I had an LX at one time. Back in the early days of home computers I sold the LX to finance 364 K of memory!!. Wish I hadn't done that. The LX was a sweet machine, although I always preferred Nikkor lenses to the later Pentax glass.
Computer memory prices: years ago I upgraded my father's 8086 (??) from 512kb to 1mb - cost over £100. Now that same figure will buy about 24gb of computer memory. A 100mb hard drive about ten years ago was also about £100 - now for the same amount you can buy a 2tb drive.
Yep. I paid $495 for a 20 MEG hard drive. The really sad part is the money came from selling some of the initial stock issue of Microsoft. If I had held onto that stock, there was a time when it would have been worth $3.5 million.!!!!!! (My wife doesn't like it when I bring that up).
A 35 mm motion picture camera and few sweet primes for it
Because I like filming as well. Did ( and still do ) a lot of stuff on digital, but it's not the same For documentaries and filming nature, digital is wonderful but for narrative films, I like film. I don't want to use a lot of computer graphics anyway.
I am working in the movie- and TV-industrie and it is horrible, how people work meanwhile Especially for TV, they just use HD camcorders ( at least here in Japan ) ... not even DSLRs. A depth of field from here to the moon and no effort in creating a decent lighting anymore. Yeah ... we can shoot at ISO 3200 now
I could always cry, watching them wasting a huge budget and recording everything with a camcorder on tape. But if you look at the young generation of cameramen and directors here, they don't even know, what's an aperture or depth of field anymore. If you can barely hold the camera steady, you're the man
Plus ... make up artists are having a hard time meanwhile as well. There is a famous Samurai TV series, continued for decades. The first seasons have been shot on film of course. Brilliant lighting, the evil characters half in the shadow and the make up looked pretty real. The last seasons do look just terrible. Make Up and costumes look like from a carnival party even they are basically the same. Well ... it's not a production like "Pirates of the carribean" of course ... but "creating illusions" on a smaller budget has been actually easier if using real film. If I look at the original STAR TREK series from the 60s ... how would the sets have looked, shot on a camcorder ... just ridiculous, I guess
Film is an "eternal format" as well. So many TV productions shot on video in the past do look absolutely crappy on a big TV now, but you can still enjoy "Gone with the wind" in BluRay quality ... or maybe even on a 4K TV in the future if scanned properly. HD is basically nothing more than 3 MegaPixel while 35 mm film can be scanned at a ten times higher resolution. Just a few years ago, we had 640x480, which has the size of a stamp, displayed on a computer monitor of today.
A lot of good reasons, putting a 35 mm motion picture camera on the "if money is no issue" list ... at least for me But even in general ... movie- and TV-productions are so expensive, that it doesn't make any sense for me, saving a few dollars on the camera and getting the film developed is probably less than one per mill of the budget.
On the other hand digital is becoming better - at a faster rate of knots than film developed. My camera will shoot 18megapixel at 9 fps. It won't be long before a camera comes out that will shoot at the 'normal' cine speed of 24 fps with 35mm quality.
Don't forget that most amateur cine film was shot on 8mm. The old standard 8 was 16mm film split after filming (the spool was turned round in the camera to shoot the second half). Super 8 came in later which gave an increase of frame size of several percent. Of course some used 9.5 mm, especially in France. 16 mm was for the serious amateur. Camcorders have already passed 8mm cine in most parameters. For the non-technically minded, digital is much lower maintenance than cine ever was and significantly easier for in terms of having synced sound. A loss in perceived visual quality is more than made up for by the improvements in other directions.
In the end it is not the media (i.e. digital) itself which is the problem but the skill of those using it and what the producers are prepared to spend.
Digital is just too easy to use. Much less thought and expertise s necessary than was the case with film. Not being able to hold the camera still began with film, some claiming that it was more realistic. For me the movie camera should neither pan nor zoom: scene changes should be 'cut to'. However, there comes a point when it is more important to just get what is happening recorded as it happens. It is often not possible to stop the action and do another take, nor have a two (or more) camera shoot.
