High Def.

Holden Pike, gave me the idea for this thread. Being as it is with Collateral (didn't know that until Mr. Pike), Once Upon a Time in Mexico (I think), 28 Days later, where do you think the digital technology is going to take us? Already it's given us the ability to setup a shot in half the time. Documentaries can now keep the camera rolling longer due to the tape being far cheaper and longer. Editing is a snap. There's no generation loss (transffering film back and forth causes a loss of data/quality). Production companies are going to be more willing to fund a project due to the cost. The equipment's smaller, in most cases, making for new styles and shots, and the equipment usually cost less, making the DP more comfortable with the idea of shooting a scene that might be dangerous for the camera.

Give me some feed back. Mr. Pike, lets be friends.

Hi, I'm Tom. (well not really)

__________________
"All I have in this world is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for no one."

Hi, my reputation is -44. I'm well liked.

Hey you beat me. Mine was -23.

I helped you get out of that rutt

__________________

I don't know that there will be a dramatic revolution that will unfold with pomp and circumstance, but it does give filmmakers another tool. Like any other tool, it can be used well and it can be used poorly. Because of the cost issue, you'll see it to continue most in the independent field at first, where small movies can be made quickly and now that much more cheaply. In the last couple years we've seen projects like Tadpole, The Anniversary Party and Pieces of April made that much more viable because of DV. And at the same time we'll continue to see established filmmakers, who could work with filmstock if they wanted, make the choice for DV anyway depending on the size and type of project (Soderbergh with Full Frontal, Spike Lee with Bamboozled, Altman with The Company).

And of course not just American filmmmakers are making use of this tool, but all over the world. The Canadian Inuktuit production Atanarjuat is a beautiful movie in any format, and Lars von Trier is really setting the bar high with Dogville and Dancer in the Dark.

The most inventive use of DV yet is from overseas: Aleksander Sokurov's Russian Ark, brilliantly designed and expertly achieved as one single 96-minute uninterrupted take, something that is simply impossible with standard film (Hitchcock must be somewhere weeping with envy).

DV has already been used in genres that rely on effects and supposedly more complex shots, from Collateral and Once Upon A Time in Mexico to 28 Days Later... and Open Water to the Spy Kids flicks and the upcoming Sin City. Hell, Georgie Lucas used DV for Star Wars Epiosde II: Attack of the Clones.


There's really no limit to what might be done. More and more filmmakers will give it a whirl, with all levels of result. But the casual filmgoer won't notice much of a difference either way, and filmstock certainly isn't going anywhere for quite a while. DV is another option out there right now, but the rate of advances made using it will be the same as any other format, always ultimately dependent on good filmmakers making good movies, and not reliant on anything as rudimentary as the tools at their disposal. A great director armed with a talented crew and a good script can make art using anything and everything they have, be it DV or anything else.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

INDEED.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Perhaps someone can give me some insight. With digital comin' through, hopefully replacing film altogether, is this something that's likely to occur? - here it is..

During a dialogue scene, you're shooting one person's close up at a time, usually. You run through their dialogue, then shoot the other person, usually using an OTS (other the shoulder) shot. This is all fine, but the thing that gets me fierce is when it's obvious that the person in the foreground isn't talking or is shifted differently so that when you cut to their response shot, they magcally jump (continuity error). I know actors are mainly responsible for keepign their marks, but I'm thinking that with digital we're going to have more mutiple camera projects. With this multi angle setup, I'd like to see it used to fix this problem. Shoot both actors at the same time, record the dialogue, setup your visuals, then you could have a truly synced set of dialogue that would look more than fierce. No rearanging props to make it look like the people haven't moved when the cam does, no worrying about eye lines, just kickass dialogue. Just a though from DaShiz, who loves the idea of digital.

I hope digital never replaces film. Ever. Thats like hoping email eventually replaces letters all together. Film, like a letter, has an inherent soul to it. Digital, in my eyes, will never reach that level. Sure Joe Sixpack probably doesn't know the difference, but anyone who cares that extra bit about filmmaking would be able to appreciate film's use over digital.

If I could work with film, I would. But yes, digital allows for a wider range of availability, but not necessairly quality.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

When I saw Episode II in a digital theatre, it was amazing the difference I could notice.

It is very similar to the differences I see when jumping from an HDTV program to a normal cable program. In the action eye candy genre, with the theatres help (digital projectors cost a lot to buy and maintain) it could make films look that much better, and I personally am very interested in a lot of films which could perhaps look that much better going the digital route (X-men series, Star Wars which is already, Matrix IV - The Passion of Neo, Sin City already, and whatever Conran is going to come out with next.)

As for smaller films which dont expect a very wide distribution, since there are only a handful of theatres with dv projectors (i believe only 40 or so in North America during epII) digital cheapens the quality when used on conventional projectors. Either the technology is going to have to get cheaper for smaller theatres to viably be able to introduce, or digital technology should be kept for the Lucas types of the industry.

__________________
Just back from my Alaskan cruise.
Highlights - art auctions at amazing prices, got my Divine Comedy original edition for the cost of the frame. All you can eat steak, lobster, shrimp, ribs... hmmmmm
Low points - Seen it all before not living too far from Alaska

I'll agree with that statement in light of our current technology. But in the long run I see digital reaching a higher level of quality. I mainly think this because with film there's generational loss, no matter what. You have your master, even with one transfer the quality is lowered. Where as digital, there is theoretically no generational loss, so when you shoot on set by the time it is screened in front of an audience it should be "exactly the same."

Tolstoy - I think theaters are waiting for more demand, and until then it's gonna be the small handful of theaters that take the step and go with digital projectors.

With me, just as long there's DLP Cinema right here where I work, I am happy.

As with HDTV, I find it so stupid that people all over are saying, this and that is in HDTV "blah, blah, blah". I am sure that at least 95% of the consumers can't even afford an HDTV television.