Rik Andino Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I think the point from what is considered pro film people: just because digital is new doesn't automatically make it better. Just becacuse film is old doesn't automatically make it outdated. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I understand & agree with that statement, I believe that a good cinematographer Can make great images with a crummy Super 8 camera or a cheesy VHS cam Cinematography isn't about the format it's a skill It's about composition and lighting and using the visuals to stress an emotion So all these heated debates over which format is better Seem like just another argument over which end to crack your egg Film has great aesthetics, but so can digital They're both different But some folks like blondes and some like brunettes (and some like 'em both) It doesn't matter if ultimately you're just trying to tell a story. Choose the best way you want to tell your story... Some folks will like it and some folks won't (like Collateral) It doesn't mean its bad--just that some folks ain't like it. Ultimately we're all storytellers and we should keep that in mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Mottram Posted February 3, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 3, 2005 my point with the pixar/ disney analogy was not about the story but about the working practice. Take a great piece of animation like Les Triplettes de Belleville. This looks like a beautiful piece of hand drawn animation but it was all done on computers. As is all Disney animation now. In fact the only people who still do cell are anachronistic old codgers. There is no point. If you can achieve the same look digitally at a cheaper price then why bother using film. So its not about whether digital (and I'm not refering to HD) is as pretty as film, because soon you'll be able to create the artefacts of film digitally at a resolution that will mean there is no need for film. I've heard all these arguments before with still photography and there are still plenty of photographers who refuse to shoot digitally, but if you talk to more enlightened photographers they'll think its crazy to shoot film when you can whack a digi back on your Hassleblad and get an imediate 64meg file. So it's not if, it's when.... unless you want to be one of those anachronistic old codgers I refered to. Keith P.S I'm prepping my first short for a number of years and I think i'll be shooting it on 3perf!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 So Keith I guess you don't agree with my statement "just because digital is new doesn't automatically make it better, just becacuse film is old doesn't automatically make it outdated." To put the still photography example into some perspective. A 2K digital still camera is pretty much a consumer point and shoot, a digital still with a resolution of 1920 X 1080 would be considered pretty low. That's even before compression. By your definition most fashion photographers are "anachronistic old codgers". Who shoot film regularly and scan medium format to 6K and 8K size files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Mottram Posted February 4, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 4, 2005 (edited) So Keith I guess you don't agree with my statement "just because digital is new doesn't automatically make it better, just becacuse film is old doesn't automatically make it outdated." To put the still photography example into some perspective. A 2K digital still camera is pretty much a consumer point and shoot, a digital still with a resolution of 1920 X 1080 would be considered pretty low. That's even before compression. By your definition most fashion photographers are "anachronistic old codgers". Who shoot film regularly and scan medium format to 6K and 8K size files. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe my post is unclear, my point is digital is the future. Whether you consider HD not up to standard is not relevent to my point. I dont believe I ever said that digital was better because its new, that would be rediculous- what part of my posts gave you that opinion? Geez sometimes I do feel a bit of paranoia on this forum. I mean is digital technology that much of a boogieman. Oh my god the HD is coming help help run to the hills!! Seriously though, you still have plenty of time to shoot film as do I. Just face the fact that digital is the future (and for some people the present). Keith Edited February 4, 2005 by keith mottram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 A 2K digital still camera is a consumer point and shoot, a digital still with a resolution of 1920 X 1080 is low. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is that digital photography and digital cinema are not exactly on par with each other, and have different problems to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Anand Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Just some perspective from the country that shoots the most films in a year(some of them need never be talked about ) but still India lives on films . more than 50% of programming on television is film based. Films are everywhere. we have no panavision cameras, in the entire country some 5 HD cameras. One in Delhi. One in Bangalore and three in Bombay. But we have loads of film cameras. HD costs more than a s16 camera to rent. it costs almost as much as a 35mm camera to rent. the post facilities are not yet up to the mark but are getting better. The reason i feel not many people are investing in HD here is becauseof the danger of the camera becoming obsolete in a few years. The time it would take for them to start getting some returns on their