Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Film vs Digital

Film vs Digital Discussions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of Film vs Digital are important as they can help us understand our choices as photographers. Each medium has strengths and weaknesses which can best be used in a given circumstance. While this makes for an interesting and useful discussion, DO NOT attack others who disagree with you. Forum rules are explained in the RFF FAQ linked at the top of each page.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Hollywood on Film v. Digital
Old 04-12-2012   #1
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
 
dogberryjr's Avatar
 
dogberryjr is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: WV, USA
Posts: 1,101
Hollywood on Film v. Digital

An interesting read: http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/f...tal-Hollywood/
__________________
M, LTM, FD, F, Film, Digital, MF . . . Jack of all, master of none.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2012   #2
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,639
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
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2012   #3
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,396
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.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2012   #4
gb hill
Registered User
 
gb hill's Avatar
 
gb hill is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 55
Posts: 5,118
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=IQJsg...feature=relmfu
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2012   #5
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,639
It is not really about which is better but which will increase profits for the studios.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2012   #6
Teuthida
-
 
Teuthida is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 638
interesting read. thank you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2012   #7
gb hill
Registered User
 
gb hill's Avatar
 
gb hill is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 55
Posts: 5,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikon Bob View Post
It is not really about which is better but which will increase profits for the studios.

Bob
If you watch the series you will find that film is a substantial savings over digital. Apparently you haven't watched them.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2012   #8
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,639
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
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2012   #9
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by gb hill View Post
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=IQJsg...feature=relmfu
thanks.

I love Aronofsky's work, any interview with him at all is great to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #10
PatrickONeill
Registered User
 
PatrickONeill's Avatar
 
PatrickONeill is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Weatherford, Tx
Age: 34
Posts: 368
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.
__________________
flickr | tumblr | twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #11
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickONeill View Post
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:30.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.