David S Carroll

It'll be a sad day. Wall Street Journal

Thank you Alvin! That's exactly what I was wondering. Much appreciated.

I saw an auction on Ebay for a Tobin Milliframe Controller and I wondering what would the purpose of this device be? Under what circumstances would you need to be shooting at fractions of a frame? Maybe ntsc 29.97fps? Time Lapse?

Oops! I reread the articles including the links George posted, and I was mistaken in thinking that this would be a derivative-type product...because if it were it would just be another type of insurance to protect against losses...but this is a futures product. I can definitely see how the studios do not like the idea of an open market where people can buy, or go short, on the future potential of a feature film. I think the market would wildly exaggerate the future "value" of a film, thus expressing undue praise or condemnation on a film before anyone even starts production. Yikes!! Futures are a zero sum game just like options so this really would be a market for gamblers, or for those who wish to manipulate the values up/down for any particular film. Not a good thing imho.

I don't see why Hollywood would be so against the idea? If this market gets going, it could be a good way for studios to hedge out potential future losses. I guess Hollywood doesn't want any meaningful predictions that may run counter to their entirely "bullish" predictions of future releases' box office sales. Fun stuff! Thanks for the link Karel.

Thomas, So, are you saying that feature films you go to see in a theater are being projected at 30 fps? I'm confused as to what you mean by "the real movie look a minimum of 30 frames per second must be projected". If film is shot at 24fps, where is the extra information (six frames) coming from? Thanks in advance!

debal, With all due respect, if you cannot afford a used version for $50 on Amazon, then how on earth are you going to afford shooting film?

I believe Roger Ebert, among others, has championed the idea of 48fps for decades now to no avail. My problem with altering the 24fps of film is that it would look more and more like hd/digi acquired images. In feature films, shooting/projecting 35mm at 60 fps would look more like HD than it would film and that would not really be a good thing imho. If I'm shooting film, it's because I want the image to look like a film and 24 fps is a big part of that. Gaining more data (high fps) in motion pictures is not my goal...if it was I would go with a high end digi camera for that crisp hi-def vid look. Not to mention shooting at a double or higher fps would cost A LOT MORE DOUGH which takes the option right off the table for almost everyone. Chris, you are definitely not the first one to take this issue up. In theory it makes sense, but like anything else, the market just does what the market wants irrespective of theoretical "better" ways of production. So in the end, you can certainly do whatever it is you want to do...so if YOU have a lot of cash and YOU want to shot 120 fps, go for it bro!

Karel, my only point is this: having less light equipment = a lesser ability to sculpt a visual image. I agree that the new DSLRs are exciting stuff, I just don't agree that it will usher in the "death" of lighting gear. Using less equipment seems to be a self-imposed handicap that doesn't make sense.

I was going to say the same thing. Thanks Pat.

Thanks James! Much appreciated!!

Like I said, you are an abrasive person. That's not very conducive to selling stuff to strangers. It says a lot about your intelligence. No thanks on the "advice".

Hey David, Please stop using all caps. I side with Gareth, in that, you are being sketchy and abrasive. Very unappealing to do business with a stranger who responds like you. It appears that you don't know what you are talking about either (sound film = no telecine?). I suggest that nobody contact this man given the approach he is taking.

I'm definitely in the "film isn't dead" group too. Moises may not get very far with this idea, but I support anyone who wants to expand the horizons for film production of any kind. I wish there were more open-minded film enthusiasts like Moises.

40 years! I would agree with that statement. I originally thought you meant that 35mm cameras will cease production within 5 years or sooner...and that is what I was lol'in at. I own an Eclair NPR that is good as new...and it was probably built 40+ years ago...so I think we'll be seeing the used market for 35mm film cameras going strong for the next century or longer. When digital acquisition can exactly mimic film grain, everyone will jump aboard and leave film in the dust. And, am I the only one who thinks motion picture film is a totally different beast than still photography film...I mean, it's next to impossible to demarcate good digital from 35mm film when observing a STILL frame...but, at least for me, I can tell right away if a picture is digitally acquired once I see MOVING clips. When things move on screen, digital gives you that..well, video look. I hate the way digital looks in a feature film, cause it just screams cheap and plastic. Besides all the usual arguments, film is expensive and that's a good thing because it's a giant barrier to the market for feature filmmakers. A barrier that the studio's can afford to maintain. Well, whatever, none of us have a crystal ball, so your guess is as good as mine. Cheers!

@topic I don't think there would be any market for a new super8mm "pro" camera. It would cost a lot more than most used ultra/super16mm packages and the processing wouldn't be cheaper either. BUT, don't let that stop you from pursuing this if that is your dream. It would be cool as hell to see a hardcore "pro" super8mm camera on the market, I wouldn't be able to afford it and probably nobody would buy it, but it would be SWEET nevertheless. LOL! Do you really think 35mm film cameras "won't be available new for much longer"? Keep dreaming guy.