Posted 19 January 2006 - 02:24 PM
Posted 20 January 2006 - 09:38 AM
But I think you're overlooking COLLATERAL, elvworks, in which the digital cinematography was great and definitely supported the story! But i agree, the last Star Wars episodes didn't live up to my expectations.
Posted 20 January 2006 - 10:56 AM
To be honest, I will have to rent Collateral, I only saw a few scenes in passing. I appreciate your suggestion.
Posted 20 January 2006 - 11:24 AM
Posted 20 January 2006 - 12:22 PM
Posted 08 April 2006 - 06:42 AM
Posted 08 April 2006 - 07:47 AM
Posted 08 April 2006 - 11:44 AM
a percentage of superman was shot on 35mm for reasons that i don't know about, a few hundred thousand feet, so it will be interesting to see on the big screen.
Visual Effects, specifically high speed miniatures.
Posted 08 April 2006 - 03:46 PM
Digital is taking over.
Sure, eventually... but let's be realistic -- these are still exceptions to the rule. In fact, I've shot less HD in the past two years compared to 35mm, the bulk of studio movies are shot in 35mm, and the bulk of dramatic TV shows in the U.S are shot on 35mm as well.
Posted 08 April 2006 - 06:17 PM
Digital is taking over.
Maybe for personal projects you might shoot or in your school, but not in the real world of professional production.
I tend to be a bit more blunt than David sometimes.....
Posted 08 April 2006 - 06:51 PM
Posted 08 April 2006 - 11:07 PM
Digital is taking over.
I'm sure it comes as no suprise from my moniker that I'm in the film camp. Maybe I'm crazy devoting my energies to preserving this medium, and maybe one day there will be no more film, but do you really have to friggin' say incendiary poop like this? I mean, it's a good thing we are in a forum, because if you said that to my face, I'd flat out wanna punch you in the jaw. There are people who make their livelihoods from motion picture film, many of them my close personal friends. Are you REALLY elated that, were digital to take over, they'd be out on the streets? Huh?
Posted 09 April 2006 - 12:35 AM
Edited by Josh Bass, 09 April 2006 - 12:36 AM.
Posted 09 April 2006 - 02:01 AM
As someone who loves shooting on film, I personally wouldn't say that Digital has taken over - but it is most certainly gaining momentum that could, and probably will, lead to it "taking over". And thats not something to be happy or sad about - its just something we need to be prepared for.
Just one view,
There are people who make their livelihoods from motion picture film, many of them my close personal friends. Are you REALLY elated that, were digital to take over, they'd be out on the streets? Huh?
Edited by Jonathan Benny, 09 April 2006 - 02:02 AM.
Posted 09 April 2006 - 10:23 AM
Posted 09 April 2006 - 10:39 AM
My other question is back up. I work in broadcasting and do everything in FCP. My hard drive failed and I lost everything I was working on.But I had everything on tape so I could get it back. How do they back stuff up? What is the work flow?
Also if all the major studios go digital, I will be the first one on e-bay looking for a good deal on 35mm equipment
Posted 09 April 2006 - 12:00 PM
Seriously, if your arguments against a "technical" development are that people might lose their jobs, its getting a little ridiculous.
All the crying of the jobless coachmen when the car was invented....
Digital is not taking over (not yet, not soon), but its gaining momentum.
Posted 09 April 2006 - 12:05 PM
What are the film labs going to do? What are the people at Kodak and Fuji going to do? Film Loaders? Projectionists?
Your inexplicable personal attachment to a technology is getting the better of you here. It's not the responsibility of any technology to last forever. You might ask similar questions about other industries that have seen technological change - for instance, what happened to telephone operators? Linotype operators? Elevator operators? Television repairmen (and television repair businesses, for that matter)? People eventually move on to other aspects of either the same or another industry when technology forces certain changes that affect their personal place in that industry. Having said all that, the sky is certainly not falling yet on the film industry. Over 90% of network dramas and probably an even higher percentage of feature films are still being shot on film, at least right now, in 2006. What those statistics might be in 2010, who can say. Regardless of the postings of Internet forum participants who do not work in the industry and believe that consumer trends are the same as professional trends, that is the fact. Those who know the facts
understand. Those who don't, don't.
This is probably going to be the first change the film industry has made that is a REDUCTION in quality.
Hardly. Tripack negative was a reduction in quality from the 3 strip method. Techniscope (2 perf flat format) was a severe reduction in quality from anamorphic and/or 65mm shooting, as is Super 35 for anamorphic release. 1.85 was a reduction in quality from 1.33 projection. CRI's were a reduction in quality from internegatives (and they were later abandoned for this and other reasons). And digital intermediate is arguably a reduction in quality from direct contact printing, although there are clearly multiple mitigating factors there. My point is that changes in any industry are not necessarily quality driven, in fact, in most cases they are not. They are economically or creatively driven, always have been, always will be. Quality improvements as a result of those changes are icing on the cake.
Any change made solely for the purpose of saving the producers money is not a good one, at least in my humble opinion.
Welcome to the real world. Almost all changes are ultimately made for the sake of economics, as are almost all governmental decisions and just about everything else that involves spending money. That's the price of living in a capitalist society and the reality of our world.
Posted 09 April 2006 - 12:27 PM
Hooooooooo...Them's fightin' words.
Techniscope (2 perf flat format) was a severe reduction in quality from anamorphic