The Impact of Digital Technology on Cinematography

[Joe Richardson]

Hi there!

 

I'm currently conducting a research project at university on the above topic. At the moment most of the research is secondary, so I'd love to hear your thoughts/opinions on the subject. Thanks in advance!

 

1. In terms of digital technology, with recent advances in technology where do you believe this is leading Cinematography, and how it affects the way we approach our work?

2. Are there any new technologies that are interesting to you and would like to work with or have worked with?

3. Has technology changed the way things are done for you as a Cinematographer? Were there any adoptions you needed to make?

4. How do you think digital is going to affect the notion of quality vs quantity in filmmaking?

5. Do you find that the role of the Cinematographer is evolving with the increase in digital technology? How so? Do you think there's been a power shift?

6. Are there attributes that you prefer on digital rather than film?

​7. Is there anything you have struggled with/haven't gotten used to when shooting digital?

Edited January 15, 2013 by Joe Richardson

[Guillaume Cottin]

Hi Joe,

 

This is a very interesting topic, but also a very broad one. I do think that advances in digital cinematography are changing a lot of things.

1. I believe camera technology can somewhat free the DP's mind from some technical issues (like, not blowing the highlights, compensating a contrast ratio, etc...). These "techniques" will always exist but they will no longer be motivated by technical reasons but by aesthetic choices. It also means that the cinematographer's job ressembles more and more the one of a "lighting designer". Deakins says he uses more lights from practicals when shooting digital -and he likes that.

2. I like IP video technology. Teradek products and many others (light iron, etc...) give real-time streaming and H264 encoding to a cloud server where the dailies can be viewed during production, and the metadata can be edited.

3. Given my relatively young age :-) I shot mostly digital in my life, though I was lucky enough to shoot film too. Shooting film for the first time was disorienting because you can't see the final image on set. It requires you to be more rigorous in your approach (and maybe more conservative also ?), and that disciplin is a very good thing to keep for digital. On the contrary, with digital you can push things further and take more risks in lighting.

4. Well, there is a triangle between quality, price and time. You can't have the three of them. If you want to go faster, do more setups a day, and keep the same quality, it's going to cost more. Shooting digital does not really change this triangle. Digital is not so much cheaper than film if you count post-production and storage and everything. Digital it allows to shoot more quantity of footage per day, but if you do so you will increase the cost of the storage, and if you do 16 takes per shot instead of 6 just because you can... then you won't finish the day!

5. The DP is a very important position, and I don't think this will change with digital. I don't see a power shift, but the DP maybe lost a bit of his "magic" compared to film, as on film he is the only one on set to know what the dailies are going to look like.

6. I like digital. For those who think digital cameras aren't "natural" : our own eyes are digital cameras. Dynamic range is better on digital, the color gamut is also better on some newer cameras. There is no grain (it's always cleaner to add grain rather than degrain), and it IS possible to make digital look like film, while the contrary is not really possible. No scratches, no hairs in the gate, no stability issues. And if you want to have an optical viewfinder, that's possible too. Now what I like with film is that all the color science is much easier and does not depend on the camera you use. And film can be part of a movie's aesthetics, and in this case, not having the possibility to shoot it on film is just sad.

7. Like I said, I was born in the digital world, so I got used to digital very fast. I'm not saying it's easy -it's rather pretty complex actually, especially if you get into the details and if you really want to know how your tools work. No need to be a mathematician, but it's important to get the logic.

 

Now, I talked only about digital capture, but digital distribution and theatre projection is a big thing. It's digital distribution that pushed digital capture.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Guillaume Cottin

[Freya Black]

I think a lot of these changes have already happened. The quality vs quantity thing has been something people have been talking about for a long time now. I think a lot of people just don't notice the changes are taking place, it's only when people turn around and look back and it's like "Yikes, how did we get here from there". The changes that digital technology are bringing are massive.

 

I've actually written a couple of articles on this subject for "da shark". Here is my latest one about connected cameras:

 

http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/368-connected-cameras-how-pro-cameras-are-merging-with-the-internet

 

and before that I wrote one about how TV and cinema are merging with the same production processes now being used on both (The Arri Alexa being the most striking example of this perhaps):

 

http://www.redsharknews.com/business/item/326-top-movie-directors-move-to-tv

 

Digital technology has been bringing about massive changes and theres lots more to come before its over.

 

Freya

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Hi Joe,

 

This is a very interesting topic, but also a very broad one. I do think that advances in digital cinematography are changing a lot of things.

1. I believe camera technology can somewhat free the DP's mind from some technical issues (like, not blowing the highlights, compensating a contrast ratio, etc...). These "techniques" will always exist but they will no longer be motivated by technical reasons but by aesthetic choices. It also means that the cinematographer's job ressembles more and more the one of a "lighting designer". Deakins says he uses more lights from practicals when shooting digital -and he likes that.

2. I like IP video technology. Teradek products and many others (light iron, etc...) give real-time streaming and H264 encoding to a cloud server where the dailies can be viewed during production, and the metadata can be edited.

3. Given my relatively young age :-) I shot mostly digital in my life, though I was lucky enough to shoot film too. Shooting film for the first time was disorienting because you can't see the final image on set. It requires you to be more rigorous in your approach (and maybe more conservative also ?), and that disciplin is a very good thing to keep for digital. On the contrary, with digital you can push things further and take more risks in lighting.

4. Well, there is a triangle between quality, price and time. You can't have the three of them. If you want to go faster, do more setups a day, and keep the same quality, it's going to cost more. Shooting digital does not really change this triangle. Digital is not so much cheaper than film if you count post-production and storage and everything. Digital it allows to shoot more quantity of footage per day, but if you do so you will increase the cost of the storage, and if you do 16 takes per shot instead of 6 just because you can... then you won't finish the day!

5. The DP is a very important position, and I don't think this will change with digital. I don't see a power shift, but the DP maybe lost a bit of his "magic" compared to film, as on film he is the only one on set to know what the dailies are going to look like.

6. I like digital. For those who think digital cameras aren't "natural" : our own eyes are digital cameras. Dynamic range is better on digital, the color gamut is also better on some newer cameras. There is no grain (it's always cleaner to add grain rather than degrain), and it IS possible to make digital look like film, while the contrary is not really possible. No scratches, no hairs in the gate, no stability issues. And if you want to have an optical viewfinder, that's possible too. Now what I like with film is that all the color science is much easier and does not depend on the camera you use. And film can be part of a movie's aesthetics, and in this case, not having the possibility to shoot it on film is just sad.

7. Like I said, I was born in the digital world, so I got used to digital very fast. I'm not saying it's easy -it's rather pretty complex actually, especially if you get into the details and if you really want to know how your tools work. No need to be a mathematician, but it's important to get the logic.

 

Now, I talked only about digital capture, but digital distribution and theatre projection is a big thing. It's digital distribution that pushed digital capture.

 

I have never seen a post on here so dedicated to misinformation and unwarranted assumptions. I am trying to be neutral, I really am. But this post is garbage. I could go line by line and explain why but those who know better will spot it and those that dont already have their mind made up.

[Chris Millar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOdpX6dcrU4

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

Weren't you banned or something? BTW, how is your mechanical engineering going?

[Chris Millar]

Banned? No.

 

Although I expected it possibly - mods are busy elsewhere?

 

Engineering is on hiatus over the summer break (we do different semesters down under) - working with a bunch of stage carps and stunt riggers on a stage/animatronic version of King Kong at the moment.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Sounds like fun. But I would like to bury the hatchet (and not in each other's backs) :D

 

I realize I take this forum too seriously 100% of the time. I don't know why I care about others opinions...this is art, not science primarily.

 

I only commented about that fellows post being garbage because 1) he mentioned that the digital age means DPs dont have to worry about blowing highlights? WTF? I dont know anyone who has ever felt this way. In fact, i have heard the opposite from those who shoot digitally.

 

2) He says DR is better on digital. What does he have to back this up. This is news to me, Im afraid. If this is the case, I would love to see empirical data.

 

3) He admits he has shot mostly digital and referred to shooting film as "disorienting?" I dont know how that is the case. Our parents, grandparents, et al all made impressive photographs without having vertigo like symptoms.

 

Anyhow, for the record, I never reported you Chris and I was sad that you left. You bring a satire and liveliness that this forum otherwise lacks. Welcome back.

