Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Film production goes digital

Reply
Thread Tools

Film production goes digital

 
 
Mark Robinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2007
"Late March 2007: three Americans attempt to leave the USA carrying two top
secret devices codenamed "Boris" and "Natasha". Customs apprehend one at the
border, but the others escape in a private jet to the South Pacific where an
eccentric millionaire with an arsenal of WWI weapons awaits their arrival,
eager to lay his hand on the "Mysterium" chip ...

Although this sounds like a James Bond plot, it's actually a pretty accurate
(if melodramatically phrased) description of the real events.

The imminent release of the RED ONE camera will herald, many believe, a new way
of making films and a new perception of the costs involved in filmmaking. In
March the RED Digital Cinema Camera Company flew two of the alpha prototype
cameras to Wellington, New Zealand, and Peter Jackson became the first
filmmaker to put the camera through it's paces; two weeks later the finished
film was shown to much acclaim at the NAB conference in Las Vegas. Yes, you
read that correctly: "Peter Jackson, "two weeks" and "finished film" all in one
sentence.

...."

http://www.onfilm.co.nz/editable/DigiFeature.pdf
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andrew Lambert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
Mark Robinson wrote:
> "Late March 2007: three Americans attempt to leave the USA carrying two
> top secret devices codenamed "Boris" and "Natasha". Customs apprehend
> one at the border, but the others escape in a private jet to the South
> Pacific where an eccentric millionaire with an arsenal of WWI weapons
> awaits their arrival, eager to lay his hand on the "Mysterium" chip ...
>
> Although this sounds like a James Bond plot, it's actually a pretty
> accurate (if melodramatically phrased) description of the real events.
>
> The imminent release of the RED ONE camera will herald, many believe, a
> new way of making films and a new perception of the costs involved in
> filmmaking. In March the RED Digital Cinema Camera Company flew two of
> the alpha prototype cameras to Wellington, New Zealand, and Peter
> Jackson became the first filmmaker to put the camera through it's paces;
> two weeks later the finished film was shown to much acclaim at the NAB
> conference in Las Vegas. Yes, you read that correctly: "Peter Jackson,
> "two weeks" and "finished film" all in one sentence.
>
> ..."
>
> http://www.onfilm.co.nz/editable/DigiFeature.pdf

This was brilliant, I got to see it on the big screen, wow, It was amazing
Can be seen here too:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1883
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mutlley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007
Andrew Lambert <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Mark Robinson wrote:
>> "Late March 2007: three Americans attempt to leave the USA carrying two
>> top secret devices codenamed "Boris" and "Natasha". Customs apprehend
>> one at the border, but the others escape in a private jet to the South
>> Pacific where an eccentric millionaire with an arsenal of WWI weapons
>> awaits their arrival, eager to lay his hand on the "Mysterium" chip ...
>>
>> Although this sounds like a James Bond plot, it's actually a pretty
>> accurate (if melodramatically phrased) description of the real events.
>>
>> The imminent release of the RED ONE camera will herald, many believe, a
>> new way of making films and a new perception of the costs involved in
>> filmmaking. In March the RED Digital Cinema Camera Company flew two of
>> the alpha prototype cameras to Wellington, New Zealand, and Peter
>> Jackson became the first filmmaker to put the camera through it's paces;
>> two weeks later the finished film was shown to much acclaim at the NAB
>> conference in Las Vegas. Yes, you read that correctly: "Peter Jackson,
>> "two weeks" and "finished film" all in one sentence.
>>
>> ..."
>>
>> http://www.onfilm.co.nz/editable/DigiFeature.pdf

>This was brilliant, I got to see it on the big screen, wow, It was amazing
>Can be seen here too:
>http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1883



Wonder how they are going to long term archive movies done this way??
back to film separations or in 30 years time it's all lost ..

I see that Startrek TOS has been release in Hidef DVD format. I
suspect only because it was filmed in 35mm not on video tape like
some of the latter series..
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:

> Wonder how they are going to long term archive movies done this way??
> back to film separations or in 30 years time it's all lost ..


Why should digital formats automatically make it hard to preserve long-term
archives? Is it the DRM issue you're thinking of?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mutlley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:
>
>> Wonder how they are going to long term archive movies done this way??
>> back to film separations or in 30 years time it's all lost ..

>
>Why should digital formats automatically make it hard to preserve long-term
>archives? Is it the DRM issue you're thinking of?


