OK so lets say digital becomes standard....

[John Mastrogiacomo]

Not true for professional video equipment.

 

DigiBeta hasn't dropped a dime since it was introduced in the early 90's. Don't think ANY of Sony's stuff in the professional field has dropped a dime in price. They're in this business to suck every single penny out of even the oldest formats.

 

Pro gear don't follow Moore's 18 month laws for some reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

DigiBeta decks have gone down a little. :)

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

Not true for professional video equipment. DigiBeta hasn't dropped a dime since it was introduced in the early 90's. Don't think ANY of Sony's stuff in the professional field has dropped a dime in price. They're in this business to suck every single penny out of even the oldest formats. Pro gear don't follow Moore's 18 month laws for some reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's interesting to note that the Panasonic AJ-SPX800 high-end SD P2-based camera's list price is about $6,000 USD less than the AJ-SDX900. Other than the recording medium, if I'm not mistaken these cams have mostly similar features and recording datarates.

 

Panasonic's P2 product manager is all over the net declaring P2 prices will continue to decline rapidly. Whether or not this is true, it's interesting in that it holds the possibility of our getting out from the stranglehold Sony (especially) has had us in forever concerning pro videotape _machine_ costs. P2 & other non-tape digital motion picture recording/playback devices are inherently inexpensive.

 

Further, the new little P2 palmcorder is supposed to be able to record in 25, 50 & 100 megabit/sec. modes, and the cam will be inexpensive. My point in mentioning this is only to say that the recording/playback "transport" in this little cam has got to be inexpensive itself for it to be included in a inexpensive camera.

 

Anyway, my apologies because I'm sure this has been discussed before, but perhaps some of these new non-tape digital systems will finally save us from videotape machines which cost more than nice cars. ;-)

 

All the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

[Ilmari Reitmaa]

Not true for professional video equipment.

 

DigiBeta hasn't dropped a dime since it was introduced in the early 90's. Don't think ANY of Sony's stuff in the professional field has dropped a dime in price. They're in this business to suck every single penny out of even the oldest formats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really doubt this will continue to be so. The gear itself doesn't follow Moore's law as it isn't just ingrated circuits but the digital portion of the internals definitely do, and for SD and HD gear this cost will be nearing practically zero somewhere in the near future; it has got to reflect in the prices. So far the required digital hardware has been more in the high-end zone which probably amounts for the high prices.

 

But I agree a dominant market position will help you choosing your prices.

 

This is getting a little off-topic, sorry for that.

[David Mullen ASC]

You also have to figure that as the resolution of cheaper HD cameras improve, the need for OPTICS that can take advantage of that resolution increases -- and lenses don't follow Moore's Law. You may someday get all the capturing and recording quality that an F900 is capable of into a $5000 digital camera -- but you aren't going to get that optical quality if you stick a $1000 consumer HD lens on it.

[Ilmari Reitmaa]

You also have to figure that as the resolution of cheaper HD cameras improve, the need for OPTICS that can take advantage of that resolution increases -- and lenses don't follow Moore's Law.  You may someday get all the capturing and recording quality that an F900 is capable of into a $5000 digital camera -- but you aren't going to get that optical quality if you stick a $1000 consumer HD lens on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Quite true, I did mean to refer just to the camera internals. However, I feel the above is maybe more of an issue of properly designing new gear to accommodate existing high-quality optics. It doesn't necessarily have to make up a new investment.

[David Mullen ASC]

Phil, it's got nothing to do with KNOWLEDGE but TIME. We're arguing not that the DIT should control the image creatively on the set while no one is looking, but that he ASSIST the DP and AC's in accomplishing that job... because they don't have the time to spend dealing with that AND their traditional duties on the set. This is not about giving up creative control, it's about fiquring out the most efficient way to work on the set.

 

It's one reason, since I don't use a DIT, that I lock-in the look for an HD camera during prep so the AC and I don't have to spend the time dealing with it, other than in minor ways (like turning off the Matrix for greenscreen shots.)

 

I'm sure that engineer/DIT David Canning earned every bit of his paycheck on "Collateral" but that hardly means that the cinematographers and camera crews basically walked away and left everything to him. The DP's tested those cameras thoroughly; they were heavily involved in how those cameras were set-up.

 

Look, I don't know how to thread a 35mm Panaflex. I've never had a reason to learn. Does that mean I'm not a real cinematographer? Or does it mean that I delegate things like that to other people? Am I giving up creative control over my movies because I don't load the magazines and thread the cameras myself? Or because I don't manufacturer the film and process it myself? Or that I don't control the DaVinci trackballs myself but work through a colorist? Maybe a little, OK, but it's more efficient to work through dedicated experts assisting me than train myself on every piece of hardware there is out there.

 

My argument is just that on bigger multi-camera digital shows, especially one's that are going to hard drives, etc. with multiple monitors, HD and SD, there is more work than the traditional DP and camera crew can handle. Sure, you could put the 1st AC in charge of all of it, but when are they going to do their traditional duties?

[Dan Salzmann]

I fully agree David! Learning when, how and to whom things should be delegated is a part of the cinematographers job. When I pulled focus those disto meters did not exist.

SO WHAT! It's a question of TIME MANAGEMENT.

Threading up a Panaflex is not the DP's job as much as making sure a torpedo is properly primed is not a submarine captain's job.

My fear is that all this technology can easily divert more of the brain to the "how" when IMHO real creativity comes more from the "why" am I doing this.

Jack of all trades ...

