snausages
Well-known
Interesting point. The studios want theaters to project digitally, though, so we'll see how long the theaters can resist that pressure...
Is Digital slowly taking over on RRF?
- Thread starter Fenwick
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 109
- Views 8K
Interesting point. The studios want theaters to project digitally, though, so we'll see how long the theaters can resist that pressure...
grainhound
Well-known
My source: casual conversation with guys who shoot commercials, music videos, and short films. That's why I said "apparently". Their opinion favoured digital for stills, film for cine. Some were reluctant to shoot commercials in digital, although that may have changed. Have you got some numbers? I don't.
back alley
IMAGES
Is Digital slowly taking over on RRF?
digital is slowly taking over the world.
digital may not have soul but then neither does film.
it's amazing that a bunch of realist, practical, 'i wont use a camera that has a battery in it', kinda guys are at the same time so romantic about machines that hold film.
none of this clap trap about film is real, it's all in your fluffy little heads.
digital is slowly taking over the world.
digital may not have soul but then neither does film.
it's amazing that a bunch of realist, practical, 'i wont use a camera that has a battery in it', kinda guys are at the same time so romantic about machines that hold film.
none of this clap trap about film is real, it's all in your fluffy little heads.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
you mean - you don't sit and fondle one, while watching TV with the family?....tut..tut!
back alley
IMAGES
i don't really watch much telly.
Kristopher
Established
Another digital vs. film debate.... argh..
Can the digital users please stop tell doom and gloom stories about film? You are happy, with digital, I am not. I am happy with film, you are not. So what's the point in telling, or trying to convince people that film is dead?
FILM IS ALREADY DEAD. Let is rest in peace, and let those few that still enjoy using it the pleasure of using it.
The last persons that will switch are those gear fondlers that were using film only because it is what their cameras needed to work.
The other film users that were to switch, already did it or are technophobic persons that don't shoot much anyway. Those, like me, that are still using film, are not going to switch, digital takeover is now reaching the hardcore users, that won't switch.
I wonder if this film bashing is a way for some people to justify their personnal choices. If you need to push digital to be reassured of your decision to switch, you might have switched for the wrong reasons.
LET FILM IN PEACE for the time it still has.
Peace,
k
Can the digital users please stop tell doom and gloom stories about film? You are happy, with digital, I am not. I am happy with film, you are not. So what's the point in telling, or trying to convince people that film is dead?
FILM IS ALREADY DEAD. Let is rest in peace, and let those few that still enjoy using it the pleasure of using it.
The last persons that will switch are those gear fondlers that were using film only because it is what their cameras needed to work.
The other film users that were to switch, already did it or are technophobic persons that don't shoot much anyway. Those, like me, that are still using film, are not going to switch, digital takeover is now reaching the hardcore users, that won't switch.
I wonder if this film bashing is a way for some people to justify their personnal choices. If you need to push digital to be reassured of your decision to switch, you might have switched for the wrong reasons.
LET FILM IN PEACE for the time it still has.
Peace,
k
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That is a rather bizarre statement in a world of luxury consumerism. Film manufacturers will have to adapt from a system in which they marketed to mom&dad&the industry to one where enthusiasts and a small fringe of pro photographers are their only remaining customer base - and I have no doubt that some of them will fail over it. But in a world where profits can be made out of fine marble blocks, artists oil paints and kolinsky sable brushes, film manufacture obviously can have a profitable niche as well.
Fenwick
Established
back alley
IMAGES
this is an endless debate...
few will be convinced of anything new
there are none so blind as those who will not see...
few will be convinced of anything new
there are none so blind as those who will not see...
Steve M.
Veteran
Digital may indeed be the choice of more people. I think a lot of new people come into RFF wanting to shoot the great RF cameras because they're sorta sexy and cool, and they really are great cameras. But then the reality sets in. Film is expensive, scanning that film is a PITA, gotta buy a scanner, gotta send the negs out to be developed or do it yourself, etc. After a while the idea that you can just shoot a digital camera, downsize your shots, and post or print them becomes very appealing.
I shoot B&W, so there's no way I can shoot a digital, no matter the manufacturer or the model, and get imagery that even approaches the quality of film. Anyone that regularly shoots B&W realizes that, and this is what probably drives the classic camera market in the end. B&W shooters.
