Jump to content


Photo

Could Digital Kill Film?


  • Please log in to reply
417 replies to this topic

#41 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3715 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 October 2017 - 01:53 AM

But it's not film. And it will never look anywhere as good as the stuff from your Aaton.


Ohh yea, that's very true. However, cost to shoot is $0 dollars. I can shoot 100 movies and the cost to make them is... wait for it... $0 dollars.

I shot a feature-length documentary on the making of my last movie "Cowgirls Story". Here are some random clips shot with the pocket camera.

https://www.dropbox....12-120.mov?dl=0 (download if you wanna watch cuz it's a lot better then streaming it)

That for... wait for it... ZERO DOLLARS. Sure there was some "up front" costs associated, but once you own the equipment, it's pretty amazing what you can capture.
 

In the end, digital is just glorified VHS.


I'll say this much, you won't meet a more "film centric" person than me. At the same time, I have to be realistic. As a filmmaker, I have to always be out there shooting content to better my craft. If I was stuck to always shooting on film, I'd never get anything done because the cost is just too high.

I'm ok with digital if it's being seen on a laptop or television because 9 times out of 10, nobody can tell the difference.
  • 0

#42 aapo lettinen

aapo lettinen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1021 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 13 October 2017 - 04:20 AM

That for... wait for it... ZERO DOLLARS. Sure there was some "up front" costs associated, but once you own the equipment, it's pretty amazing what you can capture.

Not true. 

Updating digital equipment is pretty expensive because they have so limited lifespan, especially if you need to change the lens set at the same time.

storing and managing the data will also cost you something depending on how you shoot, what your workflow is and which formats you use.

 

Digital shooters almost always forget the hidden costs and always presume that they would shoot hours and hours of material with 1000:1 ratios or something which is impossible anyway because of the other larger costs involved . 

and there is a pretty huge difference if your camera body and possibly the lenses will need to be completely updated every two or three years and you will only get peanuts if trying to sell the 3 year old video equipment, VS a camera body which needs to be updated only every 20 or 30 years or so and lenses which can serve you even longer because the formats and mounts are more standardised.

 

I don't fully understand the Pocket Camera thing especially nowadays when fullhd originating has almost no commercial value and the Pocket concept/design is not that ideal for shooting very large amounts of material, so it is not that good for documentary stuff and is difficult to sell to customers if trying to do commercial work. for indie work it should be OK I guess if you aren't planning to get any revenue from the movie but otherwise the concept is just plain bad by my opinion and the image does not look visually that stunning either...

the only reason to buy one would be if you already own a huge lot of great quality S16 lenses which you can't sell so could as well shoot some indie stuff with them for "free" (not free of course)  ;)


  • 0

#43 Stephen Perera

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

Posted 13 October 2017 - 04:30 AM

this is exactly it for me David, I'm 51 years young...it's the emotional connection one has to what a film looks like.....who can forget the look of French Connection...The Godfather.....Apocalypse Now....Blade Runner......Alien......long list.....

 

I would also add that there is the emotional element of defining the look of cinema based on the movies you grew up with. Some people are resistant to higher frame rates, HDR, lack of grain, etc. because that has little to do with the look of movies they admired growing up.


Edited by Stephen Perera, 13 October 2017 - 04:32 AM.

  • 0

#44 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3715 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 October 2017 - 05:25 AM

Updating digital equipment is pretty expensive because they have so limited lifespan, especially if you need to change the lens set at the same time.


This is for sure the case prior to the world of digital and CMOS we live in today. I do think there is some "stability" in the world of digital cameras. I think 1080p is still the "standard" format and the least acceptable quality. I don't see that changing to the point of complete obsolescence in the next decade.

With cameras like the pocket, lenses aren't an issue, almost anything works. C mount, Canon/Nikon, M43, PL and even Arri B. So no issues on "lensing" and PL has been the industry standard for such a long time, I doubt it will go anywhere anytime soon.
 

storing and managing the data will also cost you something depending on how you shoot, what your workflow is and which formats you use.


