It's economics (video is cheaper than film) combined with the marketing mantra, anything digital is better than anything analog. It's tough to fight. It's all part of an evil plan to get us to lower our standards for a few bucks.
Scott
How come the voice of 26,000 thousand purchasers of the Panasonic DVX-100 carry more weight than professionals who have been in the business for 20 years or more?
The Reason I ask is because I found that when using the "P" mode, or the "PA" mode, that the camera noticeably strobes in the panning mode.
I just found out from someone else that light sources can flicker when they are framed in the shot with the Panasonic Camera.
Meanwhile, I was stunned at how beautiful Plus-X looks when digitally projected at the Egpytian Theatre from BetaCam SP. No newbies are raving about this. Nobody is excited that the newest projection technology and a Good looking Plus X Super-8 film provide WAY more quality than a DVX-100.
Kodak needs to grow some balls and grow them quickly.
It's economics (video is cheaper than film) combined with the marketing mantra, anything digital is better than anything analog. It's tough to fight. It's all part of an evil plan to get us to lower our standards for a few bucks.
Scott
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">It's not their voice that carries more weight. It's their money. Quality is never going to be an issue in the film vs digital debate so what vets in the business think really doesn't matter. The paying public sets the quality standards across the board, not us.Originally posted by Alex:
How come the voice of 26,000 thousand purchasers of the Panasonic DVX-100 carry more weight than professionals who have been in the business for 20 years or more?
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">As does most any film of the same subject telecined to video.Originally posted by Alex:
The Reason I ask is because I found that when using the "P" mode, or the "PA" mode, that the camera noticeably strobes in the panning mode.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">It can also happen with many light sources when shooting film. Why are you surprised? If the digital camera is emulating the shutter rate of film then the same problems can exist.Originally posted by Alex:
I just found out from someone else that light sources can flicker when they are framed in the shot with the Panasonic Camera.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">They do now each time they buy a $3000 digital 24P camera or buy a ticket to another Star Wars digi-movie. Success leads to repetition and common usage. Common usage leads to common acceptance by the latest viewing audience that never knew of the wonders of Cinerama, Vistavision, etc.Originally posted by Alex:
The newbies did not always dictate which way the companies invested in new product
Low fidelity audiences set low fidelity standards and Hollywood is basically lazy.
Roger
I think I disagree with all of that Roger. The newbies did not always dictate which way the companies invested in new product, Experienced film folk who have a good result in digital ARE being wooed by the digiteers, and the strobing issue has less to do with the lighting ballistics and more to do with some over technical issue that Digital has not conquered yet.
The $3,000 dollar digital camera is definitely dictating corporate policy.
Too bad in my opinion.
Is that really a vote, or simply a celebration and desire for more choices?
It seems that everytime a new thing comes along we have to hear how the use of the new thing means the demise of the current thing.
I don't think Lucas proved anything with his Star Wars movie. The real test with digital will be "simpler" digital movies that don't require blue screen special effects for practically every shot, that are box office successes, and that cost considerably less to make than if they were shot on film.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks