Digital Fanaticism OR Digital Fascism???

[Alex]

I just hope it isn't artificial grass! [img]confused.gif[/img]

[Alex]

Do you realize that practically every story I read on HD television implies that shows that are broadcast in HD were also shot in HD?

In most instances, the shows were actually shot in film and TRANSFERRED to HD, but this part of the equation seems to go unmentioned. This is another form of Digital Fascism.

[Greg Crawford]

Did anyone read the story on the miniature work on "Attack of the Cons"?

You don't have to read between the lines the extra effort they had to do to keep the project all digital. Depth of field issues, the miniature shooting required a lot more light. Not having high speed HD cameras also caused problems.

Making this film all digital points out George's obsession with making this film all digital.

In the same issue of American Cinematographer the editor took Robert Rodriguez to task for some comment he made about DP's not doing anything just guessing. I'm only paraphrasing hear, it's been a while since I read the article.
In a DV magazine, I read that the major networks and news gathering agencies want to pay news photographers about 1/10 of what they have been making. ...after all the new mini DV cameras cost 1/10 of a Beta SP camera! ...Anyone can shoot DV..right?

Have you notice that when referring to shooting, video people or the public at large always say ....tapeing...recording. This totally takes the talent and control out of the equation.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ September 18, 2002 06:37 PM: Message edited by: bossjock-dp ]</font>

[kator]

Ironically enough, Lucas has now given the go ahead on a special shortened, cropped version of Attack of the Clones for IMAX. I guess the man who bashes film still apparently doesn't mind blowing up his low-res digital HD production into 70mm 15 perf!

[calgodot]

Comparing the film vs. video "argument" to the historic Mac vs PC holy war is apt. Both discussions are a waste of fawking time.

I remember back in the 70s/80s when Super 8 was denigrated by many film people as a "toy format." If you were a serious filmmaker, then you shot 16mm or, better yet, 35mm. (If you shot on video back then, you were "experimental.")

Arguments like this are used by know-it-alls and other pundits to put others down. It's like the still photo snobs who think B&W is inherently holier than color. Whenever I'm around those people I hold my nose and look for the piles of manure.

DV doesn't look as good as film. So what? You can't make Super 8 look as good as 35mm. So what?

If you have time to argue this, then you have time to shoot. And which is better? Shooting film and/or video, or arguing about whether to shoot film or video?

(Time for me to go shoot a few rolls of both!)

[daveduck]

At last, rationality.

Back to creating now...

DD

[Alex]

missing the point. Digital marketeers are stooping to ridiculing films existence. Film has carried all video formats up to know. There is no need to ridicule film because it is more than a one step process.