Fuji vs. Kodak

[ek3]

...this board is so funny...Jizz Nasty

[npp]

Hi.

For those seriously considering Digital vs. Film, maybe my opinions will help you a little.

First, let me say that I prefer film for three reasons; first, even in the smallest of film formats, the resolution is superior to the most affordable digital format (DV). Second, depth perception is greater. Third, video has interlacing, which simply drives me nuts when you have something moving in front of a defined background.

That being said - these are not reasons YOU should choose film. Film suits my personal shooting style and cinematographic aesthetics.

Someone earlier said film is film. DV is DV. That's absolutely true, but their outlook on this fact was flawed. If you choose DV. Use DV as DV and do not try to make it look like film. Trying to do so is just plain silly. You don't model a sculpture in clay and try to make it look like bronze. Well, maybe some people do, but again, that's just stupid. Learn what makes video unique and exploit those properties.

This means you have to expand your mind beyond the current conception of what other people think a movie should look like. If going video. Be brave. Be creative. Be different. Don't listen to anyone who says shooting video is "amateurish". They're just closed mind unprofessional fools who are too scared to explore video seriously.

[npp]

How the **** did my post get in here? I don't even know what this post is about. Oh well, sorry about that. I'm pretty sure I didn't choose this topic. I'm too lazy to find the place where I meant to post.

Again, sorry.

[Nigel]

For those actually considering the differences between Fuji and Kodak. This is my thought. Fuji for people--Kodak for places. I have found that Fuji treats people much better they look softer and more alive. Kodak I think enhances the light off of nature and structures.

Good Luck

[deanl]

Hey there.

YAWN....

Despin out.