Jump to content


Photo

I'd love to hear what you gotta say..


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Natalie Saito

Natalie Saito
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 July 2006 - 01:20 PM

I've been hearing two completely different perspectives about the future of filmmaking.

Hard-core filmmakers say "Digital will never replace film because it would never LOOK as good as 35mm film even with special lenses, filters and 24 frame rate..They believe it's worth the extra cost."

Then the digital filmmakers say that "technology makes it easier to make films. It's more affordable, very high quality image, easier for editing/special effects (no need to transfer back and forth) and there is no need to worry about the common annoyances of actual film (ex: light leakage on the film, loading problems, snip testing)."

I've been contemplating this for a while now..hey, I aspire to become a cinematographer. When I first started film school, I wanted to get into the "old school" filmmaking. Now, I'm thinking that digital might be better for me. I still study film cameras on my own. Don't get me wrong, I love film. But, I believe sooner or later digital will take over..even though many hardcore filmmakers will do all they can to resist change.

Honestly, what do you think about this issue? I'd like to hear it from a professional cinematographer. Thanks! -Natalie
  • 0

#2 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 17 July 2006 - 01:23 PM

Any good filmmaking program will teach and use both film and digital technology.
  • 0

#3 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 17 July 2006 - 02:24 PM

I consider myself a hardcore film-maker. I do not resist change for the sake of resisting it, but rather I resist change solely for reasons such as ease of use, economy, or flexibility. I am concerned with producing a final product that is not going ot look dated and old-fashioned 100 years from now. For instance, while I resist HD cameras and digital filmmaking, if I were around in the late '30s when color first came out, I would not have resisted that. I might have resisted technicolor for its bulky cameras and necessity of shooting almost everything on a soundstage, but I certainly wouldn't have had a problem with Eastmancolor film. Again, it all comes down to future-proof movies, not so much in a physical sense, but in a resolution sense. I want to shoot with a format that isn't going to hearken feelings similar to what people who watch silent films today feel. I want a sharp, crisp, noiseless image, or as near to that ideal as is possible. I feel film is the best choice for that image today. While I've never shot a foot of 35mm in my life, and HD may have slightly less image noice than S16 does now, I view my 16mm projects as building blocks for working with 35. I sincerely hope that 35mm doesn't suddenly disappear as it did in still photography. Fortunately for film, the priorities of studios put a much heavier priority on image permanence and quality. Despite the fact that Joe consumer has no more abbility to discern film from digital in a movie or in an 8x10, the more direct competition that studios in Holywood have with one another as compared to portrait studios, has, I feel, kept a much higher emphasis on quality.

Regards,

~Karl
  • 0

#4 Chad Stockfleth

Chad Stockfleth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 622 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Louisville, KY

Posted 17 July 2006 - 02:57 PM

I want to shoot with a format that isn't going to hearken feelings similar to what people who watch silent films today feel.


I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with being from a certain period of time. EVERYTHING is going to seem dated in 100 years...time keeps ticking. Our "modern" movies will appeal to the average cinema goer about as much as movies from the fifties appeal to teenagers. Nothing against movies from the fifties, I'm just saying that nothing stays relevent forever, so embrace whatever medium you have readily available and make stories about your place in time. Besides, are you watching the news lately? I don't know that there will be anyone left to watch them (aliens?).
  • 0

#5 Rik Andino

Rik Andino
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 783 posts
  • Electrician
  • New York City

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:22 PM

I believe sooner or later digital will take over...
Even though many hardcore filmmakers will do all they can to resist change.


You're probably right...
But for the near future both formats will be very relevant.
For the next 20 years at least film will be as popular as digital cinematography.
So it behooves you to know how to be compentent in both formats.

But besides that it's also important to study both...
Because the future of digital cameras lies with film.
More and more digital cameras are being designed from film cameras
Cameras like the Genesis, the Viper, or the D20 and some other prototype cameras
Are being built to resemble film cameras...they have similar ergonomics...
They use film lenses & behave a bit like film...they have same film depth of field, ect...
So if you're familiar with film cameras the crossover will not be so great.

If you're looking to speacialize in only one format you might be seriously limiting yourself.
Like John said a competent film program will teach you how to use both.
  • 0

#6 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 18 July 2006 - 10:36 AM

There are really two questions:

1. What is "The Future of Filmmaking"?

2. What is the best way of making "Films for Future Audiences" today?

"Increasingly digital" is one answer. "Film still rules" is the other. ;)

Film has a proven track record of supporting future presentation and display formats. When Sony uses clips from "The Music Man" (35mm film, 1962) and "The Sound of Music" (65mm film, 1965) to show the capabilities of their latest 4K SXRD digital projector, that tells you something about film being "futureproof".
  • 0

#7 freddie bonfanti

freddie bonfanti
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Gaffer
  • LONDON

Posted 18 July 2006 - 11:31 AM

again, this neverending topic....

in stills photography maybe digital will overcome but not in the movies. it will depend purely on the project and on the look of the film. believe me i can picture a cinematographer in 2078 choosing to shoot on film for a feature about frank sinatra and another one opting for digital for a sci fi with aliens in it

its all in the story
  • 0

#8 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 18 July 2006 - 11:56 AM

Both media are commercially and artistically viable. They have different technological origins and specifics but from the production standpoint have a lot of overlap in terms of knowledge base, workflow and final delivery requirements. Depending on your career plans you can choose to specialize in one or the other, or learn both at the same time, like learning to play guitar and keyboard. IMHO you've got to learn video to have a salable job, and you should learn filmmaking to be a competent cinematographer.
  • 0

#9 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 July 2006 - 12:19 PM

what is the future of this forum, with this, an endlessly pointless and repetetive topic...
  • 0

#10 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 18 July 2006 - 02:36 PM

what is the future of this forum, with this, an endlessly pointless and repetetive topic...


Maybe, but thats because on this particular issue the pressures of the outside world are at odds with the world of cinematography/production.

The outside world is obsessed with change and the next new technology.

The world of film production is obsessed with reliability and quality.

Slightly inexperienced Producers/Directors/Executives think 'Why shoot film when digital is cheaper?'

Slighty more experienced DPs/Producers/Executives/Directors think film still achieves the necessary quality and style for the majority of situations for an acceptable price.

The UK Film Council only funds digitaly originated short films:
http://www.ukfilmcou.../digitalshorts/

Young UK filmmakers roam the streets for more credit cards to max, for their film originated projects...'Sigh'
  • 0

#11 James Cole

James Cole

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Student

Posted 18 July 2006 - 08:55 PM

Good stories, well told. I don't much care what you use to tell them.

My penny's worth. (Or two cents, if you swing that way).

James x
  • 0


CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Visual Products

CineLab

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery