|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: You may find this URL offensive.
|
|
|
Jon Miller
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 973
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 08-05-2002 08:13 PM
Thank God there is a voice of reason in, of all people, "HDTVGuy" in his post in the "Film is Dead" [sic] forum in proclaiming that film is not dead (emphasis his). Other than that, I agree, the site is lame.Well, if film is dead as they claim, why, oh why, did they give the site the highly oxymoronic name of Digital Film Forum, complete with all the lame film-related graphics?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-05-2002 11:08 PM
Interestingly, even Sony, which is currently doing a fair amount of promotion for the 24P HDCAM format (which is what Lucas used for SW II), isn't claiming that 24P is a "replacement" for film, but rather that it is an "alternative" format to 35mm, much like 16mm, super-16, etc. They even seem to be pretty honest about the weaknesses of the current generation of HDTV equipment.I watched a fair amount of 24P material today (projected via DLP) and was generally impressed. It doesn't look like film, but it doesn't look like video, either. It's really a totally different format and should be treated as such. Personally, I think that most "movies" would still look better if shot on film, but I can see the usefulness of having another format which a) allows a high shooting ratio for very little extra cost and b) allows the use of a smallish, lightweight camera.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-06-2002 02:30 PM
I've just noticed what I typed; I meant nausea, of course.Alan, I see you are from Rochester, what sort of place is it. Is there any reason why a fair proportion of the world's camera makers seem to have been based there? I believe that a small, rather obscure photographic company is tsill there today  , but, in the past, there were many others. Some, like Folmer& Schwing, were owned by Kodak for a while, but there were others which were not. Very often, when you see a fine old wood and brass camera it has a Rochester makers plate on it. I've often wondered why so many camera makers should gather in one place.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic