|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The future of film ... according to (a guy at) Arri
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-24-2009 06:39 PM
quote: Julio Roberto
I never said, if you read my posts, that you could do a full feature film like Transformers for "dirt cheap". But at least you can try (and surely fail), while before even that was out of the question.
The only thing different is the camera and what is being used to record the image. Everything else is way out of the price range for any "hobbyist" who just wants to experient. Honestly, even there a fully equipped Red One setup will cost too much for an ambitious amateur to rent (much less all the other gear he has to rent as well).
There's already lots of amateur video-making happening. Most of what is being produced is YouTube oriented material, with the vast majority of that being utter time-wasting crap. None of those people care about renting a Red camera or any other camera system that is trying to replace high end motion picture film cameras. The amateurs are perfectly happy using a sub-$1000 consumer level camera.
quote: Julio Roberto
About signage: I was talking mostly about posters and such, referring to images printed offset for posters, i.e. (with "old traditional film-based separation/matrixing) or vinly cut signes (in old expensive plotters, i.e.)
Most large format printing is still done on really expensive machines. We have a 54" Roland VersaCAMM in my studio that cost $25,000. Add in a Seal laminator for $8000. The ECO-solvent inks, vinyls and laminates cost a LOT. This isn't the sort of thing someone just does out of their garage. We have to outsource the printing for certain projects, such as ordering a giant-sized billboard face. We don't need to spend $500,000+ on a grand format printer. We especially don't need to do that when we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on LED-based billboards.
Some large format printers are more affordable, but you trade lower price for serious limitations. The cheaper printers cannot print as good or as fast as the more expensive models. Some of the cheapest printers lack good RIP hardware/software. In a production oriented environment you have to turn around jobs fast. Going with a cheaper printer can ultimately cost you down the road when you cannot finish projects for clients fast enough.
And that gets back to why the situation in motion picture production will not become "democratic" even if everything goes to video. The professional production work flow is still going to be too expensive for amateurs to afford.
Desktop video production is painfully slow compared to the capability of high end turn key systems from companies like Autodesk and Avid. Lots of people have been talking for years about how ordinary computers were going to replace high end video editing suites. That hasn't happened and I don't think it's going to happen very soon at all either.
I'm looking forward to buying a Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera body, but I'm going to get one for its still photography capabilities. I'll probably have some fun messing around with its 1080p video recording. But it is a serious turn off not being able to manually set aperture and exposure. It really limits a lot of creative possibilities.
***********
On another topic:
quote: Greg Anderson
A big part of the problem these days is that songs seem to be optimized for earbuds. Furthermore, they seem to be optimized for people who are listening to music while riding their bikes in heavy traffic.
The issue here is most rock/pop music is POORLY MASTERED. The mixers, engineers, etc. just make the mix sound as loud as possible. Take a recent CD release and load it into an audio editing program, preferably one where you can see a graphical representation of the wave form. Chances are you'll see the peaks of the waveform just freaking clipped all to hell. Load in a 20 year old disc. Chances are much better you'll have a waveform with the peaks left intact. The disc doesn't play nearly as loud, but it actually has more audio detail to it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 07-25-2009 05:45 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
camera body, but I'm going to get one for its still photography capabilities. I'll probably have some fun messing around with its 1080p video recording. But it is a serious turn off not being able to manually set aperture and exposure. It really limits a lot of creative possibilities.
Canon added that possibility on the official firmware update about a month ago. So one less turn off ![[Smile]](smile.gif) All the cameras already come with it. Mine (about 3 weeks old) already came with manual (and automatic, of course) video exposure/aperture controls.
Also, aficionado firmware has added things like zebra stripes, auto audio gain off (or set gain manually, fixed or auto), etc, etc.
As I said, this camera is very artificially limited by the manufacturer as to not compete too much against their far more expensive "professional" cameras. Even then, it still surpasses a lot of them at a fraction of the price and it will do more so in the future with un-official firmware updates.
Honestly, I know a thing or two about the A/V market and, if manufacturers wanted (i.e. if they had the will and competition, like small brands like RED did), we could easily be shooting similarly to 4K-level quality with a home-camera and 4K-resolution 55" flat screen TV's in our houses for $5000 for both.
Of course, they'll make us buy several years of upgrades and won't add all the capabilities until another manufacturer forces them to or the market actually demands it. I.e., there is not point on offering a $3000 55" 4K LCD tv when there is no use for it yet and the market is happy buying $2500 2K 55" LED-LCD tv's today.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-25-2009 11:43 AM
quote: Greg Anderson
On a related note, it seems like movies are optimized for iPods. They may-or-may-not look great in a theatre but, let's face it, any given movie will have 99% of its screenings on flat LCD panels, most of which aren't very big. So, that's just one of the reasons I'm struggling to find the point of nursing film along.
Recordings, be they movies, audio, pictures, paintings....etc are FOREVER (though some may not really be worthy of that)...as such, to merely record for the medium of the day is extremely short sighted and furthermore stupid.
I've always maintained that one should record on the best medium of the day so that as technology improves, you have more to work with when you migrate it to the medium of tomorrow.
LCD displays are a relatively new thing for displays and often look far worse than that which they replaced. However, things other than quality influenced their popularity. It is also reasonable to presume that they will continue to improve (in just the last 5 years they have improved by leaps and bounds...and going back 10 or 20 years isn't even worth comparing)...it is also reasonable to presume that they too will be replaced as a popular display device as technology leads us in a different direction.
As for film...so long as it delivers a superior result (capture and/or display) then it is my medium of choice...where it does not meet those criteria, then I'll go for the better method. Its pretty simple really. The fact that one technique may be harder than another should be a factor unless it is really prohibitive (at the professional level). People are generally lazy folks and often gravitate towards easy, not quality.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-25-2009 04:06 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
I've always maintained that one should record on the best medium of the day so that as technology improves, you have more to work with when you migrate it to the medium of tomorrow.
"Best" is subjective. It's also a moving target, moreso today than at any point in the past several decades. Today, there are only a couple of reasons to shoot a feature film in IMAX or 5-perf 65mm but a thousand reasons not to. Then there's the whole issue of the conflict between "art" and "business." It seems that feature film producers are and always were playing a game of take-the-money-and-run. Consider Lawrence of Arabia. Despite everything they did right in 1962 making this unqualified classic, the film was almost lost forever less than 27 years after it was made. If the average producer in Hollywood is interested in the long-term survival of individual, popular movies, it must be a fairly recent development. Hollywood has always been amazingly short-sighted.
Within a few years, digital technology should surpass film in every respect, including long-term archiving. (Imagine how easy it would be to store all of that digital material on redundant systems, especially as storage capacities increase and prices continue to drop.) Hollywood might actually improve its interest in archiving in spite of itself. If you like old movies, digital technology is already your friend.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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