-
I am just amazed by the anti-film drivel by many who have embraced digital. I'm sick of hearing that film imposes economic discrimination on the world.
Huh?
What fails to be remembered is that 20 -25 years ago, it was FILM transferred to video that made video palpable to the upper echelon television industry. 3/4 video decks selling for 20 grand or more, made palpable because film transferred to video looked terrific.
Video on it's own would have never grown as quickly as it did if film hadn't been transferred to video. The very industry that allowed video to thrive was film. But now, 20 years later, as digital video gets a foothold, The digiteers are besides themselves with giddy anticipation for the end of film.
It's this type of "that was then, this is now" atittude that dooms us all. "What was then" is exactly why "now is now". No need to kill what came before, just embrace the new, and respect the established.
Film was invented before video, and industrialized culture is the better for it.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 06, 2002 04:27 AM: Message edited by: Super8 Filmmaking in the DigitalAge ]</font>
-
Did you know that some call film "racist", that film's chemical make-up favors races other than blacks! Every few months, I hear another reason why film is evil.
All I really want to hear is why some new, emerging digital technology is acceptable, rather than why film is somehow deploreable. Why does film have to be bad for digital to be good? Yet that is how Digital is marketed.
One thing I've noticed, there are strange bedfellows in the digital video world. Bean counters, the accountants and such, love digital, and they love it for all the wrong reasons.
Bean Counter love digital because digital signals can be split in 1/2, in 1/4's and so on, each time it is split, the potential for more revenue grows because there are more revenue streams. Stream this, stream that. The quality may suffer, but who will really notice? The bean counter can't tell the difference, why should anyone else. Gasp.
The fact that film has to be developed, and is developed after the day is done, makes bean counters nervous. Digital is embraced because you instantly know what you have. Film is thought of as horse and buggy technology, because it isn't instant.
Welcome to Instant art.
If it isn't instant, it isn't viable. That is the underlying message in today's world. The funny thing is, I thought the creative visual medium was a collaborative art form, even as a business, rather than a series of one's and zeros controlled by bean counters who insist on instancy.
Don't buy into the idea that digital HAS to replace film. It merely needs to have its own space to grow.
Embrace Digital video all you want, just don't let your pocket of opportunity be picked when it comes to film simply because today you don't shoot it.
-
Hey there.
I get the feeling this guy has invested money in what now has become a dying format.
Its like hearing the death cries of a dying animal.
Despin out.
-
Lets review "dying formats".
3/4 inch video, 1 inch video, 2 inch video, 8mm VIDEO, HI-8 VIDEO, practically any video device from the 80's and 90's. Meanwhile, film cameras from the 70's, 80's and 90's still march on.
Lets review soon to die formats, Mini-DV because of it's inferior 4.1.1 sampling rate, soon it will be the "passe" video format, replaced by either a smaller, more economical format, or by a 4.2.2 sampling format.
Meanwhile, film can be retransferred to any new video format, at an improved quality because of the improvement in the new video format.
I make my living off of video. The film issue does not directly affect my pocketbook. However, I do see it as the true creative tool that it is.
You ignored all of my points to attempt a witty off-topic reply.
-
Hey there.
My point is you seem to have some kind of vested interest in film. I dont, Im not sure about the other guys on here. I have NOTHING against film. All my fave movies have been shot on it. All my fave directors use it (though a few are changing)
You act like there is some conspiracy put together by us to bash film as much as possible. There is NOT. Its just not a viable option for 90% of us.
Digital/Video/whatever is a viable option. Its cheep and very user friendly. I dont care if in 5 years time mini dv is dead. (i guess I would if I owned a mini dv shop, but I dont) I will be using whatever format is the best option for me at that moment.
If it gets to the time when I have a decent budget to make my movies I will shoot whatever is the industry standard. Be that film or dogital.
The fact is it will be the people shooting good movies (whatever the format) that movie the industry along. Not the Film/Digital brigade shouting statistics at each other, "proving how "their" format is better.
Despin out.
-
>You act like there is some conspiracy put
>together by us to bash film as much as possible.
>There is NOT. Its just not a viable option for
>90% of us.
Are you sure about that?
How much did you spend on your Editing PC, and Video Camera, tapes etc?
I spent 15 quid on a super8 camera, a fiver on a splicer and 30 quid on a projectors.
Thats 50 pounds.
The difference I spend on film stock, sure they are 10 pounds each, but I can buy an awful lot until I reach the cost of a computer.
-
Some of my posts could be construed as anti-film. They aren't anti-film. They aren't even really pro-DV. They are simply pro-motion picture. I love the idea we can make movies. I shoot on MiniDV because it works best FOR ME. I don't own a 16mm camera. But I could get one for a price. A price equal to the amount of money I don't have. But that isn't discrimination. We all don't have some God sent right to shoot on film. I like film. It looks great, and can capture beauty quicker than the video cam. BUT, I still can't afford it. I am learning the ropes at the moment, and I would prefer it to cost me 10 bucks an hour instead. If one day, I get a few dozen grand I can afford to lose I will shoot 16mm. But until then, I am going to make my video feature with a $500 budget and see where it gets me. If it goes somewhere, great. If not, then I've learned something and can still afford to pay rent.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 06, 2002 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Yammeryammeryammer ]</font>
-
I am actually getting into Super-8 because I am a believer in the whole 'you've gotta walk before you run' idea. But a lot of us need, or were going to buy a computer anyway. I just made sure mine was good for video, and I use the software it came with. Cameras I tend to borrow. And with that, the tape is costing a few bucks each. That is cheaper than Super-8. And with the amount of footage you want to shoot on productions. I can shoot at a 25:1 ratio of tape vs product, but to do that on film would be stupid and expensive. I think, eventually HD video will be come economical, and film will become replaced as the main way of doing things. But it still isn't going to die.
-
everyone lighten up and don't get sidetracked by little pieces of history repeating.
film looks great, always did, always will so long as the negative is well looked after.
but now digital can look great, and the tech behind it will always get better and cheaper throughout time.
my benchmark in such matters is always audio:
who doesn't edit audio on a computer nowadays?
who stores analogue audio nowadays?
tape hasn't gone away, but analogue pretty much has.
and on the economics: if hollywood can save money, it will. if an advertising agency can save money, they will -- in fact many already use DV, but whoever noticed?
film will be around in cinemas for yonks, mainly because of the current expense of switching to digital (and heaven only know, lucas' plans for beaming movies down by satellite). but as we all know, technology's current trend is to keep getting cheaper.
huge flatscreens (2" thick)can now be had in the high street for ?3000. a couple of years ago they were ?10,000.
alluding to such crazy attitudes that I may, for example, be anti-film is ridiculous, discourteous and unprofessional. some of us are, however, luddites with huge collections of vinyl, betamax and 5.25" floppies, it would seem ;-)
(stoke, stoke, heh heh heh)
-
A clarification is in order. I wasn't pointing a finger at anyone person or this forum. If you read the post again you will see that.
I am simply saying that the "spin" used by those pioneering digital advancements is that film is somehow the enemy, when in fact film has been the biggest friend to video, and continues to be.
It just shows a lack of class for digital marketing groups to somehow act like film is keeping everyone down. I could show parallels in other aspects of life, but I wont.
As for the audio comment, HI-FI VHS audio, BetaCam SP linear Dolby audio, are in fact excellent audio formats that I continue to use to this day.
Analog origination, digital destination.
