This is topic Will Hd Eclipse Film? in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:;f=8;t=001508

Posted by Stewart John Boyle (Member # 1785) on November 29, 2009, 11:15 AM:
Hi All,
The question is, will HD eclipse Film?..Your Comments are appreciated.
Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on November 29, 2009, 11:28 AM:

Are you referring to HDs effect on our hobby or its use in motion picture production?

Posted by Stewart John Boyle (Member # 1785) on November 29, 2009, 11:43 AM:
Your right Doug, perhaps it was a poorly phrased question. [Smile]
I meant to ask will Hd Camera equipment ever produce more pixels per inch than say 70mm film stock..? hope this is slightly more understandable.
Posted by Steven J Kirk (Member # 1135) on November 29, 2009, 12:02 PM:
Does anyone know what the Lucasfilm cameras were for the Star Wars prequels? Some say 4K and some 8k... that I've read. It is said that 4k across the frame is equal to 35mm. That is, 4k x 3k in height meaning 12 megapixel. Rule of thumb. Though we all know there are other factors like light level for instance, digital not photographing as well in the dark as film.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on November 29, 2009, 12:20 PM:
Stewart, I'll admit your original post did get me a bit worked up! Will HD eclipse film? Film IS high definition. Electronic versions of film have only tried to emulate real film of various definitions...

HD photography? Well, every day I film (or record people's voices) and believe you me, the last thing most people want infront of a camera is HIGGGGGGGHHHHHHH DEFINITION!!!!!!!!

What any person wants infront of a camera is to be seen they way they want others to see them...

What any person wants infront of a microphone is to be be heard the way they want others to hear them...

That involves using tools which, generally, emphasise what the performer wants...and what the overall person in charge wants the production to look like.

HD cameras have existed for years...the real shame is that few people these days really know how to manipulate them...
Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on November 29, 2009, 12:28 PM:
HD has pretty much taken over all the TV shows. There are a few, like LOST, is shot on 35mm. Some on 16mm. The RED camera is used quite a lot now. This was used on DISTRICT 9. Some say they couldn't tell but it was obvious to me it was shot digitally.

What bothers me most is when the camera starts panning, which is most of the time nowadays, and that is a dead give away that it was shot digitally. I did see a test on a Panasonic camera that came close to recreating the natural blur of a pan, but the image still screams digital.

I'm sure some time down the road film will be replaced by digital cameras. It is also the filmmakers. Although, Christopher Nolan may shoot the next Batman film entirely on Imax, which would be cool.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on November 29, 2009, 12:41 PM:
My opinion...HD (video)...simply another tool to be placed in the hands of craftsmen and, likewise, fools....
Posted by Stewart John Boyle (Member # 1785) on November 29, 2009, 12:56 PM:
Rob im completely on your side [Wink] was a rehtorical question, but something we may have to face 5 years from now.Great to see such passionate debate.
Larry you couldn`t have put it better..pan shots are the giveaway for Digitally shot frames.. always sluggish..always lacking in clarity
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on November 29, 2009, 01:18 PM:
Well if you went back in time with a generator, Video projectors, HD camera`s etc they would I suspect have bitten your hands off if they could have done all the other infrastructure etc etc.

Its what does the job, if Tesla or someone gifted such as him had come up with an electronic gizmo to emulate filming/showing I`m sure they would have run with it.

For us on here its a hobby thing, but for the business it what does it well and ecconomically and I can see digital will be all the way before too long. Its the way things go, and after all its about loads of other things within the film too, not just what its being shown on.

There`s plenty of crap bern commited on to celluloid after all.

99.9999% or poeple just want to watch end enjoy the drama or film.

My other half watches alot of stuff on her netbook with a 3-4 inch pitcure and enjoys it as its more about the audio and whats being done etc.

Personally I and the nippers prefer the impact of the big sreen, nearly always VP now though.

Watched Jason and the Argonauts on my £50 XGA LCD machine 5-1/2feet wide ( DVD ) last night and it was lovely. Then Over The Top to follow.

