It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Real Film vs. Digital Recording

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
So a few years ago most film makers in Hollywood and elsewhere in the industry made an across the board decision to hang up their film reels and go digital. That means no cutting room floor. No worries about paying for film. The upside to this tradeoff is purely economical but the truth is that film is natural. Digital can never match up against the visual appeal of real film. Digital is easier to manipulate and we all know that movie makers love to manipulate, likely moreso than anyone in any other industry. But really, when film makers are dealing with budgets that reach the tens in millions of dollars, what's to worry about with a puny $50,000 film expense? The reasoning behind the switch isn't clear. I think really, moviemakers are getting lazy. Digital cuts out some time, making post-production swifter. The problem with this is the lack of an actual physical object (the film reels) to claim as the property to whomever the owner is. This pushes the actual product of the movie further into the intellectual property category. I think what they've done in the long run is hurt the film industry with the switch to digital. Maybe to the majority of casual filmgoers this doesn't matter, but I think it does. Altering the intimate process of film production puts less emphasis on production and more emphasis on time saving. I don't know, it's like they closed up that big warehouse full of film reels, locked the door and said, "We are done with this." Where does the film exist these days? As a microchip in a small safe under a CEOs desk now? That ain't right. Keep it on a reel.




posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Digital, at some point, will be the only way of storing media.

Analog methods will vanish, except for niche market that still enjoys it.

I think we are really well past the point where the Negatives of Digital film, are out weighted by the positives.

Things like delivery method to digital projectors, or having a master digital copy that never degrades with time.


Do you know how much "art" is now gone in the original form due to loss or purposeful destruction of negatives?

ETA:

My wife a photographer, and it took her sometime to switch to all digital, she still has film, but honestly its only as a "throw back" to liking the process of developing, not for any real technical reasons.

A stack of SD cards beats 100s of negatives.
edit on 28-4-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I started shooting with a 16mm Bolex. I loved the look of film but there was very little you could do in post and very expensive.
Now anyone with a DSLR or a Blackmajic can make a beautiful feature length movie at their kitchen table on their laptop for pocket change. I have been DP on indy features that were made with no money except for crafty and SDHC cards.

The main advantage of digital is that it puts the art of filmmaking within reach of almost anyone. Film was mainly for wealthy artists.

The look is important but it's about the story. A good story shot on a cell phone will outshine junk shot on a Red or Arri...!!

















edit on 28-4-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: benrl
Digital, at some point, will be the only way of storing media.

Analog methods will vanish, except for niche market that still enjoys it.


Exactly. This is what happened in the music recording industry. The upside for me in that regard is that I was able to purchase a 2" 24 track tape machine for literally 1/35 the original cost and with minimal work and financial investment on my end I have a fully functional relic that I can charge a pretty penny for clients to utilize it. This comes in the form mostly of analogue to digital transfers as opposed to recordings because of the enamourment with Protools and digital recording so its a win win. I have do do far less work with the transfers and can maintain realistic fees while still making decent money. My own projects are the only ones that have actually used the tape for recording and I dont mind because its less wear and tear on the old girl. I'm not terribly familiar with the film industry though so perhaps my comparison is off but it appears to be a parallel in regards to becoming an anachronism.




top topics
 
1

log in

join