Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loki74
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) |
loki, my man, you be right as rain!
What's more, let's really emphasize the fact that the two mediums are DIFFERENT and NOT that one is BETTER than the other.
How can we begin to twist our brains to accommodate this ridiculous notion?
Ronnie, you have a story about a new wave of artists and artistry which is changing the world and making a statement that is being seen heard and felt the world over. You want to make a movie to document this important phenomenon as well as some of the significant artists and their work.
The artists are indie videographers. Their art is storytelling with videography.
You have a $200 million budget and creative carte blanche and guaranteed rights to have the final cut on your film. The only restriction?
Shoot it ONLY with film. No video allowed.
As Astro Jetson might say, "rotsa ruck!"
Video is different than film but NOT better.
I'll remind you that movie studios once felt that a TV star wasn't as talented or as GOOD as a film star.
Maybe it was Steve McQueen who helped change that notion. You heard of him, right?