Best Mark.
Posted by Stewart John Boyle (Member # 1785) on November 29, 2009, 01:27 PM:
Hi Mark, lovely comment,, i remember sleeping at the side of my parents bed and watching The Twilight Zone and WKRP in Cincinatti(excuse the spelling)on a 14 inch black and white TV, Great times thar fuelled my love for `the big screen`
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 29, 2009, 02:34 PM:
Personally, I believe that HD has already eclipsed film, but perhaps, the better way to phrase the question might be, "will video eclipse film". This already happened in general with movie enthusiasts, (notice that I didn't say "film") as of the early 80's death of the reign of King Super 8.

Time ... it makes all things obselete, given time ...

even humanity!
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on November 29, 2009, 03:20 PM:
Those later "Star Wars" films shot on video looked pretty awfull when projected on 35mm, there was a grainy on screen look. I remember watching "Revenge of the Sith" yuk! compared with films of the past even the 1977 Star Wars looked much better. I admit I am not up with the play with latest HD cameras and I am sure things will improve.... they might even go back to using film and put some decent colour back in, now that would be a start [Smile]

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on November 29, 2009, 03:38 PM:
Theres a good logic to filming with really top notch actual film to give it that certain something, then from there it goes digital.

There are environmental benifits as well of course.

Some digital can look really amazing after all.

I can`t talk though I am just creeping back to grainey, washed out a bit std 8 silent silents to enjoy with the kids so what can you do etc.

Best Mark.
Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on November 29, 2009, 03:46 PM:
I think at the end of the day there is a place for digital and another place for film (including super 8)

However going back to the main question I think HD will eclipse film purely because digital HD (and whatever next) is being developed where as film isnt any more (i dont think). Eventually all the cinemas will be digital only. Its the future Im afraid. But at least in my home I can keep film alive and dont intend selling any of it.

Graham S
Posted by Guy Taylor, Jr. (Member # 786) on November 29, 2009, 04:08 PM:
I think 35mm cameras will continue to be used for quite along time. Movie cinemas on the other hand will eventually switch away from 35mm projectors. It only makes since. The cost of film stock comparted to a cheap plastic disc. The shipping cost etc.

After a hurricane damaged our local multiplex; they replaced their 35mm projectors with you guest it.

I still sure that 35mm will out live any of us.

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on November 29, 2009, 04:25 PM:
Thinking about it if dvd and affordable good Video Projection was on the go in the mid 70,s the super 8 film collcting thing as we know it would never have really happened.

Best Mark.

PS if only LPP had been on the go then, and all those lovely fun digest`s etc had got on to it as well.
Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on November 29, 2009, 07:05 PM:
I was about to start ranting (again) about TV's pernicious influence on image quality in features, et.c, et.c, but I won't [Big Grin]

But think of this landscape in the near future:

In the malls, there are only digital projectors or satellite downloads to the screens.
(A few small hardy 35mm rep. houses are still open.)
And then there's us. About 30 years after Super-8 has officially been 'buried', we hang on, with 16mm and some 35mm at home as well.

After the studios trying to beat TV with 'Scope, stereo and size, after HiDef trying to kill film, in the end we have:

TV at the theatres and film at home.... [Roll Eyes]
The world is a strange place when you hang around long enough.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on November 29, 2009, 08:02 PM:
It is easy for me. Just see what KODAK will do in the next 5 years, considering Kodak is the biggest supply for film stock.

Nowadays, we can see that Kodak had discontinued Kodachrome, next step is most likelyu Ektachrome and so on so forth.

Kodak has moved to digital worlds (if you look at closely their website).

This is not about our fanaticism to film but economic plays its role. Producer will act like what businessmen do in spending their money.

And majority of movies goers now do not really care if films are shot in HD or celluloid, only few of us do.

So, I will say producers will follow their business instinct, Kodak will follow what producers' demand and celluloid will be gone eventually, like or dislike.

Posted by Christopher P Quinn (Member # 1294) on November 29, 2009, 08:06 PM:
Hi All,
The question is, will HD eclipse Film?..Your Comments are appreciated.

Hi Stewart,
An ultra hi def of 7680 x 4320 is developed but still 15 - 20 years away from the cinema, and at least 25 - 30 years away from our homes. No TV can cope with it at present and it is too much data to broadcast with current technology. But it will one day be here. And mix this in with the latest 3D and 3D to come and you’ll have the first holodeck!!! But maybe not for us, well me anyway. [Wink]

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 1337) on November 29, 2009, 08:41 PM:
The high speed prints we receive these days aren't worth the PET they are printed on. I would rather see good digital over these bouncy blurry jokes any day. Of course as a result of this, I would get to take home 3 vic 8s [Cool]
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on November 29, 2009, 09:25 PM:
Thats a good point, not so much effort being made on film prints imageing.

Also not so much effort being made in many cinema`s to focus 35mm properly.

Last time I went it was a right old out of focus mess, I nipped and asked them to refocus it " yes ok " but they din`t.( or couldn`t ? )

Video projection has a less fussyness to the image in terms of being a bit this way or that on the focus but overall its still quite good.

I rarely go to the cinema now as things look better on my home screen on my cheap LCD, job, also its 30 miles each way plus other costs, + coughers and sneezers, talkers, eaters, etc.

Old Grumpy pants Mark !!!!

When the good lady takes the kids its a good £40 + easily all in so now we often just wait for the dvd to hit around the £5 new instead and bobs your uncle on the LCD proj.

Best Mark.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 29, 2009, 11:10 PM:
Most young people today have never seen a movie projector or a reel of film, and have no clue as to how film projection works. They care little about image quality, and less about acting or story telling. What they want is a 120 minute thrill ride and nothing more. This is the digital generation of today, and they are also the major audience for film production. They do not care if the source is HD or 35mm, and the studios know this and will take the cheapest route with the highest profits - so HD will rule even if it an inferior technology.
I sometimes wonder if things had been different, and digital video had been invented first, whether the invention of 35mm film in 2010, now called 'opto-chemical analog video' would be hailed as the next generation of high definition motion picture technology. [Smile]
Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 1337) on November 29, 2009, 11:37 PM:
Also not so much effort being made in many cinema`s to focus 35mm properly.
The use of a single lens barrel rather than a turret at my cinema discourages "set and forget" focusing. Regardless, on many recent prints Julie and Julia being one of the worst in recent memory, there is just no focus point! 35mm projectors focus in much the same way as smaller gauge machines. It is impossible to properly focus on some of these prints, you get close, but then go right past. You can even focus using the grain, but the image is still blurry.
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on November 30, 2009, 02:10 AM:
We have the same trouble with "Julie and Julia" even with moving it to our smaller screen and the Kinoton it was still hopeless to focus properly on that print. However films like King Kong, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Australia to name a few have been really good. 35mm has been around for over 100 years its entertained millions of people in every country you can think of and it still does. I dont know why we are seeing a drop in quality in some of the prints we recieve, perhaps the movie was shot on video or lab/transfer work "who knows" its certainly not the fault of the 35mm format itself, if it was it would not have been around all this time.

Last week while we were a wee bit quiet I ran the last hour and a half of "Dances with Wolves" the print was dated 1991 and I guess it has not run since then "not polyester" just curious to test screen [Wink] and see what it was like. I was really surprised the print looked really good as with the sound Dolby Stereo soundtrack "not Digital" it proved one thing there is nothing wrong with 35mm just to add to this, one of the downstairs staff caught me watching this test screeing [Roll Eyes] in the cinema and commented that it looked better than a many of the prints we get these days.

HD video is not the answer and film is not the problem...but many other factors are.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on November 30, 2009, 07:40 AM:
Graham, your last comment, "HD video is not the answer and film is not the problem" is spot on!
Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on November 30, 2009, 02:59 PM:
Film as a distribution medium is facing the end of it's run. Look at the Kodak professional website and go into the digital theatre management program. The goal is to remove film and distribute electronically. It has nothing to do with quality, but with cost and a "green planet" without the by-products of making and developing film and then destruction of the prints. (The market for guitar picks has greatly diminished in the digital age.)

As for image capture: Film right now is the best and safest method. We can still get images off negatives made 100 years ago. There are problems with fading and support degrading, but in all a lot of material still exists from long ago. No so with a lot of digital media and electronic analog recordings. In fact magnetic recordings form the 60s are often unplayable in the state they were stored in an have to be "baked" before being played and transfered.

So there is still a lot to learn about storage and care, but I think we'll see film as a distribution medium phased out in the next 10 years or so.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on November 30, 2009, 03:01 PM:

Do you have a link to that Kodak website you mention?

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on November 30, 2009, 08:39 PM:
John, I have a same feeling with you and had expressed earlier that it is the best to see what Kodak will do in the next 5 years on digital image vs analog image.

Do you have a link to that Kodak website you mention?
Michael, it is easy to see when you click on, the first title you will see on the top of yur browser is Kodak-Digital Cameras, Camera Accessories.... etc.

Also when you click on their store:

Everything is about digital gears.

Celluloid will go eventually, and we have to accept that.
Posted by Stewart John Boyle (Member # 1785) on December 01, 2009, 03:23 AM:
Thanks everyone for all your comments,
I also agree that the General public dont really seem to care what media the latest movies are delivered,this is evident in people wathching films on a 5 inch phone screen.
The studios will go with whatever the buying public want,but cost will also be a determening factor.Quality always takes a back seat when technology moves forward,we all remeber the Betamax-Vhs format war..the Laserdisc-DVD battle..The Vinyl album-Compact Disc conflict..even now compact disc is being usurped by inferior MP3.
Once the studios decide the next way forward we can then have a good moan about the content of most of the movies being released [Smile]
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 01, 2009, 03:50 AM:

Thanks for that link but I'm not looking for consumer "digital gear". I'm interested in the Digital Theatre Management Systems that John wrote about. I can't seem to find this section on the site you linked.

Posted by Stewart John Boyle (Member # 1785) on December 01, 2009, 04:08 AM:
Michael,i tried to find out about Kodak TMS on its website but all the pages are `not found`.
If you do a google for Kodak TMS there are plenty of second hand references to it.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 01, 2009, 04:50 AM:
OK, Stewart. Thanks. [Smile]
Posted by Barry Johnson (Member # 84) on December 01, 2009, 06:45 AM:
I will endorse that by repeating what a previous post said: ".....all they want want these days is a 100 minute thrill ride" It could be released on sellotape and wouldnt be noticed-especially with nongs watching movies on their precious mobile gizmos.
Nuff said. [Eek!]
Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on December 01, 2009, 08:58 AM:
I can't find the page on Kodak US Cinematography about the transition to digital projection. There is a news release from October about a five screen installation. But the website had two full color pamphletes for exhibitors in making the transition to digital from film.

Perhaps it'll come back, perhaps they weren't ready for the onslot of questions.

But they are planning for a future without release prints.

Posted by Stewart John Boyle (Member # 1785) on December 01, 2009, 09:11 AM:
Hi John,
I think this Kodak TMS system may need its own Forum topic,to me most Cinema chains will use this to get rid of alot of projectionists. Single manning your local 25 screen gigaplex probably gets a lot of Cinema Managers excited to say the least. [Smile]
Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on December 01, 2009, 09:32 AM:
Looks like it was too little too late for Kodak. They shut down the TMS Digital Cinema System on Friday, November 20, 2009.

Posted by Stewart John Boyle (Member # 1785) on December 01, 2009, 09:46 AM:
I feel sorry for all the employees laid off..but also a woohoo might be in order. [Wink]
Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on December 01, 2009, 12:27 PM:

I don't think you can read into that move that Kodak thinks that there is a future in motion picture release print rawstock manufacture. Over the years the regulations and requirements have become burdensome on Kodak and motion picture labs. In the last 10 years we've seen more and more labs fold and go out of business just as we saw sound stripers disappear. Now there is less need for 35mm full coat and 35mm 3-stripe for production work and thus one of the major uses for used prints has disappeared (of course estar base wasn't usable for sound editing, anyway).

We really are at the mercy of very few companies to make the film and chemistry to keep release prints alive and as cheaper methods of distribution emerge, whether with Kodak or other companies, the demand will drop to the point where it's no longer economically feasible to make the film or the exotic organic chemicals to develop it. (Color developing agents and couplers are very complicated molecules.)

Kodak was marketing a full theatre program (pre-show slides, previews, main program, shorts) that would provide computer show make-up as well as service to maintain the projectors and manage admission, etc. A total turn-key system. The 2100 installations will probably be sold to other service providers. Kodak did not build the projectors themselves but sourced them from Barco and JVC/Hughes.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on December 01, 2009, 12:29 PM:
Any part of Kodak shutting down is a sad thing. Even if it helps propel the world away from film.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 01, 2009, 01:31 PM:
I loved that first post of yours Winbert. Well said.

Even when actual production ceases, I believe that the facilities will still exist, even if for art houses and such and revivals. Look at what happened with Technicolor, being finished, (with "The Godfather" being the last official technicolor release) and in the last ten years or so, we have seen new technicolor re-releases coming forth, (Gone With The Wind, Wizard of Oz, ect.)

I think that there will always be an appreciation for film. I don't think it will completely go away.

By the way, there were some really good points made about the lack of reliability to video or digital sources. It seems to me that to rely on digital when it has a much quicker degrading property is a big problem. It is the same probelm that Hollywood has now when it switched, in large part, to Eastman film stock in the 1950's. Yes, less cumbersome and cheaper, but there are many Etasman negatives from back in the 50's that are incredibly hard to restore, as the elements are in terrible shape.

The CD's that we burn, for instance, are so unstable that they can already be beyond repair in just a few years. Get a magnet too near to your computer files and you can end up losing your computer files ...

... aqnd lets not forget the polar shift to happen in just three years, which is going to really cause worldwide havoc, which will also affect electrical sources and, in the end, digital sources. (for those that do not know about this, this is in combination with solar activity. Please look it up on the internet, its a fascinating read. Low tech, and I mean, REAL low tech, will become the norm again!)

No, Osi has not went off his nut, this is a documented fact and is already starting to affect things. Migrations of species, the now reversed global warming, (the temperature is now very slowly returning to normal, why do you think the powers that be have selectively switched the name to "climate change" instead og Global Warming? That term, has lived its days).

Gee, It may seem that I slipped off the subject. What I'm meaning to say is that digital and digital storage can be affected and destroyed far easily than film sources. As others have mentioned, look at how we still have film sources that are amazingly near a hundred years old!

It seems a foolhardy thing to switch from a time tested source in favor of something, (and, in fact, putting our faith in), that we don't really know the preservational potential. I find it interesting that even with restoring prints in digital, film archive houses will then make a brand new print on low fade film stock for final preservation.
Posted by Jose Artiles (Member # 471) on December 01, 2009, 03:24 PM:
Everybody here knows my posture about digital....simply sucks and im very sure that once definitely cinema be digital at all people will lost the interest to see movies on cinema no mater how big the screen or 3d sensation,alot of people here in my country left the cinemas when they know what they see is video sayinh" to see video projected i prefer to see it at home with my wife at my side". im sure digital will be the end of cinema as a business because the next generations dont have interest in nothing,just the quick of the moment...for that reason we can see young people seing movies at their phones(horrible!) and a last thing once digital entry on cinemas..the magic of see a film will be gone forever because as i always say ..the matter is more than the quality of film the texture what digital never will capture and that texture of film is what make cinema a magic experience,blue ray..hd dvd...never will macht the magic of film because how more definition digital has more freezy and cold is to our eyes and that is a fact,nothing,nothing will beat the old school projection no matter what the industry say,everytiem i have to project digital on my cinema makes me sick.long life film FOREVER
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 01, 2009, 04:32 PM:
I agree Jose.

The thing I've never been able to understand is these young people who are content to watch a film on they're PSP game system.

Yep, its widescreen, buts a 4 inch wide widescreen! You cant possibly enjoy every detail at that size! There's just too much going on in the frame!
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on December 01, 2009, 08:11 PM:
im very sure that once definitely cinema be digital at all people will lost the interest to see movies on cinema
I see what you are saying Jose. But those businessmen in that film industry also may have seen this trend. And as good businessman, they have to deal with this situation and find a strategy to keep money coming to their company.

And this is why we have now "paid channel", "paid streaming" etc..etc...

I can see in the future people can watch at home at the same time movie is released on Theater. and for those businessmen it does not matter at all, as long as people are paying to watch the movie (no matter where it is).

Posted by Jose Artiles (Member # 471) on December 01, 2009, 11:32 PM:
Exactly dear gentlemen,is for that reason that i made such statement,maybe will be streaming video in our houses but..again...its not real cinema is...what i always say JUST TV EMISSION or.... worse!! TV/dvd PROJECTION!!.Believe me i considered myself a true film collector and i have business in the industry too but one thing i´ll never do will be to buy a video projector,in my opinion or you are a true collector and use film loving it or..leave the hobby take the digital and quit your nick of "film collector",now maybe some people attacks me..ok but it never quit me the rigth to say the real true,we must stop to make up the things..its terrible hear a long time collector with cane hair saying that digital is "another way" come on boys you know that is not true if someone prefer see tv in a giant size then,please,dont say "im a film collector" i know a lot of people here maybe hate me for the words im saying but all of you know in your hearts that is true all what i say,i dont want to hurt others collector here i just try to explain the things clears because im tired of so much make up words referring film and digital.We are the future of this hobby so please Dont support digital and use more and more our film cameras as i do on and keep in our hearts a LIVING FLAG saying "i love film and im proud of that".
all the best for all.
Posted by Barry Johnson (Member # 84) on December 02, 2009, 07:11 AM:
Jose,Fine words indeed and I wholly support you.
Yes,I do have a video projector and its very useful for watching past films not genarally available-even though they are reproduced clinically and have no presence!
Standing alongside that VP though in my film room is 16mm sound,Standard8 sound and throw-away Super8.Its a crying shame that all the technology in S8 is wasted as I beleived it had a solid future.
So its left to the likes of us all on this forum to make sure it all continues,evn if it is in the hands of collectors.Long may it reign.
Posted by Jose Artiles (Member # 471) on December 02, 2009, 09:50 AM:
Thanks for your kind words Barry,i don want to hurt or offend anybody here with what i say but,yes,is a cryng shame that technology try to kill the emotion of running a film.
All the best for all here.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 02, 2009, 09:56 AM:
I think DVD and BD film distribution will not be around 15 years from now. By then, it will only be available by downloading in a highly compressed form. Right now is the golden age for DVD and BD collecting, just as it was for super 8mm 30 years ago. So buy those discs now, while you can. The beautiful collectors edition DVD and BD sets with all the extras and extra features will probably be a thing of the past in a few years. Film, as we know it, will soon only exist in cyberspace. And will dvd's and BD's even be playable 20 years from now, even assuming you can still buy the players?
No such worries with film and film equipment, which as we know, will last a lifetime and beyond.
Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on December 02, 2009, 10:43 AM:
I was curious to see how Julie and Julia was shot and found this:
It was shot on film and went to Efilm for the DI and was even shot super 1:85, which means it would be sharper than normal since the image is slightly reduced. However, although I didn't read the whole article, on the DI page it mentions why use Premier print stock when they want the leading ladies to look soft and beautiful. So I suspect they used a lot of diffusion and soft light to cut down on wrinkles on Meryl Streep and other women. So that might be the reason for the softness of the image. Doug might be able to tell us better since he is a cameraman.
Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 1337) on December 02, 2009, 01:44 PM:
Julie and Julia could have been shot on 65mm the source isn't the problem, the problem lies with the crew down at deluxe, technicolour or <insert lab> where they have to churn these things out en masse, the QC is obviously suffering.
Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on December 02, 2009, 03:54 PM:
A 'Proper' Camera


'HD' Digital Camera:


Both New cameras by Arri.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 02, 2009, 10:11 PM:
"Video Killed the Radio Star!
Video Killed the Radio Star!"

I belabor things with a long drawn out comment, (as I'm apt to do), but just say video in all it's varied forms, just feels cold to me.

I love the very feel of film. I can get into the joy of movies and storytelling in a much deeper way than I could with a cold round shiny disc!
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 03, 2009, 03:00 AM:
Osi said:
"I love the very feel of film. I can get into the joy of movies and storytelling in a much deeper way than I could with a cold round shiny disc!"

Yep, this sums it up for me too.Well said, Osi.

Visit for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation