I know the prices of most digital cams. 
I was talking about film cams. I mean what is the running price on a Panavision PFX-P Platinum Panaflex camera system?
If teh Canon XL2 is "too much camera" for Eynstyn's project, as he said in a previous post in this thread, what makes you think that he wants to take on a film camera? Then hes got to deal with digitization, telecine, blah blah blah unless he plans on distributing to theaters for a theatrical-only release (no TV, no DVD.)
I am a very strong advoate of digital. Its cheap and it gets the job done. HD can be transferred to film if you want to distribute to theaters. It can be converted to SD and 30 fps, all digitially with no mess and low cost if you want to broadcast or burn to DVD. For those of us who dont make millions and millions each year, digital is simply the best out there. Period.
That being said, I dont think that digital can ever replace film for those who DO have millions and millions of dollars. Even in the world of still photography, where sigital SLR's can get you all the resoltion you want, many photographers sill use film. Recording something to film is an art, and it is very literal. I mean, you can see the image on a negative. You cant see it on a hard drive or tape or DVD or what have you. (that is, looking at the physical object of the hard drive or tape etc) And they dont provide the same feel. Even if they can recreate it accurately, you know that its isnt the real McCoy.
BUT once again thats if you make millions and millions of dollars. Maybe you do. But I dont. And somehting tells me the Eynstyn doesnt either..... (correct me if im wrong)
I was talking about film cams. I mean what is the running price on a Panavision PFX-P Platinum Panaflex camera system?If teh Canon XL2 is "too much camera" for Eynstyn's project, as he said in a previous post in this thread, what makes you think that he wants to take on a film camera? Then hes got to deal with digitization, telecine, blah blah blah unless he plans on distributing to theaters for a theatrical-only release (no TV, no DVD.)
I am a very strong advoate of digital. Its cheap and it gets the job done. HD can be transferred to film if you want to distribute to theaters. It can be converted to SD and 30 fps, all digitially with no mess and low cost if you want to broadcast or burn to DVD. For those of us who dont make millions and millions each year, digital is simply the best out there. Period.
That being said, I dont think that digital can ever replace film for those who DO have millions and millions of dollars. Even in the world of still photography, where sigital SLR's can get you all the resoltion you want, many photographers sill use film. Recording something to film is an art, and it is very literal. I mean, you can see the image on a negative. You cant see it on a hard drive or tape or DVD or what have you. (that is, looking at the physical object of the hard drive or tape etc) And they dont provide the same feel. Even if they can recreate it accurately, you know that its isnt the real McCoy.
BUT once again thats if you make millions and millions of dollars. Maybe you do. But I dont. And somehting tells me the Eynstyn doesnt either..... (correct me if im wrong)