how many of you feel HD will soon be far superior than film

Barry_Green said:
If the distributor loves the film, they will not care (much) what it was shot on. Although they will always prefer 35mm because the distribution format worldwide is 35mm, and it's infinitely less expensive to make a print than it is to do a video-to-film blowup.

Because 99% of the DV movies they see are HORRIBLE. Absolutely, jaw-droppingly, mind-numbingly awful. Terrible. Bad. Unwatchable dreck. Not like "Pluto Nash" bad, I'm talking really really bad.
Click to expand...
That is word for word what came out of the mouth of a very successful doc producer at a social gathering I was at last night. Most of the stuff they see is total garbage, and it doesn't matter what it was shot on.

Story is #1! :thumbsup:

And to answer your queston, Brian Singer himself in the Superman BTS says he has his digital cameras shooting better than film (in his humble opinion) so now its just a matter of getting the workflow right.

If Moore's law (Gordon, not Michael) applies to chips, cameras and resolutions, by 2015 we'll all be shooting 4:4:4 uncompressed 24fps 1080p on a $2,000 camera! :grin:
 
I doubt regular HD will take out film. I think it will take something monumentally cool....better than red..better than anything out there right now.

Within a decade I think it would be cool to see something...insanely clear used for filmmaking...more of a virtual reality than a film....

perfect 3-D....DEEP depth of field (is that right? i just mean everything in focus all the time) i dunno what...12k? something straight up face-melting, mind-stoppingly kickass....
 
Barry_Green said:
That would be, by and large, an urban legend. Video origination didn't stop Chuck & Buck, The Celebration, Open Water, Blair Witch, 28 Days Later, November, Pieces of April, Murderball, Supersize Me, Time Code, or any of the dozens of other video-originated films from making it into the theaters.
Click to expand...
You're talking about recent films in the past few years (after DV's acceptance) but before that people didn't want anything to do with DV. Many people told me DV wasn't worth the investment. I had a lot of discussions on this. Now DV is very common in the home video market and 60i video horror films are extremely common.
Weston said:
I doubt regular HD will take out film. I think it will take something monumentally cool....better than red..better than anything out there right now.
Click to expand...
HD is pretty much acceptable now.

-Nate
 
HD wont kill film, wont even really harm it. It will take 4K cameras, 4K workflows and 4K projectors to finally kill film, we are prolly 15 years away from that being the status quo.

I actually shot and produced the first all DV product to be put on store shelves in 1997. Nobody cared it was DV but I had to dump it to Beta to edit as no DV decks even existed and there was no such thing as firewire input on computers. Oh by the way, the product is still the best selling longform music video of all time.

Barry is correct, the gateway to Hollywood is talent and connections, it has nothing to do with cameras or resolution. People complain about Dukes of Hazzard and such films but they are better than 99.99999999999% of movies I see about on the net. Look in this and other forums, watch the shorts, features, etc. posted, now imagine them shot on film or on a high end HD camera... what would change about how GOOD the films were? Nothing...




ash =o)
 
Great post Ash

I disagree on 15 years:

28 Days Later was only 4 years ago with the mighty Xl1, as was Tadpole (PD-150). Their already doing it now.

but the rest is the truth: Content is king and Talent reigns supreme
 
John_Hudson said:
Great post Ash

I disagree on 15 years:

28 Days Later was only 4 years ago with the mighty Xl1, as was Tadpole (PD-150). Their already doing it now.

but the rest is the truth: Content is king and Talent reigns supreme
Click to expand...


15 years until it is status quo... meaning, shot, edited and projected digital, I will welcome it should it happen sooner. There is a mountain of tech that needs to be replaced and others will buy up that tech and use it, extending its life. Could be as soon as 10 if the projector price comes down but, like I said, there is SO much film stuff out there that is paid for already.



ash =o)
 
Last edited:
I dont think 4k or regualar HD is good enough. It has to be perfect virtual reality...no difference from the crispness and resolution of everyday life and in three demensions. Thats what the future should be.....and nothing less dammit! 4k should look as shitty as an old silent film.....in comparison
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
"...I recommend you attend the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival, which holds screenings in NY, LA, and Las Vegas. You will see hour after hour of the most absolutely unwatchable awful dreck that you will be prying your eyes out of your head just to make it stop."

...I think Australian TV programmers attend that festival to aquire content.
Click to expand...
 
RED is probably going to change alot of things...

@Ash, any more info on that best-selling Music video of yours? A link perhaps. It would be interesting to see something original like that.
 
Superior?

Superior?

What do you mean by "will HD video be superior to film..."?

Superior as in, will it be the industry standard recording medium? Or will it actually look better than film?

Two different things here.

Personally, film will always look better. However, HD video will probably dominate the market because it is cheaper and reliable.
 
i learnt better filmmaking from dis post

i learnt better filmmaking from dis post

wonderful explanation...i wish to add this as article in my site if i have permission.:huh: I learnt something from u.

cheers

venkat
 
Hi,

Here is what I think people typically shoot film if they can afford to and people shoot digital because of work flow and cost. I do not personally believe 35mm will ever die out. If it did maybe in 100 years. Most movies in the theatres are shot in 35mm but 24p whether DVX100 or true HD 24p is becoming more common and cost effective.

I currently have a DVX100 (original) and plan to shoot my narratives in 24p and I am happy with the quality. I can see myself eventually moving on to the Panasonic HVX eventually. I really like the quality that camera.

HD or digital hasn't replaced anything really, with digital we just have more options.

IMO
 
HD is nowhere near matching the visual power of 35mm film stock,
That being said it is getting more advanced, and is still far cheaper, faster, and in general available to low budget operations..
. HD has its own aesthetic (look at some of grabs here, or at Miami Vice).
No one format is superior they just have different applications...

HD will probably replace film in most television production, sooner than one might anticipate as advertising revenue is shrinking while production costs soaring...

This is a debate that has been waged here before, but I think comparing the two really is akin to insisting that a triangle tastes better than an circle...
 
Cancer

Cancer

Enjoy it while it lasts for film is dying. If you look at the trends within parallel industries like audio and photography it is conclusive than film will soon become extinct. Ampex the last company that manufactured 2 inch analog tape stopped making it a year ago. Multi-channel 24bit 192khz interfaces can be had for less than the cost of a single high quality studio mic. The 35mm camera is dead with the advent of 8-10-12-16MP cameras, and digital backs for medium format cameras. Kodak stopped making cameras and paper. The question is not if video will replace film but when. The biggest factor is not the technology rather the shift in perspective. Once the diminished costs of video are fully realized and accepted by studio execs film is finished. Video is already good enough for the masses. I expect that within 3 years the balance will shift and the majority of productions will happen on video. Bank on it. Otherwise corporations much wiser than myself, arriflex and panavision, wouldn't be investing so heavily. Anyone got some k40 for sale?
 
I will take that bet... 3 years? Do you realize how much PAID FOR film equipment there is right now? The cost argument is pretty null and void for commercial work, it mainly will help the indies. Same is true of music. Look at the budgets for records in the Billboard top 100... most are still very high and technology has not effected them as much as it should. What it HAS done, is help the indie band create sounds that were previously not available. What we have learned is that there are a lot of crap bands with CDs and it ultimately comes down to marketing. You can still be an indie and market yourself, last stat I saw had indies selling 30% of all albums...



ash =o)
 
faultygoblin said:
HD is nowhere near matching the visual power of 35mm film stock
Click to expand...
Did you see Superman Returns?

Looked pretty near to me.

I think the more important thing is that there are a lot of rental and distribution companies based on film that are probably going to block digital acquisition and distribution as long as possible. Especially the major studios -- who'll need their money when you can shoot on a camcorder, and theatrical venues can download your film for display, instead of going through the standard billion-dollar channels?
 
And why would any theater want to show a movie that did not have a huge promotional budget behind it? I do the pre-screen entertainment for a small theater chain and I can tell you, they cant afford to show indie movies because they just dont make money. You still have to market your product, doesnt matter what it was shot on, without marketing, you are looking for lightning in a bottle. You going to get Tom Cruise in your camcorder movie? Nope, you need a big studio almost any way you slice it.



ash = o)
 
Its not a matter of one being superior,
they have different uses, I loved the use of HD in Collateral, numerous tv shows, and am in no way deriding it.
For television, and much commercial work HD will take the forefront,
but for actual films and cinema 35mm will be around for a very long time,
relatively little money is spent on film stock in comparison to actors salaries, promotion (as AshG rightly points out), in the grand scheme of things.

alot of actors are uncomfortable with hd, its too real and its still the pariah, we'll be seeing a lot of HD films in the future, I plan to work with HD but given a budget and a choice I'll take a 35mm Panavision, or even an Arri SR3 in super 16mm, I am unable to see the death of flilm anytime soon.

regardless we live in a very interesting time for film making, NLEs, HD, and hopefully the internet bolstering the indie market, its exciting to watch...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top