Student aspiring cinematographer in Australia - film vs digital
Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:49 PM
I'd just like to say hello to everybody. This is my first post on this website Obviously wanting to be a cinematographer but I'm somewhat still new to the realm. I'm still confused about what is so special about digital cinematography. My film school only goes as far as teaching 16mm and so far... it's like everything that's important to learn and develop a craft with in film, is redundant for digital.
I really like the idea of capturing images organically, and selecting appropriate stocks with fixed ISOs and using cameras with different shutters, etc. I find it's a real craft shooting film!
But for digital, besides trying to filter out everybody raving about simplicity and the entire "who needs a high end camera when my SLR can do everything!"... I don't really understand what is making digital so great. Having a field monitor and customizable settings, seems to completely go against my idea of cinematography in film. I've read about different camera having higher ISO capabilities, or faster shutter capabilities, or longer shooting time before heating up in SLRs.. but what else is there that makes digital cameras so special? I guess it's a bit vague what I'm asking, so I'd love to discuss this with more experienced practitioners!
Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:24 AM
Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:22 AM
So, like.. it's more a question of the camera itself when it comes to digital, than opposed to the film stock that makes the difference. I'd like to know how the cameras differ besides the general consumer/professional comparisons. Like, technical stuff.
I'm looking up Zacuto's Great Camera Shootout now
Shooting film is a great experience, you have to be so much more careful of stuff and for me anyway, using it is like an escape from the world that depends too much on digital nowadays. I'm a bit of a nature's boy
I'm at the Griffith Film School (Southbank, Brisbane, Australia). They touch on every aspect of film making, like producing, writing, directing, sound, VFX, but for cinematography, they don't teach much digital stuff besides the basics.
Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:01 AM
Posted 25 April 2012 - 11:07 AM
Posted 29 April 2012 - 03:16 AM
I recommend getting involved with the ACS (http://www.cinematographer.org.au/), there's a great headquarters down here in Sydney that regularly holds great drop in nights and other such discussions. A student membership is very affordable and worth getting in on for the learning and discussions with other cinematographers.
Posted 25 May 2012 - 07:34 PM
Digital is quicker but it's missing the mysterious look of film so I don't believe in it.
Digital is also much, much more expensive now than film can be.
8mm is cool, 16 is awesome, Ultra 16 is radical, Super 16 is serious 2 perf 35 is out of this world and I honestly can't mentally handle shooting beyond that yet. Video isn't on the meter for me, I don't know why but I do know that very few people feel like video is cooler looking than film and those very few are most certainly lying or are delusional.
Posted 25 May 2012 - 10:47 PM
Film is what resembles our own imaginations more than any other medium on earth. That's pretty cool ......
I think I drank a double brandy and outed myself re this film vs digital issue on the Indietalk forum. Rather than link to that I'll paste here.
Quoting myself with a few corrections for typos:
"....In the limit (as in a mathematical proof) the medium of film I believe will have an evolution into a medium for artists only. Think Lynch doing Erazerhead or Chris Marker doing La Jette, but imagine that history haden't yet happened (in order to guage their significance). It (film) may be wasted somewhat on narrative film makers as a medium. If film makers and thair audience can't tell the difference between film and digital it (film) may dissapear quickly as a mainstream production and exhibition medium.
We live in a world where we are told that everything can be expressed as a collectiuon of discrete parts. The world is deconstructed. An image is encoded as a matrix of zeros and ones that are transposed off to somewhere else. But like the frog that we may have been forced to disect in class, the analysis of parts is an exercise that can easily end the life force or whole value that glued all the parts together.
When light collides with a piece of celluloid it is a kind of total event leaving a vivid record. Analogous to the way all impacting experience on us (mind/body/physiology) leaves a record. These impressions don't easily dissapear. even if they are undersired. I think we are obliged to find or make images of significance or unavoidable fascination and then learn how to deal with them. I think there will be some artists who will linger in the world who will find film as a medium a fascinating loadstone in this respect.
There is a line that is being crossed as film dissapears from our experience in the mainstream cinema. It's a validation and reinforcement of the completely eroneous idea that only the surfaces matter. If we make digital look like film, who wiull ever know or remember it (film). But consider this, if you could have a rubber doll that looked , sounded and did everything in an identical way to your life partner, would you accept them as being of equal value? To accept that (the rubber doll) are you really even human enymore.
So please go ahead and enjoy film medium while you can....."
Edited by Gregg MacPherson, 25 May 2012 - 10:49 PM.
Posted 26 May 2012 - 12:19 AM
Posted 26 May 2012 - 03:03 PM
Could you explain this a little more or provide any objective test results?
2" tape is better
Posted 26 May 2012 - 03:32 PM
Posted 26 May 2012 - 04:06 PM
Posted 26 May 2012 - 04:14 PM
Posted 27 May 2012 - 03:02 AM
'now records have come back with "record breaking sales"'
I'm not sure this came across like I meant; No one can predict the future of digital no matter how it appears or what seems to make sense because it looked like CD's were going to kill Vinyl records but that didn't happen and now records have come back with "record breaking sales"
Where exactly do you get that rubbish from?
Just about every shopping centre I know of has a place of one sort of another that sells CDs. I don't know anywhere that sells vinyl except for a couple of specialist shops down in the city. An Internet search confirms this is pretty much the pattern throughout the world.
Certainly vinyl record players are selling pretty well at the moment, but they're nearly always bought so people can play their existing collections of vinyl. Many of the turntables also allow users to transfer tracks to MP3 or other formats, and some also have a CD burner so you can turn your vinyl into CDs.
The vast majority of units sold have absolute rubbish ceramic cartridges, and the rest of the turntable is similarly junk, but it seems to do the job of making the old records audible. HiFI is definitely not involved.
There's always going to be a small but well-paying market segment devoted to ludicrously priced and outrageously over-hyped 'Audiophile' equipment. They do not represent the mainstream market! Such people seriously seem to imagine it's going to make people think there is something 'special' about them. And it does; but only in the sense of the Special Olympics.
Basically a HiFi nut, is well, just a nut. Crackpots of all stripes also seem convinced that if they behave in an 'eccentric' manner, people won't notice that they're crackpots, it's reality that's got it wrong and so on.
Posted 27 May 2012 - 03:39 AM
OK, I stand corrected. Vinyl sales have gone from one microscopic drop in a bucket, to what? 1.5 microscopic drops in a bucket!
Thanks. Rubbish even. Nice word. Do some research before you insult people. Everyone in the know now knows that you talk out of the side of your neck. What a jackass.
Perceived Reality 0 Internet 1
If you're prepared to pay an over-the-top price for a grossly inferior and inconvenient 19th century delivery system, you can call yourself an audiophile, you can pretend you have golden ears, you can spout all the elitist tripe you like; you are either badly deluded, or you're a crackpot.
There are no (0) other options.
Posted 27 May 2012 - 05:02 AM
"Crack pot"? Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
I think your seeing a reflection of yourself mate.
Posted 27 May 2012 - 05:07 AM
Meanwhile, here is the top 10 best-selling vinyl albums of 2011:
01. The Beatles - Abbey Road (41,000)
02. Fleet Foxes - Helplessness Blues (29,700)
03. Bon Iver - Bon Iver (27,200)
04. Mumford & Sons - Sigh No More (26,800)
05. Radiohead - The King of Limbs (20,800)
06. Adele - 21 (16,500)
07. Bon Iver - For Emma, Forever Ago (16,200)
08. Wilco - The Whole Love (14,900)
09. The Black Keys - Brothers (14,200)
10. The Black Keys - El Camino (13,800)
Has anybody actually seen real fools gold? It has little square type chunks sort of like pixels but real gold has soft rounded edges. It's very much like film vs video to me. The fool buys something and get's all excited about it so his friends and family don't have the heart to tell him that it doesn't look like the real thing. Very much like digital vs film.
Posted 27 May 2012 - 11:57 AM
Nothing wrong with liking it at all, I can completely understand the artistic use of analogue mediums. It's just it sounded like you were totally obscuring your own argument beyond any logical sense to prove analogue formats were factually better, something I wouldn't have a problem with if you could back it up.
Ya, it sounds warmer and many artist prefer it. Especially me. What would you like to prove that we like it better? Are you trying to be a smarty pants? Why don't you do your own research with some head phones. If I said rock and roll is better than country would you have asked me the same question? I'm not sure if your a jackass yet. Can you provide some info or test' that prove that your not please.