Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,681   Posts: 1,548,516   Online: 837
      
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 114
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ringerike, Norway
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by analoguey View Post
    But a smaller market might still have limited run only, wouldnt it? Unless the money mattered or audience mattered?
    I'm sorry, I don't understand.

  2. #52
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    There seems to be some social pressure to be among the first ones to see popular movies. When movie theaters couldn't deliver (remember Star Wars I?), people turned to file sharing systems and watched to movie on their computers, and of course never bothered rewatching it in the movie theater.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    At the same time, digital technology has allowed film makers to produce movies on a shoestring budget. No more buying film stock, processing and expensive editing systems. In some respects, technology is the great equalizer.
    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.

    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)
    Truzi

  3. #53
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Truzi View Post
    I prefer those imperfections over pixelation, combing, and whatnot. Both have viewing "artifacts," and I feel film does better in general, despite the artifacts. Perhaps because it's what I grew up with, or perhaps because I feel a switch to "new" technology should not mean re-embracing problems similar to what had been largely surmounted in the old medium. For example, listening to satellite radio in my mothers minivan is not unlike listening to AM when driving under bridges, trees, or around large buildings.
    Another example is the local news stations doing quick interviews on-location. The "trained" digital camera operators consistently show that anyone can do their job. Contrast changes if the interviewee simply turns their head a bit, making the whole scene constantly change like some bad avant-garde attempt. With a film camera, even if the exposure is bad, at least it's consistently bad, without inducing seizures. I feel analog video-tape is better in this respect.

    That said, I've seen very few movies at the theatre in the past 10 years, and watched very few of them when they made it to DVD or TV. I would say I watch fewer movies than my parents and grandparents did at a similar age. Movies have not been overshadowed by DVD/blueray, video games, or the WWW in my case. Movies no longer appeal as a quality entertainment experience for me. Hollywood no longer puts much effort into something I feel is worth my time. It cannot even do yet another version of some literary classic without focusing on effects and forgoing the original storyline except for character names.
    Go see "12 year slave" it's put now, and I guarantee it will be worth the money.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #54
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,012
    Images
    6
    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."
    Aaron Chang

  5. #55
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Jersey .........formerly NYC.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    470
    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.
    Which experience was wonderful? The movies or the French girl?

  6. #56
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    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.
    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.

    Either way I doubt it's shot on film, lol maybe it was on tape at some point but not anymore.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #57
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,292
    Images
    2
    OK, so here's an interesting observation, from Setlife Magazine.
    Specifically, the images here, here, and here.
    In short:
    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.

  8. #58
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,653
    This does not say anything about the volume of film production needed. Be it camera- or print-film.

  9. #59
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,319
    Images
    20
    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.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  10. #60
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,293
    Images
    302
    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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin