or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › The inevitable death of film in the wake of the digital revolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The inevitable death of film in the wake of the digital revolution - Page 2

post #31 of 94
Thread Starter 
Quote:


But it also enables less skilled people to make much less impressive efforts on a shoestring budget.

While that certainly has merit, the flip-side is that now filmmaking talent from all around the world has a more viable opportunity to have their abilities developed and appreciated. Not to mention that their film can be seen by millions for free. There are so many stories from the last 5 years of talent that has been discovered due to their ability to make the film they wanted to make, with the affordable tools (like a Canon DSLR) available to them, and then sharing it online.

I might sound like a broken record, but have you guys ever browsed Vimeo? Some of the most evocative, engaging, interesting, and satisfying viewing experiences are hosted on that site. I could list about 20 films right off the top of my head. And the majority of them were made with equipment totaling less than $5000! This would've been impossible 5 years ago. These experiences wouldn't exist without the digital revolution. Even sadder, these filmmakers would more than likely never have been discovered or had their talents cultivated to begin with.
post #32 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

Most theater film projectors have a 3 blade shutter which means the frame is illuminated 3 times.

The reason for that is to reduce the perception of flicker. It doesn't fill in the missing movement between frames the way true 60fps does.
post #33 of 94
OK, so the net of the digital change is:

1) Hollywood is making fewer classic big budget films, and increasingly churning out poor sequels often without the original moviemaker. Then there are the film versions of video games and graphic novels, which seem to actually target a limited audience - leastways they for sure have a limited appeal for adults.

2) The technicians formerly employed by Hollywood studios are churning out loads of dreck, and CGI remakes of classic SF and Horror films. Loads of dreck.

3) All over the world, "film students" and other wannabees are making shoestring productions, and a tiny sliver of these can be seen on the web, and the rest are dreck.

IMHO, the net loser is the movie viewer. I know the economy is bad and that is part of it. At least places like AVS exist to sort out the dreck.
post #34 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

... have you guys ever browsed Vimeo? Some of the most evocative, engaging, interesting, and satisfying viewing experiences are hosted on that site. I could list about 20 films right off the top of my head. ...

You should add them to the thread for great online-shorts.
post #35 of 94
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac The Knife View Post


You should add them to the thread for great online-shorts.

People actually pay attention to that
thread? Lol, I was under the impression that nobody cares about it.

If only Vimeo was embeddable here in AVS like Youtube is.
post #36 of 94
I just watched Set Up with Brice Willis and 50 Cents. I cannot find out on the Web what camera they used, but it must be a Red One digital camera. I can now spot the Red One with a great deal of accuracy. Waxy, dull, colors are off, the sense that you are watching dancing spots rather than a whole image.

Fortunately, Sony is coming out with a new digital camera that may resolve most quality issues related to digital cinema. The Sony F65 CineAlta camera will be valuable for $65K in January. More than the Red One, but I bet the colors and clarity will be a whole lot better.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/07/s...paltry-65-000/
post #37 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

YES I agree that digital technology is a valuable advance in the field of moviemaking which enables skilled people to produce a movie with less time and money. But it also enables less skilled people to make much less impressive efforts on a shoestring budget.

Add the fact that the end of film leaves many people in Hollywood unemployed - people who worked niche jobs for decades, and were actually technicians with specific limited skills. Now with video games and cable channels, they have distribution channels for less impressive end product. I see fewer and fewer big Hollywood productions in the classic manner, and loads of less impressive dreck. For the movie consumer, this is not so impressive a change. I seldom felt like I wanted two hours of my life back under the old Hollywood system, now that feeling is unfortunately very common.

Technology will lower movie-making competency?

Digital is a tool.
Whether a tool is used skillfully, or not, is entirely within the control of its wielder.
I don't see how a tool can be the impetus for cinematic crap.....
post #38 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Technology will lower movie-making competency?

Digital is a tool.
Whether a tool is used skillfully, or not, is entirely within the control of its wielder.
I don't see how a tool can be the impetus for cinematic crap.....

You never heard of the saying . . .

"a poor workman blames his tools."
post #39 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You never heard of the saying . . .

"a poor workman blames his tools."

I guess I have now...
post #40 of 94
Here's a film made with the very low end Canon T2i that I am looking forward to seeing:
http://www.whiteoutthemovie.co.uk/

According to their Facebook page they got a distribution deal but hinting "for viewing" meaning streaming. Hopefully it is Vudu or NF and not just LoveFilm which is European only.
post #41 of 94
I agree, digital is a tool. However, cheap digital technology is an enabler of both lots of dreck and a slender supply of good "Indie Films" ( it seems we need a new term for those). I don't mind digital distribution and projection - they are bit perfect and can often be identical in sound and image to a premier Hollywood theater, if reasonable care is taken and a THX-certified theater is in use.

