Onur said:
...when a monopoly is disturbed, things happen
Usually for the better
Onur said:
And people take precautions
As they should
Onur said:
It's not only about these companies ofcourse (Arri was just an example); it concerns a big part of the industry and relations.. Companies, factories, investments, agreements...
I understand that initially, there are a great number of jobs that will be lost, and that is unfortunate. Over time, new jobs will become available, but those positions will likely be filled by fewer people assisted by an automated process that will eventually lead to a fully mechanized self-serviced non-human work environment...and the companies have no problem with that.
So, these changes are coming about because the companies are in large part responsible for it. Many of the companies, particularly the larger ones should in no way be treated like victims. The workers are a different story, that is an investment that will never be recovered.
Onur said:
And about which one is more realistic.. I agree, it depends on what an individual thinks but there is a general belief that film is more realistic. Don't you think?
IMHO, film provides a surreal, dream-like platform to tell a story that provides an audience with the means to escape, and take them away into a different world. In contrast, digital automatically has a raw, real, in your face, spur of the moment feel to it.
Film takes the audience away
Digital brings the audience in
That isn't to say that neither have crossed that boundary to achieve the opposite result, it happens quite frequently--really it's futile to differentiate between the two at this point, because with the introduction of cameras like the Dalsa Origin, Arri D20, Panavision Genesis, TG Viper, and so many others around the corner, the boundary is practically non-existent.