Hi Bakul
Film still remains the technically most superior image acquisition and storage format. Having said that, everyone in the world has the right to shoot their stories on whatever is good for them, even if its pin hole cameras with oiled butterpaper. The important thing is, we must get over this 'lets make a film (or rather, video)' , and move on to 'lets push the craft'.
No one seems to be excited at the prospect of pushing the craft. All that I see around me (locally), whether shot on 5D/7D/Red/Alexa/Baby's Diapers/whatever, is soooooo boring.
we will come to your rendering a little later. But to answer your questions:
1) 1. Are we needlessly fearing/ shying away/ running down, a new technology that is still in a very nascent stage of development (compared to the existing film cameras)? :
No we are NOT. BECAUSE we indulge in new technology, we run away from a camera. Why? Because as heads of departments, our job is to suggest the best possible means of achieving the best possible results. Costs are the production department's job. And anyway, after a film has released, we cant print pamphlets of justification to media and audience "paise nahin the to VHS pe shoot kiya, lekin story to dekhiye aap... "
Also we have spent substantial amount of time shooting on various formats like VHS, UMatic, MiniDV, iPhone, various other phones etc. For top jobs, at our age and experience, we want top gear.
2) 2. although the prospect shown in the picture above of the i 535 camera shall we call ;P it is scary and funny at the same time, will it really be such a bad thing?
No Comments.
3. if digital cameras can make the film-making process more affordable and accessible to a wider range of people what is exactly wrong with that?
I also wear the turban of a producer. and camera cost doesn't affect the overall cost of a film significantly anyway, if you consider professional workflows. we ALWAYS had cameras like 8mm, VHS, MiniDV etc available to make films. But the interesting thing is, i am yet to hear of any pathbreaking film shot on MiniDV ('Lets Talk' can hardly be called path breaking). Just because someone can make a film cheap, doesn't mean she is going to make it well.
4) this one is more an observation than a question; every year India churns out about 150-170 mainstream Hindi films out of which maybe 10-15 are hits and if we are lucky maybe 3-5 are even good films. This sad little number is less than 2% of the films that are made. So in light of this fact even if the digital medium coughs up more bad filmmakers what are we really loosing, I see it from a slightly more optimistic perspective that we just might stumble upon some great gems in terms of both films and filmmakers which considering the otherwise prohibitive cost would have never seen the light of day or rather the light of a projector:
Ahem, maybe we can concentrate on making these 170 mainstream films better to begin with? But its a personal choice.
That apart, people can choose to shoot on whichever format they wish too. But I just wished they would spend more time disucssing the quality of their script rather than some gizmotic new medium to shoot on. Seriously, I would rather we have 50 fantastic films made each year THAN 500 horrid ones.
@Pooja: The only advantage of the Canon 5D for video is lensing. In that too, shallow depth of field. Something which I haven't seen explored in any 5D video locally shot by excited folk.
The other aspect of lensing, perspective, is geometrically and optical possible with pretty much any other camera format.
The 5D is essentially a stills camera. Making it work for motion picture work is like performing a surgery with a kitchen knife instead of a professional surgical knife. Give me an EX3 anyday.
Here's someone's interesting witing
"I think it depends on what type of shooting you do, and what you want to do in the future. Personally, I own both the EX1 and GH1 (and pre-ordered a 7D this morning). Each project I shoot runs into the hundreds of gigabytes of footage, and sometimes into the terabytes. The idea of shooting and syncing audio for that much footage shot on any DSLR is a non-starter. It wouldn't matter if the image of the 7D was dipped in angel's blood and cured cancer, it just won't work as the main acquisition camera for my work.
Price is also a bit misleading. Sure, you can get the 7D (as I have ordered) with the kit lens for $1899. But chances are you'll find yourself adding other lenses, support equipment and other gear with the ultimate goal of making the 7D work more like a full-sized camera. And if you're anything like me (or many others on this board), you'll end up with a camera that delivers great images, but comes with a somewhat convoluted (double-system) workflow and lots of moving parts. This works for some, but not so well for others.
My work involves quickly being able to pull the camera out and start shooting. If I had to wrangle a Zoom H4N, a stabilizer/mount system and more, I'd likely miss the action in front of my, and I would have some unhappy clients. DSLRs make working this way a bit more challenging, though still possible, with some sacrifices."