35mm battle to be HD

[Scotness]

Although perversely it may prove to be to our advantage as indie film makers - because digital cinemas would be more able to show some of our films - even if only in SD - because how many of us can get a 35mm print done of one of our films - even if only a short.

Of course it wouldn't look as good.......but at least it would be shown

Scot

[supermag400_inventor]

Film and Video are both used for artistic expressions in our society. They are both usefulll in making stories we wish to share with others. However, as film makes, it is our duty to keep film alive and not let it die by the hands of video producers.

Film is a vital medium of artistic expression and no video, HD or otherwise is ever going to replace it totally.

I appreciate Video for it's properties and I appreciate film for it's properties. Lets keep using both, but keep them in perspective.

God Save America.... and Super 8 films!

Dave

[jean]

But why is it that I can easily afford a 16mm Arri and have the freezer full of film rolls, but the high end camcorders are absolutely out of my range?

Of course the cost for processing and telecine are huge, but I get my film done on 16mm for less the price than one these very cool cameras.

So for me it's a no brainer, I have excellent quality with a lot of potential and money left..That's for the filming part, since it got mentioned above.

In terms of projection, digital has indeed a great potential, especially for indie films and for old films. A friend of mine is organizing screenings of older films (60s and 70s mostly) and believe it or not, the hardest part is getting the copy! Digital would indeed be a great help.

However the small theatre would never be able to finance digital equipment, so this potential will likely remain untouched, just multiplex cinemas would increase their revenues. And perhaps even kill off smaller theatres that are unable to keep up and sooner or later left out of the distribution loop..

[sunrise]

Ahhh, but it's not just about filming and projecting. It's also about scanning, editing and effects.

michael

[MovieStuff]

Of course the cost for processing and telecine are huge

Then why leave them out of the equation when comparing digital to film?

Roger

[S8 Booster]

The Cost of Getting it into the Can
Complete 8 page PDF of above doc:
http://www.in24p.com/info%20PDF/HD%20Co ... avings.pdf

The Eye of the Beholder: Cost Comparisons

R

[Scotness]

Here's a bit of info for anyone too - a rough head to head test:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004 ... entry29908

Scot

[S8 Booster]

Wonder if it is a mistake by Kodak to *Adopt them to Scanning/DV processing* or refine their films towards telecine & video competition. Stuff gets soo smooth that by the first time someone (in buzz - allready happened) finds out that FD/DV is a real alternative the conclusion is: "Well, why not DV right on?"

R

[jean]

Because I was to lazy to add them up now for my specific projects

Of course there is a beak even point, from where on any meter of footage piles up to infinity while the camcorder keeps on running for next to nothing. My point was that for my specific needs - probably many wannabe short film makers will be in similar situations - I can get really far with 16mm, and finish at least one project for less than the cost of a pro camcorder. I plan to do three, but then I'm a real cheapskate, so your mileage ma vary

In other words - the huge investment in a pro camcorder would kill me before even beginning to do anything, but I can cough up the costs for camera, film, processing and telecine as my project advances and still have cash to pay rent, eat and drink. And as a bonus, film looks better and spares me the amateurish video look.

Like saying that on the long run it's cheaper to buy a house than to rent it. Of course true, but what is that good for when you don't have the cash to begin with!

Of course the cost for processing and telecine are huge

Then why leave them out of the equation when comparing digital to film?

Roger