Oh The Hilarity!!

[Guest]

Here are some gems recently posted at another forum, that shall remain "nameless." These are very funny comments, I fear from people who actually believe what they are saying:

 

1) "In the future movies will be made on computers and the stars will be digital dopplegangers. It will be quite possible in a few years to make a movie featuring John Wayne."

 

Obviously written by an individual who has never directed actors. How do you program into a computer the un-predictable nature of a human being? Even giving a computer 10,000 built in facial reactions and random access to each one would not cover the complex nature of a human. One or two of these types of movies would be a novelty that's all.

 

2) "BLANK is going to come in and sweep HD right out the door...fast. Then, over time (think 5 - 10 years) it, and all the other 4K cameras to come starting in 2 - 3 years time, will gradually give film a funeral. "

 

Give film a "funeral?" Classic BS bunk.

 

3) "I agree, over time, that film will be pushed to the back, if not pushed out completely."

 

More of the same........

 

4) "New cinematographers will be able to afford to produce their scripts without having to ask for the proverbial "green light"

 

Hoooray!! We won't need talent to direct, write, edit, produce, act, light, etc etc etc. And none of this other "minor" stuff costs money so we're saved!! The gates of Hollywood will open at last now that I don't need 35mm!!

 

5) "then it seems we can put a date on film's death. that is, when all the old school holdouts actually die and no one knows or can tell the difference between film and digital cinema. it's already happened in the still photography field so motion picture film would only naturally follow. the fact is that it could disappear tomorrow and audiences wouldn't know or care. so it will probably take another generation or so before it becomes more of an artifact than the dynamic medium it is today."

 

This one is really good, doesn't need much editorial for obvious reasons.

 

6) "You will probably be able to get 35mm film 30 years from now, but it will be an expensive product for those with special interests. 8mm disappeared quickly when video was still quite shabby. 16mm is likely to be gone in a few years. I have made diapositives on glass plates. The quality was excellent, but I do not see them around these days."

 

Waaaa? 8mm "disappeared quickly", excuse me 8mm is still alive and well. If he read this board he'd know that.

 

7) To be fair, one guy over there gets it right:

 

"It dosen't really matter. Film is here to stay."

 

Right on brother!

 

R,

[James Steven Beverly]

Interesting predictions, sounds a lot like Criswell. I personally am waiting for the time when they stick two wires in your ears and one up you tookas and you watch movies on the inside of you skull. I hear that'll replace video. :rolleyes:

[Matthew Buick]

Film will stay as long as people who love film are alive.

[Nick Mulder]

I am a film user and 'lover' as Matthew puts it ...

 

I'll throw this on in there for discussion >> in terms of the environment:

 

does film = polar bears ??

 

 

IIRC the film industry was the 2nd worst user of fossil fuels and their by-products in some recent study - film stock being a contributer to the fact/claim, theres also all the chemical pollution to take account for ...

 

Regardless of how accurate the study or my faulty recollection of it was (and who it was funded or should I say 'biased' by) - My intuition says its at least true enough for discussion ;)

 

yes yes, no ?

[Guest]

I read a study that says video users fart more toxic gas into the atmosphere than film users do. So I guess it will all balance out :D

 

R,

[Daniel Smith]

Here are some gems recently posted at another forum, that shall remain "nameless." These are very funny comments, I fear from people who actually believe what they are saying:

 

1) "In the future movies will be made on computers and the stars will be digital dopplegangers. It will be quite possible in a few years to make a movie featuring John Wayne."

 

Obviously written by an individual who has never directed actors. How do you program into a computer the un-predictable nature of a human being? Even giving a computer 10,000 built in facial reactions and random access to each one would not cover the complex nature of a human. One or two of these types of movies would be a novelty that's all.

I hope to hell this isn't true. But, it's not impossible. CGI will become so good and computers will become so powerfull, that doing these special effects and even modelling CG people will probably become the economical choice.

 

But not for a long, long time... not in my life time anyway.

 

2) "BLANK is going to come in and sweep HD right out the door...fast. Then, over time (think 5 - 10 years) it, and all the other 4K cameras to come starting in 2 - 3 years time, will gradually give film a funeral. "

 

Give film a "funeral?" Classic BS bunk.

 

3) "I agree, over time, that film will be pushed to the back, if not pushed out completely."

 

More of the same........

Hate to say this but in stills photography, printing has gone from 80% film 20% digital, to 85% digital 15% film in the last three years.

 

I agree that film will be around for a long, long time, but give it 30 years and digital will be the main shooting format. It's advancing exponentially.

[Matthew Buick]

I hope to hell this isn't true. But, it's not impossible. CGI will become so good and computers will become so powerfull, that doing these special effects and even modelling CG people will probably become the economical choice.

 

But not for a long, long time... not in my life time anyway.

 

I wouldn't bet on it, Danny. The Apollo 11 control computer from 1969 on had the power of a modern day calculator. That was only 38 years ago. Who's to say what'll happen in another 38.

 

I think modern day CG stink most of the time quite frankly. Doctor Who had bad visual effects from 1963 - 1989, and it has bad visual effects today.

[Brad Grimmett]

I hope to hell this isn't true. But, it's not impossible. CGI will become so good and computers will become so powerfull, that doing these special effects and even modelling CG people will probably become the economical choice.

 

But not for a long, long time... not in my life time anyway.

Actually, they tried it in 2002 in a movie called S1m0ne. I never saw it so I can't say how well it was done.

[A. Whitehouse]

Actually, they tried it in 2002 in a movie called S1m0ne. I never saw it so I can't say how well it was done.

 

It wasn't very good. A sophomore release from a good director who has yet to find the success of his early films. It was a mix of digital character and actress, though bits were very well done. Why would any director not want to work with cameras and actors ( This is inherently the plot of S1m0ne)? Its like saying theater was on the way out the day they invented the puppet.

I knew the marketing for RED was effective on the weekend when I heard a safety officer and stunt coordinator explaining to a producer about its imminent release and the earth shattering ramifications for the local 'industry'. Two different sets of people on a very small low budget crew had reservations. In a town like Melbourne even if theres only 7 of them it'll be a glut making for a very competitive rental market and my understanding is that several rental houses are getting at least that many.

It would be a good time to own a set of PL superspeeds as there's not a limitless supply of glass to attach to the front end here.

I find it amusing how much excitement there is for what really remains an unknown quantity for 99% of the community. Lemach (a local rental house) must be running a RED night soon and that would be the first opportunity for most of us, reservation holders included, to actually see the thing. After nearly two years of intense internet speculation.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Actually, they tried it in 2002 in a movie called S1m0ne. I never saw it so I can't say how well it was done.

 

You should have read the 'trivia' section.

Simone, like Max Headroom, was a live actress computer enhanced to look like a pootertoon.

 

"As part of the pre-released publicity for this film, it was claimed that Simone would be played by a completely photo-realistic computer-generated actress.

 

 

In order to keep her role in the film a secret, 'Rachel Roberts' worked on the movie under the pseudonym Anna Green, and is referred to by this name on one of the behind-the-scenes documentaries on the DVD release. Live footage of Rachel Roberts was computer enhanced in order to create the synthetic look of Simone. During some computer screen scenes, a detailed, computer animated version of the actress was used."

 

"When the truth becomes hype, print the hype."

[Brad Grimmett]

You should have read the 'trivia' section.

 

"When the truth becomes hype, print the hype."

I certainly wasn't trying to be tricky. I remembered hearing that it was an all digital character when the movie came out. I guess I was tricked by the marketing.

[Erik Olson]

Dunno. Those posts seem sophomoric on the surface, but you could argue each and every point from their standpoint. Pixar has consistently released some of the highest grossing films in recent years and, well... you know. The bottom line drives our business and what that studio is peddling has way more ancillary than the rest of the studio live-action releases - maybe even with the vast majority of them combined.

 

You could be right about film - it certainly has the technical and aesthetic edge for the moment. Concurrently, digital acquisition is getting better exponentially and the observations on digital still versus celluloid-based stills is DBA.

 

As a 35mm guy who's done nothing but HD for the past two years, I just see things going the digital way. It might not be the watershed moment, but I think we're getting close to it. And, as of this writing, I'm waiting for a callback on a studio F23 feature.

 

e

Edited September 19, 2007 by Erik Olson

[Brad Grimmett]

Pixar has consistently released some of the highest grossing films in recent years and, well... you know.

And some of the best scripts. That might have a little something to do with it.

And, as of this writing, I'm waiting for a callback on a studio F23 feature.

 

e

Which studio is going to use the F23 for a feature? That would be very surprising to me.

[A. Whitehouse]

And some of the best scripts. That might have a little something to do with it.

 

Which studio is going to use the F23 for a feature? That would be very surprising to me.

 

I might be wrong about this but I seem to remember that "Speed racer" was being shot on the F23. I think I read that in a CML post somewhere buried in a discussion about depth of field. Are there many available in the US yet?

[James Steven Beverly]

I hope to hell this isn't true. But, it's not impossible. CGI will become so good and computers will become so powerfull, that doing these special effects and even modelling CG people will probably become the economical choice.

 

But not for a long, long time... not in my life time anyway.

Hate to say this but in stills photography, printing has gone from 80% film 20% digital, to 85% digital 15% film in the last three years.

 

Well actually, it has been done, and they been doing it sense about 1906 when they did Humorous Phases of Funny Faces (1906), they're called cartoons. Gollum in Lord of the Rings, The Motion capture of Andy Serkis' movement and facial expressions were converted into a fully 3d cgi character essentially nothing more than a very sophisticated cartoon. All aspects of these animated characters are created by human beings and giving life by their human creators. I doubt whether a computer will ever be able to gain the ability to create the subtleties of an human acting performance, it's just not the way they "think", and from everything I've read and heard, they show no signs of developing creative thought processes and are never likely to do so, so I believe actors are safe for now.

[Brad Grimmett]

I might be wrong about this but I seem to remember that "Speed racer" was being shot on the F23. I think I read that in a CML post somewhere buried in a discussion about depth of field. Are there many available in the US yet?

Wow, I don't know if it's true or not, but I did a quick search and found this:

 

"I read yesterday that the Wachowski brothers (you know the ones?filmmakers behind The Matrix, and one of ?em thinks he makes a nice lady as well) are ?using a new camera? in the filming of Speed Racer to create the effect of the entire frame in focus at one time. Which is ironic when you consider the countless indie filmmakers jumping through countless hoops to get a shallow depth-of-field look. If they had called me, I could have rented them a stock Sony FX1 for a lot cheaper?but I digress. On a more serious note, Susan Sarandon (starring in the film) is gushing over this new technique, stating in an interview;

 

?They?re doing something where they?re layering film so that the front and the back are in focus like a cartoon and they?re also doing two dimensional and three dimensional stuff and mixing and everything is very, very saturated with some new kind of film, so they actually have to treat the actors in some way so we can hold our own with the background.?

 

Sounds tedious. And interesting. Which may account for the fact that the intarwebs are abuzz with this (tiny and unsubstantiated) bit of news. Unfortunately no real details have been shown or explained. Just this mysterious layering technique. I even read one commenter say in a definitive statement that they are shooting Speed Racer on the (forthcoming) Red Digital Cinema camera. Surely we would have seen this first at Reduser, no? Stay tuned, I?m sure that Larry the cross-dressing director will clear everything up shortly. Expect the film to be released sometime in Spring of 2008."

Here's the link

 

I'm not sure what to think of this....but whatever works I guess....