Keep video and film seperate please!
- Thread starter dasonras
- Start date
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
acrochordon, what is the point you're making??
Graeme
Graeme
Graeme_Nattress said:
I dont think he even knows.. acrochordon is on a whole other planet sometimes
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
Planet? Galaxy I thought!
Graeme
Graeme
mike the beginner
Well-known member
DOUBLE AGENT 002: Greg has noticed. I know nothing of this industry but i can spot someone that will be be very usefull. I think you are going to be involved in this game a long time. Someone should give this young chap a job.
Michael
Michael
yeah its always nice when Haakon shows up.
Double Agent 002
I think it's just the infancy of the format that can hold people back. There is in digital, just like in film, a whole range of rules that need to be learned, utilized and then broken to attain stunning images. I think as the format matures, as does the people that shoot it, the imagery will become more and more beautiful.
I don't know if anything will approach the photography of The Conformist or Road to Perdition, but I know there will be cinematographers who have the talent and experience to pull it off. Also, no one in the digital world, in my opinion at least, has made a Lawrence of Arabia or a Touch of Evil or a The Red Shoes. I think the level of the content must also be raised. Sure, if Lawrence was shot on DV would it still have the majesty of its 70mm brother? Probably not, but the story would still be amazing...I'm sure Freddy Young would have gotten something useable from the DVX!
It is a very exciting time. The rules, hell the whole universe of storytelling is changing. The landscape is about to be blown wide open with all of the new tools we have at our disposal. However, I agree with Nattress. The intent must be what is preserved. The intent is the foundation. The camera, the format.....all must serve the intent. I think the intent of the piece and the resolve of the artisans must be a clear and definitive path. There is no reason not to step off of it, but with the integrity of the storytellers in place...there is no chance of losing your way. The is what I strive for....it may not always work, but I know where I am going.
Oh, and when all else fails, just watch a Powell and Pressberger film. That's a pretty good rule to follow.
I think it's just the infancy of the format that can hold people back. There is in digital, just like in film, a whole range of rules that need to be learned, utilized and then broken to attain stunning images. I think as the format matures, as does the people that shoot it, the imagery will become more and more beautiful.
I don't know if anything will approach the photography of The Conformist or Road to Perdition, but I know there will be cinematographers who have the talent and experience to pull it off. Also, no one in the digital world, in my opinion at least, has made a Lawrence of Arabia or a Touch of Evil or a The Red Shoes. I think the level of the content must also be raised. Sure, if Lawrence was shot on DV would it still have the majesty of its 70mm brother? Probably not, but the story would still be amazing...I'm sure Freddy Young would have gotten something useable from the DVX!
It is a very exciting time. The rules, hell the whole universe of storytelling is changing. The landscape is about to be blown wide open with all of the new tools we have at our disposal. However, I agree with Nattress. The intent must be what is preserved. The intent is the foundation. The camera, the format.....all must serve the intent. I think the intent of the piece and the resolve of the artisans must be a clear and definitive path. There is no reason not to step off of it, but with the integrity of the storytellers in place...there is no chance of losing your way. The is what I strive for....it may not always work, but I know where I am going.
Oh, and when all else fails, just watch a Powell and Pressberger film. That's a pretty good rule to follow.
taubkin
Veteran
Let's just hold on a minute. Today, the way to get the most pleasing images, the best way to shoot a film, STILL IS shooting film! Nobody here is saying otherwise! We are just saying that when digital film matures and give us the same kind of results, we're going to see film less and less, and that is not a bad thing!
Nobody here is waving this "film is dead" flag, but we say, let's embrace the future, especially if the future, like RED, gives us young filmakers chance of displaying our art and in the same level as the giants. I'm thrilled because I'm shooting a short on 35mm this year, and if I could, I'd shot everything on 35. But unfortunately...
Nobody here is waving this "film is dead" flag, but we say, let's embrace the future, especially if the future, like RED, gives us young filmakers chance of displaying our art and in the same level as the giants. I'm thrilled because I'm shooting a short on 35mm this year, and if I could, I'd shot everything on 35. But unfortunately...
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
The best way to shoot a film, is indeed to shoot film but the best way to make a movie, is to make a movie with whatever medium you're best at
Graeme
but the best way to make a movie, is to make a movie with whatever medium you're best at Graeme
Gibby
Red Savant
Food for thought:
Article noted this morning by Mike Curtis on HD for Indies, published in the New York Times, titled "Studios Shift to Digital Movies, but not Without Resistance". RED is mentioned several times...
Good catch Mike! Very relevant to this thread...
Links: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/t...1153750616-8LwAXeLPLuIvlr1vBF/x/Q&oref=slogin
www.hdforindies.com
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
Article noted this morning by Mike Curtis on HD for Indies, published in the New York Times, titled "Studios Shift to Digital Movies, but not Without Resistance". RED is mentioned several times...
Good catch Mike! Very relevant to this thread...
Links: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/t...1153750616-8LwAXeLPLuIvlr1vBF/x/Q&oref=slogin
www.hdforindies.com
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
taubkin
Veteran
Graeme_Nattress said:The best way to shoot a film, is indeed to shoot film
Graeme
Hehe... I hope you can change this pitcure, Graeme, but let's face it, today, as of right now, film looks better! (well to me, at least) But that is not the point of this thread! The point is that the future of cinematography is digital cinematography! And let's get ready for it!
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
You see, in my eyes, I don't think film looks better, I think film looks different. Because once you say better, I think something has to be better all around, not just better in some areas, and there are most definately areas where video today is better than film, and areas where film is better than video.
I do see the future of cinematography as digital, but I don't think the visual image will look like either film or video. It will have it's own unique aesthetic.
Graeme
I do see the future of cinematography as digital, but I don't think the visual image will look like either film or video. It will have it's own unique aesthetic.
Graeme
Besides the notion that Graeme still can't get over the fact that at the end of the day they're still just building a video camera (albeit a rather pimped out one),Graeme_Nattress said:
I couldn't agree more with this last comment. And it really is true - digital is just a different media, not better or worse one. At the end of the day the person behind the camera is going to be making the difference, not the tool that was used. I can show you plenty of movies that were shot on film that are downright disgraceful looking. Does that mean that film as a whole sucks? No, of course not. But there are some beautifully shot digital movies as well. And the technology is only getting better every day. To discredit an entire format simply because you don't prefer it is silly. I actually think film and digital acquisition are going to coexist nicely for many years to come - it's rather obvious to see that they model themselves after each other (the properties that make film so desirable are the very properties that RED is trying to acheive with their camera, while at the same time, Kodak and Fuji are squeezing as much DR from their stocks as possible to stay at the forefront) and healthy competition is always good. At the end of the day, though, there's no getting around the fact that digital is growing, emerging, and becoming more successful all of the time, and I don't think it behooves anyone to come onto a forum dedicated specifically to Red and digital filmmaking and completely trash its existence. Isn't it nice that we have choices? For those who feel that there is no future in video, there is plenty of film for you to go out and shoot. For the rest of us, it's great to have new, cutting-edge equipment to experiment with that can only result in new methods and filmmaking ideas. I would think every artist would want to be behind that.
evinsky
Well-known member
Let me be the one to say it, Film is dying. Maybe not dead yet but anyone who is seriously considering shooting film now is doing so for sentimental or comfort reasons. I don't mean to be harsh but there is no quality difference when in the hands of a talented DP. What film does give you is more room for error. You can be a stop off and film will forgive you. Although if Red comes through with it's 15 stop promise it may well give you the same head room. In the end it's just way more $ to shoot film than the difference justifies, and that is the stake through the heart of film.
Although this is my opinion the studios also share it, as the NY times article is showing. Of course the final nail in the coffin will be digital projection and distribution, once that chain is in place then only the A-list directors will be able to shoot film because only they will be able to command the studios to do so, although I believe cameras like Red will eventually bring these guys over too.
E.
Although this is my opinion the studios also share it, as the NY times article is showing. Of course the final nail in the coffin will be digital projection and distribution, once that chain is in place then only the A-list directors will be able to shoot film because only they will be able to command the studios to do so, although I believe cameras like Red will eventually bring these guys over too.
E.
taubkin
Veteran
Okay, I understand what you guys are saying. And I'm not discrediting any format. There are beautiful things shot in video today as well. I shoot video and I take some pride from my work, I'm not just a frustrated video DP!
Unfortunately I prefer the look of film (I say this because I can't shoot film as much as I shoot video nowadays - I love shooting video as well) and I know many here also do. The DVX100 video camera is the hit it is because of this prefference. Maybe it's ONLY a matter of personal taste, maybe it's a cultural phenomenon. But truth be told, I know a lot of people who feel the same way, and, let's be honest here nobody here like the look of 35mm better than high definition video?
Yes film gives more room for error. It also gives more room to the light to behave as it does to our eyes, and more room for nuances and subtleties. The larger latitude really counts for me. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just taking out my frustrations because when I shoot video, the biggest problem for me is latuttude. But I love shooting on film and really seeing the light I wanted.
BUT I, like many here, also disagree from dasonras, and his request to stop progress. One day, digital cameras will look better than todays video, and will be able to compete in the same grounds with film, even if looking different. I don't agree with Graeme that video today is only different from film. I think that all around, film's advantages surpasses video's. I believe though what he says will be true when RED arives. Maybe, RED will be better than film in every aspect, who knows?
Film will die, probably, but today, right now, it's definately not dead.
Unfortunately I prefer the look of film (I say this because I can't shoot film as much as I shoot video nowadays - I love shooting video as well) and I know many here also do. The DVX100 video camera is the hit it is because of this prefference. Maybe it's ONLY a matter of personal taste, maybe it's a cultural phenomenon. But truth be told, I know a lot of people who feel the same way, and, let's be honest here nobody here like the look of 35mm better than high definition video?
Yes film gives more room for error. It also gives more room to the light to behave as it does to our eyes, and more room for nuances and subtleties. The larger latitude really counts for me. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just taking out my frustrations because when I shoot video, the biggest problem for me is latuttude. But I love shooting on film and really seeing the light I wanted.
BUT I, like many here, also disagree from dasonras, and his request to stop progress. One day, digital cameras will look better than todays video, and will be able to compete in the same grounds with film, even if looking different. I don't agree with Graeme that video today is only different from film. I think that all around, film's advantages surpasses video's. I believe though what he says will be true when RED arives. Maybe, RED will be better than film in every aspect, who knows?
Film will die, probably, but today, right now, it's definately not dead.