Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,446   Posts: 1,643,411   Online: 845
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52
  1. #31
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by fdfjc View Post
    I remember a few years back my husband told me that our local police department was still using film to photograph crime scenes. Negatives can't be altered, but digital images can. If prosecutors start losing cases because digital crime scene photos are suspect, there will still be a demand for film.
    Now that's interesting. Never thought of that.
    K.S. Klain

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Ross Chambers View Post
    Also as so much of PJ's work is for digital processing it makes sense to have a digital master, saves all that telecine transfer.
    One thing that often gets forgotten in the film vs digital cinema discussion is that digital storage, moving and duplicating HUGE amounts of data is not fast or cheap. In significantly budgeted projects there is not a significant difference in cost between digital and film acquisition and getting it to post. Another issue is archiving, digital is much more expensive to store long term.

  3. #33
    Ross Chambers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Blue Mountains NSW Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    703
    I do think more from the post production end of the job, but I did span the sprockets and splicer days and the digital innovations. Imagine the joys of reverting to a previous cut when the producer and/or director, after trying endless variations says those immortal words: "I think I liked the first way we did it" and the poor editorial staff have to rip the cutting copy apart and try to restore all those strips of film and sound to their original order. Or imagine the sound post guys keeping everything in sync and in place when CGIs are arriving right up to and often during the mix and nobody's sticking to the duration allocated to those shots in the cut.

    All this is eliminated by the "Save As first cut" in the first case and the push these tracks up or down by x time code numbers in the second.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    2
    Nahh. These days, if something's being shot at 120 FPS for more than maybe several seconds at a time, it's on video. Back in the old days though, video could *not* be shot at more than 30 FPS, so if something were to put in slow motion, they had to shoot it on film at a faster rate than 24 FPS, but that was only for short bursts.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    2
    Why would computer files be "much more expensive to store long-term" than big reels of film, when you can just keep them on hard disks, cards, or optical discs, and especially optical discs last many decades if not hundreds of years? Maybe a hard disk drive will need to be exercised every so often, so that might not be a great long-term option, but how about flash storage? That's really not that expensive per gigabyte anymore. And you can get data DVDs for as low as 20 cents apiece, or burn data onto single-layer Blu-ray discs for as low as $1.00 per disc! "Much more expensive"? Geesh, with film, over the long term you have to store it in carefully climate-controlled vaults, don't you? Tell me that's "so much less expensive" than storing optical discs without having to worry about that so much.

  6. #36
    wildbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,670
    Images
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxxFordham View Post
    Nahh. These days, if something's being shot at 120 FPS for more than maybe several seconds at a time, it's on video. Back in the old days though, video could *not* be shot at more than 30 FPS, so if something were to put in slow motion, they had to shoot it on film at a faster rate than 24 FPS, but that was only for short bursts.
    NOPE.
    www.vinnywalsh.com

    Film photography? This term kills me. As if there's another kind!

  7. #37
    wildbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,670
    Images
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxxFordham View Post
    Why would computer files be "much more expensive to store long-term" than big reels of film, when you can just keep them on hard disks, cards, or optical discs, and especially optical discs last many decades if not hundreds of years? Maybe a hard disk drive will need to be exercised every so often, so that might not be a great long-term option, but how about flash storage? That's really not that expensive per gigabyte anymore. And you can get data DVDs for as low as 20 cents apiece, or burn data onto single-layer Blu-ray discs for as low as $1.00 per disc! "Much more expensive"? Geesh, with film, over the long term you have to store it in carefully climate-controlled vaults, don't you? Tell me that's "so much less expensive" than storing optical discs without having to worry about that so much.
    You might want to do some research. DVD's, are you kidding me?
    I've got a couple dead external hard drives under my desk I'll sell you. Make an offer.
    There isn't anything as archival as film in a can.
    www.vinnywalsh.com

    Film photography? This term kills me. As if there's another kind!

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    555
    What manufacturers supply film to Bollywood?

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,371
    Some cine is still shot on film, e.g. Starwars episode 7

    But it was the print distribution film that was the largest fraction of the coating volume, and that is still shrinking as theaters go digital cause they cannot get titles on film.

    It is exactly like 'have you tried buying a film camera in your local cam shop?' - I need to go to large town to see a (used) film camera in a window. The local smart phone shops are next door in malls.

    PAL is 25/50 Hz, but if you try separating the even and odd lines some people will be disturbed, YMMV.

    When US TV relays were shown they used to be frame converted (in real time) to PAL frequencies donno what they do now days.

    The last Bollywood set I was on was using a 'hybrid' 35mm Arri - this allowed them good first takes every time. This cut down their film usage, though not time on location.

    The last cine director I spoke with some time later (who was also shooting with a hybrd Arri) was well impressed - by this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Good_%28producer%29

  10. #40
    wildbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,670
    Images
    141
    "this allowed them good first takes every time. This cut down their film usage, though not time on location."
    how does a different camera allow them to get good first takes every time? Does it make the actors or camera operator better?

    I think I've worked with every arri out there but haven't heard of this "hybrid" you speak of. Please post a link to it on Arri's website.
    Last edited by wildbill; 03-29-2015 at 09:05 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    www.vinnywalsh.com

    Film photography? This term kills me. As if there's another kind!

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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