Thank god 1080p and 2k ain't that big! I mean, you're right when it comes to real shows... but again, this is a zero budget conversation. So if you have a budget... then you've got something to talk about. However, with no budget... maybe you just delete the masters when you're done and save the final.
 

Digital shooters almost always forget the hidden costs and always presume that they would shoot hours and hours of material with 1000:1 ratios or something which is impossible anyway because of the other larger costs involved.


Not me, I shoot what I need, no more, no less. There is no excuse for sloppy shooting.
 

There is a pretty huge difference if your camera body and possibly the lenses will need to be completely updated every two or three years and you will only get peanuts if trying to sell the 3 year old video equipment, VS a camera body which needs to be updated only every 20 or 30 years or so and lenses which can serve you even longer because the formats and mounts are more standardised.


Ohh no doubt and that's the joy of owning film cameras. My cameras are all around 20 years old and sure, they've been maintained, but man they're for sure gonna run another 20 years OR MORE in my hands. I purchased my Blackmagic Pocket cameras in the fall of 2013, so that makes them 4 years old as of this year. They're both working great, I still make money with them all the time. I don't foresee them really getting out of date anytime soon. They are what they are and are no different then they were new. In 2013 4k was all the rave and in 2017, 4k is still all the rave but nobody streaming or watching TV cares, only a hand-full of idiots who know nothing about technology do and I tend to steer clear of them.
 

I don't fully understand the Pocket Camera thing especially nowadays when fullhd originating has almost no commercial value and the Pocket concept/design is not that ideal for shooting very large amounts of material.


Who says owning equipment has to be for "commercial" reasons. Super 16 has ZERO commercial value, yet it's so popular my cameras are constantly on rent. The pocket has been on more "professional" shoots than my film cameras.
 

the concept is just plain bad by my opinion and the image does not look visually that stunning either...


The concept is excellent, really smart/clever engineering. The idea of being incognito, is something I really like. The camera looks like a still camera, so you can literally take it anywhere and shoot anything. The camera works just like a real cinema camera too, only small. The post workflow is the best I've ever encountered on ANY camera. It's literally drag and drop native with FCP7, Premiere, Avid, FCPX an DaVinci, ZERO conversion necessary.

The camera has three problems... battery life, 30fps max and noisy audio pre-amps. Mind you, I've personally shot over 50 short-subject pieces with my pockets and those issues never stopped me or altered the quality of the finished product in a way the audience would be aware of. I still use the standard battery system, I still use the built-in audio system too.
 

the only reason to buy one would be if you already own a huge lot of great quality S16 lenses which you can't sell so could as well shoot some indie stuff with them for "free" (not free of course)  ;)


When I go and shoot film, the first thing I need to do is GET film. My credit card comes out, I buy film and I bring it home. Then when I'm done shooting, I need to pay between .30 and .40 per foot to get it processed and transfered so I can watch it. Then I gotta sync the audio manually since there is no ref track, which is annoying. So now after a week of waiting for the film to get processed and an expense of lets say $300 bux to shoot 11 minutes of S16, I've finally got it all in my edit bay ready to go.

I still need to backup those files by the way.

With digital, I turn on the camera and I'm shooting. The cost to shoot is zero. I didn't say anything about the cost of ownership, I'm literally saying the cost to use the equipment is zero. This means, I can go out and be creative all the time without my bank account draining. If I didn't have digital cameras, I would not be a filmmaker today, PERIOD. I grew up with ENG cameras, Hi-8, Betacam, DVCAM and eventually HDV. These are the formats of my teenage and early adulthood, not film... because it was always too expensive for personal projects.

I'm not saying that digital compares to film in any way, in fact I made a case earlier that nothing compares to projected film. Yet, I'd rather be out there, being creative all the time, then be focused on some idealogical mission to be a cinema pureist when I'm shooting a little doc about a kid who rides dirt bikes.

Ohh and I actually bought my S16 lenses after I bought my pocket cameras. I've done lots of A/B testing and ya know what, the Rokinon DS lenses I bought specifically for the pocket, look so similar to my S16 glass, I don't even bother bringing the s16 glass out anymore.

P.S. Everything does look better on film... but if you're telling a good story, does it really matter? Film just enhances what already exists.
  • 0

#45 David Mawson

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

Posted 13 October 2017 - 06:57 AM

Not true. 

Updating digital equipment is pretty expensive because they have so limited lifespan, especially if you need to change the lens set at the same time.

storing and managing the data will also cost you something depending on how you shoot, what your workflow is and which formats you use.

 

Digital shooters almost always forget the hidden costs and always presume that they would shoot hours and hours of material with 1000:1 ratios or something which is impossible anyway because of the other larger costs involved . 

and there is a pretty huge difference if your camera body and possibly the lenses will need to be completely updated every two or three years and you will only get peanuts if trying to sell the 3 year old video equipment, VS a camera body which needs to be updated only every 20 or 30 years or so and lenses which can serve you even longer because the formats and mounts are more standardised.

 

I don't fully understand the Pocket Camera thing especially nowadays when fullhd originating has almost no commercial value and the Pocket concept/design is not that ideal for shooting very large amounts of material, so it is not that good for documentary stuff and is difficult to sell to customers if trying to do commercial work. for indie work it should be OK I guess if you aren't planning to get any revenue from the movie but otherwise the concept is just plain bad by my opinion and the image does not look visually that stunning either...

the only reason to buy one would be if you already own a huge lot of great quality S16 lenses which you can't sell so could as well shoot some indie stuff with them for "free" (not free of course)  ;)

 

That's an army of straw men.

 

Practice quality digital doesn't have to be expensive - a GM1 or GH2 will work very well.

 

You rarely have to change lenses.

 

And in fact you don't have to upgrade - the GH2 achieved practice quality levels years ago, so why not keep it? 

 

I've never met anyone who plans to shoot at 1000 to 1 and don't believe you have either - and it's irrelevant to Tyler's point.

 

Why on earth would you want to store all your takes for the type of work Tyler is talking about? You shoot; you edit that day's footage that night; you delete the rest if storage space is an issue.

 

And the BMPC is indeed used on paying jobs - it was a B-cam for the Transformers and is still an A camera for indies like Bob And The Trees.

 

And yes, you can keep a film camera for 30 years. But during that time it will need maintaining and shooting a reasonable amount of practice material will cost, what, $100,000 for film and processing? All of which you would have to store physically, applying your logic. Buying a GH2 - or even a GH5 - every three to five years seems much cheaper. Buying a used GH2 and shooting until it falls apart will probably cost $250 for 5 years shooting. That's, what, 10 to 20 minutes of practice footage on film?


Edited by David Mawson, 13 October 2017 - 07:11 AM.

  • 0

#46 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19760 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 October 2017 - 08:29 AM

I'm just pointing out a personal flaw, I don't have any mechanical skills. It's not an advantage, it doesn't make me MORE creative but it doesn't really make me less creative either.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

But sometimes we conflate our passions with practical skills. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Good point and yea... I mean you know A LOT about the medium. Which is funny for someone who doesn't have "mechanical" skills because some of the stuff you've discussed here, is very technical and mechanical as well.

Would you say your understanding of things is more on the creative side as a consequence?


  • 0

#47 David Mawson

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

Posted 13 October 2017 - 09:03 AM

 

Buying a used GH2 and shooting until it falls apart will probably cost $250 for 5 years shooting. That's, what, 10 to 20 minutes of practice footage on film?

...As in per year.


  • 0

#48 aapo lettinen

aapo lettinen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1021 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 13 October 2017 - 10:07 AM

 

That's an army of straw men.

 

Practice quality digital doesn't have to be expensive - a GM1 or GH2 will work very well.

 

You rarely have to change lenses.

 

And in fact you don't have to upgrade - the GH2 achieved practice quality levels years ago, so why not keep it? 

 

I've never met anyone who plans to shoot at 1000 to 1 and don't believe you have either - and it's irrelevant to Tyler's point.

 

Why on earth would you want to store all your takes for the type of work Tyler is talking about? You shoot; you edit that day's footage that night; you delete the rest if storage space is an issue.

 

And the BMPC is indeed used on paying jobs - it was a B-cam for the Transformers and is still an A camera for indies like Bob And The Trees.

 

And yes, you can keep a film camera for 30 years. But during that time it will need maintaining and shooting a reasonable amount of practice material will cost, what, $100,000 for film and processing? All of which you would have to store physically, applying your logic. Buying a GH2 - or even a GH5 - every three to five years seems much cheaper. Buying a used GH2 and shooting until it falls apart will probably cost $250 for 5 years shooting. That's, what, 10 to 20 minutes of practice footage on film?

one needs to be pretty wealthy person to learn and practice cinematography only on film, especially if starting from zero  :blink:

I was talking about shooting for end product, not for shooting only tests and for operating experience. if one is not experienced enough to shoot something worthy with a camera then of course one needs to first buy a cheap entry level camera for basic tests and for gaining experience and then move on to more challenging scenarios and camera systems.

 

by my experience, a 4 or 5 year old low or mid range camera is worth nothing when doing even basic indie stuff here in Finland, nobody wants it because it is not up to todays image quality requirements and it just disturbs everybody to watch the final image :blink:

generally a low or mid level camera (like a dslr) does not even survive that 4 or 5 years without breaking up and when it happens two or 3 years after the purchase, it is probably not worth it to repair the camera anymore, cheaper to buy a similar used one instead for replacement or alternatively update to a newer camera model.

 

I personally have a 5Dmark2 from 2009 which has somehow magically somewhat survived to this day without service or repair parts but it is so old technology that I only use it for stills couple of times a year or when a friend wants to borrow a camera for a short film and I don't want to give something I would need by myself. Or when I need a expendable camera for a situation where there is a considerable risk of breaking the camera or losing it forever for whatever reason, for example when using it with a cheap Chinese underwater bag like this http://www.ebay.com/...EQAAOSwB09YJDvl :lol:

 

Yes of course you can use the old camera for SOME stuff (if it still works, quite often not) but it may not be a good idea and the image quality difference compared to newer gear may be very distracting even if the older gear is only used on few select shots (remember the crappy Gopro shots on The Hobbitt for example? )

 

-------

WHEN THIS BECAME ANOTHER FILM vs. DIGITAL THREAD BTW, there will never be end to these ones I'm afraid :D


  • 0

#49 Stephen Perera

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

Posted 13 October 2017 - 10:12 AM

...just to lighten the mood....this looks nicer than any digital camera at least no??? hahaha

Attached Images

  • aaton_perera.jpg

  • 2

#50 David Mawson

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

Posted 13 October 2017 - 10:42 AM

...just to lighten the mood....this looks nicer than any digital camera at least no??? hahaha

 

Say that often enough and Fuji will make a copy...

 

https://vignette.wik...=20110914150827

 

 

https://www.google.c...iw=1267&bih=821

 

..Being one of Fuji's camera designers must be an especially easy life.


Edited by David Mawson, 13 October 2017 - 10:43 AM.

  • 0

#51 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 635 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 13 October 2017 - 10:56 AM

...just to lighten the mood....this looks nicer than any digital camera at least no??? hahaha

LOVE your camera, Stephen.

 

Here's mine, hehe. And it still produces better images than even an Alexa.

 

zc1000-small.jpg


  • 1

#52 Stephen Perera

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

Posted 13 October 2017 - 10:59 AM

LOVE your camera, Stephen.

 

Here's mine, hehe. And it still produces better images than even an Alexa.

