Yeah, I owned a HVX200 & Brevis 35mm lens adapter and just recently sold it
I also own a canon 60D and canon 5D and have loved the physical workflow so far
I like them for the speed of setups and portability opposed to my previous setup
I also own 2 8mm cameras and a broken 16mm :p
Not only do you have to know your limitations but it’s great if you can abuse them …
I’m a firm supporter in digital cinema as well. I think it’s a beautiful thing .. but I do have an issue with digital TRYING to look like film, I think it should be its own thing, and I love what it is.
What are you shooting with Anonymouse?
To TNZK: I never said “Digital looks like film.” You’re the one so bent on comparing the two and informing us of its “inferiority” to film. I was presenting the idea that maybe, as its own format, digital might be preferable to film for a lot of people at this point.
And as for the not-so-subtle implication you have more “technical” knowledge than Roger Deakins, the fact of the matter is the man knows how to make powerful and well-shot images. If that’s the end result, who cares what his “technical” knowledge is?
But I forgot, I need to watch out because you’re an “avid photographer.” You and the rest of the world, chief. That’s been the biggest downside to digital. Everyone is an expert now.
Well, everyone is not an expert now. Everyone takes photos, yes, but it’s always been that way. The amrket is just now larger. However, the difference is that an “expert” knows how to take consistently good photos. I mean let’s be realistic, even professional phoographers scrap most of their photos but the ratio of “good” to “bad” photos is far better for an “expert.”
@JP. Schmidt: I’m just about to pick up a GH2, I’ll be sure to let you know how that works out for me. I’ve shot on a lot of different platforms in the past (many, many film SLRs…) but in digital, I’ve mostly worked with the 7D and a little with the 5D (out of my price range, so I wasn’t using my own equipment). I’m looking at the 60D, but I’m quite partial to the GH2.
Very cool. I I was looking at the GH2 for a long time, but fell on the 60D as my first DSLR. Def let me know what you think of the GH2. It seems like a really great camera if you can get your hands on one :p
I first had experience on the t2i and was against it at first .. but now here I am, 100% DSLR, hah
I agree, Anonymous. I should have clarified and said everyone THINKS they’re an expert now.
If Bill or anyone else that’s done this can reply: does film-out really hide most of the digital ‘aberrations’? I recently shot a feature on a meagre HVX 202 and the editor and I were biting our lips at some of the skin compressions under tungsten. While I’m sure it will pass over most of the audiences, it would be a relief to know that the effect will be somewhat hidden when transferred to film, doubly so when it’s our big break.
@Michael: Bro, chill.
The implication was that I listen to more technically minded photographers when it comes to technically minded things. I’ve worked with Simon Raby (the true DP for District 9, not the credited dude), and in mutual correspondence with Leon Narby, both men who’ve greatly helped me hone my craft. I still wish to learn more from them, especially Simon Raby.
As you’ve rightly said, I’m an ‘avid photographer’, but not an expert. I’m avid enough to know the differences between the two formats, and the common mistakes people attribute to either of them. I hope I’m never an expert to be perfectly honest.
If your senses were so keen to uncover my implications of my knowledge being better than Roger Deakins, perhaps it was so keen to realize that I truly love digital cinematography, even more so than I like traditional cinematography; I not-so-subtely mentioned my admiration for Michael Mann’s latest films in my first post. If that were the case, what agenda should I have describing film and digital all along?
I simply have no agenda. I’m just saying what can be said about either medium and how it currently stands.
Your original post stated that digital has its own look. My reply was, it does, just not enough people are doing anything about it. I have to admit even my last feature tried to emulate the film look, because people aren’t ready for the true digital look. I hope to be part of that revolution though.
Fair enough, I have a tendency to overreact in these situations. As I stated earlier in the thread, this feels like Christmas for filmmakers. Have a professional looking product no longer requires 16 or 35mm film stock. It’s even an improvement from the initial impact of digital, where renting a Viper or a Genesis really wasn’t any cheaper than just shooting on film.
So to me, times are good. Let’s just be happy and make movies.
I don’t mean to come off like an asshole, so peace and best of luck to you.
LOL, OP has long ago unsubscribed, I’m sure…
Thanks for this thread. Very helpful.
Anonymouse
…“you choose the best tool based on the piece at hand, but I felt we were just discussing the merits of different cameras…”
That’s exactly what I meant in my comment above.
When it comes to digital/ film, it’s pretty obvious that it’s going to be a while before digital catches up to film. I mean, there’s no question. Film is capturing actual light, digital is registering it. It’s far more complicated. In all practicality however, I see no problem with using digital. You just have to be aware of the limitations of your equipment and/ or equip yourself properly for the job at hand. I personally use digital SLR’s for two reasons: I have them on hand anyway, and (more importantly) cost.