|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Filming in Digital?
|
Justin McLeod
Film Handler
Posts: 93
From: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 08-06-2002 04:23 PM
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. Brad, since DIGITAL is a different medium than FILM is, how about setting up a digital chat forum?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1102d.jpg)
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 08-06-2002 09:39 PM
photography 1. the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays. 2. cinematography.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
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/30f.jpg)
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-06-2002 09:52 PM
I've been learning quite a bit about Sony's 24P "HDCAM" format (what Lucas used for Star Wars) over the past few days. It has a "different" look to it when projected with a DLP video projector. It doesn't look like film and doesn't look like video, either. It's not up to film quality in terms of resolution and has some major weaknesses in capturing shadow detail. I've also seen quite a few compression artifacts in 24P-originated material, though it's not as bad as DV or Digi-Beta. Basically, the look comes closest to being like really, really good video, but it's still not at all like NTSC television (much better, actually).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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-07-2002 07:57 AM
--------- But commercial films for theatrical release need to use film as the origination medium, especially when presenting the best image quality possible to the audience is a priority. ---------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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|