digital!? the way forward?

[Yankee Bastard]

of course digital is the future of filmmaking. The bean-counters want to make movies for as little as possible...allowing them to make more of a profit. Everything will be shot digital in a few years....it's cheaper and there's no degredation of quality...editors will just add a 'film effect' in the editing suite.

[Nigel]

Wake up Yankee--Film ain't going nowhere. If you want the best look film will always be the way to go. And DV does degrade--all video is lucky to last ten years on a shelf--whereas film can be seen in all of its glory 100 years later. If you want the best look with the least money shoot film and have it transfered to tape. Then again flatbeds are cheap. Video is only good for one thing--cheap porn!

[Yankee Bastard]

No Nigel....digital does not degrade (not nearly as fast a celluloid) Why else would all of the Hollywood studios be rushing to digitize all of their films and put them onto disc (CD, DVD or otherwise)? This is happening you know.

[Yankee Bastard]

and once digital film becomes more affrodable...forget about celluloid altogether....until it becomes 'retro' and 'trendy'.

[director666]

Even though I am the one who started this about me getting a digital camera from my ex ex girlfriend, I still think that Film rules. I have never shot with it but it's 'material' your film is there,on film, sitting infront of you waiting to be editid.

I think that digital takes that feeling away as your film only exists as a bit of binary code. I hope that film never dies and that we shoot on film for many decades to come as I sure as hell look forward to working with it.

Aprt from that fact that film looks so much cooler than digital, film has been around for years, digital is yet another 'alternative' to film. But Digital is a godsend to us amatuer film makers. Its cheap (kinda), easy to use, and more editor friendly! But if I could afford it then I would shoot on film.

anyone else think the same or am I just rambling?

------------------
" what did i tell you, what did I say to you?
I said buy the roadmap and leave...."

[FranMc]

Digital video offers people who normally could not afford to shoot high-quality amatuer 'films' the chance to do so with a visual and aural quality that has its own unique aesthetic attributes. Film is probably preferable in the large part, although it is stupidly expensive and far beyond what most amatuer filmmakers can afford. I can imagine a situation where someone may prefer to shoot on digital rather than film for aesthetic reasons, although considering most of us still love film, these situations are the minority.

[Ruthie]

There's really too much testosterone here. Anyone consider that you can make a movie in film, edit in digital, and convert back to film? You get the benefits of both.

[Nigel]

Look--Digital is affordable--yes. That means that I have to watch a bunch of crap from people that think they know what they are doing. Film prices those people out of the market which I think is a good thing. Ruthie--I have shot film and then done my cut on tape and had my neg conformed which is fine but my product was never released on tape. See, when you go from film to tape then back to film without printing off the neg then you get all sorts of funny artifacts. It just looks bad. Digital will never look as good as film in my opinion because it is to consistant--the pixels on a CCD are always the same. There is nothing random. Nature is random--the cones and rods in our eyes are random. CCDs are the same--thus every frame is the same. Every frame of film is unique--it can never be identical to the before or after it. I will maintain this until I can be proven otherwise. So far no one has been able to do that.

[eddie]

I agree. I know the cost of film is high, which prevents a lot of people trying, or 'breaking in'....and I (as well as the rest of you) am caught in that trap. But it does mean that what you make had better be worth it. You arent going to plough loads of cash into something unless it really mattered to you, which goes some way in keeping a films quality high(ish). When the market is saturated with DV and every tom dick and harry are knocking out movies, most will be crap. Sad but in some ways comforting. (in an arty farty shite kind of way).
and at the moment film is better than DV because of the reasons above. We are not machines. We react differently to polished perfection. Slight imperfections are a good thing. Why else is this forum full of posts asking about 'that scratchy film look' ????
My theory is that its because you all know that your film doesnt look remotley as good as anything you might buy. So in order to make it acceptable you need to rough it up a bit, then the production quality hides your mistakes....
"Its supposed to look like that"
I think thats a smart move.

[Yankee Bastard]

I wouldn't worry about the testosterone Ruthie. It's great to see people so passionate (I guess). But Nigel..how can you say that everything digital is to0 consistent and there is nothing random about it? Filmmakers are being very experimental and trying new things that haven't been done before. Nothing is more consistant than a Hollywood movie...they all basically look the same, have the same structure, storyline, etc. Granted, film may actually 'look' better than video....I'll give you that. But it's also exciting to see all of the new things people are doing these days. Yes, b/c it's cheaper...everybody is running around...calling themselves 'film'makers...there is a lot of crap. Video should be chosen for aesthetic reasons...rather than economic ones. Some movies that would look better on film...should be shot on film...otherwise they'll just look cheap. But, I believe there are some stories that look better on video. It has it's own unique aesthetic qualities. Filmmakers, or videomakers (whatever you want to call them) are discovering these qualities and using them to their advantage (such as Harmony Korine and Vinterberg). But back to the 'crap'....it's not like it'll make it's way into the theaters. It has it's place on the Web...and you can simply choose not to download them.

[This message has been edited by Yankee Bastard (edited October 20, 2000).]