Members the stranger Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 ARRI, Panavision and Aaton have all quietly ceased production of their film cameras to focus exclusively on the design and manufacture of digital cameras. Film? Fade to black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ed A. Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Acme Buggy Whip Company quietly ceased production of their line of buggy whips to focus on the design and manufacture of automobile components. Times change and so does the technology. If a company doesn't see this, they go out of business. For example , Kodak was a leader in film technology and they really aren't making the digital transition successfully, now they're on the brink of bankruptcy. At least ARRI, Panavision and Aaton have seen the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Why should we buy antique stuff when you can buy a 4k RED camera for $25.000 nowadays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ed A. Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 True, a RED Epic is less than half the price of the lowest priced ARRI ALEXA. That's the other thing these older established companies have to realize is that they can't charge ridiculous prices like they use to. Reminds me of how the audio hardware industry had to reevaluate their price/performance ratios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Even so I think they're a bit behind the times. Cameras? We don't need no stinking cameras... of any kind, digital or film. New movies look like video games to me. It won't be long before everything is virtual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scarecrowbob Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Having only worked on one 35mm film shoot, my opinions might be a little off. But from what I can tell, the real issue is that with the death of the consumer 35mm still film format, it is pretty difficult to support film in the industry even if there is a demand for film to shoot motion pictures. Film is and always will be almost exclusively about the actors/production in front of the camera and the creativity behind the camera, and very little about the camera in between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Film is and always will be almost exclusively about the actors/production in front of the camera and the creativity behind the camera, and very little about the camera in between them. Exactly. Best leave that camera at home and play it on stage, or on the market place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ed A. Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Saw this on another forum: "Still trying to decide between this (ARRI ALEXA) or the RED for filming my sleeping dog and submitting it to youtube." Most people, even most professionals, don't need that level of quality anyway. I do ENG for a local TV station and those kinds of cameras aren't good for this.Again with the audio parallel, if almost all music is now a less than CD quality download, why use expensive studio gear to record it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bookumdano2 Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Video .. a universe I know too little of. It's on my list though to learn ... just after I learn how to work a vinyl cutter lathe on my own. I do have a question about video ... do "those guys" in that world have a common plug-in that gives "that vintage film look". Not like a 1920s movie, but well... you know ... something on the lines of what we are now bombarded with in audio with UAD studer, ampex, Waves tape plugins etc etc for "that tape sound". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ed A. Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Yeah, in editing, there are video plugins that can simulate many different looks. You usually simulate a particular film look by adjusting custom presets in the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scarecrowbob Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Ed, that quote is funny. IMO, the folks buying all this crap off sweetwater to support their hobbies are mostly doing something quite similar to buying a red to record their cat chasing laser pointers. If you can turn a profit off of having gear, who cares what it costs? If you're just doing it for fun, why spend a single cent to get beyond what looks okay to you? "Most people, even most professionals, don't need that level of quality anyway. I do ENG for a local TV station and those kinds of cameras aren't good for this.Again with the audio parallel, if almost all music is now a less than CD quality download, why use expensive studio gear to record it?" Horses for courses. Why bother with an expensive ENG camera for television when you could shoot with an hvx200 or similar? Because the form factor works better for the environment. Similarly, and ENG camera may not be the best equipment for shooting narrative film. And a DSLR is a terrible form for shooting motion picture and especially events or news, but you can kludge something together that makes a very high quality result. I find the canon L series lenses to be about the level that I find satisfying, other people might not, especially if you have to zoom. In the end, though, it is whatever is reliable enough for the situation that provides a satisfactory enough picture for the people making the work. IME, there are some differences in the output from a film workflow and a digital workflow, but at this point they are so marginal that they are equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Again with the audio parallel, if almost all music is now a less than CD quality download, why use expensive studio gear to record it? Good argument! I fire all recording engineers and mixer, and have all music produced by Mizzy my cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ed A. Posted October 16, 2011 Members Share Posted October 16, 2011 Notice I said gear and not people. Bruce Swedien could probably get a better result with an 8 track Portastudio than most people here could get with a full-blown Protools system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted October 17, 2011 Members Share Posted October 17, 2011 You said it. Everyone was raving about THE TREE OF LIFE. Everything about it was so synthetic and glossy and micromanaged, there wasn't a thing natural or authentic about that picture. (And I live in rural Texas, too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted October 17, 2011 Members Share Posted October 17, 2011 Notice I said gear and not people. Bruce Swedien could probably get a better result with an 8 track Portastudio than most people here could get with a full-blown Protools system. Bruce never recorded anything not with the portastudio. However I think his is is a 4-Track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted October 18, 2011 Author Members Share Posted October 18, 2011 Well, I think it's a loss. {censored} digital. I say we just start sending each other pen pal letters...and go back to making music and movies with real machines, not these digital hipster boxes. I want hardcore mechanical engineering and complicated mechanics to maintain. I'm tired of feeding pixels. You can shoot and edit a movie in film like a real man, or you can use a computer like a sissy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ed A. Posted October 18, 2011 Members Share Posted October 18, 2011 You can shoot and edit a movie in film like a real man, or you can use a computer like a sissy. Real man? More like a cave man. Break out the ol' Moviola and razor blades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted October 18, 2011 Members Share Posted October 18, 2011 Destructive editing is only for those with balls of tempered steel. Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted October 18, 2011 Author Members Share Posted October 18, 2011 Real men use razor blades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted October 18, 2011 Members Share Posted October 18, 2011 Yeah, in editing, there are video plugins that can simulate many different looks. You usually simulate a particular film look by adjusting custom presets in the camera. for film look you shoot in 50 or 60 progressive, and make the coloration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted October 18, 2011 Members Share Posted October 18, 2011 Well, I think it's a loss. {censored} digital. I say we just start sending each other pen pal letters...and go back to making music and movies with real machines, not these digital hipster boxes. I want hardcore mechanical engineering and complicated mechanics to maintain. I'm tired of feeding pixels. You can shoot and edit a movie in film like a real man, or you can use a computer like a sissy. Absolutely! Real men filmed with real machines! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.