I dont know if this is the right place for this topic but if it isnt,please feel free to close this thread.

If anybody here had the chance to film anything in digtial with the present digtial filming technonogy,would you do it? I read on cinescape.com that speilberg would shoot Indy 4 in digital given his position against it.

Would anybody here wait till digital technology advances enough?

It really looks like digital filming and digital projection are becoming more of an accepted medium as time goes by.

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

call "shooting in digital" just plain videotaping. It is videography, not cinematography.

---

 |  IP: Logged

cinematography
the art or technique of motion-picture photography

electronic cinematography
cinematography using an electronic video camera to create a videotape [or presumably other digital recording media] that can be viewed on a monitor, edited electronically, and transferred to film for motion-picture projectors

I'd choose film over HDCAM in a second for a feature production, but I can see where high-quality video would be useful for many non-feature applications. The camera itself is very lightweight (weighs less than a 16mm Arriflex) and each tape runs for about 50 minutes. There are four audio tracks on the tape and, of course, sound can be recorded double-system as with film.

There are some other limitations as well: HDCAM doesn't support variable frame rates, timelapse, or several other common film techniques. The picture is limited to a native aspect ratio of 1.77 (which the video people call "16x9"); this can be cropped, of course, to create other formats, but then you lose resolution.

I should add here that even Sony doesn't consider HDCAM to be a replacement for film just yet. They do seem to be serious about fixing the current limitations, and I think that we can look forward to some competition for improved image quality among Sony, other electronics manufacturers, and Kodak and other film manufacturers. Hopefully the end result will be good for all sides.

And to get back to terms, any electronic capture of a moving image is video. Doesn't matter if the bits are recorded on tape, disc or even etched into stone tablets. It is still video.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what 'system' is used to store video ..... it's still shooting video

---

 |  IP: Logged

But that's not the priority, and I don't know as it ever has been. The priority, as any filmmaker will tell you, is to get the film made by any means possible, get it into theaters, and get it seen. With that in mind, let me toss some movie titles out to you:

Woodstock, The Brothers McMullen, She's Gotta Have It, Return of the Secaucus Seven, Ulee's Gold, Don't Look Back, Lianna, El Mariachi, Go Fish, Metropolitan, Ruby in Paradise, Leaving Las Vegas, Slacker, Wild Man Blues and on and on.

All these films were 16mm to 35mm blowups, and they are all worthy and important films. And while some look pretty good, the lot of them don't come anywhere near full 35mm resoultion, and many are very dense and grainy (Woodstock was partialy shot on reversal film, fer chrisakes, and it's considered one of the most importaint cinematic documents ever made).

The point is that there is more to a film than what it was. . er. . filmed on. Video cameras present real advantages and economies to film-makers who are on marginal budgets. If the image quality is not up to 35mm resolution, then so be it, as long as the project gets made. (I spoke in another thread of Lovely and Amazing, which was only made because the director agreed to a video-shoot budget. It's an excellent movie with an important message about women and self-image, and it would be a shame if this film didn't exist at all because it's a little soft resolution-wise and lacking in shadow detail). It dosn't matter if the movie was made on 65mm Super Duper Beyond Ultra Extreme Panavision 3000, or in Fisher-Price PXLVision. The choice of orgination medium is not importaint, and film stock is not required to make a movie entertaining, or moving. And being entertaining or moving is all that is required.

Only film is film. But that's not to say that video shoudn't be a movie, if there is a story to be told.

There's More to the Story
Cinematographers Test
Augenfalle
Glenn Kennel interview
Tom Wallis interview
Eros

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

Wow. Isn't this then a potentially very dangerous and damaging trend? Now that video cameras can produce a vaguely acceptable result (to many at least), it seems that their very existence may affect the production process in unwholesome ways with producers always wanting to minimize their costs. Is this the death knell for small independent film I wonder? How do you persuade Mr DVD to come to your cinema when the source materials for the movies you're running are no better than DVD quality? Doesn't cinema risk becoming a fringe activity in this scenario?