andy lee Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Everyone on this forum should watch this film - it is a must see especially for all of you who have never shot on film. Andy Lee Side By Side http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPDVayF30WQ For almost one hundred years there was only one way to make a movie — with film. Movies were shot, edited and projected using photochemical film. But over the last two decades a digital process has emerged to challenge photochemical filmmaking. SIDE BY SIDE, a new documentary produced by Keanu Reeves, takes an in-depth look at this revolution. Through interviews with directors, cinematographers, film students, producers, technologists, editors, and exhibitors, SIDE BY SIDE examines all aspects of filmmaking — from capture to edit, visual effects to color correction, distribution to archive. At this moment when digital and photochemical filmmaking coexist, SIDE BY SIDE explores what has been gained, what is lost, and what the future might bring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Saw this some time ago, it was good wasn't it. Basically it charts the rise of digital filmmaking - it also explains the difference between film & digital. I thought that the most interesting thing was the question of how they go about archiving digital films & some think that celluloid is probably the most cost effective - so film will never die?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted April 21, 2013 Administrators Share Posted April 21, 2013 I watched this, was OK but felt a bit let down. Basically it doesn't really enter into much of a debate between the filmmakers who are pro digital and those who are pro film. Most of the time it is just explaining, explaining, telling us the obvious. Reeves is a bit insipid, doesn't seem to hold any conviction as a story teller. It has a few nice lines from the interviewees, for example David Fincher on the rushes in the film days and not knowing what you've got until you see it days later and sometimes you'd be happy and sometimes it'd be "What the fuck", that made me chuckle :) Ah - could have been amazing, with that number of famous faces in it, would have been fantastic to have them all in one room arguing about film vs digital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 That's the problem with these type of mass market docs - you want more detail because you know most of it all ready, but you're not their audience. Its just a stepping stone piece for the people who have no knowledge of the rise of digital filmmaking - & lets face most audiences couldn't care less. There was a good article in The Guardian where it was explained they couldn't interview everyone they wanted to & couldn't exactly do everything they had planned to do - that's the hardship of making a doc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 I thought that the most interesting thing was the question of how they go about archiving digital films & some think that celluloid is probably the most cost effective - so film will never die?! Why should it be archived in the first place? To finally destroy the jobs of the archaeologists? Film/video is not made to last for eternity. If a work of art (I really think of films as art) is any good, it will survive somehow. If not, it will be forgotten in seconds. I am afraid this fate awaits a lot of videos. Interesting side note: It's not the technical quality that makes a work of art unforgettable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrad Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Why should it be archived in the first place? To finally destroy the jobs of the archaeologists? Film/video is not made to last for eternity. If a work of art (I really think of films as art) is any good, it will survive somehow. If not, it will be forgotten in seconds. I am afraid this fate awaits a lot of videos. Interesting side note: It's not the technical quality that makes a work of art unforgettable. You speak as though masterpieces of film haven't been lost to the ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Because they weren't deemed masterpieces at their time. There have to be things that get lost forever or else we couldn't understand the need to protect the rest. Today films have the best chances ever to survive, because ironically they are stolen and illegaly copied. Torrent archives. The grade of compression applied to these films doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharding Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 This was pretty enjoyable, though of course it's not very in depth for the likes of us. The thought is mad though, I have a 550D here on my desk. I can shoot my buddy, pop the card out, edit and grade the shot in a few minutes. That is an insane amount of progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted April 22, 2013 Author Share Posted April 22, 2013 I shot on film for years since the early 90's and it required planning , care, storyboards , attention and money!! every time you rolled the camera. You only shot what you really needed . Now I shoot 10 times more footage on multiple cameras on every shoot there is alot more creative freedom. You can try all those mad ideas and see if they work ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Film was expensive & time consuming, but made you plan & really think. I thought it was interesting that they pointed out that you only had about 10mins with film, it was almost as if they were directing their comments to the DSLR users who complained about the recording time limits. I know various hacks can extend recording times now, but i really like the nostalgia of the 10min limit & it really isn't a problem. A good example is the original version of The Silent House - filmed on a 5D2 & made to look like one continuous 85min take (the re-make copied the exact same format). I'd also forgotten how bad the image quality was on the Dogma95 films - it just goes to show that if its a good idea/narrative, no one really cares about quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted April 22, 2013 Author Share Posted April 22, 2013 yeah 10 mins was the limit , I have lots of cans of short ends in my garage ! the 1 minute that never got used!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondo Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I hope Keanu told the people he was interviewing "I know kung fu" when they didn't cooperate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.