I have to be like the greatest osx fan ever... BUT
you have to be realistic... todays powerbooks are overpriced for what they
are capable off... they are not that fast..
Everybody that is tempting to go to the mac side is doing that because they've seen and heard so many big things...
The cheapest mac mini with 32MB videomem, 256mb ram, will be dissappointing to really work on... While it is cheap for apple, it is still expensive
O.K. look, I don't want to derail this thread into an argument over the Mac mini's price/performance ratio, but...
(before starting, I should make it clear that of course I realise the Mac mini is far from being a powerful computer, and I own a self-built PC)
It is absolutely not expensive for what you get. Price comparable PCs (apart from self-build) only have "integrated intel graphics", also 256 MB RAM (but 32 or 64 MB of that is lost for the graphics), equally underpowered CPUs and no firewire or DVI out)
5) all the nice and cool people at AppleInsider who are willing to help, know their stuff and are fun to debate with (even in PoliticalOutsider).
For me, as I am in Video Editing (as an amateur) as well, the Mac is just the best you can get. iLife is simply fantastic, FinalCut Pro/Express is the industry standard, and the Mac just works.
i think i'll get the mac mini, connect it to the monitor i have now, and just familarize myself with OS X and learn as much stuff as i can about macs before i go to film school. i'm only 15, so i'll only be using iMovie anyway. maybe something like the 1.25ghz G4processor, 512 megs of ram, and an 80GB HDD, sounds good, should be about $650 i guess.
thanks for your help guys.
hi adam, hopefully you're not too distracted by the bickering that went on, it's just lively debate...
to summarise, i think most people are saying, since you wont be in film school for a few years, maybe a mac mini or imac is good for now to start discovering the wonderful word of mac, and to show it off to your friends :-)
i think most people here are saying, if you can afford it, a refurbished iMac G5 is powerful, and you can upgrade the Ram later on. you mentioned space and a nice high-res wide screen being important, the iMac g5 17 or 20 inch will meet this nicely. for the times when you do play some games like UT2004, StarWars, Sims, etc etc on the Mac, the iMac g5 will give you a decent game experience...
as some posters have pointed out, in any case when you switch to an even better Mac in a few years as you go to college, your old mac will be worth something still, and whatever mac you buy now will service you well for at least 2 years
now, i'm really torn, you say Avid is the industry standard but others are saying FCP is. which is it?!
i don't think anyone is saying fcp is the industry standard. it's just not. avid is still nearly 100% of the pro market. but ton the prosumer side fcp is the standard for that. but since you aren't going to buy a full-on media composer system, fcp is the next best system to learn. at this point in your life/career it's more important for you to learn EDITING than it is for you to learn a specific editing application.
A windows machine on a Network (whether there is a Anti Virus software or not is like raw meat dumped into a shark infested sea.....
Seriously, we have 35 macs and 10 PCs (no choice here the accounting software only works on PCs). Every week we have some kind of problem that is virus related.
A windows machine on a Network (whether there is a Anti Virus software or not is like raw meat dumped into a shark infested sea.....
Seriously, we have 35 macs and 10 PCs (no choice here the accounting software only works on PCs). Every week we have some kind of problem that is virus related.
tell me, why do people continue to abuse themselves with PCs and MicroSucks? Sheer ignorance? "high" cost of Macs?
what are imprediments to corporate Switching? stupid accounting rubbish that runs only on PCees?
as mac users, are we so lucky that since we are insulated from a lot of PC problems we are unsure how to effectively "market" the Mac to our poor PC using friends and co-workers?
**note: in the above, PC refers to Windows machines
A windows machine on a Network (whether there is a Anti Virus software or not is like raw meat dumped into a shark infested sea.....
Seriously, we have 35 macs and 10 PCs (no choice here the accounting software only works on PCs). Every week we have some kind of problem that is virus related.
you know, so many small-to-medium enterprises are ready for Switching.... is your workplace new to Mac or always has been Mac... what sort of place is it? how come you have 35 Macs? is it a *stereotype* creative studio or something?
As an indie filmmaker myself you really should be asking this question on a film board rather then a mac board. It's obvious that on a mac board you'll get people trying to sell you a mac no matter what.
