Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'film vs digital'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Cinematography Forums
    • General Discussion
    • News & Press Releases
    • Lighting
    • Camera Operating
    • AC's & DIT's
    • Grip & Rigging
    • Visual Effects Cinematography
    • Grading, DI and Telecine
    • Students and New Filmmakers
    • Cameras Systems and Formats
    • Lenses & Lens Accessories
    • Camera Accessories & Tools
    • Film Stocks & Processing
    • Books for the Cinematographer
    • Cinematographers
    • In Production
    • On Screen
    • Cine Marketplace
    • Business Practices
    • Jobs, Resumes, and Reels
    • Please Critique My Work
    • Regional Cinematography Groups
  • Not Cinematography
    • Producing
    • Directing
    • Sound
    • Editing
    • Off-Topic
    • Forum Support

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



My Gear


Found 2 results

  1. Or does it not matter if film or digital was used for making it? I ask for my own interest. When I solicit institutions to place my films should I be calling them videos and not films if they are all digital camerawork? But nowadays most film is digitized for online or digital projection. So should there be any name differentiation between the two methods? 100% digital cinematographers are called filmmakers, so I'd say calling a video a film is OK. Thanks
  2. This post is long, but please bare with me as I need help. I'm in the early prep stage of my first feature, everyday I'm in awe of how much I still have to learn. My project will be about only 60min long that consists of quite a few Steadicam shots. I'm hoping to raise about $60K for my budget. My strength: I have a well prepped script and I designed every single shot as precise as it can be. My weakness: Everything as of now is till on paper. I have never shot anything on high end digital (e.g. RAW) nor on film of any kind, 16mm, 35mm. My debate: Because my lack of real experience, I initially wanted to go with RED for its flexibility in post production in case I messed up something. But as I learn more and more about digital. 1) it looked "too good" for my story. I barely need a 2k res for my story. 2) the data management is a nightmare. I don't have the connection to hire a DIT on set, and then source a high end computer to process the large files. So I thought about shooting on film. Seeing from other people's footage it offers the look and color I wanted, the downside of noting being able to playback gives me worries that my lack of experience will underexpose or mess something up big time. With digita,l I can use the DJI ronin for steadicam shots, and the DJI OSMOS alike for some occasions to shoot in public where it may be very hard to obtain permission and costly for hiring extras. But if I shoot on film, a few camera I looked Arriflex IIC, and Arri SR2, have scarce resources for power sources, e.g. batteries that work. So I don't know how to complete a long steadicam shot with a Super 16mm camer. Even if I can complete a work steadicam setup with my budget, there is no way I can get away with it shooting in some of the public locations, even if I obtain the permits, every pedestrians will turn their heads and look at the camera. Which means more $$$ to hire extras. What should I do?????
  • Create New...