No more R&D in 35mm(still photography)?

[Manu Anand]

Dear Friends,

I am not sure about this , but a while back i heard this rumour that kodak is stopping all R&D on 35mm still photography films????????

 

Fuji on the other hand if im correct has gained quite a bit in the motion picture negative world from research done in the still photography negative world

Now I'm not sure what the implications are of this i hope this doesnt mean motion picture films follow suit in a while.

And like Arri no more R&D in film(analog) related equipment ??

 

Manu Anand

New Delhi

[Rob Belics]

That was regarding amateur/consumer films. Kodak sent a letter out recently to all professional photographers to let them know that would not affect professional or motion picture films.

[Manu Anand]

Thanks Rob for the clarification

Manu

[Filip Plesha]

I think that this is not so frigtening as it seems.

 

It does not mean the end of film.

 

the sad truth is that a lot of film is WASTED on people that

just want some graphical evidence of being somewhere (a vacation or something)

And most of the time they don't care about the look or the resolution

much. Nor do they shoot pictures to be beautifull,they just want

to get an object on a paper.

 

Film is a to delicate medium,and to expensive to be used for such

purpuse,and after all it is a waste of image qualitty,since majority of people don't care how fine the grain is or how smooth the color tones are.

 

For this purpose consumer digital still imaging is the best solution.

And i think kodak sees that too. Why waste research money on

developing cheaper consumer films when most of the people

just want to get a clean image,nothing more.I think it is a logical and

a smart move. The only negative thing that could come out of this

for film is the anti-promotion of film-shooting.But i think it is not a problem

because people that are going to shoot on film in the next decades

are the ones that are not dictated by trends.

General consumers are the ones that are most affected by technological trends.

 

I think this is the way it should be.

Those who really care for film photography can still use professional

films that are developed for people that care about the look of the images,

the resolution,the tonality,and everything else wonderfull about films.

and those who just want to shoot some pictures for fun or something can

save money by using digital cameras.

 

Of course,I am not talking about pro-still digital cameras.These are allso

developed for people that care about the image a lot.I'm talking about

consumer digital photography.So i hope nobody here

got the wrong idea of me saying that digital photography is for families

and vacations only.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Fuji and Kodak are doing whatever they can to move into the digital domain. Fuji has at one time been releasing new digital camera every month in Japan, losing money on them but building image as a digtal camera maker. Kodak's digital cameras are made by Sanyo, I believe. Sanyo is the world's largest digital camera manufacturer, and private labels for everybody. After Sanyo comes Canon and Sony, each having about 20% of the digital camera market.

 

Professional photographers are abandoning film and moving into digital at an excellerated rate. Check eBay for medium format equipment. You'll nowadays buy these cameras pretty cheap.

 

Konica bought out Minolta; Kodak has bought small Japanese companies involved with digital imaging. Nikon has not moved into digital as fast as Canon and is fast losing pro market share to Canon. All news and sports photographers by now switched to digital.

 

APS format that was developed by Kodak. Fuji, atc., to counteract digital cameras, has basically been abandoned. Practically all research money goes into digital.

 

Arri is developing digital cinema camera.

 

See what Panavision is renting nowadays, how many CineAltas they bought from Sony.

 

It is true that film has higher resolution but the lens is often the worst limiting factor; that's why digital with its lower resolution does not look bad, if the image is not compressed, or is compressed only lightly.

[Rob Belics]

I guess that's why professionals don't use cheap lenses.

 

In the meantime, I was on the phone this afternoon with the local equipment guy for the largest theatre chain here. We were talking about something entirely different when he mentioned the new multiplex they are building. It will one of the largest screens in the midwest and geared for 8/70 films. He said they have their pulse on the market and Hollywood and feel this is the coming format in the next two or three years.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

You are funny. New 70 mm projection rooms? 70 mm, except for the horizontal-threaded IMAX systems, is pretty much dead. The reasons are:

multichannel sound on 35 mm

improved 35 mm stock

digital projection

 

Last major 70 mm film that was of significance was Far and Away.

 

Not only cheap lenses have poor optical quality. You notice poor lens quality most easily in still camera pictures that you enlarge. Zoom lenses are the worst and with tight budgets and need to move production fast, zoom lenses are used more and more, although their quality has improved.

[Filip Plesha]

Sports and news photography does not require an artistic look

or something like that,so naturally it is foolish for them to use film.

 

But it is still a matter of choice for people,still photography doesn't pressure

people like cinema would,because there is no standard if you are working

photographs,unless you are doing it for press.

 

By the way,Kodak still does fund its research in professional films.

Medium and large format photography is something no digital camera

today can match.

Yesterday i decided to open my conservative mind and look at some

photos made with some canon CMOS cameras.I downloaded

some full resolution uncompressed tiff files.

I was really stunned,not so much by the resolution,anyone can put

a bunch of sensors on a plate,it is just a matter of how much money

do you have,i but i was stunned by the look of the pictures,it doesn't look

so much "digital" as i thought it would,it comes really close to film,

but still it is different.

 

But my personal preference for film doesn't only come from image qualitty,

i simply like working with strips of film,i like not knowing how the image looks

like untill it is developed,i like opening a shiny yellow paper box of kodak

film.Digital can't give me all of this.

 

Why do you think it is so funny about 70mm?

How can you be sure that there won't be another decade with

70mm blowups getting popular.

Your argument about multichanell sound on 35mm

is not much of an argument. Both formats have digital multichannel

sounds now. And picture qualitty is mostly why blowups were made.

Improoved 35mm stock?

this is what is funny actually,because the same emulsion is used for 65mm 35mm and 16mm film,so every improvement in these emulsions affects every format

from 16mm to IMAX. Improvement in film stocks will imroove the quality

of 35mm projection,but it wont take it near to the 70mm qualitty because

70mm qualitty is allso improved.

You could say that the difference between 35mm and 70mm prints will

always be the same,it is a constant. (of course if you are using the

same film stock)

 

Digital projection?

 

well maybe the new Kodak's digital cinema system with 2K projection,

but i don't think any theater is using it for real yet. That would really be an

imroovement over 35mm projection.

But still no digital cinema would rival the qualitty of 70mm projection

in resolution.

A 4K digital cinema would maybe rival 35mm blowups to 70mm,but not

65mm originated material.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

What I like about digital photography is the convenience. What I like about digital cinema is that you see right there on the set how the picture is coming out. On major film productions the cost of stock means nothing.

 

It is the photographers that have used medium format that are abandoning the medium format and are switching to digital. Just talk to some of them.

 

The major advantage of 35 mm was multichannel sound. Nowadays 35 mm has the same advantage.

 

Kodak and Fuji will tell you how they spend $ on research in celluloid. They have to. But they will never tell you that they see an end of the tunnel and how soon it will come. Whatever a manufacturer will tell you, you have to process it yourself and see how much of it is a hype. They are here to make $, not for the love of film. If they had a choice and could make more $ making bombs and pesticides, but would have to abandon film manufacuring, which choice do you think they would make? It is not the R&D guy that loves film that makes the decision. It is the CEO who may also sit on the board of Jack In The Box and The Raid Bug Spray Company.

 

70 mm has pretty much died off and Far and Away did not revive it.

 

Digitalprojection is the future trend. The print stock is not the limiting factor in projected image quality. It is mainly unsteadiness of the transport system. I doubt that anyone makes 70 mm projection systems, except the ones for IMAX. There are plenty unused 70 mm projection booths around the country.

 

The main reason for digital projection? You don't spend $ on prints. It is not the picture quality, although it is a factor. It is always about money. And 70 mm prints cost more than 35 mm prints, and that theater that has 70 mm booths may no longer have qualified operators to run those old 70 mm machines.

 

It all comes down to money. It is not the artist that is making the decisions, except for rare occasions. It is the guy who heads the studio and also sits on the board of RAA, and he wants one thing and it is money. It is very competitive out there. If he wanted art, he'd be out in no time.

 

Why is Hollywood putting out all this junk? Because that is what the audience wants. Because what the audience wants keeps that CEO's wallet packed with a little bit of that audience's money.

 

Unfortunately film is not like most other arts. If you want to project it to a big screen, you need to spend some real money. If you can't project it to a big screen, no distributor will even want to hear about the film, except for video release. That is what the coming up low cost HD formats are good for. It will allow the low budget independent filmmaker show his art on a larger screen. I think that about 200 Landmark Theaters are converting to low cost digital HD projection, based on Microsoft Media Player 9, or something. It even accepts interlaced material. Landmark is in all US major markets. So you can take your future low cost HD camera, make a film and will not even have to go optical unless it becomes a good commercial success.

 

So digital does have its advantages. Of course we all love film, but then money comes into the equation. Doesn't it always?

[Rob Belics]

Here's link to a guy who does 8/70 films. Obviously there are projectors made for this since he shows shoots film for this. Iwerks makes cameras for it so I'm sure there are new projectors being made. I lost the link to a manufacturer to show you.

 

Although such films are educational in nature, my contact said this could change in the next two or three years. Off the top of my head, his chain is a 100+ screen operation.

 

He said the digital system doesn't save them anything. They want him to spend $100,000+ for digital but he can get a new 35mm projector for $9200 so what's his motivation? (I thought $9200 was low. Is that right?)

 

I think that even if digital projection comes about, origination may still occur on film simply because you can easily convert it to anything while digital takes a bit of wrangling.

[Mitch Gross]

You need to stop confusing 70mm projection with 70mm (really 65mm) original photography. "Pearl Harbor" had some prints made in 70mm and "Titanic" had a good number of prints in 70mm. Both were photographed in 35mm (one in Super-35 and one in anamorphic 35). And much more recently than "Far and Away," Kenneth Branaugh's "Hamlet" was photographed in 65mm and released in 70mm.

 

I'm surprised that someone is setting up a theater in 8/70 unless it's for special venue material. But maybe he knows something I don't

 

Digital projection has been a big non-starter for years. There are currently only about 30 screens in the US that have cinema-quality digital projection. Cine-quality projectors from companies such as Christies cost upwards of $180,000 to purchase and install. You misunderstand the nature of the Landmark deal. The relatively cheap ($15,000) projectors are not of cinema-quality and are more for alternate use for the theaters, such as teleconferencing and seminars. They can also be used for running commercials and promo material before the movies begin. Regal Cinemas have already started installing similar projectors in all their theaters, but they have no intention in projecting the movies on them. Yes they have HD resolution, but we all know that resolution isn't everything, and frankly they are massively inferior when compared to a 2K Christie with a TI DLP head. At the AMC-25 on 42nd St. in NYC they have a DLP room and in most of the other rooms they have smaller video projectors (also from Christie) for running commercials before the main show. The difference in image quality is painfully obvious to even the most casual viewer, and in fact distributors will not let AMC show trailers on the cheaper video projectors because of the inferior image picture.

 

The financial model for Digital Projection has been a huge problem for years now. A typical large release will show on 2500-3000 screens in the US. At $2000 a print (plus the cost to ship it) that's $5 million per film and the big Hollywood distributors may release 150 films this way per year, so that's 3/4 of a Billion dollars spent annually in physically distributing 35mm prints. That's a major incentive towards getting digital projectors in theaters. But to outfit the 35,000 screens in the US with proper digital projectors would cost 6,300,000,000, and these projectors could be obsolete in a year or two (TI & Christie are soon to release a 4k projector) plus the distributors would still need to make 35mm prints for international release. The exhibition companies (theater owners) are all in pretty weak financial shape, some operating under backruptcy protection. They certainly can't pay for these new projectors, plus they have no incentive to as it doesn't save them any money. The distributors don't want to buy projectors for someone else to use, and there are still laws that stop them from owning the theater chains, not that they would want to. Boeing Corp. (they make the airplanes) tried to step in and set up an intermediary company--they would buy a bunch of projectors, lease then to the theaters for next to nothing and then charge a fee to the distributors that would still be cheaper than the cost of 35mm print making. But they couldn't get enough companies interested at the prices they needed to charge to make it profitable in scale, so the whole thing fell apart. We're talking huge amounts of money here, so don't look for digital projection cinemas to start popping up all over the landscape anytime soon. It's just not going to happen.

 

Windows Media 9 is just an encoding file format, and it actually does a nice job without compressing too drastically. But it has nothing to do with the difference in the quality of the projectors. And $9200 seems about right for a 35mm projector, especially considering that he probably gets a bulk purchase deal as a major client. As a nobody I could buy a very nice new projector for a decent sized auditorium for about $15,000, platter and all.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Here's a press release about Landmark. I talked with the company that is doing the installation and their technical expert explained that even interlaced material can be projected. The quality is similar to Varicam; the screens are relatively small at Landmark. I believe some Russian Arc presentations at Landmark were done on these systems:

 

 

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2...kTheatresPR.asp

 

 

Here is some Micro$oft blah:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...s/vip/film.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...italcinema.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...dcinemaapp.aspx

 

These are not 2K projectors but they are ment for feature film presentations, not for commercials.

 

What does this mean? The low budget independent filmmaker does not have to make optical prints, not until the movie proves to be a serious commercial success. He does not even have to worry about shooting 24p. He can shoot 1080i. This combined with the upcoming MPEG2 HD cameras will mean revolution in low end indie production.

[Filip Plesha]

Ultra definition

 

You mentioned people going from medium format to digital.

I can assure you that these people are now operating with

lower qualitty than they used to.

Of course resolution is only one of the factors,but

just to illustrate:

 

Matching medium format photography would require a CMOS

sensor of more than 10 000 horisontal pixels.

 

Of course even more for large format:

about 18000 or more horisontal pixels if you want to match the qualitty.

 

Digital cameras are now begining to match 35mm qualitty,but only in resolution.

You can say that kodak pro SLR/n has similar resolution as 35mm film.

 

I don't doubt that digital camera manufacturers are going to

manufacture digital cameras that equal the resolution of even large format

photography some day.

But today there is no substitute for large and medium format cameras.

 

So i find it vierd how anyone that NEEDS medium format or large format qualitty in his work for making very large prints can swich to todays digital photography

can be satisfied with the resolution.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I am personally disappointed how many in the still photography world have switched to originating in digital (and I'm not talking snapshooters here, who can use whatever they want). It's really strange because film is so much cheaper to shoot for still work than for movie.

 

I have played with several expensive digital cameras and although the quality is impressive, I still think that my Nikon loaded with film rules. But for most commercial purposes "nobody knows the difference". That is what will eventually get people to switch to digital for MP work too, it's already happening.

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just got a digital still camera, but the reason was that I was tired of using film to shoot things like location scouts and then have to scan the photos into my computer and then end up with a stack of negatives that I didn't need. So the digital camera is more for sort of throwaway or grabbed shots for temporary use -- or "snapshots." That's also why it's a small point and shoot, not a digital SLR (which is too expensive anyway.)

 

I can tell you that it's nice not having to remember to buy film, or use up the roll before I get it developed, or think about what speed to buy -- if I see my dog doing something cute, I can grab by digital still camera and snap it. I can also easily email my photos to other people without scanning them.

 

But it's not a perfect system because I still would rather store the photos as prints in an album than on a folder in my computer. Hence why it seems to work best for stuff I need to quickly have on my computer and send off to others, like when I'm in prep with a director and want to send him a shot I did on location.

 

Just like with anything, you have to weigh the pros and cons and see what works for you.

 

As for digital replacing film for movies someday, the real issue is not whether a typical audience member can tell the difference. Many of them can't tell one thing from another anyway -- for example, the difference between a #1/8 ProMist versus a #1/4 Black ProMist. Or the difference between 250D Fuji versus 250D Kodak. Or the difference between a Cooke S4 and a Zeiss Ultra Prime. We're the experts in those fields and these decisions affect us as artists, so they do matter ultimately because they are all tools to help us tell a story visually, even if many of the subtle touches are SO subtle as to work subconsciously on the audience.

 

The question becomes when the majority of experts in imagemaking can't tell the difference between the digital image and the film one -- if and when that happens, does it really matter then other than for sentimental reasons? (And I'm as guilty as anyone for having sentimental attachments to classic film technology and techniques.) Anyway, we're not there yet so it's not really an issue. For now, I'm glad we have more choices than ever in terms of how we make a movie. Sometimes it bites you on the ass, of course -- if you have a cheap alternative, some producer will make you use it. But that cuts both ways because a cheaper alternative helps those with limited means. I don't like using recanned film at all -- and it screwed me on my last 35mm project -- but that doesn't mean that I'm not glad it's an option to those that really need it.

[Rob Belics]

I was hoping to leave the digital vs film disputes with the dv sites.

 

A lot of those people who say "no one can tell the difference" don't compare apples to apples. They'll say "Look at *** and you would never know..." I say, yes they would if you showed the same scene side by side, one shot video, the other film. The loss is the viewer who could get so much more out of the scene. Some people only concern themselves with the tool and not the quality.

 

I agree with David about the "snaps" and "throwaways". That's why digital is a nice consumer camera if you can afford it. I am wondering, though, if once the novelty wears off and people start realizing how much they're spending on equipment and software, someone might see that little box camera with film for $9 at WalMart wasn't such a bad idea after all.

 

I, too, read that the digital projectors being installed were for commercials and "side shows", not features. The new multiplex I mentioned has no digital projectors either.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

It's all money and convenience. Why did Super 8 die in the consumer market? It was not even money that time. Super 8 was a lot better, a lot cheaper, but less convenient.

 

It's all money and time and time is money. So why will celluloid die in studio production? On a 60 million budget stock cost is negligable. But the digital production is getting more and more time efficient and the director, DP, and the tallent see the results right there. This is the most important factor.

 

The limiting fastor in quality is not the optical or digital medium. It is the lens. Once you get to 8 MP, there are many Canon and Nikon lenses that have problem resolving that, zooms in particular. And some digital SLRs resolve well over 10 MP. Then comes the convenience factor. Again, time is money.

 

Unfortunately in this world time is always money. Then come into play other things like egoes. Art comes in the last. Look at the junk that the studios are releasing. Where's the art? Sure there may be artistic photography. That costs them nearly nothing. But show me a film that is art. There are very few.

[Rob Belics]

I've complained a lot about the seemingly "point and shoot" cinematography on some films nowadays. Many here would argue, as have several magazine articles, that digital does not save time or money because the shooting winds up filling all the available time and the cost of all the transferring back and forth to make digital "fit in".

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see what's so efficient about playing back HD on the set. I try and ban playback on both my film and HD shoots because it's a major time-waster -- you shoot one take, you watch the take, you shoot another take, you watch another take. In the end, that's an hour lost out of your day watching TV.

 

Film productions don't exactly sit on their hands waiting to find out the results from the lab the next morning. They are already working on the next scene and since 99% of the time, there's never a problem with the footage technically, then you're not going back to that set just because you shot film. The ONLY advantage (of not having to wait for a lab neg report) is that it allows the art department to tear down a set a half-day earlier. But even so, most art departments don't necessarily schedule a tear-down the moment you finish a scene -- they have other things to do on a film stage.

 

The majority of time spent every day on a film set is not related to using film versus video. It's lighting, blocking, shooting takes, etc. Therefore, I've found only a minor improvement in speed on my HD shoots by not reloading as often -- and that's only because on my film shoots, we often don't have enough large rolls because someone is trying to save money by using recans. But even so, I thinkn I might save a half-hour every day on my HD shoots because of the lack of reloads. That's maybe an extra two set-ups per day. Nothing significant.

 

And I'm talking about shooting on a camcorder. Going to hard drives or RAM's, getting the data copied over (maybe at a post house) etc. are all complications that could slow you down again (not knowing for sure since I haven't tried doing a whole feature recording to data drives.)

 

No, you're barking up the wrong tree if you think the ability to see the results as you shoot it is the number one reason digital will replace film someday. We've somehow managed to make movies for over 100 years -- some very quickly on a low-budget -- without needing that feature.

 

It will happen when it makes natural sense to happen - i.e. the entire pathway is all-digital anyway, all the way through exhibition. And the cost, quality, and ease of shooting are all better than 35mm.

 

In 35mm, you have cameras that run 1000 frames a second and you have Eyemos that fit into the palm of your hand. While these features are possible digitally (like separating the lens from the CCD from the recorder and using cables to put the lens in small spaces) they are not all that easy or affordable for the average production. Most people shooting features on the Sony F900, for example, have to pretty much deal with having a camera of the same size for the whole movie, with little ability to shorten it for small places, little ability to do real slow-motion or speed ramps, etc. All problems that are being solved, but generally after a problem is solved, it still takes years for the prices to come down. Look at the F950 and an HDCAM-SR deck -- a more expensive way to shoot a movie than an F900. Then someday there will be an F950 HDCAM-SR camcorder, but again, it will cost more to rent at first.

 

I can't imagine shooting 1920 x 1080 in 4:4:4 uncompressed (or mildly compressed) HD is going to be commonplace for HD work for at least three years, maybe longer. For the next few years, there will only be special cases where it is done, ala "Star Wars." At least when I shoot a low-budget film in 35mm neg and make a print, I'm using the same basic image technology as someone shooting an over 100-million dollar film. In the digital realm, it's actually LESS democratic -- you've got so many levels of cost and quality.

 

So if we're three or more years from 4:4:4 HD becoming the norm of professional HD work, what does that say for 4K or higher digital cameras? Over five or six years away from those systems being practical and affordable? We're already at Year Four since the intro of the F900 and there really isn't a serious competitor that's at a higher quality level for practical use. They are still trying to make the Viper and F950 work in terms of a simple data management system that any film production can handle. Another year maybe to work those problems out and then another two years for it to trickle down into standard HD production.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

It is always helpful for the DP to look at the monitor to check his lighting. Good director too wants to know. If a major star wants to see his or her performance, what will the director do? He will let her or him see it. True, this may not necessarily make the work faster.

 

One of the reasons Sony is not introducing better than camcorder than F900 is because if they did all the ones who just bought it, including Panavision, would be pretty upset because it would make their CineAlta investment absolete.

 

What is a major factor, or rather a bottleneck, in introducing better HD technology? It is proceesor speed, media speed and size limitations and power consumption of all the electronics. As soon as technology allows inexpensive faster processors with low enough power consumptions and big enough hard drives are developed, better HD and even first UD (ultra definition) product prototypes will be created.

 

What's the main bottleneck in early introduction of Palaystation 3? Inability to make powerful processor that would be inexpensive and would have low enough power consumption. Playstaion 3 is planned to be introduced in 2005, when Toshiba and Sony project to master more dense processor technology and Sony comes out with their cell processor. The same year Micro$oft plans to introduce Xbox 2, based on IBM processor, with as dense structure as the cell processor. 2005 is the year that Sony will have the knowhow to bring F950 electronics to a camera the size of PD150. Will they do that? Of course not. But this is the year that technology to bring out affordable UD would become available. The Playstation and licensing games is where Sony makes its money. It is the Playstation technology that will help in development of better, smaller and less expensive cameras.

[Filip Plesha]

Ultra definition...

i don't mean to be critical or something like that but i

must say i have noticed that you are never 100% sure of what

you are saying.This is specially true in your discussions with

David.

You make a statement,then David says something oposite.

Then you still hold what you said,but you step back by one stop

(to say it in the spirit of this cinematography forum).

 

You should be more confident in what you are saying.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

You're probably right Windman. David is very knowledgable. We are all trying to learn something. I am learning from David a lot and maybe David is learnig a little bit from me. I formulate my ideas as I'm writing. These are often new concepts and I am not rally sure how things will turn out in the future, but it is important to think about it, and watch for signs.

 

Kodak has been moving into digitad with a significant force from the beginning; now they are laying off 20% people. Sony has not moved into the true digital world fast enough and is now srtuggling and ris reducing staff. The writing is on the wall. The question is not if, but when. And I'm just trying to guess an answer to that question.

[David Mullen ASC]

>And I'm just trying to guess an answer to that question.

 

Why? Do you have a lot of stock in Kodak or Sony? Why does it matter so much to you? When it happens, it happens, and we all deal with it. All we can do is keep abreast of developments; you're talking about HD scenarios which don't exist yet and have no practical value unless you were thinking of buying some super-expensive camera right now and are worried that it will be obsolete soon.

 

I can see expending a lot of mental energy on contemporary, practical HD shooting matters but you're talking about stuff that is in the misty future like it's already here. The immediate issue is whether we will see 4:4:4 1920 x 1080 become practical and affordable - because THAT has to happen before your dream of 32MP digital movie cameras becomes anything remotely practical.

 

At the other end of the scale is the low-cost HD world which is very much happening over this and the next few years, but again, other than the JVC camera, we have nothing to judge yet in terms of image quality or cost or post issues.

 

The rest of us are working daily and live in a world where film is very much a factor and will be through the rest of this decade, so it's a bit premature to be writing it off. We might as well be talking about the day when we can commute to work with rocket packs on our backs because that conversation is only a notch less practical than the one about a 32MP digital movie camera being used by you or me to shoot a feature on and then get it digitally screened at that resolution in theaters worldwide. I might be nearing retirement when that happens.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Why do I write about it? I probably have a lot less linear thinking than most people. Some of us are extroverts, other introverts, some act on reason, some on emotion. We are all different.

 

I write about what I like to write about. How does it affect our next movie? Not at all. How does it affect our purchasing decision? It does. If Sony has the capability to introduce CineAlta SR camcorder or 3 CCD HDV camcorder by this year NAB, it is good to know. If you are a theaer owner and are wondering if you should keep that 70 mm projection booth or replace it with digital projection, if you're a low budget independent and you are wondering if you'd be able to afford an optical print, it is good to know the facts. That is why you should know what may be coming up, or what is already out there, like the Landmark conversions.

 

If you know what the average person there in the field knows, which is basically what the manufacturears are feeding him, you better think twice; what is being pushed on you may be absolete the next day, and you may wonder why no rep or salesman has ever told you.

[Rob Belics]

I'm sorry but if you are looking for an argument, that's down the hall. This isn't abuse either. But I only see your posts as confrontational rather than thought provoking and they serve little useful purpose other than getting in the way.