Comment by cclogg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cclogg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I find it's still really noticeable in the skin tones and highlights. You can find lots of comparisons online; once you see film beside digital, the difference can be pretty huge. Some people in Hollywood still really care about it... one recent example: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creatin... “It’s like we’ve forgotten how great film looks when you see it in comparison,” Alsobrook remarks. “We looked at each other, and it was a done deal. There was no question we were going to shoot film. It has a rich, creamy look to it that you just can’t get any other way.”

One instance where it's very obvious to me was 300 vs its sequel 300: Rise of an Empire. I tried to find 2 similar images: 300 http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete... 300 sequel http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5Ban...

So basically I think digital is getting there but it still has a little ways to go in matching the perceived quality.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-03-09/news/070310002...

Although high-def video most often is used for blue screen shoots, director Zack Snyder and Fong shot on film. "We wanted the film grain to show," Fong said.

Aren't scenes shot on film digitised for editing and colour graded just like digital ones? I think a lot of the difference between movies is probably down to the processing rather than the camera. No matter how they shoot the movie they all seem to end up blue and orange.

Which is which? The sequel photo looks a bit better.

Darn, looks like I can't edit my post anymore, and HN formatting screwed it up lol. First link is for 300, second one is for the sequel.

I guess it is quite subjective, but what makes the second one look better to you? For me the first one, whilst chalked with noise/grain, has a much better rendition of the skin-tone, along with detail in the highlights, and the depth of the reflection in her eyes. I guess it's hard to describe really, but that's kind of why I would side towards the first image.

> what makes the second one look better to you?

The main thing is the noise on her skin - it makes it look very artificial. Like it's not an actual person. On her cheek it almost looks like she has beard stubble.

The background of the first one also looks like a pointillist painting instead of the real world. (Although I might not notice it in motion.)

I'm not a fan of the skin color either since real people don't look like that. To me it looks cold and artificial, like I'm looking at a painted robot instead of a person.

I do wonder how much of this is film vs digital, as opposed to post processing. Film might not be able to stop grain, but I don't think it needs to look like that for the color. It suspect it was over sharpened and over contrasted in post.

Yeah I suspect you are right about post-processing. Good to read your points though, thanks for the response!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com