to head with a Panavision film camera shooting Kodak Vision stock....the 35mm Kodak vision is going to have superior resolution, color depth and depending on the particular stock number you use, very fine or even invisible grain structure.

That said...there are certain situations where HD is preferable to film. It is almost always less expensive to shoot than film. Some, not all, but some DPs feel that certain HD cameras can provide superior performance when used with the right lenses in some situations, like shooting night exteriors.

There is a fantastic difference in the performance of an consumer HD camera and a professional HD Camera system. Professional camera systems vary wildly based on the size and quality of the imaging sensors and the quality of the lenses used and the digital sampling system employed. Films imaging area and larger cinematic HD sensors allow for a greater depth of field and a generally "bigger" look.

There are many directors, dps and visual effects supervisors that like shooting HD for elements that will be used in scenes using CGI....because there is no mechanical process, the images are "rock steady" with no gate weave or other mechanical artifacts. (although these are more common with 16mm camera systems)

These images are free of grain and easy to composite...grain and other characteristics can be added to match grain in elements shot on film or to just give a filmic look.

The most common view on this is that film captures more information and film's chemical mechanical process and it's subsequent imperfections captures a more romantic and beautiful vision than the HD's electronic accuracy.

HD gives you all the information but tends to be "too real" or "electronic" but is highly malleable in post production and ready to go into post the moment production wraps.

Remember that technology is improving all the time and this subject is in a high state of flux.

In the right hands, and with the proper experience DPs utilize both film and HD to produce stunning results. By the time the post production process is complete, the average person can't tell the difference and does not care.

I have been working in both formats for many years and see advantages to both. The bottom line is that if the budget can handle it, I shoot film. If the finished work is going to involve a lot of CGI or if the budget won't bear film...my fall back is to use cinematic HD systems that are capable of working with prime lenses used for film.

Film is more expensive as stock, and requires processing, dailies, and final color grading of the finished piece.

HD stock is less expensive, camera support is a little easier..no processing...but the color grading process can be just as intensive if not more.

We could write a book, but that's the nuts and bolts.

Answer 3

There is more to image quality than resolution.  Signal to noise ratio and dynamic range are very important, so is the linearity of the intensity transfer function, freedom from adjacent pixel blooming, sensitivity of the photo sensitive medium, etc.  But the biggest difference is analog vs digital.  All analog systems degrade the original when copied, and editing is usually a multi-copying process.  Digital systems can perform unlimited copy steps without degrading the original material, but some editing steps deliberately do that.