The only clip of motion picture I have on the internet is www.pitchero.com/clubs/caldy/videos/20110528ynysybwl-tour-to-ca-21847.html not the best bit of filming but it does record a moment in time which would otherwise have been lost for good. Would I have recorded it in 8mm cine? Absolutely not - for several reasons. Cost for starters. There would not have been enough light for the indoor scene. Convenience too: the camcorder I have is a neat little affair, but this was actually shot on the Canon 7D. The sound is 'in camera': the old sound super 8 system I had necessitated lugging round a separate tape recorder. Letting others see it would have been difficult too.
Of course, Dave !!! Shooting movies has never been easier and more comfortable for amateur users than it is now. 8 mm ? I never took a movie on that and even cellphones can shoot movies in amazing HD quality now.
However, like I said, for documentaries or nature stuff ( and that is, what the average person is filming ), digital is absolutely brilliant, comfortable and provides a much wider range of capabilities. There is no doubt about that and I would never expect somebody to take a movie of a birthday party or in his holiday by using a 35 mm motion picture camera
The situation changes, when it comes to shooting something narrative or fictional, I think. There, it can actually be a pain, when the camera is capturing too many details. The make up, costumes, props ... all that looks suddenly "fake" and it takes a whole day to prepare a set in every detail for shooting just one scene ... because you can see everything later on your 50 inch TV at home. One reason, why green screen and computer graphics is used so often recently ... it's cheaper than preparing a huge set ( even just a room ) in every detail. I don't know realy why it is exactly so, but film is capable of capturing everything sharp, clear and in a high resolution ... but it is still more "forgiving" somehow. And that's what it is all about in fictional films. It is NOT about capturing the reality perfectly, it is about creating a new and different one.
Of course, I tried to play with "Magic Bullet Looks" and all these stuff as well ... because I don't have a motion picture camera ... but it is not the same and I slowly start to dislike those cheap looking film look effects. I am not that familiar with US TV series, but my wife saw something like "CSI Miami" on TV recently. Sorry, but I had to laugh, looking at this "fake orange sky" Magic Bullet filter all the time ... and japanese TV productions are far worser than this one. I liked "Spartacus" though, but that's Pay TV and they do have a nice budget, I guess. Very smart to use a limited set too ( basically everything happens in this roman gladiator gym ) ... well, and the rest is CC.
berndt, I do know what you mean...but the problem is only partly with the medium. For the most part it is the inability of the people to use that medium (whichever they are using) properly.
I suspect they want that clarity of picture, even though, as you say, they don't seem to want to hold the camera still. It's quite easy with a finger and some vaseline to completely alter what arrives on the sensor. (I have a Leica Xenon lens that a pro had scratched the front element to make it soft focus. How daft is that?)
Digital and analogue are different. Even in each group there are big differences in equipment and techniques.
In the movie world, if money were no object I would get the best digital camera that took interchangeable lenses, but was still relatively portable.
For the most part it is the inability of the people to use that medium (whichever they are using) properly.
That is very true ... unfortunately ... and we actually just talked about the camera aspect. There are many more things, which make the difference between a good and bad movie.
Weird at least here in Japan is, that the position of a DP ( director of photography ) is missing. They have ADs ( assistant directors ) and ADs for the ADs, but a person in charge for the whole aspects of camera work and vizualisation does not exist. The director is often enough not a camera or lighting expert at all and the level of the camera crew is depending on the level and budget of the production. Most money to make meanwhile ... TV commercials ... and there, you can find the best of the best. Movies ? Well ... depends on the budget ... and TV ? No comment If an AD get's less than 100 dollar a day for mostly working 24 hours, what kind of people can we expect to find working there ?
But that's really a wide topic and a lot of things to consider for discussing in properly.