[Keith Walters]

My niece is currently working on an Arts Degree at a local university, and I've had to help her with quite a few assignments that involve "surveys" of this type under the one-size-fits-all buzzword of "Technology".

 

The biggest problem is not so much giving her accurate information, but giving her "correct" information, in other words, what the dingbat lecturers imagine is true, not what actually happens in the real world.

 

The person who complied the survey at the start of this thread seems to imagine that cinematographers are sort of like cab drivers; they have absolutely no idea what their next customer/job is going to involve.

 

In the real world, people tend to get hired for the things they are good at. If your project requires video, the production company will try to give the job to somebody who has a good track record in that field. If it's film, they would try to get someone who specializes in that. Some people are proficient in either, but they're usually expensive and often not available. Commercials can be shot on anything from a Canon 5D right up to Epic or Alexa or 35mm film, but not too many DPs work in all those formats (Stephen Williams is about the only one I can think of).

[Freya Black]

The biggest problem is not so much giving her accurate information, but giving her "correct" information, in other words, what the dingbat lecturers imagine is true, not what actually happens in the real world.

 

 

This is soooo true. A lot of these lecturers are in their own little world. I was quite shocked to read in the main text book for A level film studies, that they had the plot for "Star Wars" completely wrong. Honestly, it doesn't inspire confidence. I did wonder if they only watched the first 10 minutes and had made a guess at what the rest of it was like. I'm not a big fan and havn't seen the film since erm, well lets say I was about 6 at the time *cough* but even I knew the plot better than they did!

 

Also another book on art that I had to write about kept talking about the special new steadycam camera.

 

It's funny, I try to be quite careful about what I actually write just for web based stuff, let alone a book!

 

I could say a lot more on this subject too, but you know, I've said enough already. ;)

 

love

 

Freya

Edited January 20, 2013 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

Commercials can be shot on anything from a Canon 5D right up to Epic or Alexa or 35mm film, but not too many DPs work in all those formats (Stephen Williams is about the only one I can think of).

 

Is that even true? I can't imagine Stephen Williams shoots much of anything on a canon 5d does he?

 

Freya

[Guillaume Cottin]

I have never seen a post on here so dedicated to misinformation and unwarranted assumptions. I am trying to be neutral, I really am. But this post is garbage. I could go line by line and explain why but those who know better will spot it and those that dont already have their mind made up.

Hey Matthew,

As they say in DVD's "all opinions expressed here are solely my opinions". Saying my post is garbage was a bit harsh reaction, wasn't it? But it may start a real discussion on the topic.

 

When I say that digital has a better dynamic range than film, my point is that the best digital cinema cameras are now at least equal to film stock in terms of dynamic range. The Kodak 5213 (200T) has up to 13 stops of DR (depending on the source!), which is equal to the Alexa's performance on the paper. But digital is not only the cameras but also the post-production. In order to pull the most detail out of the film stock you are better off doing a DI, so you can really bend the gamma to get details everywhere, as opposed to a classical photochemical finish on which you could just "shift" the exposure" and use the extra DR as exposure latitude.

My second point is Red's new "Dragon" sensor which is expected to natively show between 18 stops and 20 stops of DR. That is way more than film, and that's what is coming in the near future, and I can only imagine the performance of the following generations of sensors. With so much range, blowing the highlights will be increasingly difficult, the need for compensating windows with interiors is reduced, unless, again, there are stylistic reasons to do so.

Of course, it is very easy to clip highlights on most current mid-range or broadcast HD cameras that have 7 to 10 stops of range, and I don't even try to compare them to film in this regard. Yet a lof of progress has been made and I can name half a dozen mid-range digital cameras that can hold at least 12 stops of DR. The thing is, when the whites do clip it always looks a little bit digital, contrary to film that has a very gentle and natural-looking highlight rolloff. Film has more range in the highlights while digital is better at shadow rendition.

 

When I said shooting film was disorienting, I was talking about my personal experience. I had my first computer when I was in primary school, and I learned computers, HD, digital etc... early. This is why, when I first shot a short film, on a Bolex standard 16mm camera without video tap and a dark prism reflex viewfinder, I was really disoriented! My point though, is that I learned digital first and film second, contrary to previous generations.

 

The person who complied the survey at the start of this thread seems to imagine that cinematographers are sort of like cab drivers; they have absolutely no idea what their next customer/job is going to involve.

Hey Keith.

Many DP's accustomed to shooting film are asked to shoot digital on a growing number of jobs. Does it makes them cab drivers? I think video production is so widespread that I think it's not really a "speciality" anymore. High-speed, aerial, documentary, studio work, etc... these are specialities to me.

I know that when a production decides to shoot on a specific format for some reason, they may look for a DP who's a "specialist" of this camera. But if a DP doesn't know the camera well enough, he'll hire a good camera assistant and/or DIT who does. I think DPs are able to work equally well on any format, since does not fundementally changes the core of the job: framing, shots, lighting, camera moves, composition, etc, etc... which are also the DP's duties and will never be obsolete.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Guillaume Cottin

[Giray Izcan]

Red is coming out with their new "Dragon" sensor that will have 18-20 stop Dr? That is cool, so should I start preparing my ice chest for the next project to cool down the camera? Haha.. Joking aside though, imho, advance in digital cinematography has changed many dps' approach to the craft. In particular, upcoming dps worry a bit too much about camera's low light capabilities that makes me wonder if they intend to shoot without using any lights.. To me, cinematography is painting with lights and shadow, so I prefer lighting a scene. Obviously, well established dps still light scenes as if they are shooting on film. I meant the younger upcoming dslr dps, etc.. Then again, I am not the one to judge anyone, just stating my personal opinion.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Mr. Cottin, I could care less what Red says their "Dragon" is going to do. Red is notorious for hype that they never deliver. They also claimed that the Red one would never go obsolote which it has and they also claimed that the Scarlet would be a $3,000 USD camera which is wasnt, and they also claimed that film died when the Red one came out which is hasnt and still isnt dead. If film is dead, I would like to know why Django Unchained, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, part of Argo, Beast of the Southern Wild, and Les Miserables were shot on film. 5 out of 9 best picture nods and part of 1 out of 9 were shot on film but its dead? Interdasting.

 

Dragon will have no problem blowing out the highlights...you watch and see. Should I safely assume you placed a hefty deposit on the camera already? If so, I bet Jim likes you alot...for now. But of course, in a year Jim will have the next idea for a camera with 28k resolution and 42 stops of DR. Maybe called the "Wyvern" or something else mythic.

[Chris Millar]

Matthew, I get the feeling you see yourself as a Keith Walters, Phil Rhodes etc... (and the guy with a bayer pattern cell for his icon maybe, John Sprung? I could be wrong) the guys who a few years ago when the red one marketing hype was at full steam had quite a bit of fun bagging the claims that red were making, very directly and often with a fair amount of word-smithing involved usually at the expense of the red marketing team (which wittingly or not includes all those 'fanboys'). At the time I feel I learned a lot just trying to keep up with the conversations, it was interesting and amusing stuff, I imagine you'd agree?

 

I know you wanted to bury the hatchet and so on - so I'm going to try to be diplomatic about this - THOSE DAYS ARE OVER. Even if red continue down the same path, it just aint 'news' anymore. As you say yourself "those who know better will spot it and those that dont already have their mind made up". Work with that and maybe take a quieter approach ? Or if you feel the need to carry that torch a bit further down the road (to where?) do a course or get a book on digital imaging (not 'filmmaking', but actual imaging) then come back and let loose.

 

At the moment, you're ... not that er ...

 

helpful

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Matthew, I get the feeling you see yourself as a Keith Walters, Phil Rhodes etc... (and the guy with a bayer pattern cell for his icon maybe, John Sprung? I could be wrong) the guys who a few years ago when the red one marketing hype was at full steam had quite a bit of fun bagging the claims that red were making, very directly and often with a fair amount of word-smithing involved usually at the expense of the red marketing team (which wittingly or not includes all those 'fanboys'). At the time I feel I learned a lot just trying to keep up with the conversations, it was interesting and amusing stuff, I imagine you'd agree?

 

I know you wanted to bury the hatchet and so on - so I'm going to try to be diplomatic about this - THOSE DAYS ARE OVER. Even if red continue down the same path, it just aint 'news' anymore. As you say yourself "those who know better will spot it and those that dont already have their mind made up". Work with that and maybe take a quieter approach ? Or if you feel the need to carry that torch a bit further down the road (to where?) do a course or get a book on digital imaging (not 'filmmaking', but actual imaging) then come back and let loose.

 

At the moment, you're ... not that er ...

 

helpful

 

Well, Im sorry Chris if I'm not that helpful. I dont feel I need a course, per se. Maybe I'm just worried of sounding too "technical." But if you would like to politely about digital imagings inability to appropriately convert voltages to real color values, then i would be happy to discuss it. After all, when you strip off all of the hype that is what is going on. Pixels are nothing more than photo-resistor sites that "read" light values in the form of voltages and convert them into values that are useful to the final medium that you wish to use them for. As you know, there is nothing intrinsically "green" about a green photosite as far as software is concerned. A 1.2V site is a 1.2V site (1.2v was an arbitrary value, not to be taken as green). It is the job of programmers to use that data to create something useful from the data. Therefore, one could argue that it isnt the sensors that lack these days but only the software designers to appropriately convert voltages to color values? Is this fair or am I missing something at a lower level?

[Guillaume Cottin]

Hi,

 

So we started with the "Impact of digital on cinematography" and now I'd like to avoid the unproductive and neverending Red vs. film argument, for I dared mention a future Red product on a digital cinema forum.

Just so you can know me better, I'm a terrible Red fanboy: I don't own a Red camera, I never bought anything from Red, and worse than that: I never created an account on RedUser... for the simple reason that the discussions over there often end up in the same way as this one (oops!).

 

I don't even care if Red's new sensor is any good to prove my point. Like you said, Red always makes last minute changes, which is old news. But the Dragon (or Wyvern, or whatever) is an example that digital sensor technology evolves fast and is becoming better, on a purely technical level, than silver. Is it a heresy to say so? Ask Roger Deakins:

 

[with digital] I felt I could play with things more in some of 'Skyfall,' because I could see with the optical viewfinder on set exactly what I was doing. It gave me more confidence to play, I think, than maybe if I was shooting film. It’s such a pressure on doing a big movie like that.

http://www.hitfix.co...ot-looking-back

 

That's precisely what I wanted to talk about in the first place. Digital does indeed change the way you light: you can take more risks, go further in your aesthetic choices, and it may be interesting to talk about this rather than comparing spec sheets and how many DR this or that camera has.

 

I'm not saying anything else than that, and I am not denigrating film either, and yes you can do great work on both formats, of course!

So could you please be as kind as to acknowledge these shades of difference in my point of view, Mr.Philips, thank you.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Ask Roger Deakins:

 

Appeal to Authority aside, I do realize that digital is "getting better." So what? And to say that silver isnt getting better is a bit unfair. I believe there is a world of difference between Vision 1 stock and Vision 3 stock. (I realize there was no Vision 1 stock, I was referring to original VIsion.) Also, there is still the philosophical argument that, to my knowledge, hasnt been disproven that film resolving power seems to increase in DI with digital technology. Does that mean film "got better" or that film was never fairly gauged in the first place? I've seen old KodaChrome footage that looks stellar scanned at 1080p or even 2k and looks better than it did on old flying spot transfers. Does that mean Kodachrom "got better" or that it was just more faithfully represented later on? In the world of DI, you cannot seperate film technology from digital. But nor should you judge film based on potential flaws of the scanning technology.

[Chris Millar]

Is this fair or am I missing something at a lower level?

I dont know - I just don't know enough about it.

 

It would appear however that yes, you are missing something at a lower level.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I dont know - I just don't know enough about it.

 

It would appear however that yes, you are missing something at a lower level.

 

LOL. How can you know that if you admit you dont know enough about it? Im not sensor maker but I know the basis of digital technology because it is the core knowledge of my understanding and studies in computer science at grad school. When I write software, I make these assumptions and I have yet to be misled. Whether you are writing for a computer or some sort of embedded system (as you know, a camera is still classified as an embedded system), there are certain assumptions to be made.

 

As I understand it (feel free to prove me wrong), digital technology is divided into a few basic ideas:

 

input/output

clock operations

arithmetic operations

 

At the lowest level of software interaction, is there anything other than this? CPU registers pertain to interrupts and arithmetic operations and pins handle i/o with approval from the processor. I know levels build on this but this is the core. And sensors are part of i/o. i/o can only do operations based on voltages. Digital uses 0-0.5v as ground and > as VCC. Analog uses a range of values as input and converts preset increments to digital bits for digital logic processing. The methods that form this are the basis of the ADC (analog to digital converter) and could be where the problem lies with digital. But if I am wrong, please correct me.