The idea that people are going immediately to the high end RF cameras and bypassing the less expensive Konicas, Feds, etc is also true. Not sure why that is, but obviously someone that can afford a Leica rangefinder camera can move to a digital RF camera pretty easily. For the Konica C35 shooter that is a huge move.
In the end I think we need different cameras for different types of shooting. For myself, I have grown a little weary of using TLR's and other manual focus, manual meter cameras. Can't beat the image quality, but there are times when a good AF film SLR would get me shots a lot easier and quicker. Fortunately digital has driven film camera prices into the dirt, so it was simple to pick up a Minolta 7xi SLR w/ a sharp 35 70 lens just now for $30 on the auction site. I LOVE digital.
I shoot B&W, so there's no way I can shoot a digital, no matter the manufacturer or the model, and get imagery that even approaches the quality of film. Anyone that regularly shoots B&W realizes that, and this is what probably drives the classic camera market in the end. B&W shooters.
The idea that people are going immediately to the high end RF cameras and bypassing the less expensive Konicas, Feds, etc is also true. Not sure why that is, but obviously someone that can afford a Leica rangefinder camera can move to a digital RF camera pretty easily. For the Konica C35 shooter that is a huge move.
In the end I think we need different cameras for different types of shooting. For myself, I have grown a little weary of using TLR's and other manual focus, manual meter cameras. Can't beat the image quality, but there are times when a good AF film SLR would get me shots a lot easier and quicker. Fortunately digital has driven film camera prices into the dirt, so it was simple to pick up a Minolta 7xi SLR w/ a sharp 35 70 lens just now for $30 on the auction site. I LOVE digital.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
raid
Dad Photographer
Maybe you fondle your Zeiss camera while sitting in front of a fire place? 😀
David cannot understand such practices. :bang:
Gumby
Veteran
I believe you are mistaken... he would never talk to me with either those words or that tone of voice.
back alley
IMAGES
i am hardly held in esteem around here...
back alley
IMAGES
this may not be an entirely accurate statement.
aizan
Veteran
you'll know when there are more people viewing the digital m forum than the film rf forums.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
In my town, there was a movie projectionists' strike several years ago because the newer Cineplexes were talking going digital [in projection]. That strike failed and a digital future was quietly decided.
It is only a matter of time when Panavision or a new market leader offered digital movie cameras...immediate Directors' viewing instead of waiting...and soemone made a block buster.
Watch for the next projectionists' strike nearest you.
NickTrop
Veteran
Film:
1. Full frame without spending thousands.
2. Pay as you go
3. Fast lenses, affordable
4. Better dynamic range
The new micro 3/4's are nice. The new Panasonic with the f2.0 fixed made in Asia "Leica", to read reviews, is so much fun because it is "almost" like using a traditional film camera. Except it isn't full frame and has no optical viewfinder. Oh, sorry, has on - a $200 accessory (I think, don't quote...)
Psst... just shoot a film camera... The real deal.
Digital has its place... I won't spend more than $100 bucks for a digital. They've taken the place of my point-n-shoot, and compact ultrazooms with image stabilization - amazing. Everything else? Film.
Film, film, film film, film. It's just better. Really.
1. Full frame without spending thousands.
2. Pay as you go
3. Fast lenses, affordable
4. Better dynamic range
The new micro 3/4's are nice. The new Panasonic with the f2.0 fixed made in Asia "Leica", to read reviews, is so much fun because it is "almost" like using a traditional film camera. Except it isn't full frame and has no optical viewfinder. Oh, sorry, has on - a $200 accessory (I think, don't quote...)
Psst... just shoot a film camera... The real deal.
Digital has its place... I won't spend more than $100 bucks for a digital. They've taken the place of my point-n-shoot, and compact ultrazooms with image stabilization - amazing. Everything else? Film.
Film, film, film film, film. It's just better. Really.
bmattock
Veteran
Yes, it is better, in many ways. And it doesn't matter how much better it is. Everyone knows that now. Really.
NickTrop
Veteran
Thanks for overstating the obvious... Of course everyone just knows it now on account of I just told'em. They, therefore, can take it to the bank.
Similar threads
