Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose
I wouldn't mistake that or any current digital shot for film. Digital is making huge leaps and in a couple of years the difference should be very hard to tell but there will always be limitations - the running scenes in Chariots of Fire could never be shot on digital because of the limitations of the format. Some of the shots were done at 200FPS. Digital's maximum is currently 60FPS. 200FPS would be impossible to record to tape and to do so to disk would require huge bandwidth. There's also the infamous beach run in that movie which was done by exposing film in a special way that is impossible to do so digitally.
|
In our zeal to praise or comdemn the new technology let us not forget that no two cameras or media have exactly equal characteristics. And while you may reject the video 'film look' as lacking in some area or another I love the ability this new technology gives a video guy to approximate the look of film but without the cost.
I'm reminded of the line about the talking dog, who some criticize as not being able to form perfectly understandable sentences and another observer (I think it was Mark Twain) replied, you're missing the point. It is not how well the dog speaks but THAT he speaks that is the marvel.
Granted. Video is NOT film. There are things video will NEVER be able to match film's ability to do.
And I'm sure you would agree the opposite is true; there are things film will never be able to do which video excels at.
The bottom line, after all, isn't technology...it is the STORY.
And it is video that is democratizing storytelling. The little fat girl in Ohio may turn out the next screen classic simply because video has become simple and inexpensive enough for her parents to provide her the tools.
