Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

full-dome video thoughts vs. film thoughts

Expand Messages
  • Waylena McCully
    Hi all, I have faith that video will *someday* truly advance to the quality we currently find with film. What I wonder about, however, is the cost of
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 2 2:18 PM
      Hi all,

      I have faith that video will *someday* truly advance to the quality we currently
      find with film. What I wonder about, however, is the cost of production for the
      two. I don't have the information at my fingertips, but I have seen numbers for
      how much it costs per minute to produce a large-format film. While I am certain
      that producing video for full-dome is not cheap, I wonder how it compares with
      the cost of making a comparable piece of film. Anyone?

      Is producing for full-dome video less cost prohibitive than producing for film?
      If so, I should think that the resulting versatility would tip the scales in favor
      of video in most instances.



      Waylena M. McCully,
      Production Designer/Producer
      William M. Staerkel Planetarium
      (217) 351-2568
      wmccully@...
    • Don Davis
      ... Film is terribly expensive, especially 70mm. Motion pictures require a shooting ratio of as much as ten to one to end up with a selection of suitable
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 2 11:38 PM
        >
        >Is producing for full-dome video less cost prohibitive than producing for
        >film?
        >If so, I should think that the resulting versatility would tip the scales
        >in favor
        >of video in most instances.
        >

        Film is terribly expensive, especially 70mm.
        Motion pictures require a 'shooting ratio' of as much as ten to one to
        end up with a selection of suitable material. Sheer media cost is the
        reason most imax films are dull travelogues trying to 'wow' you with high
        res helicopter moves.
        Some day a specialized digital high res recording device capable of
        capturing 30 frames per second color images for dome use will appear. Until
        then film is the best means of bringing the real world into the dome. Film
        is, as I have stated, still king of the image gathering hill. Material shot
        on film and transferred to video always looks better than similar material
        shot on video. So long as this is true film deserves to survive.

        Making a 3D digital enviornment and animating within it is in a way a
        more self contained method, requiring no hauling of heavy equipment,
        building and lighting of model sets, or large studio space. If a different
        variation of a sequence is needed a new one can be rendered with few
        physical resources being used. Once within this operating enviornment, the
        operating costs are far less than a similar project done on film.

        At the moment the bridging of the gap between film and digital methods is
        terribly expensive, be it by transferring digital images to 70mm film or by
        scanning the film negs into high res animation files. Many large format
        film sequences deserve to survive in digital media.

        Don Davis
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.