Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

24. If anybody is surprised by this, they have not been paying attention

Reply to MicaelS (Original post)

Sun Jun 10, 2012, 01:12 PM

Jun 2012

some advantages of digital...

Yesterday I shot over 1000 shots, some in Black and White, most in color.

I could not afford to do that with film, no way, no how, nor switch from color to black and white and back on the fly

I even shot one short movie. Again, all in one camera.

There is no way I could have done that with my old rig. It was just a matter of time. Also processors are to the point that movies do not have to worry about large format film... they just need to have glass and processors and software that can do the heavy lifting, which they already pretty much do.

If you are getting into film... invest in a good digital camera and plenty of FAST sim cards.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

35mm movie film print production / projection to cease worldwide by 2015 [View all] MicaelS Jun 2012 OP

thank you for an interesting article. I wasn't aware of any of this. corkhead Jun 2012 #1

Interesting Confusious Jun 2012 #2

The Wikipedia link to the Showscan process explains it MicaelS Jun 2012 #4

Ah, thanks for that Confusious Jun 2012 #5

So that means a Showscan 65mm film at 60fps.. MicaelS Jun 2012 #6

My weights could be off Confusious Jun 2012 #8

I thought Showscan was shot in 70mm? derby378 Jun 2012 #16

I wonder if you could digitally create 60 fps rate movies of older films. Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 #7

The price of technology? SoutherDem Jun 2012 #3

Film is WAY more expensive than digital. TheManInTheMac Jun 2012 #13

My only worries are the theaters which aren't digital and SoutherDem Jun 2012 #15

Tarantino is bad for Hollywood? LOL, I would take 100 of him for every no plot action blockbuster. Logical Jun 2012 #19

Lighten up, Francis. TheManInTheMac Jun 2012 #25

LOL, I love that scene from stripes. I use that line monthly on someone! Logical Jun 2012 #26

Not surprising, and nothing new. Archae Jun 2012 #9

Yes, and it wasn't until ten years after the introduction to sound TheManInTheMac Jun 2012 #14

And how many of us are still captivated by METROPOLIS? derby378 Jun 2012 #17

Fascinating. Thanks! Nt PCIntern Jun 2012 #10

It's a communist plot, I tells ya. Buns_of_Fire Jun 2012 #11

Wilson Bryan Key Frank Cannon Jun 2012 #12

And you can give credit to this camera..... Logical Jun 2012 #18

Each print sent to a theatre is about $1500-$2000 dollars. If you release it to 3000 theatres ..... Logical Jun 2012 #20

Peter Jackson shot the Hobbit at 48 fps and I read it looks like a 70's soap opera... cynatnite Jun 2012 #21

Well, people hated sound, color, etc. New stuff always worries people. Logical Jun 2012 #23

Damn. We've got a 2nd run theater where tickets are $2.50 (up from $2 recently). HopeHoops Jun 2012 #22

If anybody is surprised by this, they have not been paying attention nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #24