I'm sorry, I don't understand.
Originally Posted by analoguey
I remember watching Star Wars I at the theatre - I never bothered rewatching it when it hit TV. Not only did the digital effects turn me off (come on, at the time a digital yoda _should not_ have been less convincing than an old muppet), but the story line was poorly executed, quite unlike the original three movies.
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
In my opinion, it equalizes by bringing low-budget or amateur productions up a bit, and bringing well-done productions down a lot. There is no reason to use the technology poorly, but that seems to happen more often, as ease and cost take precedent. Throw in digital SFX for the sake of it (gratuitous) and the whole experience lessens.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
I remember my parents having me watch South Pacific on TV when I was a child. If it were done again today, it would focus more on effects to overshadow the plot. Oh wait... Titanic and Titanic II (I mean Pearl Harbor)
Go see "12 year slave" it's put now, and I guarantee it will be worth the money.
Originally Posted by Truzi
True. I hope that movie goers want good story and not a bad flick with a bunch of glitzy CG. The a look at the old Dr. Who TV shows. Low production, but great writing. Cinema just like any great art should share our human experiences and hopefully transformative.
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
Which experience was wonderful? The movies or the French girl?
One of my favorite memories from my life was from back in the early 90's when I lived in Paris. I was dating a girl who loved movies, especially old ones. I must have visited nearly every little theater in the city. Some of them had only a couple dozen seats at most. It was almost like seeing a private viewing in your house. I assume most of them are gone by now. It was a wonderful experience though.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The new Dr Who isn't exactly "high production" haha but they do use some CGI but lots of the old style set design too.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
Either way I doubt it's shot on film, lol maybe it was on tape at some point but not anymore.
OK, so here's an interesting observation, from Setlife Magazine.
Specifically, the images here, here, and here.
Of 5 'best director' nominations: 2 used film, 2 used film + digital, 1 used digital. All used film prints.
Of 5 'cinematography' nominations: 2 film, 1 film + digi, 2 digi. 4 film prints (I presume 'D-Cinema' for the last column (which apparently should read The Grandmaster) means digital distribution, even though it was all film negs?)
Of 8 'best picture' nominations: 2 film, 2 film + digi, 4 digi. 6 film prints, 2 I presume digital (DCP?).
Of all of them, I have 0 interest in seeing any of them.
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
This does not say anything about the volume of film production needed. Be it camera- or print-film.
Aside from the beauty of film prints and formats like 70mm IMAX that are only available in very few cities today, the danger for us as film photographers, I think, is the decline in demand for film base, which is used for release prints. If that dries up, there's less reason to manufacture it.
Hard drives are so much cheaper to ship than stacks of 35mm reels (from Europe to the US the round trip cost can be around $150 for digital, $1600 film for a typical feature in 35mm) that the shift to digital offers the possibility of more variety of movies available in more markets, which is a good thing, if it happens.
Digital cinema projection still isn't foolproof. If you have a technical problem with digital, you may lose the sound, the subtitles, etc., and there's nothing to do but send the audience home with a refund, which I've seen happen at the most sophisticated New York venues. If the film breaks, you can splice it.
Anybody boiling their movie experience down to what medium the film was shot on and projected with are artfully missing the point of making films in the first place.
Either a film is good or its not. No different from a photograph, really. Did you enjoy or get something significant out of watching the end result? That is the only question worth asking.
I don't go to the movie theaters very often, mostly because there are so many terrible films out there. But there are the rare exceptions, and I really don't care whether it's digital or shot/printed on film stock or not.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh