Originally Posted by TenoBell
Kodak's motion picture literature says all Vision stocks are color matched. And I know its true because I've shot millions of feet of Kodak film.
Color matched within a certain range. not color matched, as in excatly matched. That would be impossible.
What Kodak does is to look at the batches, and after measurement, match up the ones that are the closest, and fall within their parameters. They then call those "matched".
When motion picture film is developed the lab gives a lap printer light report. This report informs how dense the yellow, cyan, and magenta layers of the film have been exposed. The base of well exposed negative is generally 25-25-25. Which means when the film is viewed red, green, and blue will appear as normal and natural as the original scene. Often for aesthetic reasons colors and contrast in movies are not normal or natural so printer lights for each movie will be radically different.
This is not different to what we would do in our process of duping 70mm, or even single frame work.
But, in the end, there is a final process that comes after all the testing, matching and enumeration, that moves the product out of where perfection would be.
The cinematographer and the lab will establish the movies printer lights at the beginning of the film shoot and any variances in exposure or color due to lab processing will be seen in this report and can be easily compensated for when the film is printed.
I wish it was as accurate as you like.
Independent and low budget movies are a mixed bag as they shoot on whatever the production can afford or have access to. There are around 300 movies that receive wide theatrical distribution a year. Of those 300 movies around 10 have been shot in digital. Digitally shot film receive a lot of hype because they've been shot digitally but in reality there are not very many.
Wikipedia has an article about the Panavision Genesis. It's incomplete, but has the basics.
It has some of the films shot with it (there are more). It also mentions a few of the Tv shows, there are also more. I'm sure Panavision would be glad to provide all of the films shot with their camera, as will any of the other digital makers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(Panavision
Considering that this is only one of a number of digital cameras in use today, the list of films is much more extensive than this, as are the Tv programs.
Most Tv dramas today are shot in Hd, not film. The major late night shows are also shot that way, as are news broadcasts, morning shows, nature shows, sports, etc. Some networks are shooting all of their new programing in Hd, such as the Nat Geographic channel, Universal HD, HBO, etc.
What I hear from Kodak is that they are selling more film now than they ever have in history. Their is more content being created around the world than their has ever been in history.
What I've heard from kodak is that there was a resurgence in the mid to late '90's, but that it has died out.
Considering that most movies are made in third world countries such as India and China, and their production values, for the most part, are lower than those in the west, it's true that for a time most of their productions will continue to use film and older equipment. But as digital continues to drop in price, that will change before too long.
Kodak has discontinued old motion picture film stocks as they phase in newer technology in film stocks. Many older cinematographers are upset about Kodak discontinuing these old stocks. They feel the new stocks are too clean and too sharp loosing the characteristics that define film.
Just as with still film, more older stocks are being discontinued than are being replaced. There are fewer film stocks today than there were ten years ago, and that will continue.
There has been some experimentation with HD in television. In the early 2000's sitcoms went almost totally HD and some new hour long dramas were HD. But HD's advantages weren't really found to be all that much better. The early HD cameras were designed around the ENG camera design and do not fit well into a film environment. HD quality still does not nearly reach the quality of 35mm and at the same time 35mm has been getting better. The cost of HD did not turn out to be much less than 35mm. The average budget for movies is 60 million the average television budget is 1.5 million. The cost of film is pretty negligible. Archiving is a big issue for HD. Their has been no proven or stable way to ensure HD content can be archived. Film has proven archivability and its high resolution will ensure a show will meet any future television standards.
Today's television line up is mostly hour long dramas and reality shows. Hour long dramas are nearly all shot on 35mm. The sitcom format is less popular today and the few that remain are also mostly shot on 35mm.
Commercials also have experimented with HD. But are still mostly shot on 35mm. This insures commercials can be repurposed for any medium from the web to the big screen movie theater.
HD cameras have easily replaced everything SD cameras were doing before. But HD was not excepted in the film world the video camera manufacturers had hoped. Many have gone back to the drawing board and have designed camera bodies that are more like film cameras. They are building higher resolution single sensors. We shall see how well these cameras perform and are accepted.
I've already addressed this, but I can say that you are bhind here. It's true that in the early 2000's, Hd didn't provide much benefit, as few had hi def widescreen Tv's. That siruationed changes, and there are far more Hd Tv's around, as there is HD programming. The networks do a great deal of HD programming, as you can see by flipping through TV Guide. The secondary networks do much less, though that is changing.