The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Digital Filmmaking


#1

Im pretty sure there are a bunch of you who want to be directors. Where do you guys think movies an storytelling is going. Many think digital filmmaking is the future. I think it will make it easier for people to make movies and i hope that in the future there will be a website that show these films and actually look clean.

Im ready to make a movie digitally.


#2

digital is the way to go.

Lucas does it, Rodriguez does it and a few others, too. That’s the way its gonna be: better image quality, better sound, easier editing, easier handling…

High Definition is the future.



If I’m ever gonna direct something, it’s digitALL, there are no disadvantages.


#3

I think we’ll be seeing more of the younger directors using digital film. But I think many of the older directors wanna stay old school and shoot on celluloid. Digital film is especially great for SFX heavy movies. That way they can edit and add SFX easier if its digitized already.



I think over the next 20 years we will see alot more independent filmmaking going on. Instead of filmmakers going to Sundance or other places to work on their films there will be more and more filmmakers creating (editing) films right out of their houses. Theres so much technology being created right now. Anyone with a camera and a computer can make a film.


#4

i think that’s exactly the good point: anyone can make a film now. you don’t have to be a lucky bastid anymore. if you have an idea, and saved some of your allowance, get your friends together and make a film. put it into your home computer, cut it and its done. that way your learning faster than Rodriguez :wink:


#5

Correct. No more selling blood or being a human guinea pig to get money to make your movies either. All you gotta do is get a digital camera, a few movie programs for your computer, a bunch of friends and you got yourself the makings of a movie.


#6

Right now is a very exiting time in filmmaking, films like Russian Ark are taking advantage of the ease, cost, time, and availabily to make a film digitally. For those who don’t know, Russian Ark is an approx.90min. film shot in one long tracking shot. Shot in HD recorded on to a special hard drive, the filmmakers had only one day to shoot the entire film. Yes, the time of limited film stock, expensive film developing, and expensive lighting and sound equipment is quickly becomming a thing of the past. Of course, DV isnt perfected yet, and is no where near the quality of film, but mostlikly withing the nex few years, DV could look even better than film. I recently saw Spy Kids 3D in DLP Digital Projection, and this format has several advantages over film prints, first of all, you can play the film over and over, without causing pops and scratches on the movie, the films could last almost forever, because it’s not on film, and it doesnt go through problems like yellowing syndrome. It also looks far superior to film, exept for the fact that it doesnt have that distinctive “Film Look”.


#7

Im using A mini DV to make our short films. And we like to us filters to take out that home movie look. But DV is a great way to make a movie on a small asss budget. You can edit on computer. You can do almost anything on a computer now a days.


#8

All of us should make a movie together.





































No…not really.


#9

All of us should produce and Charbax can direct.


#10

I am a student filmmaker and I personally dont like where film is going now. I think Digital looks TOO crips and real, I don’t like that. I liked film because it had its OWN look, Digital is just too real for my tastes. I also am not a fan of gcomputer generated shit in movies. Its becoming the greatest thing because basically ANYONE can do it. I predict in the next 50 years movies will be dead. Or, the WAY we see movies.



I’m obviously not a technology fan.



And yeah, last thing we need to do is give charbax money and support for his movies


#11

well, indeed its easier to make a movie…but still pretty expensive…for a good camera with a quality that doesnt look like funniest home videos you need a 3 ccd camera…well If your serieus about making movies this should be a good investment…I’m gonna get one!!


#12

rodrigez aint shit, i sold my plasma twice a week for a total of 55 bucks for my weekly beer money in college junior year. now that dedication to drinking


#13

i’m thinking about selling my sperm…


#14

Think about the Panasonic GS-120.



Very cheep 3CCD camcorder for like 600 bucks on ebay new, with filters and lenses.



It’s a aprt of a line with the gs200 and gs400, which are higher end, but are still cheap for their features.



Saulo is right



Mini DV Camcorder (3CCD preferably)

+

Filters

= Cheap Ass Digital Madness Which works supreme.


#15

wow that panasonic is bitching!! I am gonna get me one of those…indeed fucking cheap and GREAT quality…


#16

[quote=“Seb Himself (admin)”]
digital is the way to go.

Lucas does it, Rodriguez does it and a few others, too. That’s the way its gonna be: better image quality, better sound, easier editing, easier handling…

High Definition is the future.



If I’m ever gonna direct something, it’s digitALL, there are no disadvantages.
[/quote]

yeah . I think lucas was the first to go digital, i may be wrong tho


#17

I think he was the first to use it for a bigger hollywood film.



what else do we know? starwars 1-3, Once Upon a time in Mexico, Collateral… any others?


#18

I thought the first totally digital movie was a french movie, cant remember the name, it was before star wars 2


#19

The name of the movie was Vidocq.

According to this link it beat Lucas to be the first film to be shown using digital technology.