Yeah. If everyone weren't so afraid, EVERYONE would be shooting in HD right now. Everyone. Yeah.

 |  IP: Logged

Was it the Star Wars series? The money? If the Phantom Menace was an example of the new way of doing things, then I'll stick to the old ways.

Just think of it. If you own any current HDTV system sold in the marketplace, you'll only have a grandiose 480p NTSC set when the "5C" copy protection measures are enacted. HBO knows exactly how idiotic this scheme is. They already market tested turning on and off the "broadcast flag" and found they would lose far more in business to lost subscriptions than preventing any kind of piracy. So they keep the flag turned off.

There is a lot more to this controversy than can be mentioned here. But basically Hollywood and its legion of bean counters must be so high on drugs they cannot see the proverbial forest for the trees. In broadcasting, I thought the whole idea was getting as many people as possible to watch your show. So who gives a shit if someone takes a tape of last night's show to their friend's house so they can see it too? I'm lost on that. But apparently Hollywood thinks that is piracy instead of improved ratings and word of mouth. What dumb asses!

So, to get back on topic, there's this whole stupid push for producing feature films in 1080p HD instead of film. Why????? The format is VERY FAR from being stable.

quote:

---

Just one question. Who died and put George Lucas in charge?

---

quote:

---

why is everyone here acting so frightened?

---

quote:

---

Why would the people at this forum care so much about a hype article in a non-industry publication?

---

Because hype can become public gospel really quickly. Hollywood hype is what sells movies afterall. And there's still a fairly good sampling of John Q. Public doesn't know how a movie is actually transferred on screen. Some people are baffled that the industry still uses film. There are still enough people out there, beyond this forum, who want to keep film alive for some time to come. Not just film handlers with a job on the line. (myself included)

...or perhaps the production side of movie making is not involved with your industry in any way.

Prior to Ep.III being released, there will be zero push for theatres to install them. Even when Ep.III is imminent - by which time this issue will no doubt flare up again - there will be theatre owners who will remember how Ep.II lasted 5 weeks and wont worry about 'upgrading' at all.

My money is on that Ep.III will be released in the vast majority of theatres on film. Maybe there will be over 100 d-projectors by then, maybe not. Maybe there will be a better model available that TI/JVC or whoever will want to test in the field, thereby increasing numbers. Those theatres stuck with the old models will be just that: stuck with them.

Here's my speculation for the future of cinema: d-cinema won't happen en masse. It is the paperless office all over again. Remember how absolutely convinced everyone was that that was going to happen? Have we forgotten exactly how convinced? Yet, it didn't happen. In my opinion, neither will this. There are very sound business reasons - as we all know - why this is so.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. If so, I will gladly stay away from theatres and watch an affordable HD-DLP projector at home, and why shouldn't I?

Regarding acquisition, Bobby is right: why film in HD video instead of film?

July 16, 2002

To the Editor of The Los Angeles Times:

I was disappointed when I read the front-page article headlined “Filming Without the Film” in the July 11 issue of The Los Angeles Times. The story proclaimed that the careers of directors who can’t make the “transition” to digital cameras are “threatened.” It used the word “fear” to explain why they aren’t using digital cameras and predicted they will be “left behind.”

I can’t imagine the directors and cinematographers I have been privileged to meet “blanching” because a misstep with new technology could tarnish their careers, or that they “cross their fingers and pray” that there are no mistakes while waiting for dailies. I am not going to respond to all of the marketing rhetoric your story misrepresents as fact. The filmmakers you have offended are articulate artists who are capable of speaking for themselves. I am sure you will hear from many of them.

However, I am surprised and disappointed that your reporters didn’t call me or anyone on my staff before they reached their conclusions about the future of imaging technology. Kodak has been the world-class leader in providing imaging technologies for the motion picture industry since 1889 when Thomas Edison wrote a letter to George Eastman telling him about the prototype camera and projector his lab was developing.

From that day forward, we have consistently directed our research and development efforts to provide the film, and more recently, digital and hybrid (combining film and digital technologies) motion imaging tools our customers tell us they need to advance their art form. The truth is no one knows exactly what the future will bring, but I can assure you that today’s film and digital imaging technologies are fundamentally different in the same way that acrylic and water paints are different. Film has a unique capacity for recording nuances in colors, textures and tonal ranges that are an important part of the language of visual storytellers.

It is our experience that directors and cinematographers make informed decisions regarding choice of media based on how it serves the emotional tones of their stories. It is also our experience that they are fearless in their willingness to embrace and test the possibilities of any new imaging technologies.

I don’t think it is possible to undo the false impressions you have created, but I hope you will try. You will have the complete cooperation of our scientists and research staff. More importantly, I urge you to contact Steven Poster, ASC, president of the American Society of Cinematographers, and George Spiro Dibie, ASC, national president of the International Cinematographers Guild. You owe that much to the artists you have offended and also to your readers who deserve the truth.

Cordially,
Eric Rodli
President
Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company

CC: Steven Poster, ASC and George Spiro Dibie, ASC, letters@latimes.com

_____________________________________________________________________

Steven Poster, President of the ASC, has also written a letter of protest to the bias of the LA Times article, posted on the Cinematography Mailing List (CML).