[Tig] Premature Death of SR
craig at optimus.com
Mon Mar 21 05:40:21 GMT 2011
You do no one any good deed by posting here that digital processing and or shooting is automatically cheaper than film. Sure, I'm as tired of grain as the next guy, and there are digital formats I absolutely love.. But you don't have to pay for dailies? Really? Who pays for the editorial files to get made from R3d to Pro-res or Dnxhd? No waiting? what planet do you live on? Sure, if someone wants to edit directly with no lut, or straight off in-camera qt's, or if they really only want to edit in FCP.... I sorta get your point, which I think is weak at best. I don't know any commercial editor that doesn't want files to look good, be exactly right to edit with, and match TC to a higher res file for finish than what they are editing in. I realize that it's not the norm, but it certainly is in commercial land.... And digital acquisition quite often means confused, time consuming, and costs a lot more to make / convert proper elements and store them / ship them. At least in my line of work. And you magically don't have to worry about digital storage for 50 years? Do you know something about storage arrays I don't??? Film is less archival and costs more to store than Digital files?? Really? 50 years?
Senior colorist / Partner
Chicago / Santa Monica
This has been a Tablet like transmission.
On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:20 PM, "Jeff and Jill Jones" <jeff-jones at att.net> wrote:
> I'm sure film makers are rushing to add more
> expense to their post (shooting film). You get to wait for your dailies. . .
> pay for lab processing. . . pay for a telecine suite to grade in. . . have
> film grain moving like ants over your image on an LCD or plasma and find a
> place to correctly store your film for what? . . Fifty years. That's not too
> big of an expense I guess. (sarcasm in use)
> Jeff Jones
> Color Image Post
More information about the Tig