kevin m. Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Here's the link to an article in Salon about the state of film vs. digital in the motion picture industry. Thought there might be some interest with all the discussion here of late. http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2003/07/03/cinematographers/in dex.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Oops. I forgot it's subscriber only, now, so the link won't work. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 After you cut and paste the above link, get rid of the space in "in dex.html" so it reads "index.html". When you get to the site you can sign in with a "free one day pass". Interesting stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gl5 Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 the link doesn't work because you have a space where you shouldn't. i'm not a subscribe and can access it fine with the proper link: <p> <a href="http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2003/07/03/ cinematographers/index_np.html">http://www.salon.com/ent/ movies/feature/2003/07/03/cinematographers/index_np.html</ a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted July 3, 2003 Author Share Posted July 3, 2003 Thanks, Al, that slipped by me. Thanks for the real link, TT. Digital editing is a godsend, but digital projection is still in its infancy, I'd say. As of last month, anyway, it's still pretty lame compared to a projected film print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hart Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 The local TV news station here in the North of England yesterday announced the imminent closure of a film producing factory in Lancaster. A little later, my depressed spirits were revived by an commercial advertising a new 'High Definition' Film produced by Kodak. I'm not sure I can stand this rollercoaster any more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_haardt1 Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 My view of film's future is as follows. Digital cameras have the immense advantage of giving more people a "darkroom" than ever before. They are less cumbersome, of higher image quality, and less expensive than scanning 35mm film. As far as digital projection is concerned, the earlier speaker is totally right. It is still in its infancy. Nevertheless, you can already print "real" slides from digital files, and the quality *is* better than 35mm. For a serious account, see for instance http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/D1X.htm I am however not afraid that film would be "dead" some day. Yes, it is "dying" in the sense that 35mm photography is (has been) surpassed by digital photography in terms of image quality, and even medium format is under serious pressure by modern 6-12 megapixel SLR's. But as long as there are people who do film photography for passion (few, but non-zero), there will be a market for film. Just as there is still a market for 8x10" large format and 8x10" film today. Best, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Can someone help me? I have just purchased the new SonnySamsung Stealth Predator X67. The problem is every time i take a photo, it passes wind! On page 6,721 of the manual i have read you can turn this function off. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. I phoned SonnySammy direct and spoke to a Mr Brownnose, he informed me that their digitals only pass wind when they are stressed. He told me that i was obviously using the camera incorrectly. Please do not tell me i'm beyond help! Hopefully, waiting for a reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bradigan Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Um...Allen....are you ok? Do you want us to call an ambulance or something? You sound a little...off. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Michael, i can assure you, this is no laughing matter! My glamour models are most distressed. Some have even walked of the set.Yes! To add insult to injury, Mr Brownnose also implied that there might be something wrong with my bodily functions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allen Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Allen, I've seen this problem before. All you need is the new Beano brand CF card! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 <<But as long as there are people who do film photography for passion (few, but non-zero), there will be a market for film. Just as there is still a market for 8x10" large format and 8x10" film today>> And yet again someone poses this completely invalid analogy. As long as there is a market for film *in some size* that allows for mass-production and adequate profit there will be film available in small quantities in odd sizes as well. But once the major demand for film dries up to the point where it isn't profitable, then *all* sizes will cease to exist. The thought that some company can stay afloat producing 1000 rolls of film a month in a dozen different emulsions and sell them for a price even a fanatic is willing to pay, is a naive fairytale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert knapp md Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 I agree with Jay. As to Allen, if the Beano card doesn't work, then try either a Phazyme or Gas-X card in that order. If that doesn't work, just resell it on eBay as a novelty. Some pervert will buy it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Jay, you get an F in economics. Film will endure, it will simply become more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingell Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 This may just mean that Kodak made exclusivity part of a sweet sales arrangement, but I'm told that as of next week, K-Mart will no longer carry Fuji film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art waldschmidt Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the future, after film is *dead*, (not merely dead, but most sincerely, truly dead) according to some of our ultra-savy prognosticators, that there will be an incredible *resurrection* of primitive photographic means as a fine-art medium (and will be embraced - and made much of - by the art-world, with commensurate interest and dollar value.) Of course, this could take place after shuttle trips become routine to outposts on Mars (not the town in Pennsylvania)!! (Why might this be? ... because the outdated, primitive, persona of the traditional/antique black and white craft may well be prized for the intrinsic honesty of its *limitations* - its intractible integrity in lifting a moment out from the flux and entropy of time. Yes, a lot of its charm is the metaphysical consideration of its identity as a medium.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted July 3, 2003 Author Share Posted July 3, 2003 So many have chimed in with their well-rehearsed opinions, but did anyone actually read the article? There's always the posibility reading something new could let some light and fresh air into your dusty noggins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 <<Jay, you get an F in economics. Film will endure, it will simply become more expensive. -- Dan Brown>> Actually I *did* get an F in economics (well, actually I got a D but I took it Pass/Fail and needed a C to pass) to which I credit any and all financial success I've had in business over the years...wherein I learned that there's a price point for everything beyond which people just won't pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art waldschmidt Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Kevin, I read the entire article. In fact, I made some notes from a statement by Bailey (last page, I think) "....the most revolutionary and most daring images you can create are simple direct images, very directly captured images." (I think this dovetails rather well with the "direct" spirit of *simple*, traditional photography, and what can be extrapolated from my earlier response.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted July 3, 2003 Author Share Posted July 3, 2003 Art, I agree. If anything, the advent of digital has me redoubling my efforts in traditional black and white printing. For reasons that don't always make sense, I just like it better. The key point of the article for me was the comment that maybe (motion picture) film's imperfections are part of its appeal: The slight weaving as it moves through the projector gate, the frame to frame variation in grain structure. It's almost the same feeling I get watching flames flicker in a fireplace. It sucks that technical novelty and 'perfection' are such assumed values that they don't need to be explained or defended - they are all just accepted at face value, while any quality that can't be explained by the science of our day is dismissed as childish or backward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art waldschmidt Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Kevin, I just love your last comment! (Of course there are those to whom it is heresy!) Art that is an exact (indistinguishable) re-statement of "reality" would lose the capacity for all expression. In addition, often it is the characteristics (even imperfections) that participate in expression. Imagine a sculptor lamenting the inherent grain of the wood being worked!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjarke_vejby Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 When i sit in a meeting with 10 laywers with Palm´s or Compaq's, and we have to arrange the next meeting, i use a chinese pocket calendar. It takes me a second olr two to spot when i'm avaible. 4 out of the 10 lawyers Palm´s or Compaq´s is out of batterypower, and they have to phone there secretary. The rest spends 4-5 minuttes to reset the monster or just to figure out how it works. Thats why film is not dead.On the other hand, if all the lawyers were experts in managing the PDA, i think the PDA would be as god as the chinese pocket calendar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Bjarke, can you show us what a Chinese pocket calendar is? Sounds interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Bjarke, the innards of the Palms and Compaqs are also Chinese, along with the innards of most PC's these days. The Chinese have taken a dominant role in hardware, producing acceptable quality at the lowest price. Best priced software technology is dominated by Indians, who probably helped write the software code in the Palsm and Compaqs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 Maybe you should take econ again, Dan: there's no law that the supply and demand curves have to intersect. This is why you can't buy a BetaMax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now