All of the things you mention (sound, color, spaceships on strings) are so vastly different from what we are talking about here, it makes any comparison meaningless. To paraphrase Jules in Pulp Fiction, "It ain't the same ballbark, it's not even the same sport!"

Even after every aspect of post-production and exhibition goes 100% digital, a filmmaker could still choose to shoot on film and scan it in. And as we have seen (and even the LA Times article admits), the cost of film is miniscue compared to the overall cost of production, so it will not be cost prehibitive to do so.

You often do come off as a guy with a "holier than thou" attitude and judging by the majority of your posts on any given thread you like to either argue or start arguments, and seem to have a slight resentment for the Film-Tech posting community and their opinions. Just because you work on "Touched/Molested by an Angel" doesn't necessarily make your opinions carry more weight than other members here. And since I get the impression that you think it does, that is what bothers me. You seem to think that I was trying to knock your reputation but I was trying to point out why you often seem to have different views, since you are not involved in exhibition. But take it as you will. So instead of saying something like "I don't know why everyone on this thread seems to have this opinion since I have a different one" you might try saying something like "Here is my opinion and here's why I have it". Thanks.

I didn't know you were working on "The Hulk"... I didn't even know they were making a "Hulk" movie until I read your post. But then again I don't follow the scene of making movies about superheroes so it is likely that I just overlooked that one. I'm sure it will be a big moneymaker.

Yes I am quite well aware that it is not the same ballpark, but you are talking about apples and oranges, but guess what...

THEY ARE BOTH FRUIT!!!!!

The point I am talking about is not the type of technology, but the advent of change.

Guess what? Horse drawn carraiges and automobiles are not the same thing either. They are apples and oranges. But how many interstate horse drawn carraiges do you see in operation?

You are focusing on the type of technology instead of the size of the change and the impact it could have on the industry. You may not agree with me that this is what point I am actually making, and instead try to convince me of what I already know, that the advent of sound and the advent of digital are not the same technological change, but they are of equal importance in the kind of impact it could have on the industry.

If you fail to see that point, that's ok too. Just remember that I do know and are quite aware of what you are trying to say, so you don't need to educate me. You just don't feel that it's a very big deal and thats fine.

History is replete with instances of change where people who held on the old technology got left behind. That isn't to say that the best technology is going to win either. History is crammed with tons of crap that replaced really much better solutions.

 |  IP: Logged

If that was the case please explain how Zenith and Sanyo (neither of which are subsidiaries of Sony) produced Sony-licensed Beta-format machines?

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

please explain how Zenith and Sanyo (neither of which are subsidiaries of Sony) produced Sony-licensed Beta-format machines?

---

Your analogy about horse drawn carrages versus Interstate highways carrying cars, or the advent of sound on movies or color films as it relates to the advent of "digital filmmaking" is a bit off. Those changes you mention were actual improvements. Videotape is no improvement over film. The basic fundamental result --the image itself-- is of lower quality. Very simple. I don't care if it is digital either. It is still lower quality.

To provide another answer to Greg's question "why would the people at this forum care so much about a hype article in a non-industry publication." Anything affecting film production will eventually affect film exhibition, so it is actually a related topic. But the thing that pisses me off is this article is very wrongly using the word "digital" as a gee-whiz trump card.

I've griped about this before. The public in general thinks digital equals perfect. The L.A. Times seems to think so as well. They don't think about the actual image quality, or even consider that certain analog mediums like film may still be better.

Just to add to that...
I saw at the auto parts store they were selling "Digital Tire Preasure Gauges" Certain they will make your car run better and get better mileage.

Does anyone know how high of a resolution a currently available digital videocamera can reach? I assume George is shooting in progressive, right? Plus, digital formats change all the time. Try playing a tape shot today back on equipment in 50 years. You'll have to go to the Goodwill store to get the equipment to play it on. No way they are going to keep everything backwards compatible and/or just decide on one format as it is right now.

3 Mpixel and 4 Mpixel still cameras are fairly common. And their CCDs are way too slow for video as well.

Don't take this the wrong way but once again I am getting shown the door for all the wrong reasons. Remember, I am on the side of film, not digital.

Yes I am aware that in the earlier advents they were improvements, and that advent of digital would not be an improvement. The level of improvement is not the issue. Remember that I also said in the same post that history is replete with examples of deprovements that made major changes. The best technology does not always win out you know.

The value of the technology is not the issue. The fact that they are not even in the same sport is not the issue. The issue is that it is highly possible for digital filmography and presentation to completely take over the market and totally leave film in its tracks. This would be a huge impact, the same level of impact that the advent of sound, or color, had on the industry. Sound and color were improvements, in retrospect. At the time, how many people do you think were critical of the horrible sound that was attributable to the first attempts. I have heard them. They are horrid. But we pressed on, hoping it would get better. And it keeps getting better. We all know digital pales in comparison to film. But as technology driven as our society is, they will push for constant improvement. We still don't settle for the sound we have now, we keep pushing that envelope to this day, introducing new formats with broader frequency response.

What makes you think that fifty years from now a whole new breed of tech people wont be on a web site called "digital-tech" bitching about the newest form of movie making and presentation threatening thier digital domain, laughing about the days when they used to make movies on film?

I am guessing the same thing happened during sound and color. The same thing is happening now with digital. It is happening. It is happening now. If you want to preserve film as a medium, I suggest you accept that digital could destroy it, and fight that horrible possibility with truth.

Film must live on, and rule. But we cannot be complacent thinking its no big deal. Fighting about the size or importance of the deal is just what the digital big boys want us to do. We will never see it coming when it runs us over. We cannot be caught like a deer in headlights.

I can say this two thousand different ways, but the same fact remains. Digital is a huge threat. It is because of corporate misinformation, media hype, and patron indifference. We have to fight propoganda with truth.

Into the fire we go.

I agree with just about everything you said but just wanted to point out that "back then" they didn't know what good sound was. They were jacked to get ANY sound. Now we can look back and say it was horrible, but then, not so. Had they a choice between todays sound (or had they even heard it) and the crude sound of the time it would have been a no brainer.

 |  IP: Logged