Jump to content

Roger Deakins' thoughts


Serge Teulon

Recommended Posts

Serge,

 

It is not OK to include that much content from another site here. Snippets are usually acceptable to help reinforce a point, but not the whole thing like you posted.

 

I have invited Mr. Deakins to contribute to this forum in the past, but I don't think he's ever accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serge,

 

It is not OK to include that much content from another site here. Snippets are usually acceptable to help reinforce a point, but not the whole thing like you posted.

 

I have invited Mr. Deakins to contribute to this forum in the past, but I don't think he's ever accepted.

 

Yeah, why not just include a link? That'd make things "Kosher". Still an interesting, albeit rambling read:

 

Sorry, I still don't know how the hell to do titled links (so copy and paste):

 

http://www.deakinsonline.com/articles/di.php

Edited by Karl Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have invited Mr. Deakins to contribute to this forum in the past, but I don't think he's ever accepted.

 

Maybe it is because he has his *own* forum Tim (maybe he is secretly jealous of Cinematography.com's greater membership and that contributes to his not posting here ;) ) . It is amazing what my bare-minimum search, prompted to find the source of this article, turned up!

 

http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's so cool that Roger is one of those guys who are very slow to get into the whole digital show. I feel the same way. I mean even though I am still young I have gotten to work with 16mm film, and I agree with Roger, part of the fun is getting to be a little bit of a "mad scientest." I think Roger is the kind of guy that likes his job so much that working in labs and with chemicals is part of what he likes about it. I'm going to be very sad if digital takes over. I have a doubt in my mind that it will ultimately, because it's just so hard to mimic film, but I guess it could always happen. I just hope that I will be able to work with film for many and many years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think it's so cool that Roger is one of those guys who are very slow to get into the whole digital show.

 

 

Dunno about that.

 

In my books he was one of the first to embrace a DI with "o brother where art thou"

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno about that.

 

In my books he was one of the first to embrace a DI with "o brother where art thou"

 

jb

 

 

Yeah, but as you could see, in the article he was expressing his annoyance about the digital transition. Also, in digital I mean not shooting film. Shooting film and then using a DI for post, still has the same film look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Shooting film and then using a DI for post, still has the same film look.

 

I don't know that i'd agree there either. It CAN have a film(ish) look. But it's not the same s traditional film finishing either.

 

I've always felt that film is as digital digital once it's been scanned anyway.

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to be very sad if digital takes over. I have a doubt in my mind that it will ultimately, because it's just so hard to mimic film, but I guess it could always happen.

 

There's been some pretty convincing digital getting out there recently. It's starting to be a real worry for me. Digital's a nice clean way of working, but there's no sould to it, it's all hard drives and wires. A film camera will forever be beautiful, but a ten year old video camera looks like an awful outdated carbuncle.

 

By the way Karl, that link you mentioned is called an embedded link. There a button at the left of your post toolbar that allows you to do 'em. Just paste your link into the box that appears whan you click, and then write you title into the next box. It looks rather bulky in the typing box but that's OK. :P

Edited by Matthew Buick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that i'd agree there either. It CAN have a film(ish) look. But it's not the same s traditional film finishing either.

 

I've always felt that film is as digital digital once it's been scanned anyway.

 

jb

 

Ok well you are intitled to your own opinion, BUT this still doesn't change what I was saying, because all I was doing was commenting on Rogers own words. Maybe you should read the article yourself, cause the point was that Roger isn't liking the whole digital transition, and that's the reason why he wrote what he did. So if you want to argue his words, then you'd best take it up with either Roger himself or American Cinematographer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok well you are intitled to your own opinion, BUT this still doesn't change what I was saying, because all I was doing was commenting on Rogers own words. Maybe you should read the article yourself, cause the point was that Roger isn't liking the whole digital transition, and that's the reason why he wrote what he did. So if you want to argue his words, then you'd best take it up with either Roger himself or American Cinematographer.

...oh dear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a tad off topic, but not much seems to be happening here so I'll just come out with it.

 

I don't think film will ever become obsolete or extinct. I think with people like Roger behind it there'll always be film suppoters (myself included). I think film plays to too many human emotions, the sense of good thing coming to those who wait, and maintaining a sense of purity, spontenaity, and originality to an artform, and as John Allen previously mentioned, being a mad scientist, for film to ever be superceeded by anything else. I honestly think it'll live on, even if the only film factory is in a beardy man or woman's shed in Germany somewhere. I completely disagree with people who say film'll be dead and buried within a decade.

 

Right! That was (vaguely) related to the topic, so I'll step off my soapbox now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a tad off topic, but not much seems to be happening here so I'll just come out with it.

 

I don't think film will ever become obsolete or extinct. I think with people like Roger behind it there'll always be film suppoters (myself included). I think film plays to too many human emotions, the sense of good thing coming to those who wait, and maintaining a sense of purity, spontenaity, and originality to an artform, and as John Allen previously mentioned, being a mad scientist, for film to ever be superceeded by anything else. I honestly think it'll live on, even if the only film factory is in a beardy man or woman's shed in Germany somewhere. I completely disagree with people who say film'll be dead and buried within a decade.

 

Right! That was (vaguely) related to the topic, so I'll step off my soapbox now.

 

Cheers to Matthew!! Greatly put! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's way too much ignorance on both sides. I've done both film and television work and it's amazing how the opinions are polar opposite between the two.

 

Come here, most people are pro-film. Come to my television college Ravensbourne, and everyone’s pro-digital.

 

Although broadcast and cinema are slowly merging. The technologies supporting both are closing in.

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's way too much ignorance on both sides. I've done both film and television work and it's amazing how the opinions are polar opposite between the two.

 

Come here, most people are pro-film. Come to my television college Ravensbourne, and everyone?s pro-digital.

 

Although broadcast and cinema are slowly merging. The technologies supporting both are closing in.

 

Are we really pro-film here? I'd say we are balanced, not pro-film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...