What I object to is cheap digital productions - often made by people who understand only a limited part of the whole process. For example, "shakeycam" video supplemented with bad CGI is more than 50% of the SciFi channel productions. Even worse is the bad writing and editing.

Yeah, I get it - you had a job in the world of film as a technician, and it's now gone - but that does not mean that you and four buddies can make an entire movie. At least, it does not typically mean that.

I swear, the only part of Hollywood that appears to be really prosperous is whomever it is that can turn two hours of total dreck video into a 30-second trailer that actually looks interesting. They appear to be doing a thriving business.
post #42 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I agree, digital is a tool. However, cheap digital technology is an enabler of both lots of dreck and a slender supply of good "Indie Films" ( it seems we need a new term for those).

Don't blame the digital equipment makers, blame the film distributors. They're supposed to be the gatekeepers between the audience and the filmmakers, sending out what we think we want to watch. They're the ones that see the films make it to DVD and to the theaters, regardless to whether Terrence Malick made it or Joe Schmoe with a camcorder and a few friends. Even the most tenacious of hack filmmakers can't get his film into a wide release or into every RedBox without some sort of distribution deal.

Unless you're just watching films on the web. Then you only have yourself to blame.
post #43 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

What I object to is cheap digital productions - often made by people who understand only a limited part of the whole process. For example, "shakeycam" video supplemented with bad CGI is more than 50% of the SciFi channel productions. Even worse is the bad writing and editing.

Which really has nothing to do with the use of digital cameras versus film cameras

Quote:


Yeah, I get it - you had a job in the world of film as a technician, and it's now gone - but that does not mean that you and four buddies can make an entire movie. At least, it does not typically mean that.

They make on the average approx 700 films per year. How many are truly oustanding, noteworthy, etc

Quote:


I swear, the only part of Hollywood that appears to be really prosperous is whomever it is that can turn two hours of total dreck video into a 30-second trailer that actually looks interesting. They appear to be doing a thriving business.

Which again has nothing to do with digital versus film. What? You don't think they make dreck using film?
post #44 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

YES I agree that digital technology is a valuable advance in the field of moviemaking which enables skilled people to produce a movie with less time and money.

That is a maybe, depends. It is less expensive. It saves time in acquiring the media, but depending on work flow sometimes it more time consuming because people feel additional takes may be needed and are generally less selective while shooting. It is often over compensated in digital with lots more footage to edit and wad though, creating even more indecisiveness in the cut.
post #45 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

For example, "shakeycam" video supplemented with bad CGI is more than 50% of the SciFi channel productions. Even worse is the bad writing and editing.

Funny you mentioned that.

I just watched MONGOLIAN DEATH WORM on DVD and it was shaky as hell. I do not know what kind of camera they used, whatever it was it was OK. The problem is they didn't have the budget for a $50 tripod.

The other funny thing was that it was obviously filmed in North America, possibly in Texas, the central valley of California, or even parts of Canada. The actors were a mix of Los Angeles Chinese and some people who looked like Eskimos. If you have no budget, the movie will likely be a joke. I was looking forward to actually seeing Mongolia.
post #46 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by inky blacks View Post

Funny you mentioned that.

I just watched MONGOLIAN DEATH WORM on DVD and it was shaky as hell. I do not know what kind of camera they used, whatever it was it was OK. The problem is they didn't have the budget for a $50 tripod.

The other funny thing was that it was obviously filmed in North America, possibly in Texas, the central valley of California, or even parts of Canada. The actors were a mix of Los Angeles Chinese and some people who looked like Eskimos. If you have no budget, the movie will likely be a joke. I was looking forward to actually seeing Mongolia.

That movie according to IMDb was shot on 35mm film:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504443/technical
post #47 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

That movie according to IMDb was shot on 35mm film:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504443/technical

I am not surprised at all. I could tell it was not a Red One because the colors were OK. The Panavision Genesis digital camera is good and looks like film. I think digital is the future, but some digital cameras are still not as good as film by a long shot.
post #48 of 94
Thread Starter 
I call BS on you being able to tell it's a Red One due to "bad colors", especially considering it records in a practically lossless RAW format. Even if you can however, it's irrelevant considering the Red MX and the new Red Epic are significantly improved replacements for that 5 year old camera.
post #49 of 94
A lot of techs thought that analog HDTV was better too even though it took a 14 mhz channel.
post #50 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Even if you can however, it's irrelevant considering the Red MX and the new Red Epic are significantly improved replacements for that 5 year old camera.

It is not irrelevant for the hundreds or thousands of projects shot on the Red One. I never commented on the Red Epic because I and most people have never seen a film shot on the Red Epic. It is too new for most of us to judge. There is no way in hell the Red One looks as good a film, and most directors agree with that. The Red One is mainly used for cost considerations, not for the best picture quality. Even the better TV shows do not use the Red One because of poor performance.
post #51 of 94
I'm still able to tell what is shot on a RED MX (Red One is crap, people). REDs just have a different look. One I like, I might add. The Social Network is a prime example of how good Reds can look with masters behind them.

The Alexa is tough. That has fooled me. That's a damn fine camera.

We'll see how the Red Epix does.
post #52 of 94
I had no idea which cam it was, but I thought it was obvious TSN was shot to digital.
post #53 of 94
Thread Starter 
You guys are insane/delusional/etc..

Epic:
http://vimeo.com/29758305
http://vimeo.com/21215828
This one should win you all over, haha.

MX:
http://vimeo.com/16369165
http://vimeo.com/30219567
http://vimeo.com/21849973

Red One:
http://vimeo.com/19237917
http://vimeo.com/16899323
http://vimeo.com/14411959

Now, do yourselves a favor and watch the Zacuto Great Camera Shootout 2011. It is a professional test of cameras of all kinds... from the Red, to the Arri, to the new Sony F35, to even DSLRs. They are tested in all sorts of situations (color, light, motion artifacts, resolution, etc). And they are compared to industry film cameras. AND all tests are administered by industry professionals, overseen by Robert Primes, ASC.

Zacuto’s Regional Emmy award winning series, The Great Camera Shootout 2010, is back with a brand new breed of cameras, a fresh set of challenges and plenty of new episodes. The Great Camera Shootout 2011 is a documentary about the Single Chip Camera Evaluation (SCCE) which is a large scale technical camera comparison administered by Robert Primes, ASC. Our documentary was designed to educate and broaden the understanding of the elements that create image quality.

In this series, you will see side by side comparisons of the newest cameras manufactured by Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Phantom, Weisscam, Nikon, Arri, RED as well as the gold standard of 35mm film. Robert Primes brought in consultants, specialists and technicians from various areas of the motion picture industry to design a series of tests and “On-Set-Challenges” to push these cameras to the limit. Some notable motion picture industry names you may recognize include Stephen Lighthill, ASC, Nancy Schreiber ASC, Matt Seigel, Michael Bravin, and Mike Curtis. The camera world is constantly evolving and the Great Camera Shootout 2011 is simply a must see for anyone interested in the filmmaking field.

The SCCE consisted of fifteen tests comparing twelve different cameras on a multitude of levels. The cameras used in the tests were the Arri Alexa, Sony F-35, Sony F3, Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 7D, Canon 1D Mark IV, Nikon D7000, Weisscam HS-2, Phantom Flex, Panasonic AG-AF100, RED ONE M-X and 35mm Kodak 5213 and 5219 film. Each camera faced in-depth analysis in regard to it’s sharpness, low light sensitivity, exposure latitude, highlight detail, shadow detail, color quality, flesh tone reproduction, compression losses and shutter artifacts. The documentary expands on the tests that were conducted under severe controlled conditions at the Mole-Richardson Co. stage and the Goathouse Loft. The tests were shot over four days and involved over sixty technicians.
post #54 of 94
No one here's claiming they can tell every time. Just that I could tell "the difference" in a few instances, particularly The Social Network and Captain America.
post #55 of 94
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

People actually pay attention to that
thread? Lol, I was under the impression that nobody cares about it.

If only Vimeo was embeddable here in AVS like Youtube is.

Guess that answers that..
post #56 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

I had no idea which cam it was, but I thought it was obvious TSN was shot to digital.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK was the best movie (looks wise) shot with a Red Camera I have seen. It was 99% indoors and not very demanding as far as colors are concerned. That particular director has allot of experience shooting digital, so maybe he did a better job of tweaking the digits post production than others. THE LINCOLN LAWYER was a great movie shot on a Red camera, but it had all the bad optical distortions of the Red One, even if it had the newer chip.
post #57 of 94
This thread is starting to remind me of the old Kodak vs Fuji flamefests regarding the more saturated colors of the Fujifilm.

BTW, considering the radical amounts of color manipulation that is done during post processing these days, I don't see how it can even be possible to do any comparisions of film vs digital unless you happen to have access to the untouched original material.
post #58 of 94
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac The Knife View Post

BTW, considering the radical amounts of color manipulation that is done during post processing these days, I don't see how it can even be possible to do any comparisions of film vs digital unless you happen to have access to the untouched original material.

Watch the Zacuto camera shootout I linked to, please!
post #59 of 94
I watched the "I Spit on Your Grave" remake on Bluray last night which was shot with the Red and it looked very good.
post #60 of 94
"Olive" is a film shot entirely with a Nokia smartphone and nationwide in theaters this month. The trailer looks pretty impressive and there is also a "making of link" after the trailer plays. Of course they used a lot of expensive (rented) gear and lenses to supplement the smartphone:
http://www.olivethemovie.com/
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › The inevitable death of film in the wake of the digital revolution