[Guillaume Cottin]

Pixels are nothing more than photo-resistor sites that "read" light values in the form of voltages and convert them into values that are useful to the final medium that you wish to use them for. As you know, there is nothing intrinsically "green" about a green photosite as far as software is concerned. A 1.2V site is a 1.2V site (1.2v was an arbitrary value, not to be taken as green). It is the job of programmers to use that data to create something useful from the data.

 

You're right, it's called demosaicing, and it's important to have a good sensor with a good software.

 

If you would like to politely [talk] about digital imagings inability to appropriately convert voltages to real color values, then i would be happy to discuss it.

 

The problem often comes from the dyes. Every photosite on a Bayer sensor has a green, red or blue color dye on it, in order to filter the unwanted colors. That is what makes a "green" photosite green. The quality of the colors and the color gamut of the camera depend on the quality of the dyes and their saturation. The more saturated they are, the wider the color space. Also, if the dyes are very pure, there is no overlapping between colors : every red, green or blue pixel gets only the appropriate wavelengths of color. A blue pixel will not receive any green light. But if a filter is not good enough and lets some other colors pass, there is some unwanted color in some other color pixels and that's very hard, if ever possible, to fix in software, because the software can only assume that all the voltage from this pixel is of the same color before demosaicing. Then the demosaicing (or debayering) happens: it takes photosite data and interpolates color of on the surrounding photosites to create RGB pixels. If this matrix calculations are done on incorrect data (= like when the dyes are bad) it creates color shifs, and if the dyes are not saturated enough, then some colors just can't be reproduced.

 

Again, appeal to authority:

http://provideocoali...matrix_reloaded

[Matthew W. Phillips]

You're right, it's called demosaicing, and it's important to have a good sensor with a good software.

 

 

 

The problem often comes from the dyes. Every photosite on a Bayer sensor has a green, red or blue color dye on it, in order to filter the unwanted colors. That is what makes a "green" photosite green. The quality of the colors and the color gamut of the camera depend on the quality of the dyes and their saturation. The more saturated they are, the wider the color space. Also, if the dyes are very pure, there is no overlapping between colors : every red, green or blue pixel gets only the appropriate wavelengths of color. A blue pixel will not receive any green light. But if a filter is not good enough and lets some other colors pass, there is some unwanted color in some other color pixels and that's very hard, if ever possible, to fix in software, because the software can only assume that all the voltage from this pixel is of the same color before demosaicing. Then the demosaicing (or debayering) happens: it takes photosite data and interpolates color of on the surrounding photosites to create RGB pixels. If this matrix calculations are done on incorrect data (= like when the dyes are bad) it creates color shifs, and if the dyes are not saturated enough, then some colors just can't be reproduced.

 

Again, appeal to authority:

http://provideocoali...matrix_reloaded

 

So if I am understanding correctly, camera manufacturers are using dyes as a sort of "color filter" to get usable voltages from the sensor for futher processing? However, subpar dyes create a sort of "false positive" of a given color which contaminates the final pixel color due to inaccurate input voltages...or rather "inaccurate relative to their assumptions?"

[Keith Walters]

Is that even true? I can't imagine Stephen Williams shoots much of anything on a canon 5d does he?

 

Freya

Absolutely true!

He doesn't make that decision, it's what the client wants.

He can do 35mm, 5D, Epic or Scarlet.

I think if there was enough demand, he'd probably get an Alexa as well

Are you on Facebook? I usually follow Stephen's exploits on there now.

[Guillaume Cottin]

Hey,

 

I just found this, and it relates perfectly to the topic:

 

http://www.afcinema....32thefuture.pdf

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Hey,

 

I just found this, and it relates perfectly to the topic:

 

http://www.afcinema....32thefuture.pdf

 

That was fascinating. Thanks for that.

 

I get a strong impression that the digital revolution is compromising, in a negative way, the role of DP. Considering this is the view of many professional DPs in that article, why do so many on this forum embrace it?