Digital Filming + Projecting

[hermes]

I wanted to get some varied opinions and Rougerum's in particular, on the subject of Digital "filming" and projecting vs. standard. And uh, excuse the spelling...

Of course Digital "filming" is going to allow more film makers to make films cheaper.
This I don't have much against.

I've been to a few different digitaly projected films. While the quality is crystal clear, no marks or dots, it still came off as sanitary to me. It only really worked for me during Toy Story Which was of course digitally generated.

I've also read Ebert talking about studies showing that Digital projection and Film projection engage the subconscience differently. Where as film projection is more engaging to mind, digital projecting causes the same sub-conscince effect as television. Whihc leads me to speculate as to whether this enagagin of the sub-conscience is what still keeps people going to the movies.

Besides that, color techniques, such as those used in Apocalypse Now Redux or technicolor, wouldn't be posible with the same impact, because it's the saturation of light throught the treated film itself that is integral to the visual outcome.

I think Lucas is creating the biggest push towards digital everything. And If I am correct, he is only going to be presenting the next Star Wars installment in theatres that use digital projection.

I think he of course realises the cost efectiveness of digital "filming" and projection. He can do everything from shooting, effects, editing, transferring to shipping much cheaper. And theatres, once transition cost are over, will be able to do everything cheaper and easier. But I fear a loss of something.

I see nothing wrong in the digital process itself. But if theatres do fully switch over to digital projection, a major piece of what movies are will be lost. Colour hues, sub-conscience effect, and the on going expirementation into what film is capable of will be gone.

But maybe I'm just a techno-phobe when it comes to this.

I want to hear opinions. And I want some insight from those more informed than I.



------------------
Steve
SAME OLD STORY- Hardcore American Comedy

 

[Henry Rollins]

I credit DC for getting me interested in the idea of using digital film to make a small independent movie. The point he argued to its value for someone not in the business that I found was the best argument is that on digital film you can reuse it over and over again where on film you can only use it once. So cost plays the biggest part in this for sure. I am not the best for the technical details of how to make a movie, that is something I always think about needing to know more about. I don't mind really how digital film may not have the best quality picture to it, for someone in my position costs is what concerns me the most. Ebert has a good point with digital film affecting the subconsious more than the regular film but not going so far that it would disrupt the viewers attention to the story. That is also a major part in my thinking of digital film. It makes it look off base from the reality and I have always been bored with movies that try to photograph the reality. Some people have said that movies at their best play like dreams, using digital film goes more for that then regular film usually does but my main reason for using digital film still is the costs and the position i am in it is a good idea to use digital film just to try and get in the door of the film business.

~rougerum

 

[DC]

I have no doubt in my mind that digital filmmaking is the future and anyone who is interested in becoming a filmmaker must go this direction. Projection is still going to be primarily film (at least for a while longer) and actually that's perfectly fine. To an aspiring filmmaker, this doesn't matter because it is so much cheaper to shoot digitally, that even though the cost of film transfer is somewhat expensive, a smart filmmaker will not pay for that themself. That's the distributor's job - to tranfer your movie to film. Most studios and festivals prefer to get submissions on VHS anyway, which can be done regardless of the original format.

Interestingly, many films shot digitally you wouldn't even know it because they were transfered to film and have a look that's very close to film. The average person has no idea on how to spot the difference between a film shot on 16mm and one shot on 32mm, much less whether one was shot using miniDV or DV. If the story is powerful, you can get by with a lot without spending Hollywood amounts of money.

I want to go into this more because I'm very, very interested in digital cinema - I'm glad I saw this but I saw it at a time when I don't have much time (which is why I've been absent from here). I'll try to get back to this discussion soon though.

 

[hermes]

I think Digital Filming is a great thing for new filmakers or filmakers who purposefully want a certain style. It's a very exciting thing indeed and will probably cause a glut of amatuer stuff below par, much like the digital processing of music has done. But it's an awesome thing for a talented filmaker.

I'm leary of a general shift toward sall "film making" being done that way.

And I am scared as hell that digital projecting will take over, because soon it will be very cost effective for theatres.

And as I stated before, there is more than the danger in the loss of the effects of what beuatifully processed film can do. Most studios don't seem to give a damn about that anyhow. But the psychological effect could be heavily detremental to theatre going as we know it.

Or am I the only fuddy duddy scared of this?


------------------
Steve
SAME OLD STORY- Hardcore American Comedy