Digitally Overwelmed... Can't I just shoot on Film???

Oh, I forgot to throw this in..

Many people talk about a formats lifespan. Which I totally agree is a BIG issue with video.

But that doesn't apply to Andromeda. It's format less. You render it out into the format of your choice. I use 16 bit Tiff image sequences, which aren't fading out of use, I could also use any other image sequence choice, or quicktime codec I want, all I need is the code for Sculptor HD to make it happen.
 
I'm not trying to bag on the Andromeda. Like I said, for certain uses, I think it's a great tool. And certainly a very clever piece of engineering.

But it's pretty near the bottom of the list if I had to suggest a format suitable for all seasons. Same with IMAX, since you mention it. And the day the Andromeda (or anything like it) can produce images like an IMAX, we can have that conversation.

I don't know if format lifespan IS that big of a concern with video. Mini-DV support (already obsolete, depending on who you talk to) will continue to exist in software for a decade or more to come, I'm sure. And the hardware will still be around, although eventually only second-hand. You don't see many Beta users blowing their tops over how the floor fell out from under them. There are a handful of formats out right now that I'd be very skeptical about investing in - REDcode, actually, might be one of them - but most of the majors I have no concerns about whatsoever.
 
35mm film stock, plus processing, plus telecine runs between $75 and $80 a minute.

After four hours of shooting 35mm, you could have bought yourself a RED, and that's if all you ever did was look at your raw footage.

If you need to do a 2K DI for color correction, don't forget to add another $60 to $120 a minute for the scans.

RED's lookin pretty cheap now, huh?
 
Yes, and a Sony Handicam is even cheaper. In a world where cost was the only factor, Kodak would go out of business tomorrow.
 
well, 35mm can save you money in some ways. If your film is going to get guaranteed distribution, and youre self financing the photgraphy portion, shoot on 35. you will spend a ton of money trandsferring to 35mm film later from video, and if your gonna spend that money, you mind as well enjoy the benefits of shooting on film to begin with. However, film REQUIRES at least 2 additional crew members. 2nd AC and a Loader. ABSOLUTLY required to finish the film on time. Also, make sure you get good crew, and spend the little extra money for relaible people. Reshoots on 35mm are VERY costly. But if you have a Good DP, and a solid crew few mistakes if any happen. Also, as far as CC goes, you can have the film adjusted in color in the lab. you shoot grey cards with tinted lights to balance against. the color timer then shifts the color gamut to correct for the tint. Voila. "looks" applied to film. No DI neccesary. Unless the film is effects intensive, shooting on 35mm is not as un economical as it may seem. A Good DP will and should get you perfect results, thats their JOB.

Now, if your film is destined for DVD, or uncertain festival competition, then shooting on Digital is the smart move, IMO. Its cheaper initially, but you sacrifice at the "image". No video camera, no 35 adpter, can really replace it. Though, some come close. This way if Buzz is generated, and someone gives you money, you can always bump up to film for proper realese and high end competiiton. ( canne, Sundance etc...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top