I just finished editing a feature film on a PC with Windows XP and Vegas 5. I never had a single problem with it and my hardware was half as powerful as yours.
Vegas is a BEAST! I think its the best PC editing suite hands down. Glad everyone has addressed all the Avid vs. FCP questions. If the kid really wants to get into film school
(which he said he did), that's what I'd recommend he LEARN a basic Avid program (Xpress Pro) as well as FCP, because he'll be using both in school. However, for editing your own projects at home, FCP is also the hands down favorite for that. Indie filmmakers I know almost all use Vegas or FCP, depending on their platform obviously... a few use Premiere Pro, but that seems to be a dying horse.
So for the last time.. LEARN BOTH PROGRAMS! If you're going to go with a mac, FCP should absolutely be the first program you learn and master. And do get a Mac; of course a PC is just a powerful.. but there is so much crap to deal with, even with a stable OS like XP Pro. My buddy, an IT guy for 15 years, did everything he could.. and after 4 years of no viruses on his pride and joy computer, he got ONE. He didn't lose anything, but it took him 3 days just to work around the problem. And this is a smart guy. I don't understand how the average joe PC user doesn't lose their mind over these things. Just save yourself the hassle.
Why do they call it 'film school'? Does anyone still use film (that acetate-silver nitrate garbage)? Blech! Might as well learn to use a wire recorder and drive a horse buggy.
They sure do still use film.. they just digitize it in the editing process!
In fact there are companies that take your film and convert it to Final Cut to do further editing. You later give your edited Final Cut movie back and they will take the film and make the same cuts.
In fact there are companies that take your film and convert it to Final Cut to do further editing. You later give your edited Final Cut movie back and they will take the film and make the same cuts.
This forum certainly has gotten off topic...
Very good. But that still doesn't make Avid any LESS the stanadard in major film houses
Why do they call it 'film school'? Does anyone still use film (that acetate-silver nitrate garbage)? Blech! Might as well learn to use a wire recorder and drive a horse buggy.
umm not dissin you cubist, but *lights up a ciggie*
you know that latest hip-hop bling bling glossy rap video?
or that thumping U2 clip?
-captured on FILM
you know that big blockbuster at the cinema? for example, Nick Cage in National Treasure? with that great huge widescreen 'look'?
-captured on FILM
oh... Lord of The Rings? Surely for all that super-advanced stuff can't be done on 100 year old technology? or all those Matrix movies? Film? WTF?
-captured on FILM
For the capture of the INITIAL SOURCE material, you just can't beat 35mm or VistaVision or other FILM technologies.
In fact, when you generate beautiful high-res (i'm talking like what's called Cineon 4k) visual effects, recorded from the computer onto FILM, it gives those effects a nice sheen, a soft gloss, a warm glow...
Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 were shot on hi-def Video cameras, and you can tell in some scenes, in the dark areas, there's a lot of visual noise
Sorry, but FILM still rules. Why do you think almost every brochure for high-def/ 24progressive/ or whatever video camera from $2000 to $200,000 talks about 'film look' or 'film-like' quality?
It is true though, as other posters have mentioned, technologies like AVID and FCP let you edit and work with film without actually having to sit and cut physical film strips. And post-production has reached a level where it is possible to take an entire piece shot on film, for example, the latest Corvette ad, and 'PhotoShop' every single frame to your heart's content, then output that back out to FILM, HDTV, BetacamSP, or whatever.
Finally, remember that 35mm FILM offers at least 4x the resolution of the highest-spec of HDTV
But that's just me the aesthete
I mean, Trance music on vinyl is just like, warm and glowing and nice compared to CDs.... But this is a whole 'nother debate on personal preferences, and I'm no luddite, I think i've learned to compromise along the way. I just wanted to point something out to you...
umm not dissin you cubist, but *lights up a ciggie*
you know that latest hip-hop bling bling glossy rap video?
or that thumping U2 clip?
-done on FILM
you know that big blockbuster at the cinema? for example, Nick Cage in National Treasure? with that great huge widescreen 'look'?
-done on FILM
oh... Lord of The Rings? Surely for all that super-advanced stuff can't be done on 100 year old technology? or all those Matrix movies? Film? WTF?
-done on FILM
For the capture of the INITIAL SOURCE material, you just can't beat 35mm or VistaVision or other FILM technologies.
Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 were shot on hi-def Video cameras, and you can tell in some scenes, in the dark areas, there's a lot of visual noise
Sorry, but FILM still rules. Why do you think almost every brochure for high-def/ 24progressive/ or whatever video camera from $2000 to $200,000 talks about 'film look' or 'film-like' quality?
But that's just me the aesthete
they used some very special rigs shooting ep. II on Sony's CineAlta cameras.. basically they used HDCAM, but Sony and Panavision created a TON of special lenses for Lucas. High quality shit, plus it had depth of field. I bet it cost even more than film would have. point is.. film isnt going anywhere for awhile..
they used some very special rigs shooting ep. II on Sony's CineAlta cameras.. basically they used HDCAM, but Sony and Panavision created a TON of special lenses for Lucas. High quality shit, plus it had depth of field. I bet it cost even more than film would have. point is.. film isnt going anywhere for awhile..
Yeah i think "digital motion picture film" technologies are making tremendous strides, but I'd give physical FILM at least 10 more years of rock solid contribution to motion pictures and commercials. Although in the rest of this decade certainly we'll start to see a blending of technologies, eg. Matrix Revolutions, a lot of image capture for visual effects was on HighDef-style stuff (capture of facial expressions to be composited on 3d models of characters)
Very good. But that still doesn't make Avid any LESS the stanadard in major film houses
who is saying it's not? AVID IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD! IT IS! but for indy projects and most student film projects, they're moving over to fcp. avid has years and years of experience dealing directly with professional editors and those editors like avid systems. fcp doesn't have to exist at the exclusion of avid. at some point in the far future perhaps fcp will overtake avid for professional use, but only if avid falls asleep at the wheel (a la quark).
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
umm not dissin you cubist, but *lights up a ciggie*
you know that latest hip-hop bling bling glossy rap video?
or that thumping U2 clip?
-captured on FILM
you know that big blockbuster at the cinema? for example, Nick Cage in National Treasure? with that great huge widescreen 'look'?
-captured on FILM
oh... Lord of The Rings? Surely for all that super-advanced stuff can't be done on 100 year old technology? or all those Matrix movies? Film? WTF?
-captured on FILM
For the capture of the INITIAL SOURCE material, you just can't beat 35mm or VistaVision or other FILM technologies.
In fact, when you generate beautiful high-res (i'm talking like what's called Cineon 4k) visual effects, recorded from the computer onto FILM, it gives those effects a nice sheen, a soft gloss, a warm glow...
Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 were shot on hi-def Video cameras, and you can tell in some scenes, in the dark areas, there's a lot of visual noise
Sorry, but FILM still rules. Why do you think almost every brochure for high-def/ 24progressive/ or whatever video camera from $2000 to $200,000 talks about 'film look' or 'film-like' quality?
It is true though, as other posters have mentioned, technologies like AVID and FCP let you edit and work with film without actually having to sit and cut physical film strips. And post-production has reached a level where it is possible to take an entire piece shot on film, for example, the latest Corvette ad, and 'PhotoShop' every single frame to your heart's content, then output that back out to FILM, HDTV, BetacamSP, or whatever.
Finally, remember that 35mm FILM offers at least 4x the resolution of the highest-spec of HDTV
But that's just me the aesthete
I mean, Trance music on vinyl is just like, warm and glowing and nice compared to CDs.... But this is a whole 'other debate on personal preferences, and I'm no luddite, I think i've learned to compromise along the way. I just wanted to point something out to you...
personally i love film as a medium aesthetically speaking. and people have either been trained or naturally view 24 fps as a good representation of natural vision. 30fps is too strobey to my eyes and i don't even like the look of film shot at 30fps.
that said, it is only a matter of time before video catches film. the main benefits i see to film right now are high-speed usage and the higher resolution. for final output to tv, the resolution can still be useful in the telecine process when you want to blow things up (sometimes very drastically). the film will still hold up over many times of magnification. on a davinci machine i personally watched our tc guy blow film up 8x and it still looked good. that comes in handy.
but in the long run, video will simply be a better choice. it's happening in the photography arena and it will happen in the "film" area soon too. i welcome video to that field as long as it can maintain the same image quality of film. so up to this point, i don't love video as a original medium. but it's getting very close. and for final output to ntsc or even hd video, it'll catch up soon. in the whole movie "collateral" there's only once scene where i could really feel the "video-ness" of the shot. the rest of it looked pretty damned good.
in the whole movie "collateral" there's only once scene where i could really feel the "video-ness" of the shot. the rest of it looked pretty damned good.
1. i still have not checked out collateral... michael mann is the man..!
2. umm something else but i forgot... oh yeah, i think you are right that when the film-to-video transition fully happens it will be along a similar pattern to what has happened in the still-photography domain...
who is saying it's not? AVID IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD! IT IS! but for indy projects and most student film projects, they're moving over to fcp. avid has years and years of experience dealing directly with professional editors and those editors like avid systems. fcp doesn't have to exist at the exclusion of avid. at some point in the far future perhaps fcp will overtake avid for professional use, but only if avid falls asleep at the wheel (a la quark).
personally i love film as a medium aesthetically speaking. and people have either been trained or naturally view 24 fps as a good representation of natural vision. 30fps is too strobey to my eyes and i don't even like the look of film shot at 30fps.
that said, it is only a matter of time before video catches film. the main benefits i see to film right now are high-speed usage and the higher resolution. for final output to tv, the resolution can still be useful in the telecine process when you want to blow things up (sometimes very drastically). the film will still hold up over many times of magnification. on a davinci machine i personally watched our tc guy blow film up 8x and it still looked good. that comes in handy.
but in the long run, video will simply be a better choice. it's happening in the photography arena and it will happen in the "film" area soon too. i welcome video to that field as long as it can maintain the same image quality of film. so up to this point, i don't love video as a original medium. but it's getting very close. and for final output to ntsc or even hd video, it'll catch up soon. in the whole movie "collateral" there's only once scene where i could really feel the "video-ness" of the shot. the rest of it looked pretty damned good.
christ.. read the whole thread before you comment. i think this thing is dead.
Comments
Originally posted by hdcool
I have to be like the greatest osx fan ever... BUT
you have to be realistic... todays powerbooks are overpriced for what they
are capable off... they are not that fast..
Everybody that is tempting to go to the mac side is doing that because they've seen and heard so many big things...
The cheapest mac mini with 32MB videomem, 256mb ram, will be dissappointing to really work on... While it is cheap for apple, it is still expensive
O.K. look, I don't want to derail this thread into an argument over the Mac mini's price/performance ratio, but...
(before starting, I should make it clear that of course I realise the Mac mini is far from being a powerful computer, and I own a self-built PC)
It is absolutely not expensive for what you get. Price comparable PCs (apart from self-build) only have "integrated intel graphics", also 256 MB RAM (but 32 or 64 MB of that is lost for the graphics), equally underpowered CPUs and no firewire or DVI out)
perhaps you should read this excellent article
Originally posted by durin oakenskin
5) all the nice and cool people at AppleInsider who are willing to help, know their stuff and are fun to debate with (even in PoliticalOutsider).
For me, as I am in Video Editing (as an amateur) as well, the Mac is just the best you can get. iLife is simply fantastic, FinalCut Pro/Express is the industry standard, and the Mac just works.
that no. 5 should be no. 1
Originally posted by Adam_89
i think i'll get the mac mini, connect it to the monitor i have now, and just familarize myself with OS X and learn as much stuff as i can about macs before i go to film school. i'm only 15, so i'll only be using iMovie anyway. maybe something like the 1.25ghz G4processor, 512 megs of ram, and an 80GB HDD, sounds good, should be about $650 i guess.
thanks for your help guys.
hi adam, hopefully you're not too distracted by the bickering that went on, it's just lively debate...
to summarise, i think most people are saying, since you wont be in film school for a few years, maybe a mac mini or imac is good for now to start discovering the wonderful word of mac, and to show it off to your friends :-)
i think most people here are saying, if you can afford it, a refurbished iMac G5 is powerful, and you can upgrade the Ram later on. you mentioned space and a nice high-res wide screen being important, the iMac g5 17 or 20 inch will meet this nicely. for the times when you do play some games like UT2004, StarWars, Sims, etc etc on the Mac, the iMac g5 will give you a decent game experience...
as some posters have pointed out, in any case when you switch to an even better Mac in a few years as you go to college, your old mac will be worth something still, and whatever mac you buy now will service you well for at least 2 years
........
Originally posted by Adam_89
now, i'm really torn, you say Avid is the industry standard but others are saying FCP is. which is it?!
i don't think anyone is saying fcp is the industry standard. it's just not. avid is still nearly 100% of the pro market. but ton the prosumer side fcp is the standard for that. but since you aren't going to buy a full-on media composer system, fcp is the next best system to learn. at this point in your life/career it's more important for you to learn EDITING than it is for you to learn a specific editing application.
Seriously, we have 35 macs and 10 PCs (no choice here the accounting software only works on PCs). Every week we have some kind of problem that is virus related.
Originally posted by fresco
A windows machine on a Network (whether there is a Anti Virus software or not is like raw meat dumped into a shark infested sea.....
Seriously, we have 35 macs and 10 PCs (no choice here the accounting software only works on PCs). Every week we have some kind of problem that is virus related.
tell me, why do people continue to abuse themselves with PCs and MicroSucks? Sheer ignorance? "high" cost of Macs?
what are imprediments to corporate Switching? stupid accounting rubbish that runs only on PCees?
as mac users, are we so lucky that since we are insulated from a lot of PC problems we are unsure how to effectively "market" the Mac to our poor PC using friends and co-workers?
**note: in the above, PC refers to Windows machines
Originally posted by fresco
A windows machine on a Network (whether there is a Anti Virus software or not is like raw meat dumped into a shark infested sea.....
Seriously, we have 35 macs and 10 PCs (no choice here the accounting software only works on PCs). Every week we have some kind of problem that is virus related.
you know, so many small-to-medium enterprises are ready for Switching.... is your workplace new to Mac or always has been Mac... what sort of place is it? how come you have 35
Originally posted by ApplePi
As an indie filmmaker myself you really should be asking this question on a film board rather then a mac board. It's obvious that on a mac board you'll get people trying to sell you a mac no matter what.
I just finished editing a feature film on a PC with Windows XP and Vegas 5. I never had a single problem with it and my hardware was half as powerful as yours.
Vegas is a BEAST! I think its the best PC editing suite hands down. Glad everyone has addressed all the Avid vs. FCP questions. If the kid really wants to get into film school
(which he said he did), that's what I'd recommend he LEARN a basic Avid program (Xpress Pro) as well as FCP, because he'll be using both in school. However, for editing your own projects at home, FCP is also the hands down favorite for that. Indie filmmakers I know almost all use Vegas or FCP, depending on their platform obviously... a few use Premiere Pro, but that seems to be a dying horse.
So for the last time.. LEARN BOTH PROGRAMS! If you're going to go with a mac, FCP should absolutely be the first program you learn and master. And do get a Mac; of course a PC is just a powerful.. but there is so much crap to deal with, even with a stable OS like XP Pro. My buddy, an IT guy for 15 years, did everything he could.. and after 4 years of no viruses on his pride and joy computer, he got ONE. He didn't lose anything, but it took him 3 days just to work around the problem. And this is a smart guy. I don't understand how the average joe PC user doesn't lose their mind over these things. Just save yourself the hassle.
They sure do still use film.. they just digitize it in the editing process!
In fact there are companies that take your film and convert it to Final Cut to do further editing. You later give your edited Final Cut movie back and they will take the film and make the same cuts.
This forum certainly has gotten off topic...
Originally posted by harrisimon
In fact there are companies that take your film and convert it to Final Cut to do further editing. You later give your edited Final Cut movie back and they will take the film and make the same cuts.
This forum certainly has gotten off topic...
Very good. But that still doesn't make Avid any LESS the stanadard in major film houses
Originally posted by cubist
Why do they call it 'film school'? Does anyone still use film (that acetate-silver nitrate garbage)? Blech! Might as well learn to use a wire recorder and drive a horse buggy.
umm not dissin you cubist, but *lights up a ciggie*
you know that latest hip-hop bling bling glossy rap video?
or that thumping U2 clip?
-captured on FILM
you know that big blockbuster at the cinema? for example, Nick Cage in National Treasure? with that great huge widescreen 'look'?
-captured on FILM
oh... Lord of The Rings? Surely for all that super-advanced stuff can't be done on 100 year old technology? or all those Matrix movies? Film? WTF?
-captured on FILM
For the capture of the INITIAL SOURCE material, you just can't beat 35mm or VistaVision or other FILM technologies.
In fact, when you generate beautiful high-res (i'm talking like what's called Cineon 4k) visual effects, recorded from the computer onto FILM, it gives those effects a nice sheen, a soft gloss, a warm glow...
Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 were shot on hi-def Video cameras, and you can tell in some scenes, in the dark areas, there's a lot of visual noise
Sorry, but FILM still rules. Why do you think almost every brochure for high-def/ 24progressive/ or whatever video camera from $2000 to $200,000 talks about 'film look' or 'film-like' quality?
It is true though, as other posters have mentioned, technologies like AVID and FCP let you edit and work with film without actually having to sit and cut physical film strips. And post-production has reached a level where it is possible to take an entire piece shot on film, for example, the latest Corvette ad, and 'PhotoShop' every single frame to your heart's content, then output that back out to FILM, HDTV, BetacamSP, or whatever.
Finally, remember that 35mm FILM offers at least 4x the resolution of the highest-spec of HDTV
But that's just me
I mean, Trance music on vinyl is just like, warm and glowing and nice compared to CDs.... But this is a whole 'nother debate on personal preferences, and I'm no luddite, I think i've learned to compromise along the way. I just wanted to point something out to you...
Originally posted by sunilraman
umm not dissin you cubist, but *lights up a ciggie*
you know that latest hip-hop bling bling glossy rap video?
or that thumping U2 clip?
-done on FILM
you know that big blockbuster at the cinema? for example, Nick Cage in National Treasure? with that great huge widescreen 'look'?
-done on FILM
oh... Lord of The Rings? Surely for all that super-advanced stuff can't be done on 100 year old technology? or all those Matrix movies? Film? WTF?
-done on FILM
For the capture of the INITIAL SOURCE material, you just can't beat 35mm or VistaVision or other FILM technologies.
Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 were shot on hi-def Video cameras, and you can tell in some scenes, in the dark areas, there's a lot of visual noise
Sorry, but FILM still rules. Why do you think almost every brochure for high-def/ 24progressive/ or whatever video camera from $2000 to $200,000 talks about 'film look' or 'film-like' quality?
But that's just me
they used some very special rigs shooting ep. II on Sony's CineAlta cameras.. basically they used HDCAM, but Sony and Panavision created a TON of special lenses for Lucas. High quality shit, plus it had depth of field. I bet it cost even more than film would have. point is.. film isnt going anywhere for awhile..
Originally posted by lewd0006
they used some very special rigs shooting ep. II on Sony's CineAlta cameras.. basically they used HDCAM, but Sony and Panavision created a TON of special lenses for Lucas. High quality shit, plus it had depth of field. I bet it cost even more than film would have. point is.. film isnt going anywhere for awhile..
Yeah i think "digital motion picture film" technologies are making tremendous strides, but I'd give physical FILM at least 10 more years of rock solid contribution to motion pictures and commercials. Although in the rest of this decade certainly we'll start to see a blending of technologies, eg. Matrix Revolutions, a lot of image capture for visual effects was on HighDef-style stuff (capture of facial expressions to be composited on 3d models of characters)
Originally posted by lewd0006
Very good. But that still doesn't make Avid any LESS the stanadard in major film houses
who is saying it's not? AVID IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD! IT IS! but for indy projects and most student film projects, they're moving over to fcp. avid has years and years of experience dealing directly with professional editors and those editors like avid systems. fcp doesn't have to exist at the exclusion of avid. at some point in the far future perhaps fcp will overtake avid for professional use, but only if avid falls asleep at the wheel (a la quark).
Originally posted by sunilraman
umm not dissin you cubist, but *lights up a ciggie*
you know that latest hip-hop bling bling glossy rap video?
or that thumping U2 clip?
-captured on FILM
you know that big blockbuster at the cinema? for example, Nick Cage in National Treasure? with that great huge widescreen 'look'?
-captured on FILM
oh... Lord of The Rings? Surely for all that super-advanced stuff can't be done on 100 year old technology? or all those Matrix movies? Film? WTF?
