This is topic Star Wars, digital cinema & blah blah blah. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000878
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-01-2002, 11:05 AM:
It used to be that guys would talk about baseball the way you guys are talking about Star Wars. But now Star Wars is like an infamous baseball team. No matter how well they play, some people will always hate them. If fans of a baseball team painted logos on their faces and waited in line for opening day tickets at a ridiculously early date, they wouldn't be ridiculed nearly as much as Star Wars fans. If sports fans look like fat slobs who could never play the game and if they smell bad and have other, poor grooming skills and if they can't seem to talk about anything but their favorite team, they're still not likely to hear dismissive phrases like "get a life."On the other hand, there's you... pronouncing doom and condemnation on a new movie which, to my knowledge, none of you has seen yet. Now, if one of you claims to have actually seen the new Star Wars movie and you tell me it's rubbish, I'll take you seriously. Until then, it's just blah blah blah.
As for digital video, I'm really surprised at how this is playing out. A little more than a year ago everyone at the American Society of Cinematographers' annual gathering was denouncing "digital" and yet, in a recent issue of their magazine, there were several articles about movies shot on digital video. And I'm not talking about George Lucas' whiz-bang, high-definition stuff. This was about people shooting on XL-1S and PD-150 cameras. This wasn't some magazine for guys who shoot weddings. This was American Cinematographer!
So, if you really want to bad-mouth a guy who's lowering image standards why don't you pick on a Hollywood insider (a real Oscar winner) who isn't trying to raise the bar on "digital cinema" but just shot a feature "film" on a mini-DV camcorder. If people take Soderberg's next movie seriously (especially if Roger Ebert likes it) then he will have done more to hurt your profession than George Lucas ever could.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-01-2002, 12:30 PM:
I always try to follow the words of Joe Friday from "Dragnet" --- "...Just the facts, ma'am." 
When I give an opinion, I always try to base it on actual personal experience or good engineering judgement, rather than hearsay.
If you repeat a rumor or information from somewhere else, cite the source.
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-01-2002, 12:38 PM:
I'm not sure I agree here. American Cinematographer has always reported on the latest trends in film production, and this is a current trend. The fact is, films ARE being shot in these various digital formats, and since respected shooters are using the digital tools, AC would be remiss on not covering what their experiences were on the shoots. The fact is, over time, most cinematographers will need to be prepared for using digital production cameras, and since the mag is published by the guild, these articles will help those facing a production. I'm sure many cinematographers can't wait to get their hands on these new tools, if nothing more than for the challenge of minimizing the limitations inherent in digital imaging.
Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 05-03-2002, 04:25 PM:
Quoting Greg:
"This wasn't some magazine for guys who shoot weddings. This was American Cinematographer!"Maybe it was... or maybe I read it wrong, but that sounds like a wedding videographer bash.
Sure, one cannot compare the quality of a true Cinematographer with that of many wedding videographers, but there are many good videographers that can produce astonishingly great results with the equipment available to them.
Check out www.weva.com for more info....
I make the majority of my living on Saturday night weddings (at least for now), and anytime someone lends a negative comment toward the wedding industry it just hits me wrong.
Just my opinion.....
------------------
Barry Floyd
Floyd Entertainment Group
Nashville, Tennessee
(Drive-In Theatre - Start-Up)
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-03-2002, 08:50 PM:
Apology extended. I did not mean to slam wedding photographers. I realize there are plenty of fine wedding photographers (I never liked the term "videographer" and tend to use the word "photography" to mean either still or motion pictures). I also realize there are plenty of digital video-related magazines highlighting the equipment and techniques for the kind of work most motion picture wedding photographers do. And I am not above doing such work myself. (Perhaps instead of mentioning guys who shoot weddings, I should have written "guys who make skateboard videos" ...but then I'd offend someone else and he'd probably beat me up.)So, while I usually expect American Cinematographer to highlight the latest, greatest technical advancements in high-end motion picture photography, I'm troubled to see so much coverage of low-definition video work. It's as simple as that. (Incidentally, the next issue of American Cinematographer had a nice article about the Space Station IMAX 3-D film.) If they're going to cover video work, I'd rather hear about high-definition stuff. That's just my opinion or, in other words, blah blah blah.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-03-2002, 09:23 PM:
So are you saying that American Cinematographer shouldn't cover 16mm production, either? Personally, I'd like to see them cover a wide range of productions, ranging from ultra-low-budget documentaries (16mm, DV, whatever) to large-format and special-venue (70mm, Vistavision, etc.) projects.I agree with the general idea, though, that it is unfortunate that so many people are willing to accept the relatively poor quality of DV or Digital Betacam when there are many other motion-picture formats (including 16mm!) which look far better.
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 05-03-2002, 09:34 PM:
Scott, although I am not a regular reader of American Cinematographer, I agree with you. I find it bothersome that the mainstream film press (i.e. American Cinematographer) in general will discuss "alternative" methods of filmmaking when some Hollywood rich kid (ie Etham Hawke) makes their "edgy" "film" in DV, but nobody really talks about people using 16mm (or Super 8) or it's possibilities. Both Super 8 and 16mm are used to a large degree for music videos and other indies and unknowns, but it isn't talked about too much anymore. I am not anti-digital by any means, but I think that smaller film formats have their place and still can be used inexpensively to make great pictures.
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 05-04-2002, 07:24 AM:
Interesting you mention "skateboard videos". Their winter cousins, the ski/snowboard video market is full of guys who start out with dad's camcorder, then to "high-quality" video. But invariably, when they start to sell more tapes, they start to shoot on 16mm. In fact, they trumpet this fact in all the ski mags ("A new 16mm film"). Even though most will see it on VHS or DVD, it's interesting that for quality, even these kids know that film is best. It's kind of sad that now the grandaddy of all this, Warren Miller Productions, now shoots "digitally" and even exhibits with "DVD Projection Technology". And even when you compare his older VHS tapes, to the new ones, the picture now is clearly inferior. Just my opinion, but that's what I see...
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-04-2002, 11:15 AM:
American Cinematographer Magazine used to be a magazine that reported mainly on the higher quality end of the buisness. I quit reading it years ago when they dumped Herb Lightman as editor. I think it was alot better mag when Herb ran it. It was chocked full of detailed photos on how many films were done, and great intervoews with famous cinematographers while on location.
Its now just like any other rag that you find on the corner news stand...in fact, come to think of it, it is available at many corner news stands. Before, it was available only by subscription, or at your local library. It was something special, and there was an aura to it that no longer seems to exist. American Cinematographer has the look of a bottom line based mainstream magazine and usually a total waste. These types of mags always report on what is trendy, not what is necessarily the best. Lately, I have very little faith in what the the ASC does, and stands for overall. They seem to blow with the wind now, just like any other politically based organization does.
Mark