investment..... BAM theres a better camera in the market so we dont need to hire your camera anymore. Where as the technoolgy of the film camera is such that i dont need to buy a new camera. i can use better stock or better lenses.... So there is a reluctance to invest in HD. The film camera would serve me for many more years if i mantained it well . There is a certain hype being created around the HD camera in Bombay as well its being used for a lot of Ad work but i dont think for any major film project yet. what has been an interesting development is the DI process. with the arrival of the spirits and the arrilasers DI has become a reality in india. Just saw anotther film that went through a complete DI... and the results are improving since the last DI film. Soon im sure Di would becomre more ubiquitous. But HD just because of the nature of the Technology lends itself to be a problem Electronics... in indian conditions tend to breakdown faster. And we dont UPGRADE that easily as a cultural tendency. Im not argueing on one format over another but on the economic feasability of an HD camera in India. I shoot on film as well a lot of video and was impressed with the HD camera the first time i used it and am still impressed....but dont see it making inroads into india for many years especially in the film world. The ad world yes. Manu Anand Bombay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Just some perspective from the country that shoots the most films in a year(some of them need never be talked about ) but still India lives on films . more than 50% of programming on television is film based.Films are everywhere. ....but dont see it making inroads into india for many years especially in the film world. The ad world yes. Manu Anand Bombay <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've been a consult to Indian organisation in the past six months. They will have studio, post and film out facilities under one roof. The cost of owning a couple of HD cameras is no big deal under this structure, if you are going to shoot 5 movies a year cameras and decks will pay for themselves before they are redundant in savings in film stock and processing. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 My point is that digital photography and digital cinema are not exactly on par with each other, and have different problems to deal with. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> HD cameras have 6.3 million pixels, equivelant in some respects to perhaps 3.5k bayer single chip Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 what has been an interesting development is the DI process. with the arrival of the spirits and the arrilasers DI has become a reality in india. Just saw anotther film that went through a complete DI... and the results are improving since the last DI film. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which 2 films were that? Lakshya and ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Anand Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I've been a consult to Indian organisation in the past six months. They will have studio, post and film out facilities under one roof.The cost of owning a couple of HD cameras is no big deal under this structure, if you are going to shoot 5 movies a year cameras and decks will pay for themselves before they are redundant in savings in film stock and processing. Mike Brennan <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mike if that happens thats great. My point was that i see a greater resistance to the change over in the indian scenario because of cultural , economic and climactic reasons. It will happen but the change will be slower here than in the west. Manu Anand Bombay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frank Gossimier Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 This is an excellent point, and one reason why I personally will never swap my 35mm gear for an HD camera... "The reason i feel not many people are investing in HD here is becauseof the danger of the camera becoming obsolete in a few years. The time it would take for them to start getting some returns on their investment..... BAM theres a better camera in the market so we dont need to hire your camera anymore" True maybe a large studio can save money over all on stock and processing if they shoot a lot of movies with the HD camera before it ends up on ebay and sold for $39.67. But for independents HD cameras are really a risk. The newer cameras may not only get better but cheaper at the same time, so you lose an even bigger chunk of your investment. Film glorious film...put modern stock into a 50 year old film camera and you'll have great images. Use it in your latest Ford commercial no problem. Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 This is an excellent point, and one reason why I personally will never swap my 35mm gear for an HD camera... "The reason i feel not many people are investing in HD here is becauseof the danger of the camera becoming obsolete in a few years. Frank <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Frank, I suppose you could call me an "independent" with HD kit. As for me my f900 has paid for itself in 3.5 years. This took 30% longer than standard definition kit I have owned. The camera body itself is now worth around US$50k? I paid $90k. Thats $40k depreciation in 3.5 years. Monitors batteries mattbox follow focus, lenses are still current (as is the camera for the moment anyway!). It is about to go on a 5 week feature for $24k, so from here on in its a gravey train, so even if Sony announce a new camcorder in the next year for $90k the kit can self sustain itself if it continues to work at the rate it has. The f900 will continue to depreciate but at a lower rate. It remains the only 1920x1080 camcorder until Venom hits the shops. Rates are higher for electronic kit than film kit (as a percentage of cost) I shoot HD stock shots in my downtime for cost of the tape, that earn 35mm rates. All in all its an apples and oranges comparison.... Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Mike if that happens thats great. My point was that i see a greater resistance to the change over in the indian scenario because of cultural , economic and climactic reasons.It will happen but the change will be slower here than in the west. Manu Anand Bombay <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Manu, Yes it has been slow in India for the past 4 years. But don't expect the promotion of HD cameras to come from the estabilshed film players. Those with an established digital post business are the ones to watch... Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD McKellar Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Hey, Besides the ever so tiresome Jar-Jar Binks "character" ( :angry: ) Star Wars 2 kicked arse. Heck, I'd gladly pay 8$ to sit and stare at Natalie Portman on a big theater screen any day of the week anyway. Amazing. Well, I think you actually may have nailed it. (except for the kicking arse part) Truly, they should have saved all the money they spent on their inferior "effects" and just left the camera on the actors-- the only real talent in the whole production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Anand Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Which 2 films were that? Lakshya and ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There was a film called khakhee before lakshya and day before there was the release of a film called "black" . I think Prime focus is the post facility with most of the investment in HD DI etc. Its great what they are doing. Im not affiliated to Prime Focus in any way. Manu Anand Bombay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JanayBrown Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 No editors who have any significant talent lost their positions because of electronic editing. Editing is a skill that is totally separate from the equipment used to do the physical part of the job. Editing is in the mind, the eye, the ear, and the brain, not in the Moviola, the splicer, the Kem, or the Avid. I know that young people either just entering or hoping to enter the business would like to think otherwise, but the fact is that all good editors who were working before are still working. There was no great transition to make, regardless of what you might want to believe. The tools changed. The skill stayed the same. The value of experience in that skill also stayed the same. And the value of the talent as a storyteller is also the same. I'm sorry but I just do not agree with your response from this standpoint. A person could be the best Cessna pilot in the world. But does that mean they can fly a 747? No it doesn't. Certainly the talent is individual like anything else there are good ones and bad ones. But logically (In my mind anyway) is that if someone uses one method and the majority of the companies switch to a different format and a person does not know how to use that system then where are they until they learn? Perhaps it's not that I disagree it may be simply that I did not explain my idea in a better way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted March 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 17, 2005 The transition from cutting on film to cutting on a computer is not the same thing as knowing how to fly a small plane versus a large plane. You're implying that it is much harder to cut on a computer than to cut film. Since Mike Most was heavily involved in the transition from film cutting to NLE in the television industry, his observations on that transition are highly valid. The majority of editors, just like the majority of cinematographers, are bright enough to learn to use new tools -- you are overemphasizing the technical side of the job. Cinematographers over the years have dealt with the coming of sound, widescreen formats, larger negatives, smaller negatives, different color technologies, different speed emulsions, the change from b&w to color, and now the addition of digital technologies. Most of the working cinematographers who started in the 1920's worked through a lot of those changes until the 1960's & 70's even -- a period of much more intensive change than what we are experiencing now. The reason they survived these transitions is because what made them great cinematographers was not their skills with a particular piece of equipment, but their overall skills as a cinematographer: visual storytelling knowledge, understanding editing, lighting and composition, working with directors, crews, budgets, schedules, etc. -- the particular tools that get used change over time and most can deal with learning that. But it's a small part of their overall process. The same can be applied to editors -- if you are a truly great editor, artistically, and have some reasonable technical competence and general intelligence, you can pick up new skills over time when new tools arrive. No one hires Walter Murch to cut their sound and picture because they found out that he's learned to use Final Cut Pro. They hire him because he's a great artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I"... a person could be the best Cessna pilot in the world. But does that mean they can fly a 747? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, but the opposite is pretty much true. Matt Pacini 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