DMX and Lou Diamond Phillips To Star In HVX shot film

androbot2084 said:
The problem with film is that you are limited to 24 frames per secound which is excellent for drama but does not offer enough temporal resolution for fast action movies. Of course you can shoot film at 60 frames per secound but this more than doubles your film distribution costs if you deliver in this format which can run into tens of millions of dollars. But with high definition digital cinematography you can shoot and deliver at 60 frames per secound and because it is digital there is no higher distribution costs. Also with digital you have the flexibility of intercutting footage if you want 24p for special effects and 60p for fast action. Of course you can do this with film by frame doubling and frame tripling the 24p footage with the 60p footage but again you are doubling your film distribution costs.
Click to expand...

Dude, what in the blue hell are you talking about and where do you get your info from...

Film can be shot at ANY framerate...24fps just happen to be what we set the standard at for sync sound. I own a camera that will shoot 16mm at 7000fps.
Look up a company called Photosonics...see how fast their cameras run. Look up Clairmont Camera, see how fast they've modified the boards on several cameras to run.

How does it double my distro costs? Off speed is shot, developed and processed and laid back to film at 24fps....Its ALWAYS 24fps on a print. The cost of the print to distribute is the same.

Lacks the high speed resolution? I'm not even touching this one suffice to say you as so wrong its making me laugh.

No higher distro costs on the digital end? If its going to show in a theater you have to have it printed to film, which isnt cheap. Then have a interpostive made, and then an internegative, and then all the prints. It will actually cost more.

I've disagreed with people here, I've read some silly stuff....but this. This is the most moronic statement I have ever read. Go back to school dude.
 
How it's going to go down

How it's going to go down

The question of what is going to happen, will film die, will digital triumph is not only an artistic question, it's also a question of economics. Todays young filmmakers (like myself) did not grow up making their shorts on little super 8mm home movie cameras. We grew up shooting on VHS and miniDV. Sure I spent some time on a linear tape editing system, but most of my short films from high school on were edited in Premiere and FCP.

What this means is that as we enter the professional world, we all have a proclivity for doing things the "Digital" way. Sure I've worked with film, and sure it's fun, and it's a different process and you get all sorts of great looks and it's awesome, but from the stand point of ease of use and getting things done quicker and better, we were raised on digital.

Now with camera's coming out that are quickly rivaling film in terms of quality (and yes I know film still has a greater lattitude, I'm not here to argue that, I'm talking what the casual viewer sees on screen) we're coming into an interesting scenario. The cost prohibitive nature of shooting on film is eliminated, which can allow for two things to happen. You'll have ALOT more smaller independent movies being shot on digital, because the entry point is so low. These are your smaller indies (like a Napoleon Dynamite) type film, and the market will be flooded with them. It's great that independent producers will be able to make their films, but there will probably be little market for them unless alternative distribution models take off (internet, straight to dvd, etc.)

You'll also have some people who'll choose to shoot bigger indies, using the budget that would have been spent on 35mm stock, going towards improving the overall production value of the piece. I think this is where the true value of all these new formats (HD 4k, etc.) lies. It frees up budget to add the details that indie filmmakers previously couldn't afford to take care of. This is where the independent filmmaker has his/her best shot, to be competitive with the majors. The downside is that there will be more competition from other indies. So it's sort of a trade off, but at least it's allowing everyone to make films.

As it becomes cheaper and cheaper, the market will get saturated. You'll see more indies winning major awards, getting distribution, etc. until either a new market opens up (alternative distribution methods) or the industry collapses on itself. It's definetely a volatile situation and one to watch closely.
 
Man!

We've totally hijacked this guy's thread.


This is a great topic too.


But, I want to check out what he's got going on!


Can we get our extraneous comments modded out to a new thread?


Thanks
 
androbot2084 said:
The problem with film is that you are limited to 24 frames per secound ...
Click to expand...
:huh: You've never shot with a film camera, have you? Most have variable frame rates.

It's inspiring to hear about someone producing a bunch of movies in a very short period of time. That's one of the best things about the HVX, the power it gives a filmmaker to cut through the b.s. and just make their movie.
 
Still film is dead. There are professional digital cameras that are being used by professional photographers now. And they are as high res as film.

Why do you think Kodak is on the verge of bankrupcy? They made the bulk of their money on "film" stock.
 
Yes indeed... look at how fast DAT has been replaced. Look at what has happened to the still industry... a few years back you still had people shooting both.. and sure some old timers will, but the majority of photogs I see now.. shoot exclusively digital. At the quality you get... why shoot film?


You'll see the same thing happen very very rapidly ONCE digital projection takes over.. And it will soon. A friend works for Christie projection and they've recently started out on a major gig in converting 2700 theaters to full digital projection. It's expected to be completed within 2 years... Couple with other competitiors you'll see it coming..

And here's something I'd offer... Why do we keep bringing up Hollywood and the big boys... Forget that mess! That monster continues blind regardless and is as responsive and receptive as the next person.. when they see a bottom line and an area to exploit... Now that the cost of renovating the theaters is down.. you'll see the shift. Everything will get less expensive.. and the quality will be the same. 1000 times after seeing your film digitally projected will look the same as the first.

Can you say that about film projection? It breaks my heart to see my print.. as each time it looks worse and worse.. with hair and scratches...


Good thing it's just my wedding demo right? I'd say that a fair bet would be to invest in digital projection... on demand HD downloads and the future...
 
androbot2084 said:
The problem with film is that you are limited to 24 frames per secound which is excellent for drama but does not offer enough temporal resolution for fast action movies. Of course you can shoot film at 60 frames per secound but this more than doubles your film distribution costs if you deliver in this format which can run into tens of millions of dollars. But with high definition digital cinematography you can shoot and deliver at 60 frames per secound and because it is digital there is no higher distribution costs. Also with digital you have the flexibility of intercutting footage if you want 24p for special effects and 60p for fast action. Of course you can do this with film by frame doubling and frame tripling the 24p footage with the 60p footage but again you are doubling your film distribution costs.
Click to expand...

i am SOOOOO lost for words.........i'll come back later and try to figure this one out
 
RichardVClark said:
I saw Poseidon the other day on a local IMAX screen "film is dead and HD RULES" it just really doesn't matter till the theaters are changed.
Click to expand...

On this topic, it's worth mentioning that there's no relationship between the acquisition medium and display medium at this time. Stuff shot on HD gets transferred to film and displayed on a old school film projectors. Stuff that originates on film can just as easily be written to disk and displayed via digital projection with a DLP or light cannon of some kind.

Your problem with Poseiden is a function of the display medium and is not really part of the hd/film debate as I see it.

Btw, i read a great two line review of the new Poseidon movie. Here it is:
"Strike Two!"

brian
 
brianluce said:
On this topic, it's worth mentioning that there's no relationship between the acquisition medium and display medium at this time. Stuff shot on HD gets transferred to film and displayed on a old school film projectors. Stuff that originates on film can just as easily be written to disk and displayed via digital projection with a DLP or light cannon of some kind.

Your problem with Poseiden is a function of the display medium and is not really part of the hd/film debate as I see it.

Btw, i read a great two line review of the new Poseidon movie. Here it is:
"Strike Two!"

brian
Click to expand...

lol, nice review.

You make a good point in first paragraph...and you hit on something I'm been trying to say all along.

HD has to be transfered to film to be seen in theaters in a wide release...that right there adds a huge cost to the budget. Hd is no longer cheaper. Also factor in higher end HD cameras cost more to rent at this time. I'm talking right NOW. Not what is going to happen in the future and when it may take place...but right now. Today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top