digital!? the way forward?

If your using a Non-Linear editor therte are only 3 words--- NO GENERATION LOSS

------------------

What is most real for me are the illusions I create...

Thats actually irrelevant. Once you have a cut negative there is no generation loss.
Cutting a negative involves no generation loss.
Ive got a feeling though that this will never be answered (on this forum at least). Everyone has their pet love and hate.
Besides for budding young things Video is a fantastic way to hone skills.

The main point shouldn't be "which is better, Digital or Film", but should be "My missus is buying me a DV camera for Christmas, so Neeeerrrrr!!!"

http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
KEEP FOCUSED!
Little Rich.
http://go.to/littlerich
www.rmsgraffix.freeserve.co.uk
[email protected]

Yankee--What I said was that the pixels on a CCD are not random. That is to say that there is a set pattern to the way that they are placed when the chip is made. And that all the chips are made the same for that model camera. That means that an XL1 will look the same as all of the rest XL1s(all things being equal). Where as film has no set pattern to its grain structure. Film cameras are also slightly different even amognst models. My Aaton exposes and handles film differently than my friends Aaton--My camera has its own "look". I agree with you that video has its own look and it can be used in a way that possibly film can not. However, in my opinion--that look is something that I don't want at this point.

Now, I will not disagree about your Hollywood statement. I am not trying to argue for the Hollywood method. I like the "outside". I like working for a director that wants to take a risk and role the dice on something that he or she knows could be a complete "failure". I enjoy the end of the day with the director and my AC drinking a beer and talking about nothing--knowing that what we did was what we wanted to do. It boils down to we are debating an issue that is a matter of opinion. Thus, there is no way that we can change each others POV. Good Luck to all of you.

well, I know I started this whole debate, but i do feel that some of you think that is we make movies with digital then we are not good enough and we are not fully 'into it' as one of you said. Now i think thats totally unfair as I cant afford film, i wish I could shoot on film but i just cant afford it http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/frown.gif now I am shooting with digitsl cause thats the good as wuality i can get, but at the end of the day its what the film is like eg the script, the lighting, dialogue, locations etc etc Now format of the picture doesnt come up high in that list... so any film can be as good as anyone else regardless of what format its shot on

I have to agree with the notion that film is a lot better looking than digital and that it carries some realism with it that digital doens't. But also our exposure to the medium is based on the fact that we are biased. we grew up with film, we expect everything to look like it. I have shot on both film and digital, and although I prefer the film look digital allows me to experiment, challenge and learn about making productions. I've seen Chuck and buck, Timecode, and Bamboozled which were all shot using digital film and they look pretty good and it is unique in its own way.

wow...who would have thought that all this would have been written for such a simple question?

Personally I think film will always be the purists choice, how can a film be called a film if your not using film? very odd....