 

attachicon.gifzc1000-small.jpg

 

oh yeah thats a sexy looking piece Samuel hahaha this is going to turn into a 'camera porn' thread now I think they call it that no? haha


  • 0

#53 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3715 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 October 2017 - 01:59 PM

Pictures? Someone said post pictures? LOL :D

XTR_1.jpeg
  • 0

#54 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3715 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 October 2017 - 02:17 PM

And yes, you can keep a film camera for 30 years. But during that time it will need maintaining and shooting a reasonable amount of practice material will cost, what, $100,000 for film and processing? All of which you would have to store physically, applying your logic. Buying a GH2 - or even a GH5 - every three to five years seems much cheaper. Buying a used GH2 and shooting until it falls apart will probably cost $250 for 5 years shooting. That's, what, 10 to 20 minutes of practice footage on film?


Yep, Yep and... wait for it... Yep!

People forget that film cameras need serious maintenance too! I mean, every 10 years or the cameras need complete overhauls, which can come at great expense if you aren't up to speed on how to service them yourself.

Where I never go out and shoot random stuff, I'm always out "on a job" that will be seen by people, I have around 8TB worth of media for those projects. At 220Mbps (which is the camera's max bit rate), that's 80 hours worth of content on "personal" projects in the last 4 years! I don't even wanna do the math on shooting and processing that much material in 16mm. Besides, I could't capture what I captured on 16, it would be actually impossible because the pocket goes everywhere and shoots anything. I would have been kicked out of the places I've shot with the pocket if I had a "real" camera.

 

pocket_w_zeiss.jpg




 


  • 0

#55 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3715 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 October 2017 - 03:02 PM

I was talking about shooting for end product, not for shooting only tests and for operating experience.


But what quantifies an end product? I go out and shoot a cute video and get 50,000 hits on youtube in a few weeks. I mean my little pit shit videos have nearly a million clicks since I started shooting them 4 years ago. To me, that qualifies as a "final" product. Ohh and no, they won't be on Netflix or Hulu, but does it matter? Viewership IS viewership in my opinion.
 

by my experience, a 4 or 5 year old low or mid range camera is worth nothing when doing even basic indie stuff here in Finland.


Well, that's because until the Blackmagic Cinema Camera, EVERY OTHER CAMERA even remotely close to that price bracket had shitty codecs. The cinema and pocket shoot 10 bit 4:2:2 or 12 bit 4:4:4, using two first-class i-Frame codecs. Even today, nobody else has even attempted that quality. Even the GH5 "claims" to have 10 bit recording, but even that is heavily compressed LONG GOP MPEG, which dates back to the days of HDV. People don't get it, but CODEC IS EVERYTHING, if ya can't get a quality image without outboard gear, you're just wasting your money.

For web content 1080p, 10 bit 4:2:2 is perfectly acceptable and will ALWAYS be acceptable because at that point, content is king, not "how you shot it". I bet MOST web content is shot on cell phones today.

In terms of "indie" now you're probably talking "long-form narrative" and ya know what, I wouldn't use a pocket camera for serious long-form narrative work, it's the wrong camera. I do documentary, industrial, commercial/marketing and short subject narrative, but not long-form narrative. It's a very "specific" genere of filmmaking where camera size isn't as important.
  • 0

#56 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 13 October 2017 - 03:38 PM

this is exactly it for me David, I'm 51 years young...it's the emotional connection one has to what a film looks like.....who can forget the look of French Connection...The Godfather.....Apocalypse Now....Blade Runner......Alien......long list.....

 

 

 I believe emotional connection alyaws be there but people can always make objective judgment. I'm 23 didn't watch any movies from 70s 80s 90s on theater first movie i watch on theater was spiderman 2 (2004).

 

After i grow up and watch movies like godfather, taxi driver,midnight cowboy,easy rider,blade runner,scarface,pulp fiction,scream,Saving Private Ryan,boogie nights,fight clup,mulholland drive etc..  from bluray i amazed by how movies look old days and i wish them to see at theater  :(

 

 Sometimes i watch old movies (jaws,back to future,jumanji) with teenagers or kids on tv and each time they shocked movies look and said to me ''ıts look so beautiful'' ask me all time ''why this is look more better?  why too much different than nowadays movies?'


Edited by fatih yıkar, 13 October 2017 - 03:41 PM.

  • 2

#57 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 14 October 2017 - 12:51 AM

 I couldn't imagine not knowing the equipment I use and maybe even own, inside and out, to the point of even memorizing certain part numbers.
 

So, what's the biggest-budget production you've ever worked on?
As far as the DOP/camera operator is concerned, Arri, Aaton, Panavision, Moviecam and any other commonly-used brand pf cameras all work pretty much the same way; you get the exposure and framing correct, and basically push the "go" button when someone says "roll film"  and the "stop" button when they say "cut". However, the magazines are all quite different, and loading those with expensive new film and unloading the irreplaceable captured  footage, is best left to an expert. The clapper/loader may be not the most highly-paid person on the set, but if they screw up they can cause just as much damage as the highest-paid person.

Same with the focus puller and the people who push the camera dolly.
They hire people to do all those (what many people imagine to be) "trivial" jobs, so other people can get on with theirs.


  • 0

#58 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3715 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 October 2017 - 01:37 AM

So, what's the biggest-budget production you've ever worked on?


Don't actually know the answer to that. Some of the commercials I've done pickups and glamor shots on, were easily half mil shows. Mind you, we had loaders, AC's, focus pullers, the whole 9 yards. When ya got money, ya get those things. We shot with Arri III, 435's and 2C's quite a bit back then and usually I'd turn my head and there would be new film in the camera. I actually asked one of the loaders to teach me and they did... this was back when I was shooting 16mm on my personal projects. TO me the "mechanics" of it all is just as much fun as the creative aspects.
 

They hire people to do all those (what many people imagine to be) "trivial" jobs, so other people can get on with theirs.


Yep, that's very true. I mean, there should be no reason to load my own mags on my own projects, but yet I wind up doing it because I can't afford someone to do that work. I also can't afford for someone to mess up the focus, so no focus puller either. I generally have an assistant with me, someone I trust in many areas, both in handling the camera and lensing. However, I've learned over the years, the fewer people you have on the ground, the more money goes into what's on screen. I can't afford "good" people... I'd be hiring someone like myself to do the work, so why not let me do it? I will say that when it comes to lighting, I try to get someone to help, even if it's just hands that understand what a light looks like, it's better then nobody!

Ohh and generally on my own projects, we're scraping together short ends from 10 years ago to shoot with, so it's not like they're "funded" in any way. But hey, if it looks good on screen, then go for it!

I also do a lot of AC work these days, people hire me to "take care" of all the camera stuff from loading to handling lenses/prepping the camera. It's fun when there is a problem/challenge, but fortunately my cameras work flawlessly and when they don't I know how to fix in a second or two, which means I get bored quickly.
  • -1

#59 aapo lettinen

aapo lettinen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1021 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 14 October 2017 - 04:57 AM

LET'S SWITCH BACK TO CAMERA PORN, IT WAS MUCH MORE INTERESTING THAN COMPARING WHO HAS THE BIGGEST, EHM, SHOW ON THEIR RESUME  :lol:

 

 

Here's a Konvas 1KCP on Ronin, I will make a video tap for it soon which goes in the place of the viewfinder tube :lol:

I now have the C-arm extensions so that it tilts a little better than with standard setup

 

37429866390_35dc33885b_c.jpg


  • 0

#60 Pavan Deep

Pavan Deep
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • UK

Posted 14 October 2017 - 07:27 AM

I agree looking at cameras is far more interesting as for the debate, it used to be video might kill film and that went on for over 20 years, but film is still here. All artist needs as many tool available.

 

Pav


Edited by Pavan Deep, 14 October 2017 - 07:28 AM.

  • 1


Visual Products

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

CineLab

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Opal

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape