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

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.

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.

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

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/

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."

I guess I have now...

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.

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.

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.

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


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


Which again has nothing to do with digital versus film. What? You don't think they make dreck using film?

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.

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

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.

A lot of techs thought that analog HDTV was better too even though it took a 14 mhz channel.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I watched the "I Spit on Your Grave" remake on Bluray last night which was shot with the Red and it looked very good.

"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/