• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

The Rebels are surging, can the Empire stike back?

  • Thread starter Anonym0uz Bitch
  • Start date



I thought they'd switched to digital filming a long time ago. I'd imagine going digital would give editors more options, and would probably speed up production times as well; they're advantages to going digital. I can't think of anything wrong with switching over, aside from the fact a lot of professionals would become inexperienced in their feild, were the switch officially made.

A.M. Radio

There is no problem, besides the fact that Digital Technology is not yet where it needs to be before we make the switch. We can't say this is the way of the future until we can make a digital film look like whatever we want. Even though well treated DV can look like film to most people, there are still those of us who can tell.

Until everyone can be fooled, and every look can be achieved, we are ready.


Film Elitist
A.M. Radio said:
Well, right now I'm in several film classes, preparing to hopefully shoot my feature. I want to shoot on 16mm film. Although I've been told for my project, 8mm would make my film look just how it should. 8mm is rarely used even on indy films. 16mm is pretty much the standard for indy films, or at least it once was. Studio films and larger budget indies are usually shot on 35mm.

The point here? They all look different. 16mm is relatively close to 35mm, however, there are still somethings that losers like me can point out. However, the look of film can also vary per camera. I think my movie would look good shot on a Bolex camera (unfortunately those do not have sound sync. However, it would achieve the look I want.)

Now, Mr. Talentless Hack George Lucas wants us to believe that Digital Technology will render film useless. I don't mind Digital Video technology. I think DV and HDV cameras are a welcome addition to the filmmaker's arsenal. But so are Commercial grade camcorders. Yes, I mean the same things we use to record our family vacations. I've seen plenty of halfway decent films shot on commercial grade camcorders.

I believe that the choice of what is used comes down to how you want your film to look. Digital Technology is not where it should be. Not yet. And I don't think it will ever be. Every size film, every type of camera, adds many different elements to the look of a movie. DV can be disguised with a generic "film look." However, it's not the same.

Do you really think filmmakers should take advice from the man who made Star Wars Episode 1, 2, and 3? Look, this is a man who has made outrageous claims like "I had the prequels planned when I made the original trilogy" and "I always wanted Greedo to shoot first." His idea that Digital Technology is superior is just another insane rambling of a talentless hack.

I'm with AM on this one. It all depends on what you want your film to look like. If you want a really sharp image or if you're making a professional video, you'd want to use digital video.

But if you're making a movie that you want to use the old film look to it, you'd want to use either 35 or 16 mm film.

I think original film will never go away. Especially with not only filmmaking but with photography as well. Origianal film has that old quality look to it that makes movies what they are.

I think filmmakers will always use digital as well as origianl film.