Just returning to the camera aspect, the fast advancing technology ( and availability for average consumers ) has good and bad sides, I think. Nice, that every "normal person" can have access to HD movie making or high quality photography ... but not good for the professionals ( in the meaning of people, who try to make a living from photo-/videography ) ... and not good for what we might call "art". People always get used to what they see and get ( in movies, on TV or by what they are using by themselves ). The difference between a professional equipment and a cellphone became so small, that people just say: "Why do I need to hire a photographer, if my pictures are also clear, sharp, colorful and well exposed ?" Or why should a TV production company pay more than 100 dollar a day if a camcorder can produce brilliant HD footage without any further skills ? And especially the young generation, used to their "iPhone-look" can't see a difference anyway.
So, the profession of a cameraman or photographer is dying and with them the Kurusawas and Spielbergs of this world Only a very few major film companies can afford to produce ... mainstream movies of course or so called blockbusters. They need to present something different from TV or your home cam. Excessive CC like in Avatar or 3D. People are spoiled. If something looks just like on their own DSLR, why should they go to cinema then ? Just to see Tom Cruise instead or their aunt or daughter ?
Tough times for "indies". Yes ... three years ago, we could still excite people with the typical ( and never seen on a camcorder before ) depth of field on a GH1 or 7D but now, Vimeo and Youtube is full of it ... and this feature is often just used for the sake of it.
So what comes next ? The first short film shot on a cellphone ... does already exist ... or 3D ? I don't know ... but I personally have the longing for going back to the roots. Always when I watch old movies on film, I think, how wonderful they actually have been. The beautiful technicolor colors ... believe me, I would never touch Magic Bullet Looks again ... and the lighting ... simply everything.
So ... as I already have the best digital equipment of today, what wish could remain ? A real motion picture camera ;D
Post by camerastoomany on Dec 20, 2011 10:55:47 GMT -5
I know nothing of movie making, but I would like either a Minolta CLE, or perhaps, a Leica M3 so I could use the Minolta M mount 28mm and 90mm lenses I've owned for about a dozen years but have never used. (bought for a few dollars at an auction. I thought one day I'd find a cheap CLE Ha!)
berndt, interestingly (well at least I think so) sound is the more difficult part to get right. The onboard microphones do a decent job, but only within limits. A bit of wind and the sound from the scene is ruined. No wonder so much has just music on the soundtrack or sound from a another time dubbed on. No wonder too that you see the professionals either working in a studio so everything can be controlled or having massive furry windsocks to prevent wind noise. the general ease, though, of having sound with digital film is for me the major advance. Of course, if money were no object I would employ one of the directors of old to make the film for me. For me modern directors,even the likes of Spielberg, lack an elegance in their film making which was evident in the past.
I don't believe it is the medium per se which is the problem, but rather the fact that life has moved on: to my eyes not necessarily for the better, at least in film making. For instance, no car is allowed to crash these days without an explosion and flames bigger than anything that came out of the Manhattan Project. Special effects are so much more realistic now (even if they have to be on a 'too grand' scale), but Ray Harryhausen is still the master. Mind you, there are probably some who think Harryhausen 'couldn't hold a candle to' Georges Méliès.
If the no object money is being used to buy into the elegant era of film making then I'm with you, definitely. I'm sure we could reproduce it now if we had the will and the ability to lose what we have learned in life. Of course the latter, particularly, is difficult. Making a film in the style of Méliès or Eisenstein or Griffths or Gance or whoever is, I believe, technically possible on more modern equipment and in some ways would be better films. However, we lack the life experiences that those greats and as a result anything we produce would be poor in comparison. It would be fun trying though.
Perhaps we should go for 70mm, or at least VistaVison......or maybe Cinerama. I saw the Battle of the Bulge from the front row of the cinema when it first came out in the mid 1960s. That was quite weird. Even the big TVs of today are mild in comparison.