G
Guest
Guest
Should we have a seperate section for digital cinematography?
D
Digigenic
Guest
Sure...
D
Digigenic
Guest
It's already Digital Cinematography...
It's already Digital Cinematography...
I don't mind there being another branch in the forum, but I also believe that labeling it "digital" cinematography is a little redundant. It practically already is Digital Cinematography.
It won't be long before it's all digital anyway, and by that point, it won't be necessary to label it "digital" cinematography, it'll just be cinematography or something even more advanced, like moleculography. Besides, for most students, digital is the format used more often, it's more accessible and the practicality of its applications at this stage in its development shows great promise.
It's already Digital Cinematography...
I don't mind there being another branch in the forum, but I also believe that labeling it "digital" cinematography is a little redundant. It practically already is Digital Cinematography.
It won't be long before it's all digital anyway, and by that point, it won't be necessary to label it "digital" cinematography, it'll just be cinematography or something even more advanced, like moleculography. Besides, for most students, digital is the format used more often, it's more accessible and the practicality of its applications at this stage in its development shows great promise.
need to think about his more
need to think about his more
I think it is cinematography even if there are some differences in the equipment you use your still called a Director of Photography, right? If you take the photos with digital equipment they are still photos, right? Let me know what you think. I am open to adding it but I would have to hear a cry for a seperate "digital cinematography" forum. I just think you are a cinematographer no matter what the lens or the recording apparatus or technologies are that one might use for recording.
need to think about his more
I think it is cinematography even if there are some differences in the equipment you use your still called a Director of Photography, right? If you take the photos with digital equipment they are still photos, right? Let me know what you think. I am open to adding it but I would have to hear a cry for a seperate "digital cinematography" forum. I just think you are a cinematographer no matter what the lens or the recording apparatus or technologies are that one might use for recording.
D
Digigenic
Guest
Given the present climate, I agree.
:idea: But, I was also elaborating on the evolution of these terms, because the terminology is likely to change in the near future. When advancements in media/memory evolve with imaging sensors that develop multi-dimensional imagery, and movies are nolonger shown in typical "cinemas" because of these new dimensions, and they're given an entirely different area for presentation, then ancient descriptions like "cinematographer", will evolve into different terms because of the way in which the imagery has been captured and/or created.
:idea: But, I was also elaborating on the evolution of these terms, because the terminology is likely to change in the near future. When advancements in media/memory evolve with imaging sensors that develop multi-dimensional imagery, and movies are nolonger shown in typical "cinemas" because of these new dimensions, and they're given an entirely different area for presentation, then ancient descriptions like "cinematographer", will evolve into different terms because of the way in which the imagery has been captured and/or created.
A little Discouraged
A little Discouraged
Come on Digi the take over from film to digital is still at least 2-3 decades away. I just recently viewed ONce apon a time in Mexico and SWEP2 to campare the look of HD to digital and well there is no comparison. I wasn't impressed at all. I'm sure HD could look a lot better if you had some different DP's working the camera's and what not but things are still a ways off. I feel that seperate forums would be good that way film stocks could be discussed as well as Lenses and Camera's. I work with HD an awfull lot as well as other SD and DV projects. It's not film.
A little Discouraged
Come on Digi the take over from film to digital is still at least 2-3 decades away. I just recently viewed ONce apon a time in Mexico and SWEP2 to campare the look of HD to digital and well there is no comparison. I wasn't impressed at all. I'm sure HD could look a lot better if you had some different DP's working the camera's and what not but things are still a ways off. I feel that seperate forums would be good that way film stocks could be discussed as well as Lenses and Camera's. I work with HD an awfull lot as well as other SD and DV projects. It's not film.
R
Rogue Crew
Guest
Digital Cinematography
Boone
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:36 pm
I think it would be a good Idea since there is such a huge difference in that way you have to shoot for film and DV.
KimWelch
Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:31 am
Ok, maybe but what do we call it? is digital cinematography ok with you guys?
---------
Actually, one of the ways to get DV to look like film is to shoot it as though it IS film. Lighting, DOF, filters, etc., using "filming" techniques all contrubute to making your video look more like the movie you're used to seeing.
I've been calling it DV CINE´ for quite a while now, and most people know exactly what that means,
Boone
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:36 pm
I think it would be a good Idea since there is such a huge difference in that way you have to shoot for film and DV.
KimWelch
Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:31 am
Ok, maybe but what do we call it? is digital cinematography ok with you guys?
---------
Actually, one of the ways to get DV to look like film is to shoot it as though it IS film. Lighting, DOF, filters, etc., using "filming" techniques all contrubute to making your video look more like the movie you're used to seeing.
I've been calling it DV CINE´ for quite a while now, and most people know exactly what that means,
R
Rogue Crew
Guest
Re: A little Discouraged
Re: A little Discouraged
Well....
Have a look at Danny Boyle's "28 DAYS LATER". It was shot with 3 Canon XL1S camers. I didn't care for the movie much - some of the acting was sub-par and too much gore for my taste, but I couldn't fault the photography and the overall "look". When you consider it was done on a $3,500 camera, well....
Re: A little Discouraged
Boone said:
Well....
Have a look at Danny Boyle's "28 DAYS LATER". It was shot with 3 Canon XL1S camers. I didn't care for the movie much - some of the acting was sub-par and too much gore for my taste, but I couldn't fault the photography and the overall "look". When you consider it was done on a $3,500 camera, well....
