|
Post by endless on Apr 28, 2007 21:38:59 GMT -5
... this is probably gonna be a huge can of worms (I'm thinking like tape vs digital audio), but anyway... I'm looking to do some shooting, but film is kinda out of my price range. What are the pros and cons of each method? If film is truly as superior as I've been led to believe, what is my best choice in digital?
|
|
|
Post by Freddy4513 on Apr 28, 2007 21:59:12 GMT -5
ooo this is DEFINATELY JP's department.
when he gets home ill have him type the rundown!
sit tight.
|
|
|
Post by Freddy4513 on May 1, 2007 23:50:11 GMT -5
DAMNIT JP!
Fucking butthole.
*Calling*
Hes still typing it up apparently.
|
|
|
Post by Joel Wanasek on May 3, 2007 13:40:02 GMT -5
*flex* waiting
|
|
jp4513
Sandbox League
Admiral
Posts: 44
|
Post by jp4513 on May 3, 2007 20:22:33 GMT -5
Okay….here we go. I’m going to get really off topic but bear with me. The biggest issue in the film industry right now is the debate between film and digital. The film people say that film is the only true way to capture pictures. It is a chemical process that truly captures what is being seen. This is true for capturing and watching on the big screen. As for watching on the small screen this is not true. When you put things on TV you have to render and digitize them. This is because TV’s are made up from lines of resolution that are broadcasted from TV’ stations (or cable or satellite). Basically TV’s are not projectors like they have in movie theaters. With film you can zoom in on an image without it becoming pixilated. But if you took film and tried to do that on a TV it would pixilate. It is thought by the film people that you could never get video to look as good as film. This sparks form the original split of VHS and BETA (but I won’t get into that). While HD in itself is good it is still not film but, there are a lot of new things that have come out in the past few years that people don’t know about. For example if you take a still frame from HD the file size is about 1MB. There is a new type of camera that has just recently come out called the Red camera. This thing is like HD on crack! One still from this thing is 11MB. Which in case you can’t guess is larger than film (when put on a digital format. One of the other concerns that other people have is that video does not have the same feel as film. Digital and HD have the potential for such a high resolution and frame rate that the picture looks blurry when there is a lot of movement. Recently there has been a new lens on the market that takes care of this problem. The image is reflected off of a spinning mirror before being recorded by the camera. This simulates the opening and closing shutter on a film camera. Okay….so where the hell am I going with all of this? Basically film has had a good run but its time to step aside to digital. Film is very fragile, hard to work with, hard to edit, and fucking EXPENSIVE!!!! I would say that if you were going to buy a camera today you should shell out the money and buy one that has HD capabilities. If you are going to have a lot of time to film you stuff properly I would suggest the Panasonic HVX 200. If you are more of a film on the go person get a Panasonic or JVC that films HD on mini DV HD tapes. Call me bias but I think that everyone and their mothers should stay away from SONY. Their HD camera sucks, they are over priced, they break easily, and they are terrible in low light. Ya….this is the tip of the ice berg…is what else do you want to know?
|
|
|
Post by Freddy4513 on May 3, 2007 22:36:00 GMT -5
jesus christwagons.
|
|
|
Post by endless on May 3, 2007 23:48:28 GMT -5
....and thanks for the info and camera recommendation... I was thinking along those lines, because its what has happened in audio, and it makes sense that, if everything you film usually ends up as low definition digital (or worse yet, on youtube), why would you bother with film? Especially for stuff like music videos. The VHS Beta split... that was when one company decided not to spread the technology right? I think places like news stations still use Beta right? I took a tour of one a few years back and they said the medium was actually superior... I might be thinking of something else though...
|
|
|
Post by Stefvorcide on May 4, 2007 11:09:06 GMT -5
....and thanks for the info and camera recommendation... I was thinking along those lines, because its what has happened in audio, and it makes sense that, if everything you film usually ends up as low definition digital (or worse yet, on youtube), why would you bother with film? Especially for stuff like music videos. The VHS Beta split... that was when one company decided not to spread the technology right? I think places like news stations still use Beta right? I took a tour of one a few years back and they said the medium was actually superior... I might be thinking of something else though... I read (correct me if im wrong!! ) that VHS won over Beta cause the Porn industry were using VHS, not cause it was better ;p
|
|
|
Post by Freddy4513 on May 4, 2007 17:19:56 GMT -5
EMP i need to get you laid. There is obviously NO tail in Canada
|
|
|
Post by Stefvorcide on May 4, 2007 20:26:57 GMT -5
ROFL
|
|
jp4513
Sandbox League
Admiral
Posts: 44
|
Post by jp4513 on May 4, 2007 22:39:30 GMT -5
Back in the day (1974) the industry was trying to decide which medium (BETA of VHS) that they wanted to use for selling movies. The final decision was on VHS because it was cheaper to make. In reality BETA is better. VHS has 220- 240 lines of resolution while BETA has 250-280. TV stations used BETA because it is better.
|
|