Jump to content


Photo

Could Digital Kill Film?


  • Please log in to reply
417 replies to this topic

#1 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1160 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 12 October 2017 - 01:59 AM

Was having a conversation with a friend. It got me thinking about what some industry guys would say.

 

Assuming companies won't need higher than a 2K-4K finish;

What would it take for a digital camera to make film obsolete in every aspect?

 

20 stops of dynamic range? Perfected highlight roll-off? Arri color science? Flawless cooling? Ergonomic Shape?

 

A camera like the RED Dragon certainly has a nice look, but has its problems both in the image and around the body.

 

 

Thanks for any input or lists you may provide.


  • 1

#2 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3725 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 October 2017 - 03:38 AM

I think the confusion here is that, the moment you digitize film, it's really no better than digital. It's just, a lot of filmmakers/cinematographers push the limits of digital technology, so it kinda falls apart and looks "uncinematic" in some cases. I think the Alexa 65 is an amazing looking camera, with the right display preperation, you can make it look film very easily as Steven Yedlin showed.

So film kinda is dead when it comes to 1080p 8 bit 4:2:0 streaming/BluRay content. There is so much noise reduction, so much clean up work, so much compression and alteration of the image till it arrives on your non-calibrated monitor, in the end who cares what it's made with? Honestly I've watched several shows shot on digital and film on my laptop via shitty compressed files and it's hard to tell sometimes.

Where film isn't dead is theatrical, especially projection and photochemical finishes. Nothing we see today looked like Dunkirk looked on 70mm, NOTHING. We "could" mimic film projection with digital, add flickering and noise, but it wouldn't be the same. Film prints and projectors "breathe", no two frames are the same from not just the medium, but also the lamp source.

So it's not just about the dynamic range, it's not just about the color space or highlight clipping. It's about what makes the format truly different and the moment you scan film into a computer, you loose a lot of its essence.
  • 1

#3 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1160 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 12 October 2017 - 03:57 AM

I mean, with everything being DCP nowadays...

 

Aside from that though, there have been pictures which were shot digitally and then printed to film. I agree DCP comes off as a tad lifeless but I'm trying to keep this in the production end of things rather than presentation.

 

Would the ultimate marriage be a digital camera with human eye color/dynamics, digitally edited, then printed to film for viewing purposes? It seems one of the goals for you is coloration/feel rather than technical marvels.


  • 0

#4 Alex Lindblom

Alex Lindblom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 October 2017 - 04:52 AM

Well for me it's simple. It has to produce the same emotional response, as when you are watching, an actual movie shot on celluloid.

 

It's clear to me that something like "the uncanny valley" for capture medium is going on here, Alexa images just doesn't feel right, you simply can't enter the dream.

 

I'm a nowplaying podcast fan, so I have been watching the Death Wish series, and there is no question that Death Wish 3, is a pretty terrible film. But, it's big but, I have no problem sitting trough it. And this goes for a lot of older movies. While the opposite is true for modern films, even from directors I truly love, let's just take a few examples here because the list is endless...

 

Blackhat, Twin Peaks The Return, Alien Covenant, Crimson Peak, Dumb and Dumber To,31, and so on and so on... The problem is actually even worse on modern low budget films, where at best, they manage to feel like a long TV episode.

 

Now, for me this problem actually seems to go away for the most part if the film is shot with CCD technology. I doesn't seem to matter if it Genesis/Sony F35 or a 3 chip design F900/F23 even tough it doesn't look "filmic" per say, I'm still able to engage with the movie, like -- Rachel Getting Married for example.

 

I also want to champion a little known film, #Horror from 2015. It's a flawed film, but it's something there in it, and to my big surprise it was shot on a Digital Bolex another CCD camera, I had no idea when I watch it, other than I liked the look of the movie.


  • 1

#5 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Director

Posted 12 October 2017 - 05:13 AM

It'll never kill film because it will never look like film, that's the reality of it. Chemical ----------> chip/sensor

 

I get what Alex means in the images not feeling right, I can rarely watch something shot digitally and first, not go "ugh", and second, "I wish this was shot on film, it'd look better". It's pretty distracting, but I love a ton of movies shot digitally even though that thought never goes away, but all my favorite films are shot on film, there's a reason for that.

 

I don't feel emotion with digital capture the way I do with film, some filmmakers said there's an inherent empathy & emotion to it, and I agree. And I'll admit that I take films shot on actual film a bit more seriously, not to hate on any film shooting digitally, IT & BR 2049 this year for example, those movies look fantastic. 

 

I feel as if, if filmmakers CAN shoot film, and choose that over digital, they're a bit more disciplined, they want to make something special, no one is going to go "they shot on Alexa, so cool", now, some will definitely say "mmm they shot on 35mm film, that's something". I can confidently say that many of my favorite films (most from the 80's, 90's, some more modern) would definitely not feel the same, have the same charm & feel to them on digital.

 

The argument that "oh well it ends up as a DCP anyway", so who effin cares, it's still shot on film, and it makes a huge difference, a film print & photochemical finish would be best but does Lawrence Of Arabia, or Star Wars, or hell, The Godfather Part 1 look like digital on Blu Ray? NOPE. Even in theaters, with a dim, lifeless 2D projection, I still see the difference. 

 

I'm at a loss with Deakins or a handful of others saying they don't see the difference in the movie theater or on BD (and hell, even highly compressed files allow you to see the difference unless it's a 2 GB file for a 2 hour movie, I sometimes rent some films on Itunes, it's usually btw 3 & 5 gb for a 1080p file, and trust me, the difference is blindingly obvious, I'd argue that being close to a computer screen, you can see the texture even more), I just do not get it, I guess it's true for them, but there are plenty of DPs (hell, tell that to Ed Lachman) & directors who do see the difference.

 

Take a look this year at films like Call Me By Your Name (director actually said shooting digitally is lazy, ouch), or mother! (even though I thought it looked ugly), Justice League, The Last Jedi (yes, there are a handful of digital shots in there), Wonderstruck (one scene shot digitally in low light situation, Lachman applied Live Grain but wasn't super satisfied it seems), Dunkirk, Battle Of The Sexes, The Florida Project, Good Time, Baby Driver, Murder On The Orient Express, The Book Of Henry, The Lost City Of Z, etc. It's there. 

 

By the way, there's only three shows on TV shooting on film if I'm not mistaken: The Middle, Crashing (HBO) & Westworld. Another HBO show is shooting on film right now. 


Edited by Manu Delpech, 12 October 2017 - 05:16 AM.

  • 2

#6 Stephen Perera

Stephen Perera
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts
  • Other
  • Gibraltar, Europe

Posted 12 October 2017 - 05:44 AM

The Walking Dead is 16mm...

 

.....anyway personally nothing in digital I have seen has the colour palette of film.....Kodak Vision3 emulsions in my eyes as a cinema goer has the same palette I have seen using Kodak Portra 160 in photography......the skin tones...the greens...the reds....

 

For fun I always try and predict what is shot on film or not and then I check it on IMDB.....I'm right most in 90% of cases.....

 

I am petty good at identifying whats shot on Arri Alexa these days as it all looks the same more or less hahhaah...ironic

 

I like this page:
https://reelfilm.kod...om/shot_on_film


Edited by Stephen Perera, 12 October 2017 - 05:53 AM.

  • 2

#7 David Mawson

David Mawson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Other
  • Manchester

Posted 12 October 2017 - 06:29 AM

The Walking Dead is 16mm...

 

.....anyway personally nothing in digital I have seen has the colour palette of film.....Kodak Vision3 emulsions in my eyes as a cinema goer has the same palette I have seen using Kodak Portra 160 in photography......the skin tones...the greens...the reds....

 

Foveon sensors for stills are impossible to tell from film. A lot of the problems people associated with digital are problems with Bayer sensors; foveons behave quite differently:

 

Eg http://www.13thmonke...highlights.html

 

..They're also a huge PITA to shoot because of the limited ISO etc. But eventually a usable video Foveon will appear - Canon seem to be working on that technology. Or a curved sensor with a random rgb pattern instead of a bayer matrix would avoid a lot of problems.


  • 0

#8 David Mawson

David Mawson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Other
  • Manchester

Posted 12 October 2017 - 06:36 AM

 

The argument that "oh well it ends up as a DCP anyway", so who effin cares, it's still shot on film, and it makes a huge difference, a film print & photochemical finish would be best but does Lawrence Of Arabia, or Star Wars, or hell, The Godfather Part 1 look like digital on Blu Ray? NOPE. Even in theaters, with a dim, lifeless 2D projection, I still see the difference. 

 

 

Film and digital (other than Foveon) handle highlights differently. If you look at this article about Foveons  http://www.13thmonke...highlights.html it should explain. But basically, as Bayer sensors go into highlight they do this (this is a picture of an over-exposed colour wheel)

 

IMG_7878-sat2.png

 

Film, the eye and Foveons do this

 

sdim1240-spp25-sat2.png

 

...Actually the eye and film would be cleaner again than the Foveon.

 

If you you shoot on film and then convert to digital with reasonable care, you avoid the highlight spill of the first example - because of the curve the film naturally applies. The image from the film will be in digital's safe range. (You may still lose some other benefits of film though - it typically has a fatter mid-range.)


Edited by David Mawson, 12 October 2017 - 06:37 AM.

  • 2

#9 aapo lettinen

aapo lettinen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1022 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 12 October 2017 - 08:13 AM

I think that paradoxically the biggest threat for film origination could actually be the SCREENWRITING more than technical or aesthetics... 

because the script dictates the genre and locations and mood of the film quite a lot and if it calls for, for example, lots of remote locations, certain types of lighting conditions, long scenes with certain type of operating, etc. it may not be practical to shoot the movie on film for practical and economical reasons even if the film would otherwise benefit from film origination.

 

In recent years it has been especially difficult because global depression necessitates (again) transforming the movies more towards fantasy/scifi/action/comedy instead of period/drama/relationships related content and in current environment it is much more practical to shoot this type of content (fantasy/scifi/action/comedy) on digital (lots of vfx, lots of cameras, high speed shots, handheld, the need to make visually stunning crystal clear scenes for young audience, etc)

 

Certain types of movies benefit a lot from film origination but if other genres are more asked for because of the economical and political environment, then digital is used more and more...


  • 0

#10 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Director

Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:31 AM

The Walking Dead is 16mm...

 

.....anyway personally nothing in digital I have seen has the colour palette of film.....Kodak Vision3 emulsions in my eyes as a cinema goer has the same palette I have seen using Kodak Portra 160 in photography......the skin tones...the greens...the reds....

 

For fun I always try and predict what is shot on film or not and then I check it on IMDB.....I'm right most in 90% of cases.....

 

I am petty good at identifying whats shot on Arri Alexa these days as it all looks the same more or less hahhaah...ironic

 

I like this page:
https://reelfilm.kod...om/shot_on_film

 

Yup, forgot about it somehow. 


  • 0

#11 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Director

Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:39 AM

I think that paradoxically the biggest threat for film origination could actually be the SCREENWRITING more than technical or aesthetics... 

because the script dictates the genre and locations and mood of the film quite a lot and if it calls for, for example, lots of remote locations, certain types of lighting conditions, long scenes with certain type of operating, etc. it may not be practical to shoot the movie on film for practical and economical reasons even if the film would otherwise benefit from film origination.

 

In recent years it has been especially difficult because global depression necessitates (again) transforming the movies more towards fantasy/scifi/action/comedy instead of period/drama/relationships related content and in current environment it is much more practical to shoot this type of content (fantasy/scifi/action/comedy) on digital (lots of vfx, lots of cameras, high speed shots, handheld, the need to make visually stunning crystal clear scenes for young audience, etc)

 

Certain types of movies benefit a lot from film origination but if other genres are more asked for because of the economical and political environment, then digital is used more and more...

 

 

I understand all of that, but I still think there are too many excuses. If they can shoot The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, Ep IX, MOS, BvS, WW, or JL on film for example, how can the producers or studio then justify "it'd be too complicated & costly on film, so we're shooting digitally". If those filmmakers really want to shoot film, even on projects shooting in multiple countries, multiple units, lots of logistics, than they make it happen, that's showing you're serious with it, and imo a bit more serious than just going the easy and shooting some tasteless digital thing. After all, the industry had been doing it for a hundred years plus, digital just made everything easier and some are content with it. 

 

Film is also just more interesting visually, it makes thing come to life in a way that is completely flat digitally, it's imo so much more pleasant to the eye, on the skin, so many actors prefer film (Tom Cruise is an advocate of film, he said he doesn't like digital, I guess he mellowed since The Mummy had some digital portions, American Made is digital, and MI6 is digital). 

 

I think even if audiences don't know or care, they'll still feel the difference & the celluloid origination subconsciously. 


  • 0

#12 Michael Rodin

Michael Rodin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Moscow

Posted 12 October 2017 - 12:20 PM

I think the confusion here is that, the moment you digitize film, it's really no better than digital.

Tyler, you can't be serious... If you're teaching film cinematography, your knowlenge of DI and properties of film should be high enough not to spread this nonsense.

 

Actually, DI allows to pull out more detail and color info from the negative compared to printing. Basically you can utilize the whole density range (given you've scanned on a decent HDR machine) of your negative.

 

Printed or scanned, film still reproduces color better than any digital. Hugely better. Any current video color science is crap when it comes to properly saturating colors depending on their lightness. Arri have made an approximation of film saturation response but it's still a rough one. By the way, ALEV was developed from a Kodak sensor, so Alexa's primaries/CFAs were likely chosen by a film stock manufacturer - that says something...

Digital can't reproduce the same suble color contasts modern color neg can. It makes flesh tone (the one we're the most sensitive to) look flatter and in a way paler, makes skies one solid hue or a set of saturated hues, etc. Extremes of color spectrum suffer the most. And you can't grade it so that these color contasts somehow magically return - they were not distinguished on the imager (intentionally compromised primary and filter choices... don't get us started on imaging engineering, please :) ), the information is lost.

Film isn't perfect either, but with basic things like flesh, skies, foliage that we always see (and are consequently very sensitive to) it's precise enough that it gives consistent results under basically any lighting.


Edited by Michael Rodin, 12 October 2017 - 12:21 PM.

  • 0

#13 David Mawson

David Mawson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Other
  • Manchester

Posted 12 October 2017 - 12:23 PM

 

 

I understand all of that, but I still think there are too many excuses. If they can shoot The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, Ep IX, MOS, BvS, WW, or JL on film for example, how can the producers or studio then justify "it'd be too complicated & costly on film, so we're shooting digitally". 

 

...I think the fairly obvious answer is "Because most projects don't have the budgets of the above." ???

 

Also, how many of those are imax? A trend among super-high budget imax productions shouldn't really be used a predictor for other types of production.


Edited by David Mawson, 12 October 2017 - 12:37 PM.

  • 0

#14 David Hessel

David Hessel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 October 2017 - 01:34 PM

In my opinion the biggest challenge for film in the future is going to be the passing on of the film generation of people leaving only the digital generation behind. I grew up watching film in a movie theater and vhs at home so the look and experience of film is what I associate with cinema, that was the best you could get. The younger generations are growing up with digital cinema, digital tv with those horrible default motion settings, etc... That is what they are acustom to.

 

For the next generation the digital experience will be the experience they associate with cinema not film unless things change dramatically. Chances are right now the majority of the general audience probably cannot tell the difference between digital and film or don't care if even if they can. There is probably a whole generation of young people now who have never seen film projected in a theater.  In the future the younger generation could prefere the look of digital over film after all that is what they will have grown up watching. Once that happens, what will be the point of shooting film at all when there is no one left who wants or cares to see it? 

 

If no one cares to see it, the only thing that can save film is if there are enough people who want to use it.


Edited by David Hessel, 12 October 2017 - 01:37 PM.

  • 0

#15 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3725 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 October 2017 - 01:43 PM

Tyler, you can't be serious... If you're teaching film cinematography, your knowlenge of DI and properties of film should be high enough not to spread this nonsense.


This is actually a common thread throughout the industry, from Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino and even Paul Thomas Anderson. These guys finish photochemically because they've done the tests, they've have the best scanners in the world, the best DI finishes, yet they still choose to strike prints the old fashion way. THERE IS A REASON!!!

I pointed out my reasons above... With digital transfers and clean (low grain) stock, you lose almost all of the imperfections, you lose the flicker, you lose the "artistic" nature of the beast, the most imporant things that separate it from digital in my opinion.

Actually, DI allows to pull out more detail and color info from the negative compared to printing. Basically you can utilize the whole density range (given you've scanned on a decent HDR machine) of your negative.


There is no magic, even the absolute best scanners like the 6k Arri, still use CMOS chips just like video cameras. The Arri does do full RGB scanning through, so no Bayer pattern to worry about. Still, it can't capture the full dynamic range, especially when it comes to the nuances in the blacks and highlights. Sure, these new scanners are FAR better then any digital video camera on the market because ya don't get any imager noise/interferance due to it being optomized for a single purpose. But think of it a different way... They are not capturing a perfect pixel based format, but one with grain that's constantly changing sizes and location. When you have that much "fluctuation" within each pixel, you loose quite a bit of detail information.

Printed or scanned, film still reproduces color better than any digital. Hugely better. Any current video color science is crap when it comes to properly saturating colors depending on their lightness. Arri have made an approximation of film saturation response but it's still a rough one. By the way, ALEV was developed from a Kodak sensor, so Alexa's primaries/CFAs were likely chosen by a film stock manufacturer - that says something...


I suggest you watch Steve Yedlin's video series. It's long, but it's eye opening because he spent A LOT of time and money doing it right.

http://yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/

http://yedlin.net/OnColorScience/

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

Digital can't reproduce the same suble color contasts modern color neg can.


This is true, when it comes to color reproduction and contrast, motion picture film does have a completely different look. This is mainly because film reacts completely different to light then digital does, especially when you take into account CMOS imagers and multi-layer film.

Here is the problem tho, and this is the "devil's advocate" point of view. Just because you're use to watching something, doesn't mean it's the best. Good digtial (which we rarely see because filmmmakers try to push the format too much in my opinion) doesn't really look that different then good film when presented in the same way, with the same post workflow and the same display perparation, as Steve Yedlin points out.

I want to keep film alive, but to me the absolute most important part is preserving photochemical presentation. If you shoot something on film and digitize it, sure a handful of people may be able to discern what medium it was originally shot with. However, once it's digital it's "no longer" special. Again, you completely loose the "essense" of the format, from the shimmer of the film stock to the flicker of the projector and the constnatly moving image.

Film is an "art" form, it's a "capture" and "project" system. The moment you take away the "project" side of things, the moment you turn that into digital nonsense, is the moment you lose what the art form is all about. There isn't a single display device in the entire world, that can mimic motion picture playback, it just doesn't exist.
  • 0

#16 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1160 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 12 October 2017 - 02:03 PM

In my opinion the biggest challenge for film in the future is going to be the passing on of the film generation of people leaving only the digital generation behind. I grew up watching film in a movie theater and vhs at home so the look and experience of film is what I associate with cinema, that was the best you could get. The younger generations are growing up with digital cinema, digital tv with those horrible default motion settings, etc... That is what they are acustom to.

 

If Kodak (or another company) found some magical way to make film cheaper or reusable you'd probably find way more young people using it. The tools one has access to when starting out are the tools they'll prefer to use moving forward. Barring all cases of nostalgia or wannabe-exclusivity that is.

 

It's like when an old person writes an articles about "Why Millennials Don't Like Big Macs", one simply can't expect other generations to value the same things they do.


Edited by Macks Fiiod, 12 October 2017 - 02:05 PM.

  • 0

#17 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 12 October 2017 - 04:13 PM

Film projection might work as a 'marketed' concept. With all the multiplexes, dedicate one cinema to 'shot on film, projected on film.' Okay, to get up and running, some movies might have to be shot on digital but printed to film for projection. Set up the projection booth with 35mm, 16mm and if possible 70mm projectors. Develop a logo, done up in lights above the cinema entrance door, eg. This is a 'Real Film' event ('Real film' as a lit-up logo that is the same whatever cinema you see it at - a bit like the Dolby logo). If there aren't enough movies being released on film, also show prints of old movies - classics as well as old B grade films. Might have to also show digital projection movies at times in the cinema too to keep it economic. Just take down the 'Real film' sign for digital movies. But there are big boys and girls running the business side of things in the film biz and they are the people who decide these things - not the makers (the 'artists') in most cases unless they are Christopher Nolan.

 

I think we are living through a time of poor leadership in many areas - especially in arts. We have people making poor decisions that affect enormous populations of people. In a way, we're increasingly being fed 'Soylent Green' if you know what I mean. Immature kids running the place - people who aren't down to earth, who haven't really lived, who don't really care about art though they say they do. The old movie moguls were different, because despite not being perfect they knew and cared what art is. The current crop of multi billion dollar elites running the world don't. You can tell.

 

I agree, it's an emotional thing. Foveon will be a trap of clinical perfection of image that see every detail of every pore in a piece of fruit in wonderful colour but it will miss the emotion of film. Film is like landscape, and like life. It's emotionally and artistically complex. Walk outside and look at the world - that's what film gives. Digital is like the classic Leunig cartoon of the man and his son looking in wonder at their tv screen of a sunset, while outside over the father's shoulder is the window, and through the window is a real sunset. Film is real and digital is an electronic cheap trick. The movies are light shining through celluloid, warts and all and flicker. Foveon and Sony and all the rest give a technical perfection which is really just a fetish for technology but not a genuine interest in art. Art is always bound to tradition. Always.

 

Cinema is light through film. Anything else is something else, and not cinema.


  • 1

#18 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3725 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 October 2017 - 04:17 PM

Cinema is light through film. Anything else is something else, and not cinema.


Amen.

I also agree that leadership has been the biggest downfall. People are thinking short term and not looking at the long term consequences of their decisions.

I can attest to how the younger generation is inspired by film, the medium itself and are becoming more and more excited about using it. What we need are the higher-up's to kindle the fire in order for the whole industry to keep going. Otherwise, motion picture film will turn into an unobtanium format for rich filmmakers and studio use only. Democratizing filmmaking on motion picture film is the only real solution.
  • 0

#19 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 12 October 2017 - 04:28 PM

One final point. Digital in some cases is really an old guy's format. It's for people who've seen it all and gotten tired of the game. I don't see it as the future. Now, that's an unusual way of seeing it I suppose, but that's how I do. Film is the future for cinema.


  • 1

#20 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1160 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 12 October 2017 - 04:29 PM

Film is real and digital is an electronic cheap trick.

 

Going out to a live Broadway show is real and film is a cheap trick.

 

You could really go all day with that. No medium is objectively greater than any other medium.


  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

CineLab

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Abel Cine

Opal

Visual Products

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio