Are you sure the CMOS sensors (specifically in the RED) actually simulate the same exposure pattern of a mechanical rotating disc shutter? I assume a CMOS reads line by line from left to right. However with a rotating disc shutter it's not exposed in that fashion. For example if the disc was rotating clockwise the first part of the film being exposed in the lower left corner of the frame and the last would be the lower right.

The other reason I believe this is true is because during a pan on a CMOS sensor you will see the "rolling shutter" artifacts. If you actually simulated a spinning disc depending on the direction and speed of you pan you could negate the artifact in one direction and potentially make it worse in the other.

I also believe this to be true because most high end digital cinema cameras still use a true mechanical shutter. Having this seems pointless if the sensor was capable of simulating the exact same exposure pattern as a real shutter.

With a digital camera can't you can essentially get a 360 degree (or would it be 0?) angle. Meaning at 48fps your shutter speed would still be 1/48th thus producing the same motion blur of a 180 degree shutter at 24fps?

I believe this 360 degree shutter angle is something you do with most digital cameras because they don't have a real mechanical shutter. I'm not sure if cameras actually simulate the rotating disc by reading the sensor in the order they would be exposed by a rotating disc or if they just read top to bottom/left to right. A big issue with digital video cameras is rolling shutter artifacts which can be "sorta" corrected in post. Otherwise using a camera with a global shutter is another solution.However, I believe most high end digital cinema cameras do actually have physical rotating shutters.

I don't know if this is the real reason they quit making them but I worked at a local computer builder (had about 25 satellite stores at the time) and they by far had the worst failure rate of any hard drive I've ever seen.

Usually this is true. However, on set the crew is so much larger that the total cost to shoot it isn't worth it. Not to mention digital effects scale well. You can just give tons of artists different shots and split up the workload. You only have one main crew when actually filming it. Often it's just easier/cheaper/faster to do more CG.

Thanks for the example but I was kinda hoping it might have been actual live action footage shot at various frame rates.

Do you happen to have a link to this demo you're referring to?

I have fond members of Tex Murphy but I can't seem to figure out what GK2 stands for. Would you enlighten me?

Because we are taught it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

Eh, I think we are still on the fence with the whole nature VS nurture debate.

They should buy up indy content. Sure, they can't buy content in nice big packages but they won't be forced content they don't want in these bundles like Netflix seems to suffer from. For every good show/fiilm they stream there is 100 more they got because it was in a bundle. The production value on non studio tv/film is getting really high really fast. This could be a great outlet for original content made outside the normal channels.

Maybe it's time to reward everyone who helped make YouTube what it is today by giving them an outlet for producing higher quality content that will never see the light of day on current TV/Film distribution methods.

I've recently met Vilmos Zsigmond ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005936/ ) recently when he came to town for a screening of Close Encounters and did a lighting demo with Q&A. He went on at length about film vs digital. He essentially said with digital his job really don't change. It's as simple as working with another film stock. However he does prefer film because he felt digital was actually TOO sharp.

There is no film stock that lets you shoot both 24fps and then shoot thousands of FPS under the same lighting conditions. I suspect there aren't any film cameras that do 1000+ fps AND 24 with the same motor. You have to have the right tool for the Job. So you switch to a Phantom Flex type camera for your real slowmo stuff.

I've been told the current method for archival is actually just that. They use 3 B&W stocks to separate the color because B&W is far more stable and last longer under ideal conditions.

The only reason film is still used in Hollywood productions is because it's currently cheaper to do so. Their entire workflow from shooting to archival to restoration is based on using film in key spots. The studios are in it to make money. When an all digital workflow becomes cheaper than their current model then you bet your ass they will switch over.

I'm a student film maker in an experimental (focused more on art house than typical Hollywood) film program. There are tons of students here madly in love with film for various reasons. Most of them are purely sentimental and no doubt unable to tell the difference if you put them side by side. I'm not one of them. I prefer the advantages of digital.

However, there are some legitimate reasons to prefer film. Digital workflow has it's downsides. It can be more complicated to get started editing with. Film you can just cut and tape together. You can hold the medium in your hand and see how it all works together. Some people prefer something they can physically touch. It can be a more enjoyable process for them to work with and problem solve with.

Digital can require significantly more complicated just to get your footage to play nice with your NLE software. Also, being able to see your image instantly can give students the impression they can cut corners in planning stages. When you can't see your final image until days/weeks later after processing it really forces you to make sure you plan everything out in more detail. You just have understand everything going on to avoid mistakes that will cost you both in time and money.