dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
An interesting read: http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/
Hollywood on Film v. Digital
- Thread starter dogberryjr
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 10
- Views 2K
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Pretty simple, studios produce a product, movies, to make profits. Doing so digitally will help keep or improve profits. If the viewing audience that pays to watch a movie and creates the profits can see no difference between a movie on digital or film then there is no economic reason to persist in making movies on film. From the looks of it audiences just don't care so film in the movies business is a lost cause as things now stand. Sadly for some the times have changed but the majority don't care.
Bob
Bob
btgc
Veteran
Thanks, interesting to read. Usually I don't read this kind of articles, but this is good one.
Probably they realize risks and benefits. Movies will be shot and distributed digitally (even if good part of world will not be able to watch them in cinemas) and if there are sane people copies on film will be made for archival purposes. When they will erase or loose another film there will be a copy or two to digitize from.
Probably they realize risks and benefits. Movies will be shot and distributed digitally (even if good part of world will not be able to watch them in cinemas) and if there are sane people copies on film will be made for archival purposes. When they will erase or loose another film there will be a copy or two to digitize from.
gb hill
Veteran
Kodak's 16mm film kills HD. Need to watch the 'No Compromise' film on You Tube. There's 9 short videos by Hollywoods top directors & film makers discuss why film is so much better than digital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJsgfTEzro&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJsgfTEzro&feature=relmfu
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
It is not really about which is better but which will increase profits for the studios.
Bob
Bob
Teuthida
Well-known
interesting read. thank you.
gb hill
Veteran
If you watch the series you will find that film is a substantial savings over digital. Apparently you haven't watched them.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Greg
You are correct I did not view the whole series the first time around. I just went back and got to #6 or so before I heard any mention the using film was cheaper. Most of what I heard was about how they feel film is technically better in their opinion. I got the impression also, maybe wrongly, that they couldn't/didn't want to deal with the differences between using the two. This series is put out by Kodak so I take it with a grain of salt. The series puts forth the very same arguments as are put forward by still film users but that has not stopped the tidal wave of digital in that segment either. I say again, I still believe it is not about what is technically better but what the bean counters in the studios may think is cheaper and the studios foot the bills and generally call the shots, I'm guessing. It is a fight that I hope Kodak does not lose because of the repercussion of even more expensive film for still photographers not to mention the people who still work at Kodak.
Bob
You are correct I did not view the whole series the first time around. I just went back and got to #6 or so before I heard any mention the using film was cheaper. Most of what I heard was about how they feel film is technically better in their opinion. I got the impression also, maybe wrongly, that they couldn't/didn't want to deal with the differences between using the two. This series is put out by Kodak so I take it with a grain of salt. The series puts forth the very same arguments as are put forward by still film users but that has not stopped the tidal wave of digital in that segment either. I say again, I still believe it is not about what is technically better but what the bean counters in the studios may think is cheaper and the studios foot the bills and generally call the shots, I'm guessing. It is a fight that I hope Kodak does not lose because of the repercussion of even more expensive film for still photographers not to mention the people who still work at Kodak.
Bob
redisburning
Well-known
PatrickONeill
Well-known
I wonder how the Hobbit will look on the big screen. it is/was being shot 100% with RED Epic cameras.
also, arri, aaton and panavision has ceased production of their film cameras last year. 3D killed them.
also, arri, aaton and panavision has ceased production of their film cameras last year. 3D killed them.
redisburning
Well-known
there was a hugely negative reaction to the first screening of The Hobbit.
from what I understand, the framerate is 48 fps and it made everything look fake and like it was a movie, which is expressly NOT the goal of the cinematographer.
honestly this most recent "3D" trend is killing me. I hate it so very much; I had to see the last Harry Potter in 3D (as a gift to my younger sister) and the movie in 3D looked like complete ass compared to when I saw part I in 2D.
Im fine with 4k, and Im fine with movies shot on digital, but really this 3D **** is a plague.
Similar threads
