Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on May 9, 2017 1:42:25 GMT -5
I'm not anti-digital like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino but there's no denying that digital isn't gonna age very well. The big movies will survive. They use expensive Red cameras. I'm talking about the small and medium ones. The ones made on fucking iPhones.
Reason I bring this up is because I'm watching Hang Em High on HD. This is a shitty B-movie Clint Eastwood made in America right after his trio of Italian westerns with Sergio Leone. It looks fucking amazing. I feel like I'm watching a big budget 60's western when in reality it's a drive-in movie aping on spaghetti westerns. If anything, it looks TOO good. Takes away the B-movie charm.
Anyway... there are movies today that will look like garbage 50 years from now. All cause it used inferior technology. Something to think about when deciding film or digital.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,492 
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:37:07 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on May 9, 2017 8:01:13 GMT -5
Digital is the lazier route though, so its what people will choose.
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,622
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 13:45:46 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on May 9, 2017 14:09:26 GMT -5
Well, I think most people would prefer the look of film, yes. But for non big budget films, digital is really the only option. It's far more cost efficient, you buy memory cards that can be erased as opposed to burning through reels of film, very few production houses exist anymore so good luck getting your film transferred through a telecine in order to actually edit the film (done digitally anyways these days) and then transferring it all back to film, etc.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on May 9, 2017 20:35:52 GMT -5
Well, I think most people would prefer the look of film, yes. But for non big budget films, digital is really the only option. It's far more cost efficient, you buy memory cards that can be erased as opposed to burning through reels of film, very few production houses exist anymore so good luck getting your film transferred through a telecine in order to actually edit the film (done digitally anyways these days) and then transferring it all back to film, etc. Which is why I'm not anti-digital. |
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,622
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 13:45:46 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on May 10, 2017 12:53:36 GMT -5
Well, I think most people would prefer the look of film, yes. But for non big budget films, digital is really the only option. It's far more cost efficient, you buy memory cards that can be erased as opposed to burning through reels of film, very few production houses exist anymore so good luck getting your film transferred through a telecine in order to actually edit the film (done digitally anyways these days) and then transferring it all back to film, etc. Which is why I'm not anti-digital. Yeah, trust me I'd love to shoot all my short films on actual film but it's simply not a luxury I can afford. Plus, most cinematographers are working on digital as well; their camera packages are rarely film. Tarantino and Nolan are big time and have a choice. |
|
Justin
Script Supervisor
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 739
Likes: 355
Location:
Last Online Oct 17, 2017 12:05:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Justin on May 10, 2017 13:39:40 GMT -5
For young filmmakers it's probably preferable to shoot on digital. It's obviously cheap, but allowing yourself that financial cushion can be really useful. I also don't like this romanticization of film; it's just a format, and like any format it has its uses. Digital has just as much of a personality.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,492
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:37:07 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on May 10, 2017 18:14:34 GMT -5
Makes sense.
|
|
Ramplate
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Apr 2005
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hamster
Posts: 30,425
Likes: 493
Location:
Last Online Oct 13, 2020 13:56:48 GMT -5
|
Post by Ramplate on May 10, 2017 19:56:07 GMT -5
And sadly there are warehouses of rare films that are degrading and there isn't enough donations to save some of rare classic historical films before they turn to dust forever
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,622
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 13:45:46 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on May 11, 2017 12:27:17 GMT -5
For young filmmakers it's probably preferable to shoot on digital. It's obviously cheap, but allowing yourself that financial cushion can be really useful. I also don't like this romanticization of film; it's just a format, and like any format it has its uses. Digital has just as much of a personality. Very true, there are some cinematographers like Roger Deakins that actually prefer digital now. It has a different look to it that can be more beneficial to the project. But yes, for young filmmakers with limited cash I just don't see film as an option. Again, even if you can afford the spools of film and have a film camera, good luck on finding places outside of Los Angeles and New York to telecine it for you or has an old editing bay to chop up the film old school style. It's just not nearly as practical as investing in memory cards and solid state drives and dropping the footage into an NLE. Hell, all the editing is done digitally anyways. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on May 12, 2017 0:27:58 GMT -5
And sadly there are warehouses of rare films that are degrading and there isn't enough donations to save some of rare classic historical films before they turn to dust forever Same thing gonna happen to digital because of compatibility issues. |
|