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I still don't get it. You don't do lacing up - fine, your ACs do it, just as they should deal with technical matters pertaining to any type of camera. With practically no workload just keeping the thing fed with media there should be no reason to have additional people. Perhaps the skillsets of the existing people need to change - and this is what this is really about - which is obviously something that the union is terrified of, as they clearly don't want all these smelly, artless video people in their organisation!

 

The principle underlying my objection to this situation is twofold:

 

- It seems to be an excuse for certain other members of the crew not to know what they're doing.

 

- It represents an unwarranted expansion of the crew.

 

Yes, these two things are connected, but the correct solution would put an awful lot of loaders and second assistant cameramen out of work and we couldn't possibly countenance that, could we!

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

In some ways, the union HAS dealt with it by creating the position of the DIT. My only concern is whether they would always require one even if not needed, but so far on my two HD features that were made under the low-budget IA agreement, there was never a mention made of needing to hire a DIT... so I guess it is not an absolute requirement. Which tends to mean that you hire one when the DP wants to use one, which I don't see a problem with.

[Stephen Williams]

Yes, these two things are connected, but the correct solution would put an awful lot of loaders and second assistant cameramen out of work and we couldn't possibly countenance that, could we!

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Phi,

 

I guess most of the loaders and second assistant cameraman would pick video cameras. Then they would call themselves cameramen or DoP 's!

 

Stephen Williams DP

Zurich Switzerland

 

www.stephenw.com

[Stephen Williams]

Look, I don't know how to thread a 35mm Panaflex. I've never had a reason to learn. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

David,

 

Thats interesting, I feel uncomfortable when using an Arri 435 because I don't know how to load it! I guess you came the Gaffer route!

 

 

Stephen Williams DoP

Ultracam & Mitchell Owner

 

www.stephenw.com

[Guest Jon Armstrong]

The move to digital is inevitable. As 4K aquisition becomes common production will go digital. Still photographers have already felt the sting. Things change. See my post on the Kinetta forum.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, it's easy to say that in the abstract, that all motion picture cinematography will go digital, hopefully 4K. In practice, we're still far away from that switchover, maybe a decade or more away. It's not enough that the technology becomes competitive with 35mm in terms of quality, it then has to be cheaper and more efficient. All the near-35mm quality 4:4:4 2K/HD digital origination systems are as expensive as 35mm to use and more limiting in many ways. And the only 4K camera, the Dalsa, really needs 4K recording to get more streamlined and easier before it will take off.

 

We've had the Sony F900 for five years now and it's still the most commonly used HD camera for various reasons, mainly that it combines the recorder and camera into one unit for rental, not a camera rental and a recorder rental, like the Viper and a SRW1 deck. I have high hopes for the Panavision Genesis and Arri D20, but there are not enough units out there to judge what impact they will have.

 

We are still years away from any tipover point in regards to digital for motion picture work. Even in dramatic TV production, the majority are still shot on film even though there are even fewer reasons to not use HD instead. If you can't even get TV shows (other than sitcoms) to switchover to digital, what are the odds of features going that way?

[Matt Pacini]

ok so lets fast forward in time....

 

HD or digital movie cameras become mostly used on movie sets & film is rarely used. ....

 

Your thoughts...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been hearing this since 1986, and it's in print as far back as the 1950's.

Or to paraphrase an oft-quoted joke...

 

REPORTER: "Film is dead!"

FILM: "The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

 

As long as film continues to look so freakin' beautiful, and superior to digital/video, I'm not even going to think about shooting anything else, at least for my projects.

 

Matt Pacini

[Guest]

Thankfully this entire thread is moot. Since video will never replace film to the degree the original poster has theorized.

 

Video is ugly, film is beautiful. This will ensure that it will last for eternity.

 

George Lucas can continue to shoot his big screen video games in HD, won't make any difference.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

Video is ugly, film is beautiful.  This will ensure that it will last for eternity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Absolute predictions one way or the other almost always tend to be wrong.

 

Sure, film may never go completely away, but that doesn't mean that the majority of feature production won't go all-digital someday. Three-strip Technicolor was beautiful, dye transfer printing was beautiful, and they went away. Kodachrome is beautiful and it might go away. B&W movies can be beautiful but are extremely rare.

 

Superior image quality or beauty is not always a guarantee that something won't be obsoleted.

 

Some digital still cameras create a very similar look to 35mm still photography. I was at an ASC Technology meeting and Richard Edlund, ASC (efx supervisor of the original "Star Wars" films, "Blade Runner", etc.) said something to the effect "I've taken my last 35mm still camera picture and I won't miss it". I've noticed that Owen Roizman, ASC, now that he's retired, is mostly shooting his personal art photography with a digital still camera.

 

Clearly the notion that digital is always ugly is HIGHLY debatable.

[Stuart Brereton]

I think we're all guilty (to some extent) of putting some shaky, horribly over-exposed mini DV image in the same class as a properly composed 16 megapixel digital still, just because we hear the dreaded word 'digital'

 

Truth is, even miniDV can look good, if you care enough to take the time.

Edited July 1, 2005 by Stuart Brereton

[Guest]

"Clearly the notion that digital is always ugly is HIGHLY debatable. "

 

Really?

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

"Clearly the notion that digital is always ugly is HIGHLY debatable. "

 

Really?

 

R,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, yes, obviously, unless you've been living under a rock and never heard anyone give a positive opinion of digital images. You don't necessarily have to agree with some respected directors and cinematographers who have these positive opinions, but you can't dismiss them out of hand either. That's why it's debatable. If it weren't, then everyone would agree with you -- and obviously there are some who don't, which seems to me to be the very essense of the term "debatable."

[Guest]

I've been living under a rock.

 

It's very inconvenient at times, such as typing on this keyboard, so little elbow room.

 

R,