Nope. Just that digital archiving has a habit of going bad as
technology becomes obsolete.. Remember the CDRs that last a
hundred years and went bad before they could be copied.. Unless the
studios make regular archival copies of their movies every time a new
technology comes along then they will be lost..
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:
>>
>>> Wonder how they are going to long term archive movies done this way??
>>> back to film separations or in 30 years time it's all lost ..

>>
>>Why should digital formats automatically make it hard to preserve
>>long-term archives? Is it the DRM issue you're thinking of?

>
> Nope. Just that digital archiving has a habit of going bad as
> technology becomes obsolete.. Remember the CDRs that last a
> hundred years and went bad before they could be copied.. Unless the
> studios make regular archival copies of their movies every time a new
> technology comes along then they will be lost..


So do that, then. Digital files are easy to copy--so keep copying them. And
keep multiple copies in physically separate locations.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Southern Kiwi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wonder how they are going to long term archive movies done this way??
>>>> back to film separations or in 30 years time it's all lost ..
>>> Why should digital formats automatically make it hard to preserve
>>> long-term archives? Is it the DRM issue you're thinking of?

>> Nope. Just that digital archiving has a habit of going bad as
>> technology becomes obsolete.. Remember the CDRs that last a
>> hundred years and went bad before they could be copied.. Unless the
>> studios make regular archival copies of their movies every time a new
>> technology comes along then they will be lost..

>
> So do that, then. Digital files are easy to copy--so keep copying them. And
> keep multiple copies in physically separate locations.

Not only that, but do it automatically..
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mutlley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wonder how they are going to long term archive movies done this way??
>>>> back to film separations or in 30 years time it's all lost ..
>>>
>>>Why should digital formats automatically make it hard to preserve
>>>long-term archives? Is it the DRM issue you're thinking of?

>>
>> Nope. Just that digital archiving has a habit of going bad as
>> technology becomes obsolete.. Remember the CDRs that last a
>> hundred years and went bad before they could be copied.. Unless the
>> studios make regular archival copies of their movies every time a new
>> technology comes along then they will be lost..

>
>So do that, then. Digital files are easy to copy--so keep copying them. And
>keep multiple copies in physically separate locations.


Today the Studios reputation for preserving their movies leaves allot
to be desired so i don't expect it to improve with digital..
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wonder how they are going to long term archive movies done this way??
>>>>> back to film separations or in 30 years time it's all lost ..
>>>>
>>>>Why should digital formats automatically make it hard to preserve
>>>>long-term archives? Is it the DRM issue you're thinking of?
>>>
>>> Nope. Just that digital archiving has a habit of going bad as
>>> technology becomes obsolete.. Remember the CDRs that last a
>>> hundred years and went bad before they could be copied.. Unless the
>>> studios make regular archival copies of their movies every time a new
>>> technology comes along then they will be lost..

>>
>>So do that, then. Digital files are easy to copy--so keep copying them.
>>And keep multiple copies in physically separate locations.

>
> Today the Studios reputation for preserving their movies leaves allot
> to be desired so i don't expect it to improve with digital..


So hire a librarian to do it--that's what they're trained to do--classify
and archive information so that it can be easily found later.

And the physical job of doing it should actually be easier now that
everything is digital. Instead of having to deal with the difference
between books, tapes, film reels etc, it's all just bits, and can be
stored, squirted around etc using the same plumbing.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley wrote:
>
>> Wonder how they are going to long term archive movies done this way??
>> back to film separations or in 30 years time it's all lost ..

>
> Why should digital formats automatically make it hard to preserve long-term
> archives? Is it the DRM issue you're thinking of?


Guess you haven't used a recently made dvd writer and had the
"sucessful" burn immediately not verify, or become unreadable within months.

Mate has a book of 96 dvd-r's of HD movies which were downloaded, less
then half would read 4 months later, and it wasn't cheap media either.

Got most of them off by trying in different drives, still lost a few.
And they all verified ok in nero at burn time.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RTCW goes to film Shel-hed Computer Support 0 08-06-2007 03:28 PM
Nikon to withdraw from film camera production Christopher Muto Digital Photography 5 01-18-2006 02:38 AM
New Independent Film in Post Production Neptune Cowboy DVD Video 0 06-05-2005 11:02 PM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
Re: Pentax drops production of 35mm film cameras. Steven M. Scharf Digital Photography 15 05-09-2004 08:24 PM



Advertisments