D
Digigenic
Guest
8) LET'S TALK DIGITOGRAPHY; PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE...
D
Digigenic
Guest
Digital is the torturer of nostalgia
Digital is the torturer of nostalgia
8)
Digital is the torturer of nostalgia, and the cause for my impatience, and I love it.
1. Creative Freedom
2. Immediacy
3. Future Development
These are some of the determining factors for current and future use of digital and/or related technologies over film.
What does the future have in store? Well, which format appears to have limitless development applications? Clearly, digital continues to develop at a rapid rate with what appears to be an infinite space for future development. Whereas film has already seen its' day.
Where’s your freedom? Which format allows you immediate creative freedom? Clearly, Digital’s immediacy provides a clearer pathway for artists to travel when striving to achieve particular results that would have otherwise taken weeks, if not months to discover with film.
I want more! "Immediacy" is the key, especially in the entertainment industry. The artist and the audience want it, and they want it now. Digital does that, providing the artist and the audience with instant gratification.
Given the current climate, there's obviously room for debate, or this forum wouldn’t be active.
However, it should be understood that in five to ten years, definitely 15 to 20, there will be no debate at all.
Digital, or a more advanced format, possibly something digital and organically/molecularly based will give way to something unimaginable. Digital already replicates film's aesthetic, that’s small potatoes. But, Digital is also exceeding film in many other aspects. The bottom line is, people probably won’t even have the resources available to make films 40 years from now, and if they do, it’s highly unlikely that it’ll compete with what will have developed in the digital realm.
Digital is the torturer of nostalgia
8)
Digital is the torturer of nostalgia, and the cause for my impatience, and I love it.
1. Creative Freedom
2. Immediacy
3. Future Development
These are some of the determining factors for current and future use of digital and/or related technologies over film.
What does the future have in store? Well, which format appears to have limitless development applications? Clearly, digital continues to develop at a rapid rate with what appears to be an infinite space for future development. Whereas film has already seen its' day.
Where’s your freedom? Which format allows you immediate creative freedom? Clearly, Digital’s immediacy provides a clearer pathway for artists to travel when striving to achieve particular results that would have otherwise taken weeks, if not months to discover with film.
I want more! "Immediacy" is the key, especially in the entertainment industry. The artist and the audience want it, and they want it now. Digital does that, providing the artist and the audience with instant gratification.
Given the current climate, there's obviously room for debate, or this forum wouldn’t be active.
However, it should be understood that in five to ten years, definitely 15 to 20, there will be no debate at all.
Digital, or a more advanced format, possibly something digital and organically/molecularly based will give way to something unimaginable. Digital already replicates film's aesthetic, that’s small potatoes. But, Digital is also exceeding film in many other aspects. The bottom line is, people probably won’t even have the resources available to make films 40 years from now, and if they do, it’s highly unlikely that it’ll compete with what will have developed in the digital realm.
D
desktopmunchies
Guest
My only problem with digital is that its very hard to get the look of professionalism, compared to film which is way more easier. But, the cost of tape for a digital camera is extremely extremely cheaper then the cost of film, so there is that huge advantage.
G
Giant
Guest
Remember the "film" 28 days later was shot entirely on XL1's. They used good lens and used the cameras week and strong points to tell the story.
G
Giant
Guest
oh, and a lot of post work
Yeah, but while '28 Days Later' looked good for a DV movie, it was still a DV movie (and the script was awful). The DV origination was still obvious on some of the outside daylight footage and I'm sure the whole movie would have looked nasty if I'd seen it on a cinema screen rather than a PC monitor... well, I did see the first 20 minutes in a cinema, but that was straight out of an Avid so it was guaranteed to look horrid.
All that said, when they took the time to light the shots properly it did look very good, for a DV movie. If they'd shot it on HD I'm sure most of it would have looked just as 'professional' as if they'd shot the movie on 35mm with the same budget.
As for Hollywood, the whole system is set up to shoot film, and the cost savings of shooting HD aren't enough to justify switching. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Hollywood is still shooting film in 20 years when the rest of the universe is shooting digital video formats: probably the most likely catalyst for change would be new directors and DoPs coming in having shot a lot of DV and not wanting to deal with the arcane limitations of working with film (e.g. not being able to see exactly what you're shooting there and then).
All that said, when they took the time to light the shots properly it did look very good, for a DV movie. If they'd shot it on HD I'm sure most of it would have looked just as 'professional' as if they'd shot the movie on 35mm with the same budget.
As for Hollywood, the whole system is set up to shoot film, and the cost savings of shooting HD aren't enough to justify switching. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Hollywood is still shooting film in 20 years when the rest of the universe is shooting digital video formats: probably the most likely catalyst for change would be new directors and DoPs coming in having shot a lot of DV and not wanting to deal with the arcane limitations of working with film (e.g. not being able to see exactly what you're shooting there and then).
G
Guest
Guest
I use the "film" 28 days Later as an example. As to the films contents I don't think it was good entertainment, but as of the end of October, '03 it had grossed 45 million. Now I don't think the intent of the movie was to be any thing other than a commercial success. It succeeded.
D
Digigenic
Guest
What about Indigent’s recent releases?
Pieces of April, and November were both shot with the Panasonic AG-DVX100, and even though they weren't anywhere near achieving the same commercial success as 28 days later, they have both received a fair amount of recognition from quite a few festivals, including Sundance.
Also, Patricia Clarkson, received an Academy nomination for her performance in Pieces of April.
http://www.indigent.net/
Pieces of April, and November were both shot with the Panasonic AG-DVX100, and even though they weren't anywhere near achieving the same commercial success as 28 days later, they have both received a fair amount of recognition from quite a few festivals, including Sundance.
Also, Patricia Clarkson, received an Academy nomination for her performance in Pieces of April.
http://www.indigent.net/
W
wtce
Guest
just another medium
just another medium
I think of digital filmmaking as one more option we have of expressing ourselves. A painter can use pastels, crayons or charcoal to express himself or herself. In the same way, digital or film or animation or sound is just a medium. Use what suits you best. Blairwitch project couldn't have been effective on film. American Beauty would have sucked on Digital.
Both are here to stay. But I definitely think Digital filmmaking has made filmmaking more accessible. I couldnt even think of working as proficiently if I just had film to work with.
just another medium
I think of digital filmmaking as one more option we have of expressing ourselves. A painter can use pastels, crayons or charcoal to express himself or herself. In the same way, digital or film or animation or sound is just a medium. Use what suits you best. Blairwitch project couldn't have been effective on film. American Beauty would have sucked on Digital.
Both are here to stay. But I definitely think Digital filmmaking has made filmmaking more accessible. I couldnt even think of working as proficiently if I just had film to work with.
D
Digigenic
Guest
We are very fortunate to have so many different mediums within reach.
And film may very well stick around for a while longer, but not to the same extent that digital will. Film has already reached its’ highest capacity, by which I might add, with the assistance of digital.
Digital continues to develop autonomously, eventually to excel beyond today’s and tomorrow’s limitations. I believe that we are in the middle of the transition, and as long as film programs are available in schools, we’ll continue to see traditional filmmaking. But, once educational institutions discontinue filmmaking programs, and replace them with digitally oriented programs; film will have likely ceased to exist.
And film may very well stick around for a while longer, but not to the same extent that digital will. Film has already reached its’ highest capacity, by which I might add, with the assistance of digital.
Digital continues to develop autonomously, eventually to excel beyond today’s and tomorrow’s limitations. I believe that we are in the middle of the transition, and as long as film programs are available in schools, we’ll continue to see traditional filmmaking. But, once educational institutions discontinue filmmaking programs, and replace them with digitally oriented programs; film will have likely ceased to exist.
C
cintellect
Guest
Re: Digital is the torturer of nostalgia
Re: Digital is the torturer of nostalgia
Very well stated Digigenic ! And not to mention..along with instant audience/artist gratification..the "bean counters" are also embracing a much faster means of cost reduction/capital recovery...
Re: Digital is the torturer of nostalgia
Digigenic said:
Very well stated Digigenic ! And not to mention..along with instant audience/artist gratification..the "bean counters" are also embracing a much faster means of cost reduction/capital recovery...
D
Digigenic
Guest
Thanks Cintellect...
8)
8)
celluloid or dv or whatever...this whole quarell takes us back to the old questions to the beginning of the XX.c. At that time all the theorists compared this 'new' medium (film) to literature and theatre...
Video (digital medium) is a new way of expressing ideas. Why should filmmakers imitate the medium of film with dv? Lets search for something else, something new!
I 100% agree with digigenic.
eat fast food make fast film :lol:
tomthehun
Video (digital medium) is a new way of expressing ideas. Why should filmmakers imitate the medium of film with dv? Lets search for something else, something new!
I 100% agree with digigenic.
eat fast food make fast film :lol:
tomthehun
D
Digigenic
Guest
8)
Actually, since I'm a seasonal vegetarian, I'm somewhat restricted when it comes to consuming fast food.
And unless I'm shooting in magic hour, I'm a relatively layed back, slow-paced filmmaker.
Actually, since I'm a seasonal vegetarian, I'm somewhat restricted when it comes to consuming fast food.
And unless I'm shooting in magic hour, I'm a relatively layed back, slow-paced filmmaker.
I rememeber when this digital vs. Film argument started in 2004
I rememeber when this digital vs. Film argument started in 2004
I remember when this argument started and people thought 10 years was really way to fast and early to think digital filmmaking would take over from film in ten years. It has been 8 years and Kodak is filing for bankruptcy.
I rememeber when this digital vs. Film argument started in 2004
I remember when this argument started and people thought 10 years was really way to fast and early to think digital filmmaking would take over from film in ten years. It has been 8 years and Kodak is filing for bankruptcy.
Network Sponsors
