My recently acquired fuji digital camera alows me to take 20 second clips at 320 x 240 at 10 fps. Now I know this is a long way from commercial quality, unless of course it shows martians landing.
[img]cool.gif[/img] However, on this camera the lack of audio, and the 20 second per clip restriction is similar to using a clockwork 8mm/9.5mm/16mm/35mm cine camera. It is proving useful in a number of ways. Examples:
-taking sample clips before using the camera.
-taking clips of possible subjects to come back to with the cine camera.
-source material to practise adding sound tracks to.
No doubt they will soon deliver full stereo at 1600 X 1200 at 50 fps for 1 hour. But until then, I am having fun. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]
Kev, good for you as in welcome to the "real world"?
The real world is learning how to run and use a film camera. No different than knowing how to add and multiply without a calculator.
Then the digital world become a real big bonus.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 11, 2003 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
Good for you. [img]graemlins/camera.gif[/img]
I think he meant 'good for you, film making with what is available'
away the lads - wor Jackie was the greatest
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Would that be an abacus, slide rule, or a scientific calculator? Point being, when are you going untie the knot in your panties about Digital Video? Everyone knows film is better in most/ideal circumstances, you should just assume it. Just like you assumed a tenuous link between 'good for you' and 'the real world'?Originally posted by Alex:
The real world is learning how to run and use a film camera. No different than knowing how to add and multiply without a calculator.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 12, 2003 12:24 PM: Message edited by: redlum ]</font>
It is always nice to think that the technology ones knows, and loves, will always be better than a future upstart.
Hence all the rail fans who reckon steam is better than diesel, the diesel fans who reckon they are better than electrics, and the electric fans who are worrying what will upset them.
It was in a railway magazine who has been running an article on digital photography. The author, a long time proffesional, commented that a digital print was of far better quality than a traditional photographic print.
Without worrying about nuances I reckon digital movie technology is/or soon will be far superior than film.
Personally I think cameras with electric motors are inferior to those with clockwork motors. [img]wink.gif[/img]
Well, perhaps I should clarify what I meant-
I think that even when not making a film it's good to experiment with whatever camera you have, even stills cameras. It allows you to learn about framing, composition, light and textures.
Alex, although I appreciate your complete and total dedication to film, (especially super-8) I personally don't think the 'real world' is learning how to run and use a film camera (unless your aim is to become a film cameraman!) In film, that's a technicians job, the filmmaker only needs to know what it's capable of.
Digital has opened many doors, but it is NOT a replacement for film (not yet anyway). I do think though that if I were about to make a high budget movie, I'd consider the script and decide whether it suited the digital or film formats.
To me, the DIGITAL VS. FILM debate is pointless, as I think that there is simply no need for one to replace the other.... (yet. [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img] )
[P.S. Almost- it's Ha'way the Lads [img]wink.gif[/img] ]
[img]redface.gif[/img]
Its a long, very long, time since my Grandad took me to St. James Park.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Would that be an abacus, slide rule, or a scientific calculator? Point being, when are you going untie the knot in your panties about Digital Video? Everyone knows film is better in most/ideal circumstances, you should just assume it. Just like you assumed a tenuous link between 'good for you' and 'the real world'?Originally posted by redlum:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alex:
The real world is learning how to run and use a film camera. No different than knowing how to add and multiply without a calculator.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Digital panties?
Everyone DOES NOT know that film is better than video. (and frankly, I don't agree that film is always better anyway) I can't even convince a longtime friend/associate publisher to do an article for a video magazine about not throwing away home movie film after it's been transferred to DVD because new emerging technologies will come along that will be better.
He seems to believe that once 8mm film is transferred to DVD, it is ok to throw the film away. Your point about everyone knowing film is better than video is not the issue I was bringing up in the first place, and the general populace no longer believes that anyway.
Be it a 35mm single lens reflex camera, or a Super-8 camera, both are excellent ways to learn basic shooting principles. Digital Photography is an emerging technology which relies heavily on automation. Connoisseurs of film cameras understand which features have been automated in the digital world because they can compare their own experiences shooting film, while those who only have shot digital don't know the difference.
"Good for you" can also be applied to one who already uses a digital camera and realizes they should, at least once or twice, pick up a film camera and make pictures with that.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 13, 2003 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks