In a message dated 7/12/2002 Lee Penzias writes:
<< Me smells a rat - those filmed-in-Technicolor movies I saw *decades ago*
(and more recntly) were clearer all round compared to newer stuff produced
even now. >>
You're right. But, the point, I think, was distribution. A copy of a movie
on film shown in a theater 5 times a day, say days a week, looks pretty
lousy. A digital transmission of a movie to a theater may not look as good
at first to a trained eye, but after a month or so looks much better. Also,
the cost of running all those duplicate prints of full length moves on film
for National (or worse yet global) distribution must be staggering. No doubt
there are film suppliers and labs that cater to Hollywood getting all their
ducks in a row to avoid the demise of film and the digital distribution
onslaught. The only cost vs. quality thing rearing it's ugly head...(and a
great way to increase profitability).
What I find interesting is that when professional digital was getting
rolling a great number of racing photographer were jumping through hoops to
make the switch--especially NASCAR shooters. Today I see many of the same
now shooting some film again (shooting both). Digital provides results fast
at acceptable quality (not taking into consideration some of the exceptional
large format digital that is not suitable for sports photography). Film
still provides the best results, especially if your client wants output on
the side of a race transporter trailer or giant banner. Digital cameras are
great tools, but they ain't there yet.
Mike Veglia
Motor Sport Visions Photography
http://www.motorsportvisions.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|