He did state he would rather shoot it on film, as he prefers the life it breathes, but would not fight the switch if asked by his friend george to do so.

So much for standards...

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

because of thier friendship he will do that

---

Wow. I always thought real friends advised you against doing stupid things. Maybe the movie's credits will not list a director, huh?

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Q: Have you seen "Attack Of The Clones?" I was curious what you thought of the way it looks since it's the first big-budget film of this nature shot completely in a digital medium?

Spielberg: It looks just like film. I saw "Clones" two weeks ago up at George's. For the record, of all the "Star Wars" they've made, this is my second favorite, just behind "Empire." It was great. The action scenes looked like George had been inspired by James Cameron because they were as good as any of the action scenes in "T2," and I think George did his best directing with this one too.

Q: After seeing this, would you ever consider shooting a film digitally?

quote:

---

stop screwing around with videotape! Digital is just a buzzword! Shoot the movie in Panavision 35mm, or better yet Super Panavision 70mm!

---

Actually , the more top filmmakers like Spielberg get their hands on this equipment and get used to it, the better the final product will be. Can you imagine where we would be if filmmakers were to have begged to stop screwing with sound and leave films silent? Or stop screwing with film and halt development of CinemaScope, VistaVision, or 70mm? These are brand new tools. There IS a learning curve. Can MOVIE makers innovate by remaining stagnant? Would 70mm presentations even have MADE the huge return they did in the late 70's without Lucas' STAR WARS and Spielberg's CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND in 1977. 70mm prints up to this point were quickly going out of vogue. They mushroomed after this one-two punch, as well-documented in Michael Coate and William Kalley's thorough listing in Widescreen Review.

The truly innovative moviemakers LOVE to get their hands on new technologies. It provides a challenge for them. Film is not perfect either. It has its flaws. Only through decades have the go-arounds been discovered and refined to overcome these. Same with CD's. And it will be the same with digital moviemaking. If we don't challenge ourselves, we stagnate and become irrelevant.

quote:

---

Spielberg: I love the digital thing, and I would someday consider shooting in digital, but only if there were digital theaters. Digital-to-film is not as good as film-to-film, especially if you shoot a film on 35mm negative and present it to the theater in 35mm releasing stock. When you shoot a film all digitally and you project it digitally, it looks great. When you make a movie digitally and you can only get 70 theaters to play it that way and the other 3,000 or 4,000 screens will show it on film, it's better to have made your film on film. It doesn't look as good as film-to-film. I would be interested in someday making a digital movie when there are enough digital theaters to not have to go to film and it would be a digital-to-digital presentation throughout its first and secondary runs, but that's years from now.

---

So, let's see ...

quote:

---

... digital ... digital ... digital ... digital ... film ... film ... film ... film ... 35mm ... 35mm ... film ... digital ... digital ... digital ... film ... film ... film ... film ... film ... digital ... digital ... film ... digital ... digital

---

But video still isn't as good as film. Even with the supposed learning curve taken into account (one would think a half century of video technology development would amass some "widsom" to negate the need for a learning curve), the best HD video formats still do not offer image quality as good as film.

Digital IS certainly a new tool as far as filmmakers are concerned. Or are you suggesting the film industry has been shooting on tape the last 50 years? VideoTAPE is just one method to store digital bits. 35mm film could be used for that matter. Or stones, as you suggested earlier. And if you go back and read my post, you'll see Im talking about new technologies,, not digital, which IS relatively new compared to analog video. Analog video IS different than digital video and new shooting/lighting techniques, filters, etc, are used to compensate for the image differences.

I guess since digital sound systems (SRD, SDDS) are optically printed on 35mm film, we should probably, to remain consistant, drop the word digital to describe these soundtrack formats as well. After all, optical sound on film technology has been around over 70 years, and after all, they're not really digital, just optical.

-Claude

Even if, inwardly, he were thinking that it looked like a dead horse that had been drug down the road behind a tractor for several days.