From the world of entertainment comes the news that a major hollywood film director has gone digital. That is, letting go film and using digital tape instead to capture the action. Yes, it’s shocking news to see that they still use the same technique and film as they did 20 years ago.
Digital movies have better image quality, cost are lower, risk are lower (no complicated processing), and it even seems to augment the creativity and control of the director on the movie.
In unrelated news, the (read more here) production of a feature film based on the ever popular series called « Dans une galaxie près de chez vous » will soon begin in Montreal…. and guess what… it’s all going to be shot on digital HD !
It’s all digital, but it’s also retro in it’s own way, with those 3D glasses…
I always saw this debate as one of using the best tool for the job. Digital cameras are great, but for some things, films is still the way to go and might be for a while.
And, based on my experience with printing especially, but also with life in general, I do think people should have a basic idea of how things were done « the old way », to better understand the culture, the vocabulary, the working methods, when using new technologies.
Oh, and call me cynical but I also suspect that lower production costs will not translate in cheaper theater tickets or DVDs… I guess that’s economy at it’s best.
Question: Wasn’t Star Wars Episode II shot on digital also?
Yes, as far as I know it was the case for Star Wars II. The difference is that Mr Lucas planned for an all digital release of the film. His plans where cut short because of the lack of digital theater and thus decided to make a film copy available.
Most of the time, the shooting is made on digital tape and then transfered to film so it can be projected in most movie theaters.
AS for the affirmation that film is still better than digital photo… go see those 5MPx cameras…
5 mega pixels: yeah, quality is fine (and I’d love a Canon G5!). But developing film, printing photos, playing with the solutions, filters, effects, messing stuff up, is not yet quite the same on a computer and will never be. Which can be either a good or a bad thing: it’s really hard to judge.
I don’t think I ever said « film is still better than digital ». I said recognize the merits of each and use the best tool for your purposes.
In many (most?) ways, it is better and easier to do film work digitally, but there are still some things for which film is more fun, or easier, or more flexible for a given task.
I don’t like when people rave about tech stuff just because it’s tech. Tech is fun, nice and wonderful. But you have to know what it replaces, improves or build upon to understand it’s limitations and it’s strength.
Just look at how many people are trying to get that « movie look » using digital video cameras although this arguably means a loss of quality of the image.
You have to understand which metaphors a given digital tool is built around, where they come from, what obstacles the technology removes and which hurdles it places in your path.
It’s like culture, but for techies.