Talk:Digital cinematography

message: I don't think that film is more predictable than video, since video is sort of WYSIWIG whereas film isn't.  The problem with film is that dailies can be graded multiple ways.
In terms of monitoring, this is a big issue.  For example, the Viper's raw output has a very strong green cast (which can be removed in post production).  Some cinematographers do not find this image very useful, and prefer to apply to a look-up table to correct the color cast and to apply a print film LUT.  This is sort of the same problem as dailies grading for film.  However, people crap themselves over this moreso.  With film, you only get one thing from the dailies (and it doesn't look stupid like the Viper green cast).  With video, people are looking at the "actual" video... and it looks 'wrong'.  
[| whether to use magenta filter with Viper thread on the CML list] - sort of related
[on set color correction and monitoring thread ]
2- We should try to avoid opinion (word it neutrally / talk about both sides' positions) and stick with references.  Don't follow me, because I interject my own opinion here.  :D
Glennchan 02:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive my possible ignorance here, but I thought most films transfer their camera negatives to video.(?)  This video is used for rushes and for offline editing.  It is not a direct contact positive this is used for rushes.  As well, a direct contact positive isn't necessarily a good indicator of the final image anyways (for film or video distribution).  Glennchan 19:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictability 

message: Made by Marker Karahadian, Plus8digital.  The previously posted comments regarding recording formats were simply wrong and entirely misleading.  Our company provided Vipers for Michael Mann's Colateral and the soon to be released Miami Vice feature.  Both were recorded to tape.  We are by far the largest source of Viper cameras world wide and we did not offer or support any disk based recording format until April 2005. 66.46.234.2 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Viper information 

message: From this article:
: In general, when film is scanned the terms "2K" or "4K" specifically mean 2,000 or 4,000 trios of Red, Green, and Blue pixels across the width of the scan, that is, a "2K" scan will actually be made up of about 6,000 pixels.
This does not agree with common definitions of what a pixel is. From pixel:
: The intensity of each pixel is variable; in color systems, each pixel has typically three or four dimensions of variability such as red, green and blue, or cyan, magenta, yellow and black.
In other words, a pixel (in an RGB display device) is made up of a red, green and blue element. These elements are not pixels themselves. 4K means 4096 RGB pixels.
This non-standard use of terminology leads to an extremely misleading comparison with Bayer filtered cameras later in the same paragraph. While it's true that Bayer sensors don't capture full RGB data at every pixel, the difference is not nearly as large as the article's non-standard definition of a pixel (which would suggest that film scans are ~12000x6000 while 4K Bayer data is ~4000x2000 -- one ninth of the size!) would lead one to believe. A proper examination of this issue would have to examine luminance and chrominance resolution separately and take into account the sensitivities of the human visual system. This comparison should probably be made on the bayer filter page, and just linked from here.
--ZnU 03:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of a pixel 

message: Any requests for specific expansions?--Fallout boy 13:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for expansion 

message: I have a real problem with this section, being a low budget indie filmmaker I like to see for advice on this subject for us low budget shooters, but the majority of this article seems to be aimed at major budget feature production with gobs of money to throw at the production, so much so that format is a mininscule part of the budget. There are a lot of lower budget features being made, and with the cost of camera rentals and film stock comprising a higher percentage of their budget, the question is if digital may be the way to go?
This article needs to focus on 16mm as well, still in wide use for lower budget and television work. Fact is that HD exceeds 16mm in terms of grain and resolution (unless you are using one of those really expensive low grain stocks). The techical view that HD exceeds 16mm is supported by the Discovery Channel last year seeking to increase their catalog of HD content. They requested that HD projects are sourced on either HD or 35mm, not 16mm.
Now, about the "video villiage" and all the other expenses big budget films bring with them. For lower budget films usually all you get with film is a view though the eyepiece video assist for low budget films is pretty much non-existant. With an HD Cam I can run a video monitor, rewind and make sure I got the shot. I don't need to be like George Lucas surrounded by three giant plasma displays as he captures the shot. Fact is, low budget HD filming is very similar to low budget 16mm, but with a few advatages.
Fact is, I have a cinematographer with a Sony F-900 who I can hire for the same price as film, spend way less on stock, eliminate development fees, transfer to Betacam for editing and finish in a HD studio for one day to make the master. I can save a lot over film right now. 
This article makes it seem like HD is the same cost or more than film with an image that is inferior to 35mm. The first opinion is wrong in many cases, the second is opinion which, with the prevalence of major directors using HD, is disagreed with. Also, the assumption that CGI makes a bulk of a film ignores all the films that use little to no VFX. My new film has one VFX sequence, a simple green-screen composite shot where the protagonists views himself in the past as a memory.
Another point supporting HD as a valid choice is how many television shows have abandoned film in place of HD. The last season of Star Trek: Enterprise was all shot on HD and the main cinematographer loved it, saying he got the images he wanted with better low-light sensitivity and wondered why they hadn't gone to HD before.
At any rate, HD is another choice for filmmakers who must balance aestetics and budget to achieve the final product. I for one would like to spend less on stock to get a few more dollars to a damn good actor, because neither film nor video makes a scene live, only acting does.
:I think that the main problem is simply that the article shouldn't be taking advocacy stances regarding the issues. Both digital and film have their pros and cons, and it certainly would be germane to address some of these issues. But the problem with the way the article reads at the moment, it is analyzing it only from one particular type of filmmaking. As such, it's not really relevant one way or another, as it ignores a great many other modes of production which are still being practiced. While I personally disagree with your HD/16mm opinions, I certainly don't disagree with your preferences or working style. And this is something which needs to be kept in mind. Opinions notwithstanding, certainly everyone can agree that each format has relative strengths and weaknesses. To advocate either absolutely is to disregard the possibility that they may peacefully co-exist for a long time.
:In essence, this article needs to be descriptive, not proscriptive. Breaking down an "average" shoot's costs and doing a point-by-point comparision is not, IMHO, the domain of an encyclopedia article on emerging technology; rather, it should be in a WikiBook section on filmmaking (don't we already have several on-going?). The reader wants to know what digital cinematography is, what defines it, how it is used, and how it compares. Cost considerations belong to how-to guides and production office arguments. Girolamo Savonarola 17:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be Collateral. PS, when you're writing on the talk pages, you're supposed to "sign them" with your user name. You can do this by typing ~~~~. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 01:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Who are you talking to, Elekas? I didn't write the article, nor do I disagree with you. Girolamo Savonarola 04:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital video vs. film for lower budgets 

message: I can't help but see this turning into a soapbox for format conflicts, I've deleted some of the POV statements and inaccurate parts (if "it is obvious very few of the protagonists have any real association with the film industry!" isn't POV and inaccurate, I don't know what is). Some other statements:
As mentioned above, however, with the exception of Rodriguez, none of this seems to have been put into practice. 
I checked every director there, and none of them have used film on a recent project.
However, taken outside into "on location" situations where there is far less control over the lighting, video cameras tend to perform poorly.
I wouldn't consider this to be a disadvantage only of DV. Film can overexpose just as easily.
Although it is true the "per minute stock cost" of videotape is much less than an equivalent amount of film, in most cases this is more than offset by the cost of the extra monitoring equipment required.  In any event, even if the cost of shooting digitally could be reduced to zero, the overall effect on the cost of producing the average feature would be negligible, since film costs normally make up a tiny part of a film's budget. So currently even very cheap "made for cable" movies are nearly always shot on film.
That really only applies to bigger budget films. The cost per minute of 35mm is about $1,000 vs. $0.17 for DV. Muliply by about 600 min of footage for a feature film, and there is a major difference in cost.
With modern timecode systems, there is no particular advantage to having the sound and pictures recorded on the same medium.
*Although it is true that video cassettes and Hard Disk arrays can hold more footage than the 20 minute maximum of a "1,000 foot" 35mm film magazine, in practice it is extremely rare for the average "take" to last more than a couple of minutes. Most Directors of Photography are loath to "put all their eggs in one basket" anyway.
Every DP I've met will maximize the ammount of film. Using only a few minutes of a film stock only increases cost significantly.
Apart from that, for release all digitally-originated footage still has to be transferred onto film by means of an expensive film printer
The exact same thing is true for film, that is not a disadvantage or advantage for either format.
I've also deleted the section about digital projection: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Fallout boy 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital video vs. film expansion

message: Should the Varicam be mentioned? And maybe for an indie-filmmaking section, it could include the upcoming HVX200 (Panasonic) 1080-24p 16:9 variable frame-rate camcorder for only $6,000. Also, i n the Mini DV section, the XL2 is mentioned; although most people will make the claim that the dvx100b is superior (it's in the same price range). It is MUCH more often used in filmmaking (if you do an imdb.com technical search, the dvx comes up with dozens upon dozens of results of movies which used the camera, while the XL2 comes up with barely any.)
And, the article seems to make a few naming mistakes with the CineAlta cameras. At one point, it notes that Sin city is shot with the HDC-950; but should it be HDC-f950? Earlier on in the article, the new improved CineAlta is called the HDW950 -- is this different from the HDC-950 or HDC-f950?
The 'DVX100B' is not superior to the XL2 being only a native 4:3 camera (the XL2 is native 16:9) and having a fixed lens (the XL2 has interchangeable lenses). Although it may appear to be "...MUCH more often used in filmmaking (if you do an imdb.com technical search, the dvx comes up with dozens upon dozens of results of movies which used the camera, while the XL2 comes up with barely any.)", these are infact low budget and wanabee "features" - to get on IMBD does not signify true mainstream international production credentials. By this criteria you could say that the Canon XL1s and SONY PD150 are superior to the DVX100B, which would clearly tell you nothing about there choice as 'premier' making filmtools either. The Varicam is rarely used for theatrical production and the HVX200 is not even fully released. Could we have a proper technical film historian working on this not someone who gleans their info from a few DV forums.
: I think that the Varicam should definitely be mentioned. The HVX200 and its rivals by Canon, Sony and JVC maybe too. Peter S. 02:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VariCam & DVX100b 

message: :A group Ex-Panavison employees comment on the real story behind the push for "digital Cinematography"
Why is this link even here? The text is POV itself, and the website even more so. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy has surfaced before on the Panavision article (see edit history and talk pages), and I think he's the anonymous IP or two editing right now. Very POV, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability tests often. Girolamo Savonarola 04:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESpanavision link 

message: This is from the article:
::For the last 25 years, many respected filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas have made the claim that digital techniques will make films cheaper to produce. However, in the last 25 years, the average production budget has jumped by 300% (from $20 million to $80 million[citation needed]), despite the embrace of many new types of digital equipment and techniques. Movies are continually spending more and more on computer-generated images (CGI) and editing. On average, they spend far more on CGI than 1950s and 1960s epics did on special effects and extras (even after inflation).
It seems to me like the article is trying to say that new digital techniques like CGI has made it more costly to make films. That's a logical fallacy; it's not the CGI or digital techniques that has raised production costs; it's the fact that CGI has opened up a new window of opportunity in storytelling; so filmmakers use CGI to make more fantastic things they couldn't do without CGI. They have become more ambitious. So, if someone was to say, try and replicate the special effects you see in a film like King Kong (2005) but without CGI or digital techniques, it would probably be a whole lot more expensive than had they of used CGI like Peter Jackson and Weta did. But I guess one could make the argument that without CGI or digital techniques in filmmaking, one wouldn't be as "ambitious" and want to spend as much money. But I believe what Goerge Lucas or Coppola meant was that if one was to make similar films to the ones being made in their times (same special effects) but using digital techniques, production costs would decrease (when all else is equal). 24.23.51.27 23:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical fallacy 

message: Reaction to the image quality on Superman Returns was not particularly favorable either.
Do we have a reference for this?  All the reviews I saw praised it's look, and criticizing a movie about Superman for having a "comic book" finish is rather silly.  Algr 22:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, heard good things on cinematography message boards, too. Peter S. 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome to the world of color grading... :) Girolamo Savonarola 00:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superman Returns 

message: I am not aware that negatives are conformed using an automated machine as mentioned in one of the questionable section.  Specifically, it says, "An automated machine then duplicates the project on film by cutting up and splicing the original negatives, using the edit marks produced on the computer system."  Robert Elliott 12:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be news to me too. See negative cutting - negative cutting software exists for the purpose of data management, not physical cutting, which is always done manually. It couldn't be done easily by a machine either, since you have to scrape off the emulsion of one frame and then cement the frame. Girolamo Savonarola 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated Negative Conforming

message: For high-end cameras, it is becoming common for a single sensor to be used rather than for three sensors to be used in conjunction with a prism.
I think a citation is needed for this one or at least it needs to be more specific regarding which high-end cameras that are being talked about.  I thought all professional digital video cameras have 3CCDs.
:I think this is referring to high-end digital cameras being used for feature films. Namely the Genesis, D20, Viper, etc... Girolamo Savonarola 23:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensors 

message: On the CML list (for professional cinematographers), many didn't like the plasticky look of the flesh-tones although that look was created in the color grade to get a comic book feel.  So perhaps the technology was good (hard to say/judge), some cinematographers disliked the look.  Glennchan 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even if the technology was "bad", you have to remember that cinematographers are more likely to be able to judge and spot out many more subtle image artifacting techniques than the average moviegoer. And lots of DPs were very critically viewing the film from the start, since it was one of the first big films shot on the Genesis. The question is not so much whether or not the technology had flaws (which is more or less a fact in as much as it doesn't behave like film and thus will fall short of it), as whether or not the flaws were judged considerable enough to make a difference. What might be worth noting is that while a sizeable number of cinematographers and techs still had reservations about the quality of the above-mentioned factors, the audience and critics left the issue generally unremarked, implying that they did not consider it an issue. That's how I'd phrase it, perhaps? Girolamo Savonarola 09:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well also consider that critics rarely comment about the cinematography of a film directly.  A lack of mention could mean anything really.  That being said, it didn't look particularly bad or good in my opinion.  The quality seems comparable to film, although that's hard to tell without looking at the ungraded images and not knowing whether cinematographers are playing to the camera's strengths.  Or perhaps the camera is not really a big part of the equation(!).  Certainly, Superman Returns did well commercially so we'll likely see more digitally shot movies in the future. Glennchan 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superman Returns - Critical response to digital cinematography

message: Film is kind of digital and kind of analog.  The actual particles are either one color or another, right?  Their size and placement is analog, similar to dither in digital.  I think there is a meaningful way to say the maximum spatial frequency that film can capture, but I don't know what that measurement is.  But I think that saying film doesn't have a resolution is not true. — Omegatron 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing about noise floors and film is that it is very particular to the circumstances of the film being shot. Each film stock has different sensitivity characteristics. Newer emulsion technologies have increased resolution and color space, while the type of development and exposure will also affect the quality and quantity of film grain. Girolamo Savonarola 01:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analog or digital? 

message: Did Michael Mann use the Viper for his shortlived CBS series RHD/LA? --24.249.108.133 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Michael Mann use Viper for RHD/LA? 

message: Quentin Tarantino, who acording to the article vowed to always shoot on film, is about to release a film shot on digital. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Photomonkey (talk • contribs).
:If you're referring to Grindhouse, Tarantino's portion of the movie was shot on film, while Robert Rodriguez's portion was shot digitally (at least according to IMDb, which is sometimes less than reliable). Green451 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! I normally give up with IMDb as most of their stuff is incomplete. Thanks for the info --Photomonkey 14:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry Acceptance of Digital Cinematography 

message: I would like to suggest that "Digital cinematography" is actually the wrong title for what this article is really about.  It should be "Electronic Cinematography".  The idea of using video technology to produce movies for theaters dates back as far as the 1940s.  In 1971, 200 Motels was shot on video using a special system designed for theatrical prints.  
Some movies shot on analog video for theatrical release:
* 200 Motels (1971)
* Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982)
* Julia and Julia (1988)
* White Hot (1989)
* The Blair Witch Project (1999)
When digital video arrived, it improved image quality and made high-end systems much easier to use.  But it did not fundamentally change the production process, or add any new reasons to shoot filmless.   Julia and Julia and White Hot were shot with the MUSE 1035i HDTV system, and so would still likely look better then something like Bamboozled, that was shot in digital SD.  Algr 06:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You could certainly justify making "Electronic Cinematography" redirect to this article and expanding the history section but everyone uses digital technology today and everyone inside and outside the movie industry refers to it as "Digital Cinematography" or (perhaps incorrectly) "Digital Cinema." The article mostly covers contemporary digital techniques so the title should stay as-is. --Onejaguar 16:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note . . . Julia and Julia was shot with the MUSE 1035i HDTV system but transferred to 35 mm film before being released in theaters. I'm not technically inclined so I don't know if that's significant. MovieMadness (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  That is still the standard today, since most theaters in 2008 still project film.  Cinematography refers to how a movie was shot, not how it is viewed. Algr (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should it be [[Electronic Cinematography]] instead? 

message: The image :Image:Courteney Cox in November.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Courteney Cox in November.jpg

message: Martin Scorsese started using digital cinematography (HDCAM) with film combined for his rolling stones documentary shine a light.
For his new George Harrsion documentary he is using digital cinematography as well (Red one)
However some IPs keep vandalizing the article by putting him back to the directors who dont shoot digitally.
i suppose an admin should tempban these ips.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.91.194 (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IP keeps vandalizing the Article

message: Just so you are aware. The F23 is listed as one of the cameras used on the recent Star Wars pre-quels. Both of those movies came out before that camera was even released to the public. Also the Sony F950 that did work on those films is not included in that segment. (207.138.149.30 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  F23 

message: Is CinemaDNG on-topic for this article? (And if so, where?) I recently created the article, and I've added it to lists of terms used in movies (etc), but it may be too technical / low-level for this page. Barry Pearson 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: CinemaDNG

message: Why was Oliver Stone listed as enemy of digital cinematography? Her shot several movies digitally.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.43.70 (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oliver Stone issue addressed in the comments above. --berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Oliver Stone

message: First thing I question is the fact that music CDs will always have holes in them, empty spaces of no sound no amount of sampling can compensate for. Although not reconized easily on the surface many people feel something is lacking as opposed to listening to an analog recording. Playing the LP of SGT Pepper is a much richer experience then listening to the CD for most people although they don't know why. The digital revolution makes portability and other aspects easier but there is a trade off no matter what people say.  I love my Itunes but miss my Dual turntable and vinyl(damaged in a move with a very small check for compensation).
Comparing that to the fact that pixels are square seems to bring up the fact that no matter how high resolution is curves will not exist and the brain will pick up on this on digital film as with music as something lacking similar to screening of photographs in non digital printed work. The lower the screen used the more noticeable the image is no longer analog. The higher the screen the less noticeable but it is no longer an analog image. It becomes discrete dots, like TV did. When I pause a digital film on my TV the pixels stand out. The chunks we use to call them but whatever they are called now it is just not the TV resolution, they seem more pronounced when pausing a digital movie than pausing a movie that was shot on film.
Like early video I see a flatness to the digital film image.  The look of digital film is very interesting and I feel that it will really come down to what is better for a project not what is more dominate and the cost is meaningless to 5 million plus productions. 
The above was simply what I feel is the major difference between digital and analog applications. This is prelude to my real point and I am curious for an answer.
My point is simply can digital film create the same images that Welles used to film his March of Time Newsreel for Citizen Kane by dragging the negative on the floor and otherwise damaging it to create a lifetime of old footage. Kubrick used 16mm TV stock in the firefight at the airforce base. Can these effects be recreated in digital film.
However Sin City could never be made on film. But it still retains that flatness. Plus this is one of the movies I paused and it had pronounced jags, another term we used when we switched from screening photos to digital photos in printing.
So I am very interested if the effects in the Welles and Kubrick films among others can be duplicated with Digital film, as a movie like Sin City can't or it would be very hard and expensive to duplicate on analog-which is not analog anyway 24fps blah blah blah persistence of vision blah blah blah.
Does anyone know if these effects are difficult for digital film without losing that natural feeling?
I am also curious of how digital film is projected. Is it converted into something similar to 24fps or is it like a video?
Anyway thanks for any answers about this but besides this issue I do believe these methods will co-exist with film makers using the best method for their projects.
Thanks----Alphaboo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.98.241 (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inherent qualities of film stock vs Digital information 

message: There are a lot of professional filmmakers using the new Red Epic and have provided some information here for discussion on this new camera. The Epic has a 5K Mysterium-X™sensor and a 27 layer ASIC, the most advanced processor of its type in the world, enabling EPIC to capture up to 120 frames per second, each frame at full 14MP resolution. This will provide more than enough clarity with any type of media including independent filmmakers and professional filmmakers alike. Acclaimed filmmaker Peter Jackson is using this camera to film his latest masterpiece, The Hobbit. Providing native dynamic range of over 13 stops and resolution that exceeds 35 mm motion picture film, this camera can more than handle low light and all the other nuisances that a traditional film based camera can provide. The RED also comes with a newly developed HDRx™ extended dynamic range technology and EPIC boasts an amazing dynamic range of up to 18 stops. Purpose-built for perfect multi-camera synchronization, EPIC comes to market at a time when 3D capture requires the sophistication of a new generation of innovative technology. Jonplante (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Epic 

message: Removed a sentence that asserted that the change from film to digital in cinemas was an inherent degradation of quality without citing sources. Analog vs. digital is an aesthetic debate, it is incorrect to assert that one is objectively better than the other. The criticism section provides viewpoints of major film-makers that dislike or have concerns about digital cinematography.  SC2Mashimaro (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Missed that one.  We had a problem with a single user who had an extreme anti-digital bent and who tried to repeatedly use "sources" to support the POV which were either old and not-proper comparisons, a single person's opinion or even Kodak.  That user attempted to use socks to push their POV and has been blocked indefinitely for repeated sockpuppet offenses.  Keep a look out for new (or old) socks. --Oakshade (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  At the time when one biased user kept on making making major re-writes, some of their blatant film-is-better content was quickly removed while many of the more subtle biased lines like what you just mentioned remained.  I'll support a neutral rewrite effort. --Oakshade (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed some more of this: adding material that is not supported by the cites given is a no-no. Yes, there is a valid case that the very best film cinematography might be better than digital -- in particular, 70 mm film is still significantly better in terms of resolution than 4k digital. But it is just not the case that average run-of-the-mill 35mm film is, or was, better than modern 2017-era 4k cinematography. Different, yes, but not better. -- The Anome (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Removal 

message: I just emended the opening sentence for clarity (a very minor edit); then, on reading the article, I found parts of it opinionated, dated, or simply unclear. The transition to all-digital production continues, but opinions differ re how far it has progressed. Cameras are still evolving rapidly, and lighting techniques are only beginning to exploit the characteristics (no, I didn't say advantages) of digital acquisition.
This piece needs a re-write now, and then further revisions later to match the continuing changes in production techniques. I would undertake it myself, but though I try to keep up, I no longer have daily contact with film production. We need a writer who is disinterested and fully up-to-date on production techniques.Jim Stinson (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a thorough review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Digital cinematography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201064107/http://www.indiewire.com/article/as-studios-abandon-35-mm-film-small-theaters-struggle-to-transition-to-digital to http://www.indiewire.com/article/as-studios-abandon-35-mm-film-small-theaters-struggle-to-transition-to-digital
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521164844/http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Lab_And_Post_Production/Archival_Films/2332.htm to http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Lab_And_Post_Production/Archival_Films/2332.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523095937/http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Wally_Pfister/index.htm to http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Wally_Pfister/index.htm#ixzz2Ti47T2NZ
*Added  tag to http://www.mdisc.com/what-is-mdisc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In most digital cameras, whether still or video, chroma subsampling happens not at the software level, but at the hardware level, as the sensors are physically built with a matrix to record an image with a lower color than brightness resolution (both spatially in pixels as well as in color resolution). That's the only reason why modern digital cameras nowadays are actually able on a hardware level to physically capture framerates of 24p or even higher, whereas actual RGB scanners take much longer to record a single image.
RAW, however, is only a *STRORAGE AND OUTPUT* format which may prevent additional blocking, banding, or fringing artifacts from digital compression after the image is taken, but does not change anything about pixel and color resolution. In other words, the RAW storage and output format may be 4:4:4, whereas the camera only records an image that is color sub-sampled already because that's how the sensor works on the bare hardware level, and this sub-sampled image is then simply stored and put out inside a 4:4:4 RAW format. It's like a spoonful of flour inside a 1-gallon sac.
The section on Color sub-sampling needs to be edited accordingly. Right now, the article makes it sound as if color sub-sampling would be a mere software issue that could be prevented by recording to RAW, when in fact it's a hardware issue that recording to RAW doesn't change anything about. --2003:EF:1700:6247:A49E:679C:7080:8964 (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAW does not equal effective 4:4:4