The Digital BANDWAGON...

[Kev Owens]

More through necessity than choice in most cases I think. Cheap, easy and quick.

Digital as poor man's film though... I personally disagree.

[Alex]

The whole digital versus film thing reminds of a minority rights political action group that achieves equality (and then some), but chooses not to disband. The group doesn't know what to do with themselves, they certainly can't end their group not that it has achieved it's goal, so they keep on marching trying to create new controversies with the establishment even though they have been accepted, are now mainstream, and are themselves part of the establishment.

VILM Schools that ONLY teach Mini-DV are doing it because the VILM School would rather pocket that additional money needed to shoot SOME projects with film.

But the kicker is that for under a thousand dollars, you could buy a super-8 camera, shoot three projects, and cover your film stock, developing, and transfer to video costs. The Vilm schools recognize that if you never shoot film, that $1,000 bucks could go into their teaching pocket "educating" you about a software program that is replacing an existing software program, etc.

[Alex]

Digital BANDWAGON...

[deanl]

Hey there.

Anyone else get the feeling this Alex guy is realy proud of this "VILM" word he has come up with....

Despin out.

[redlum]

PROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPR OSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONS
PROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPR OSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONS
PROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONS.PROSCONSPROSCONSP ROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONS
PROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONSPR OSCONSPROSCONSPROSCONS.
*The fundamentals remain the same*

Cross-over pro: In trying to make dv look like film, you learn a lot about the latter.Have you read the cinelook manual? Interesting stuff and I believe there's a PDF on the internet.

[ July 04, 2003 02:51 PM: Message edited by: redlum ]

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Despin:
Hey there.

Anyone else get the feeling this Alex guy is realy proud of this "VILM" word he has come up with....

Despin out.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, I didn't come up with it, it's been around for a few years.
I think a guy named Eddie Barber came up with the term for using a process that makes video look like film.

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by redlum:
PROSCONSROSCONSPROSCONS.
*The fundamentals remain the same*

Cross-over pro: In trying to make dv look like film, you learn a lot about the latter. Have you read the cinelook manual? Interesting stuff and I believe there's a PDF on the internet.

[ July 04, 2003 02:51 PM: Message edited by: redlum ]</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

SOME fundamentals remain the same. In some instances video is superior. Video is also an audio format, so more onscreen time can be devoted to the crafts of acting and directing which can prove invaluable to everyone involved.

Film can provide more ways to work in tandem with the mood of the piece than mini-dv. Which is why I'm saying that BOTH formats complement each other. Whereas most new age (u happy Despin?) digital schools seem to imply film knowledge and usage is not necessary.

[SoulJacker]

Alex + Super-8 = Narcolepsy

[Alex]

As I have stated from the beginning, BOTH digital AND Film will enhance your maturation as a filmmaker.

One of the biggest problems most beginning filmmakers have is FINISHING their films, and being at peace that it is indeed a done project, and then being able to show their film without interrupting the screening by adlibbing excuses as to why the film isn't as good as it could have been.

If I were you, I wouldn't shoot a 30 plus minute project on film unless I had considered what format I wanted to shoot on when writing the project.

You can get Kodachrome 40 turned around in 40 hours by shipping overnight to Dwaynes in Parson's Kansas. You can get same day processing of negative stocks and Ektachrome stocks (plus shipping time).

For projects under 10 minutes, your argument doesn't hold, unless your project is heavily driven by dialogue, in which case you would have to use a select few super-8 cameras. (but they can be had quite inexpensively).

Music Videos, Commercials, Short Films can be enhanced by shooting in film, but I've never said shoot only film, rather, don't only shoot video.

[miker]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Music Videos, Commercials, Short Films can be enhanced by shooting in film, but I've never said shoot only film, rather, don't only shoot video. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

as a director this argument is utterly irrelevant, so long as you know what is possible with each of these formats. you do not need to shoot on either to appreciate the differences, you can just get opinions from respected industry professionals.

your argument sounds as though it is coming from a DoP or auteur, which is fair enough.

also, one reason i don't use film is because it _is_ too expensive at any guage. i know you don't have to have optical titles, but do you realise how much that can cost?

with digital you can manipulate your material (mostly) effortlessly and duplicate for consumption very cheaply.

BTW, DV resolution is 720 x 576 pixels and is not particularly suitable for projection.

for the resolution of other formats, take a look at this table:
http://www.cinesite.com/CineonTech/r.../ResChart.html