It's not all that ironic when you realize he's just a cheap *******.
James Cameron and Michael Bay on 3D & Digital Filmmaking
- Thread starter IrishJedi
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
But i'll go back on topic....
As someone who is trying to get in the biz, and being a cheap ass, I have to use digital.
A lot of times the footage is very flat, having no depth, and looks blah.
Unless you use a 3,000 camera. Which will look amazing.
But with film, you get that depth. Which is important, because it often looks better. Which is why a lot of movies made recently have looked really washed out, and just....bad.
As someone who is trying to get in the biz, and being a cheap ass, I have to use digital.
A lot of times the footage is very flat, having no depth, and looks blah.
Unless you use a 3,000 camera. Which will look amazing.
But with film, you get that depth. Which is important, because it often looks better. Which is why a lot of movies made recently have looked really washed out, and just....bad.
Not a cheap *******. He may very well be the cheapest ******* who ever lived.
And there's no shame in that, IMO. None at all.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
Well, he did force people to buy 5 Star Wars figures, to mail in the stamps, for a figure of himself....so...I dunno.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
Oh dont get me wrong, i'm not shamed of it, but just mearly stating.
I'd like to try out a real film camera at some point before I actually get out there. (If..) But there are a lot of really great digital cameras as well. They have a fantastic depth of field, and incredibly color. Very vivid.
Oh, no question that the rise of digital filmmaking is a boon to amateur and aspiring filmmakers and students. That part of it is awesome, for sure. I'm just tired of the Lucas and Camerons of the world putting forth the notion that digital is the way to go because it's better than film, because it isn't.
I really have no feeling really on film vs digital. Whatever makes the best looking picture on screen is what I want.
When it comes to taking pictures I don't think I'd want to use film. I shoot lots of pics many of them I've posted here and I try to think sort of like a photographer when I take them. Pic the right time of day, angles, etc. Just so they look good and then go into the editing process (which I keep minor at best). For me to do that I need digital.
Carl it appears you have set off the young one it appears.
When it comes to taking pictures I don't think I'd want to use film. I shoot lots of pics many of them I've posted here and I try to think sort of like a photographer when I take them. Pic the right time of day, angles, etc. Just so they look good and then go into the editing process (which I keep minor at best). For me to do that I need digital.
Carl it appears you have set off the young one it appears.
Bannister
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
- Messages
- 12,753
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the biggest problem with regards to people thinking digital is better than actual film, is that you rarely get to see a pristine film print at the local multiplex.
Michael Bay said:
With that said, I'm surprised to see Bay and Cameron together...
I'm sure there's good money involved to get them to do this...
Bay thinks the "real fault" of ROTF was featuring mystical elements in a story about sentient robots? 
I prefer digital way more than film. I can't think of any reason why film would be better.
As for 3D, I some movies look good in 3D but most movies don't. I wish the movies that don't do a good job with 3D should stop it so they don't ruin it for the serious films.
As for 3D, I some movies look good in 3D but most movies don't. I wish the movies that don't do a good job with 3D should stop it so they don't ruin it for the serious films.
For me it depends on the movie...
I love certain ones in film, it gives it a lot of texture that gets lost with digital.
Kind of like what happens with Vinyl and CD...
I love certain ones in film, it gives it a lot of texture that gets lost with digital.
Kind of like what happens with Vinyl and CD...
What do you mean by texture? If you mean noise, yes there's more noise on film. I count that as a negative, since it makes it hard to see detail with noise.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
I've found with the affordability of big screen tvs and my netflix subscription that I rarely need to go to the theater. If I go to the theater I'm seeing a BIG movie, like POTC, TRON, or the comic book movies. And if I'm going to see a BIG movie I find myself wanting to see it in 3D.
So for me personally, yes, 3D has been bringing me to the theater. What a movie does with the 3D is up to the filmmaker. Use it or abuse it. If you're sticking things in my face every 5 minutes, then you're abusing it. If you use it to add layers of depth, like how TRON used it (which IMO is the best use of 3D I've ever seen) then you're using it a tool.
So for me personally, yes, 3D has been bringing me to the theater. What a movie does with the 3D is up to the filmmaker. Use it or abuse it. If you're sticking things in my face every 5 minutes, then you're abusing it. If you use it to add layers of depth, like how TRON used it (which IMO is the best use of 3D I've ever seen) then you're using it a tool.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
With that said, I'm surprised to see Bay and Cameron together...
I'm sure there's good money involved to get them to do this...
One movie out of his whole filmography.....just saying. ROTF was a cluster____ of ideas. He tried, everyone tried...and failed. It happens.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
Digital is sometimes too soft. Or sometimes too hard. Captures detail that really shouldnt be seen...
Film is right in between. It's neither too much, or too little.
Also....if you dont film in 24p, digital, your film looks like poop.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,162
CelticP, I'm curious, are you out of High School yet, starting College? I've noticed your comments regarding film for awhile now and you remind me of myself when I was younger.
Just wondering where you're at so far. Depending on where you're at, you might eventually say ____ it.
Just wondering where you're at so far. Depending on where you're at, you might eventually say ____ it.
Digital is sometimes too soft. Or sometimes too hard. Captures detail that really shouldnt be seen...
Film is right in between. It's neither too much, or too little.
Also....if you dont film in 24p, digital, your film looks like poop.
I don't see digital film being too soft or sharp, it has good detail, along with not having as much film grain or jittering. Plus for filmmakers, if you ever want to check a previously filmed shot you can easily do that. Plus you can very quickly get footage into the editing room and FX guys.
And 24p is a terrible standard. I hope Cameron's plan to shoot in 48 or 60 goes through. It'll mean more work, but it's worth it.
galactiboy
OT Preferist
I found 3D was pretty fun for a bit, but now its more of a "groan and roll eyes" situation for me. As was said some movies definitely benefit form 3D, but the vast majority do not need that as an added gimmick.
Similar threads
