Martin Yernazian Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I think you guys love to waste your time getting philosophical about Film vs Digital, instead we could see only proof Film is a reliable format that has been with us for a century: and it will continue because it is a stronger format HD/ Digital, etc: This are New Tools that it will be incorporated to our workflow, that's all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 From April 2008: ...I said from the very beginning that RED ONE would not be the film slayer. I figured something coming out in 2009 or 2010 (the generation after RED, Genesis, etc) would probably be the film slayer. I've been saying this for a couple of years now, and it is my opinion and belief. Film's day will come. Film is all but dead in still photography now. If you think moving image film is somehow immune from the progress of digital technology, you are simply wrong. Sorry, but I know that history will prove me right. Film is here to stay. There is nothing that the "film will soon be extinct" crowd can offer to prove other wise. Hollywood features can all be shot digitally right now, but they aren't. Digital will continue to make in roads, but a complete replacement for film? Never happen. Only time will prove one of us right or wrong. R, Richard, care to revise your predictions? ;) Any of you here who doubted that Epic was going to be the final nail for film, are you still making the same claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Kubaszak Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Yes. i think it will be Arri in the ballroom with the Alexa. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted December 8, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted December 8, 2010 (edited) Richard, care to revise your predictions? ;) Any of you here who doubted that Epic was going to be the final nail for film, are you still making the same claim? Sail---ors, fighting in the dance hall, Oh man; look at those cavemen go... It's the freakiest sho-o-o-ow.... Sorry, last thing I remember was being hit by a Segway Mk27; next thing I woke up and it was 2010. It was freaky; people were still driving gasoline-powered cars, and watching TVs with less than 98" 16K screens. AM radio was still being broadcast! McDonalds and Pizza Hut weren't yet required to put pictures of the decomposing bodies of morbidly obese people on their food wrappers. Hardly any cars were made in China. And no major features had yet been made using the Epic. Well, no festures of any sort had been made with the Epic. Dumbfounded, I managed to find an iPad (an iPad?! Can you believe that??!) and logged onto this forum. "The Hobbit" was still in pre-production, most of the 30 Epics that it was going to use still hadn't even been built. It's really hard to get my head around that last part... I mean it's like ... September 10, you know? Edited 9 Dec 2010 to add: Posted by Tom Lowe 08 August 2008 - 11:10 AM Okay, so I have Max and Stephen stepping up to the plate? 20 Bucks USD each? I accept. Payable through paypal, or emailing a $20 amazon gift certificate or something along those lines. Sound good? The wager is, I assert that: "more major-studio features will be shooting digitally by the end of 2010 (Dec 30th) than will be shooting on chemical film." Meaning that in Dec 2010, more major features currently in production at that time will be shooting digital rather than chemical. I'm not sure exactly how we will know for sure (maybe IMDB tech specs?), but actually I would not be surprised if my prediction is a little on the conservative side. Sorry, guess you are going to be suprised, Tom. From The Chronicles of Tom Lowe: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=32742&view=findpost&p=245849 Edited December 8, 2010 by Keith Walters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Porto Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 My summarized opinion... 3D is comparable to color in the black and white days EPIC being lightweight, small and able to be used hand-held for 3D will be the dominant camera used by productions for 3D work (even IF the images are inferior... which they may or may not be) Can't wait to see what Panavision bring out... my guess is they will do what the Panaflex did to 35mm film-making. But at the moment EPIC seems to be following that path Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted December 8, 2010 Author Share Posted December 8, 2010 There's a lot of interest in the 2/3" Scarlet for 3D because it tends to work better with a larger DOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg lamshöft Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 To what extent depends the weight and handling of a 3D-rig on the camera? I guess ARRI had a good reason to put the ALEXA in such a rugged body with this elaborate cooling-system. I also heard that large DoF is crucial for 3D-work - but large 35mm-style cameras have "faster" sensors with higher sensitivity, you can further stop down to achieve large DoF. But you can also use open apertures to minimize DoF when necessary - that's not so easy with 2/3"-cameras (Mauro Fiore complained about that on "Avatar"). Panavision wants a 4k-camera, that's not an easy task. Their dynamax-sensor has 37MP to create a native 4k-RGB-signal OR a high dynamic range! The photosites are so small that they seriously limit the ability for better tonal transition and dynamic range. That's why the ALEXA has a relatively low pixel count - it's sensitivity, dynamic/tonal range seems unmatched by any digital aquisition medium! That's why Nikon still offers the "low-rez" D3s with 12MP - higher per-pixel-IQ. Real 4k will come, but not at this stage of sensor-technology. A good 4k DI of 35mm outperforms these sensors easily - even David Fincher wasn't capable to get rid of the "videoish"-look despite using the latest RED-sensor. What's important for filmmakeras is the choice. They need to be trained to use film and know it's qualities and then choose whether they want digital or film. Producers seem to force the use of digital - they don't care about the artists intention. They don't care if it's better or cheaper - it has to be digital, period. And we have to keep the basic infrastructure alive (R&D, production of film stock, development and processing) - I'm not sure if the shareholder-value-driven structure of Kodak is suitable for that. Right now they're making more film stock than ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted December 9, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted December 9, 2010 3D is comparable to color in the black and white days Today's cumbersome stereoscopy-only 3D is comparable to the early two-primary color systems. We need better technology for it to become mainstream. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 As long as Cinematographers prefer the film look over the soap opera reality look film will never die. Film will only die when film shooters strive to achieve the video look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted December 9, 2010 Site Sponsor Share Posted December 9, 2010 3D is so over all my bets are on Smell-O-Vision. -Rob- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now