Premium Member Keith Walters Posted August 1, 2009 Author Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2009 http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/07/09/wal-m...er-price-to-98/ The cheapest Wal-Mart currently offer is $177 for a Sylvania model, and that's available online only, so I'd imagine there's a shipping charge on top of that. http://www.walmart.com/browse/DVD-Blu-ray-...elected_items=+ So I'd say the $99 thing was just a one-off gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted August 1, 2009 Author Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2009 I used to work for panavison (for a short time) and I can say you are not far off. They have looked into the technology and their actions speak volumes in regards to their findings. I'd say you'd be better to wait and see their next move, then to judge a position at this time. But don't doubt they have examined all current cameras and possibilities. There's an old saying: "Not everybody who talks about heaven is actually going there..." Which pretty well sums up the situation here. In other words, because this and similar forums are only discussions in this field that most people here have any input to, ar even access to, they assume it's the only discussion there is. It't NOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Patrick OHara Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 There's an old saying: "Not everybody who talks about heaven is actually going there..."Which pretty well sums up the situation here. In other words, because this and similar forums are only discussions in this field that most people here have any input to, ar even access to, they assume it's the only discussion there is. It't NOT. Keith, Forgive me. I totally understood the first part of that reply, but I really don't understand the rest. I'm not being passive aggressive... I just don't think I'm reading the subtext correctly. Sorry man! It's late here! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted August 1, 2009 Author Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2009 Keith,Forgive me. I totally understood the first part of that reply, but I really don't understand the rest. I'm not being passive aggressive... I just don't think I'm reading the subtext correctly. Sorry man! It's late here! :) I meant that many people posting on internet forums seem perennially surprised, if not outraged, that the real-world industry doesn't seem to share viewpoints that seem blindingly obvious to them. Then, the only possible explanation that they seem to be able to come up with is that people responsible for spending billlions of dollars of investors' money, must be totally ignorant, retarded or frightened by change. The possibility that you might not be able to get all the facts off the Internet is almost heresy in some quarters "The cynic is usually better informed" as another old saying goes ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 The possibility that you might not be able to get all the facts off the Internet is almost heresy in some quarters[.] Sure, but certainly that isn't the case on THIS forum Keith, now that we have you here to set us straight on Panavision, film, digital TV, and digital cinematography; not all internet fora have prophets sent down from heaven like GOD sent the Torah, Keith, but this one does. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted August 2, 2009 Author Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2009 Wasn't there some movie about the attack on Pearl Harbour being masterminded by a Hokkaido-based Zionist faction in the Japanese War Ministry: Torah! Torah! Torah! Maybe I'm thinking about something else.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geovane Marquez Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Why would these shows want to shoot on RED anyway? That footage, wherever it's being stored at in any Drive, can easily be deleted off the face of the universe. A major power crash can blow up these drives. Film can last centurys. Unless that Universal Studio's Pyro guy blows up another storage center. It's Obsolete... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted September 6, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted September 6, 2009 That footage, wherever it's being stored at in any Drive, can easily be deleted ?off the face of the universe. We're aware of this, and do multiple backups to LTO. In the old days, we had separate vaults for negatives and IP's, far apart, in case there was a fire. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Regan Posted September 7, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted September 7, 2009 In the old days, we had separate vaults for negatives and IP's, far apart, in case there was a fire. -- J.S. I think the phrase 'the old days' is interesting in a thread of this nature. In the old days, they didn't have 500ASA stock to work with. Nor did they have 7lb lightweight cameras that could go anywhere with ease. There wasn't the incredible control of a DI to work with. And yet nobody would think for a minute that somehow the art of Cinematography wasn't any good before all of these, and other, breakthroughs. And yet all these discussions, while valid, and I indeed love partaking them as well, and have my own opinions, seem to me only to suggest that we as a body of society, are never satisfied with what we have. I'm not condemning this, it is admirable to always push for higher standards, higher quality, there is nothing wrong in demanding perfection from one's craft. But consider how much more we have than cinematographer's had 50, 30, 10, even 3 years ago. We get given so much, yet only find reasons to argue and complain that it still isn't good enough. Again, not judging, I do my own enormous share of complaining and whining about substandard technologies, but in the end, science isn't going to stop. No matter what we do, new cameras will get made, new lenses will be developed, new methods of production and post-production workflow will be introduced. For once, I'd like us to enjoy what we have, when we have it, and make compelling, interesting visual stories, which whatever 'horrible and unsatisfactory' equipment we may be given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 This is all very good this idea that the story counts and not the pictuare quality however in this day and age where the majority of households own an HDTV and Blu-Ray players are readily available for $98, it will come down to this that the movie theatre of the future will have to offer an experience that you cannot get at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now