Thoughts on Modern Cameras

[Nigel]

I've never met a pro-shooter use film/tape interchangeably.

I have met lots of people pros included use the generic term 'film' to describe the act or as a generic noun. "I just landed a film in June." "We start filming in June." Never "I rented the Sony F65 Film camera." "The Sony F65 is an amazing film camera."

Either way. That's neither here nor there. The discussion is topical to the general concept of the board. We are all making movies be it on Super8 or anything else. There are guys here that bring up 35mm from time to time. Should we tell them to take it somewhere else?

What about using an ink-jet printer to create images? ;) How is that somehow different than using the computer to directly send the images directly to YouTube?

Does the Digital Bolex gets a pass because it's a Bolex?

Lets talk about cameras, creating imagery and call it good.

Good Luck

[MitchPerkins]

I can relearn the ergonomics and work flow. So that doesn't really bother me as much though it would be nice to see a camera with knobs and no menus. But I'm surprised that you didn't include in your list a global shutter. All your HD cameras with CMOS have rolling shutters and they SUCK FETID POND WATER. It's like shooting with a really, really expensive cell phone.

Roger

Not sure if relearning ergonomics is a thing, but I couldn't agree more wrt rolling shutters - say you're shooting a wedding reception and the SLR flashes are popping; used to be you could use those frames in the edit a la Martin Scorcese...now it's just a white bar across part of the frame, and looks stupid...like a stupid mistake.

Also you ~may have noticed~, the CMOS is problematic for real-time telecine applications - faint scan bars in low density scenes, and it makes the negs flicker...don't know why, maybe the general lack of density in the neg.

Hope everything is going great,
Mitch

[MitchPerkins]

Since people keep beating the horse I couldn't help but chime in....

Thoughtful thoughts Nigel. I have to say I'm surprised these issues exist, even if we are at the dawn of the digital age, because they are issues that were addressed long ago with film cameras...

All the best,
Mitch

[Nigel]

Mitch.

That was kind of my point.

Good Luck

[reflex]

At the end of the day, Canon and Nikon don't exist to advance art or to achieve technical perfection. They exist to make bucket loads of money for their shareholders. That means aggressive pricing and artificial product differentiation ("forgetting" audio jacks on low end DSLRs, restricting bitrates and resolution in software on low end devices, etc).

We often forget just how expensive our Super 8 gear was back in the day. My Beaulieu 4008 retailed for $1600 in 1977. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $5800 today -- a small fortune that was beyond the reach of all but the most determined (or wealthy) amateurs.

You can get a good consumer camcorder for $500 now, yet few people will tap its potential. Most will just hosepipe around back yard birthday parties and won't ever mount it on a tripod or even take it out of automatic mode. And yet some kids will make stunningly beautiful videos with their "fatally flawed" equipment. 35 years ago, many of those kids wouldn't have had the chance to even touch a movie camera while growing up.

[aj]

They exist to make bucket loads of money for their shareholders.

We often forget just how expensive our Super 8 gear was back in the day. My Beaulieu 4008 retailed for $1600 in 1977. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $5800 today -- a small fortune that was beyond the reach of all but the most determined (or wealthy) amateurs.

Indeed photo and ciné equipment in its time was terribly expensive.
I too have original bills and paperwork with some of my cameras.

The JOBO plastic was 'merely' mold injected parts. Still it sold at a fortune like the Beaulieu.
Considering what is inside the 4008 they must have been making bucket loads of money for somebody 'Beau'

[Will2]

At the end of the day, Canon and Nikon don't exist to advance art or to achieve technical perfection. They exist to make bucket loads of money for their shareholders.

As a Nikon shareholder, I agree with this.

I would hope that some of the people at the company are about the art and quest for perfection and managers can harness that talent and drive to do a little of both.

[etimh]

So if something better than film comes along in a few years -- something absolutely fantastic -- you'll continue to shoot film? That's romantic, but doesn't really make sense.

What do you mean when you say "something better than film"? Better in what way? "Easier"? Cheaper? Even MORE "film-like"(?!)? Of course, many different "absolutely fantastic" things are sure to be conceived, developed, and manufactured in the future. But if you want FILM, there is nothing "better." How can there be?

Romantic for sure.

Tim

[Tommy]

Of course , what would throw a wrench into video, would be a new technology that could produce CHEAP film. Super 8 today cost about $12. a minute.....think if that could come down to $2. a minute or even cheaper.

[grainy]

.. The discussion is topical to the general concept of the board. We are all making movies be it on Super8 or anything else. There are guys here that bring up 35mm from time to time. Should we tell them to take it somewhere else?
What about using an ink-jet printer to create images? ;) How is that somehow different than using the computer to directly send the images directly to YouTube?
Does the Digital Bolex gets a pass because it's a Bolex?
Lets talk about cameras, creating imagery and call it good.

I dunno, I disagree. The board literally is "small gauge film forum". There's a billion digital video forums out there.
People come here specifically to talk and get tips about super 8 and sometimes 16.

(And some apparently to escape from cinematography.com )

Additionally, I think using an ink jet printer to create images on/from film is totally different than sending images to youtube. A million everybodies are already sending stuff to youtube and there is no shortage of information and press and gas about it, whereas the inkjet idea is exactly the sort of home-brew hackery that can find traction or at least appreciation at a distance from the types who love their small format film and all the gear that goes with and can be built for it.
I know I thought it was interesting -- even though I'd never try it myself -- whereas frankly, I have zero interest in yet another person trying to compare computer simulations such as iphone apps to film.

Film is a medium, like paint. No one's trying to tell poeple who work in oil paint that they really need to invest in acrylics.

[grainy]

Of course , what would throw a wrench into video, would be a new technology that could produce CHEAP film. Super 8 today cost about $12. a minute.....think if that could come down to $2. a minute or even cheaper.

That would be amazing. At this point, though, all I can think of is the (semi reliable) Lucky brand 35mm still film, which has some cache in the toy camera world.

Maybe it'll be up to the Chinese to do this with super 8, I can't imagine anyone else cutting labor costs like they do.

[reflex]

What do you mean when you say "something better than film"? Better in what way? "Easier"? Cheaper? Even MORE "film-like"(?!)? Of course, many different "absolutely fantastic" things are sure to be conceived, developed, and manufactured in the future. But if you want FILM, there is nothing "better." How can there be?

In the audio world, there have been a few quite impressive computer-based emulations of classic analog synthesizers -- right down to the quirks that give them their unique sound.

In most cases, the emulated musical instruments are easier to work with than the originals. They don't drift out of tune and can be computer controlled. The modern imitations also don't suffer from electronic degradation (dried out capacitors, failing ICs, etc).

Audio requires less bandwidth than video, but it stands to reason that we'll eventually see dsp chips that take the output from extremely good optical sensors and emulate a variety of different looks in an extremely convincing manner (in essence, in-camera colour grading). It would be a good thing to have something available that has 99% of the look of Super 8 without the challenges of processing, scanning, audio syncing and taming image instability.

[wado1942]

Of course , what would throw a wrench into video, would be a new technology that could produce CHEAP film. Super 8 today cost about $12. a minute.....think if that could come down to $2. a minute or even cheaper.

I would throw my video camera into the trash if somebody made a quality film product so cheap.

In the audio world, there have been a few quite impressive computer-based emulations of classic analog synthesizers -- right down to the quirks that give them their unique sound.

And yet, the real thing still sounds better. Even modeled processing plugins sound different from what they're modeling. Yeah, they attribute that to differences in aging, manufacturing etc. but I've heard blind shootouts where they cut back & forth between the real thing & an emulation to show everybody that nobody could hear a difference. The sound of the emulation is basically the same, but it feels smaller every time. I've used plenty analogue synths & their software simulations as well, no contest. The emulator may be "close enough" for some people, but not a discerning ear.

[MovieStuff]

.... The emulator may be "close enough" for some people, but not a discerning ear.

I dunno. To me this is a kind of global statement that has no basis in repeated accuracy. It's like saying that one can always tell if a woman is a natural redhead by pointing out all the bad dye jobs in a crowd. What is left out of the equation is the number of good dye jobs that passed inspection; that one presumed was a natural red head. In the same fashion, we see digital 24P stuff all the time that, even as film "experts", passes us right by and are accepted as film. Very much like matte paintings in movies. I've heard people that like to rave about the ILM matte paintings when they come out of a movie but, in reality, if you know it's a matte painting while watching the film, then it really isn't doing it's job, even if it looks pretty. On the other hand, Albert Whitlock did hundreds of matte paintings during his career that no one ever suspected. Ironically, he got less of the limelight because his work was beyond detection. So when someone says they can always detect the difference between analog and digital audio, I sort of take that with a grain of salt because, frankly, I don't believe it. Like HD 24P, I think it's only obvious when it's done incorrectly. No offense intended to anyone.

Roger

[Nigel]

Something must have changed in the last three years. Because, I agree with Roger. (Again)

In 1982 Neil Young said that no one will buy CDs because they sound like shit and they won't last in the market place and he will never release his music on one.

Fast forward to 1998.

Neil Young said that MP3s are shit and no one will buy them and that he will fight the illegal ones and never release his music in MP3 form.

Well, go to iTunes. See how many albums Neil Young has on there. Ask him how much cash he is getting from vinyl sales?

People like to talk talk talk about vinyl and so on but the fact is that compared to other technologies the sales pale in comparison. A friend's band had to pay for their vinyl production. Their label was only willing to put up money for CDs.

Film is great. It is what I prefer to shoot. I still find it is the best medium to express my vision. That said. I don't know how long that will continue or rather if it will end. So, I will continue to look around and see what is out there and how the landscape has changed.

This is coming from a place where my income comes from shooting. And, if shooting means using HD or an SLR then so be it. I just want the camera no matter what to function in a way that is similar to others.

Good Luck