-captured on FILM
For the capture of the INITIAL SOURCE material, you just can't beat 35mm or VistaVision or other FILM technologies.
In fact, when you generate beautiful high-res (i'm talking like what's called Cineon 4k) visual effects, recorded from the computer onto FILM, it gives those effects a nice sheen, a soft gloss, a warm glow...
Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 were shot on hi-def Video cameras, and you can tell in some scenes, in the dark areas, there's a lot of visual noise
Sorry, but FILM still rules. Why do you think almost every brochure for high-def/ 24progressive/ or whatever video camera from $2000 to $200,000 talks about 'film look' or 'film-like' quality?
It is true though, as other posters have mentioned, technologies like AVID and FCP let you edit and work with film without actually having to sit and cut physical film strips. And post-production has reached a level where it is possible to take an entire piece shot on film, for example, the latest Corvette ad, and 'PhotoShop' every single frame to your heart's content, then output that back out to FILM, HDTV, BetacamSP, or whatever.
Finally, remember that 35mm FILM offers at least 4x the resolution of the highest-spec of HDTV
But that's just me
I mean, Trance music on vinyl is just like, warm and glowing and nice compared to CDs.... But this is a whole 'other debate on personal preferences, and I'm no luddite, I think i've learned to compromise along the way. I just wanted to point something out to you...
personally i love film as a medium aesthetically speaking. and people have either been trained or naturally view 24 fps as a good representation of natural vision. 30fps is too strobey to my eyes and i don't even like the look of film shot at 30fps.
that said, it is only a matter of time before video catches film. the main benefits i see to film right now are high-speed usage and the higher resolution. for final output to tv, the resolution can still be useful in the telecine process when you want to blow things up (sometimes very drastically). the film will still hold up over many times of magnification. on a davinci machine i personally watched our tc guy blow film up 8x and it still looked good. that comes in handy.
but in the long run, video will simply be a better choice. it's happening in the photography arena and it will happen in the "film" area soon too. i welcome video to that field as long as it can maintain the same image quality of film. so up to this point, i don't love video as a original medium. but it's getting very close. and for final output to ntsc or even hd video, it'll catch up soon. in the whole movie "collateral" there's only once scene where i could really feel the "video-ness" of the shot. the rest of it looked pretty damned good.
Originally posted by admactanium
in the whole movie "collateral" there's only once scene where i could really feel the "video-ness" of the shot. the rest of it looked pretty damned good.
hey... smart nickname... it's uber-geek yet uber-cool
"yeah, i've got mac flowing through my veins"
1. i still have not checked out collateral... michael mann is the man..!
2. umm something else but i forgot... oh yeah, i think you are right that when the film-to-video transition fully happens it will be along a similar pattern to what has happened in the still-photography domain...
Originally posted by admactanium
who is saying it's not? AVID IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD! IT IS! but for indy projects and most student film projects, they're moving over to fcp. avid has years and years of experience dealing directly with professional editors and those editors like avid systems. fcp doesn't have to exist at the exclusion of avid. at some point in the far future perhaps fcp will overtake avid for professional use, but only if avid falls asleep at the wheel (a la quark).
personally i love film as a medium aesthetically speaking. and people have either been trained or naturally view 24 fps as a good representation of natural vision. 30fps is too strobey to my eyes and i don't even like the look of film shot at 30fps.
that said, it is only a matter of time before video catches film. the main benefits i see to film right now are high-speed usage and the higher resolution. for final output to tv, the resolution can still be useful in the telecine process when you want to blow things up (sometimes very drastically). the film will still hold up over many times of magnification. on a davinci machine i personally watched our tc guy blow film up 8x and it still looked good. that comes in handy.
but in the long run, video will simply be a better choice. it's happening in the photography arena and it will happen in the "film" area soon too. i welcome video to that field as long as it can maintain the same image quality of film. so up to this point, i don't love video as a original medium. but it's getting very close. and for final output to ntsc or even hd video, it'll catch up soon. in the whole movie "collateral" there's only once scene where i could really feel the "video-ness" of the shot. the rest of it looked pretty damned good.
christ.. read the whole thread before you comment. i think this thing is dead.