Keep video and film seperate please!

taubkin said:
Okay, I understand what you guys are saying. And I'm not discrediting any format.
Click to expand...
I was mostly responding to double_agent_oo2 and dasonras' comments - I know you're a little more sensible than that. :)

The article that Gibby posted (courtesy of HD for Indies) is a really good one - speaks volumes about the current state of the industry!
 
Häak, man of details, I particularly liked your "double_agent_002 and dasonras' comment". It reminds me those sales promotions when you're taking two for the price of one... genre yours WAL*MART. Here in Europe it can have other names but when happens it works in the same way. :costumed-smiley-047
 
Last edited:
Thank God for 24p and In Digital We Trust.

Film is dying. No question about it and I'm not crying about it. Embrace the future gentlemen or be left behind because it is wide open. We are sitting in the middle of a a technological revolution that no other filmmakers have ever been at. This isn't merely the invention of Talkies or Three Strip Technicolor; this is a true evolution that is changing entire industries from Camera manufacturers to film companies to motion picture studios.

I see a bit of trolling in this thread and I see a bit of naivete but mostly I see people embracing and helping this future happen now.

The end result is what we put on the screen. The tools are being handed to us whether we are working professionals or wannabes or everything in-between and I see people lambasting this.

Charles Duell once "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Now that's pretty narrow minded aint it ?

-

Film is terminal.
 
double_agent_002 said:
I find it highly alarming when people are so sick that actually celebrate the imminent death of a medium for expression.
Click to expand...

Let’s make things clear: The medium of expression here is NOT film. Film is just a recording medium. The medium of expression is Cinema! Although it started with film, it can continue with any suitable recording medium our evolving civilization provides.

Likewise, in still pictures, the medium of expression is Photography. Not film, not digital, not glass plates or whatever. Photography is the art being recorded on all these mediums.

Note that in other art forms, an alternative “recording” medium might require very different techniques which will result in a different look and eventually in a different expression. But that’s not the case with film and digital. These recording mediums are too close, so their minor differences can’t affect expression style that much and the essence of Cinema or Photography remains the same.

double_agent_002 said:
An analogy of this coexistence can be the coexistence of the acoustic guitar and the electric guitar in modern music.

Although the electic guitar radically changed our musical landscape, the acoustic guitar never went away and still delights music fans today.

Just like an artist must pick an instrument that's right for a song, a cinematographer/director should pick the camera(s) that are right for their film. It's all about the art.
Click to expand...

This is not a good analogy.The difference between these two instruments is far greater than the difference between film and digital. These instruments have a very different sound and feel that leads to a different playing style and expression. Even aesthetically they are different. Also, the acoustic guitar is more portable, it doesn’t require cables amplifiers and processors and you can pick it and start playing instantly, wherever you are.
There is just no competition between the two.

Once more, that’s not the case with film and digital.

Both mediums can be used to capture the *same* artistic expressions of your actors, and the *same* filmmaker’s intentions and both can be projected on a large screen for the same audience to enjoy and appreciate.

There are differences in the procedure, but these differences do not affect much the artistic result; the essence of the cinematic experience or expression remains the same.

And yes, digital imaging has not yet matched and surpassed all film’s strengths, but it is getting better and better everyday.
So it’s a matter of time until digital offers everything that film offers today and a lot more. Then, the market will adapt and someday there will be no point to shoot on film. Then cinema should celebrate its new recording medium… :)
 
Last edited:
Proteus said:
Then cinema should celebrate its new recording medium… :)
Click to expand...
Just as informed people in the digital world appreciate the enormously valuable legacy of film origination and all of its tools and techniques, most of which are directly applicable to digital production.
 
Greg Lowry said:
Just as informed people in the digital world appreciate the enormously valuable legacy of film origination and all of its tools and techniques, most of which are directly applicable to digital production.
Click to expand...

Of course! Nothing comes from nowhere or can be born from zero.
The New is taking advantage of the Old’s experience. This is the base of the civilization and the way technology evolves.
And Digital will continue from there…
 
Stating the obvious is sometimes useful for those with limited perspective in these matters due to youth or inexperience. What's obvious to some isn't so obvious to others. The evolution of imaging technology to the digital domain is inevitable, but those who for some reason view film as the "enemy camp" or can't wait for the demise of film should think twice. Most theatrical releases (95%+, I believe) are still originated on 35mm film with good reason. And more 16mm film was sold last year than the year before.
 
I estimate that it will take no more than 10 years before celluloid will be proved technically obsolete. But the market will not change so fast.
Something that might boost the use of digital cameras is that soon there is going to be a new wave of 3D stereoscopic productions and perhaps there is going to be a preference for HD+ cameras for many reasons...
 
Proteus said:
Something that might boost the use of digital cameras is that soon there is going to be a new wave of 3D stereoscopic productions and perhaps there is going to be a preference for HD+ cameras for many reasons...
Click to expand...
Stereoscopic 3D is my current area of activity so I wholeheartedly agree that digital is the best solution for image capture, exhibition, display and viewing.
 
double_agent_002 said:
I think that you people that really want to see film go should ask yourselves why you're so happy about that, that's all.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve just got this answer from …myself:

-Because I’m not sentimentally attached to celluloid,
-I find new things more interesting than old ones and I like to explore them and experiment,
-I don’t like to repeat my grand-grand-grand-father’s achievements and choices,
-I expect that something newer and better will replace it,
-I consider more important the *essence* of cinema,
-starting with a more capable medium, the artist will be able to focus on higher levels of creativity, closer to that essence to make art and compete and
-the lower cost and higher convenience will increase competition and that will lead to less businessmen, more artists and better movies.
 
Last edited:
double_agent_oo2 said:
Yes I have a bias toward film, but I'm just trying to stress that artistic integrity should play into what medium something gets shot on.

:snip:
Click to expand...
I'm sure you would love for me to react to all of your completely inappropriate personal attacks, but I'll leave that to the mods.

I will say, however, that I'm completely surprised that anyone here lets you get away with saying that someone who shoots digitally has less artistic merit than someone who shoots on film. How you can believe in such a ludicrous concept to begin with is beyond me, but you should have more class than to blanketly judge an entire spectrum of filmmakers based on their medium of choice.
 
Haakon, I've called double_agent_oo2 on that very point you make. Whereas we accept that movie makers can make movies using their favourite medium (be it film, video or digital, or whatever) I cannot accept that someone should dictate the reasons why someone should choose their recording medium. There's no one media that has more inherent "artistic integrity" than another. They're all valid, and all beautiful in the right hands.

Graeme
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
RED is not video in that you can only have the above if you've chosen them! In essence, RED is the mysterium sensor, and a number of ways to record that data. Sure, you can record as video, but you don't have to. You can record RAW sensor info and post process it to make it look how you want. You could even extract the RAW data and write your own image processing pipeline tools to give the images your own unique look that looks like nothing else. To me, that's the key difference.

So, is the difference fps or resolution or....? No, I think it's all about choice, in that RAW allows you to choose your own processing afterwards. That to me is the main difference.

Graeme
Click to expand...

How much choice will we get from REDCODE? Can we expect a hit to the dynamic range if we shoot with REDCODE instead of RAW? I ask because of concerns regarding the additional costs (equipment, storage, etc) associated with RAW recording. But your statement makes me think RAW is the way to go for the cinematic look I am after.

I've been reading up on cineform RAW in the Silicon Imaging camera. Unless I'm missing something, that sounds like a great way to maximise choice while addressing the storage problem.

Are RED following their lead? (This idea did come in second place in the think tank!). Or is it all hush hush for now?
 
Well, it's the sensor that gives the dyanamic range, and the next task is to record as much or all of that as possible in as high a quality as possible, and as flexibly as possible. All I can say for now is that we know what we have to do :-)

Graeme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top