New York Times on studio shift to digital
New York Times published a piece today "Studios Shift to Digital Movies, but Not Without Resistance" by Scott Kirsner:
The product market for digital cinematography has established first entrants like Panavision and Thomson Grass Valley ( and Arriflex), but writes Scott Kirsner:
"[M]any new cameras are on the way, from established companies like the ARRI Group of Germany and a start-up, Red Digital Cinema."
Also cited:
“We’ve reached what may be looked at, five years from now, as a tipping point in the use of digital cameras,” said Curtis Clark, a cinematographer who is chairman of the American Society of Cinematographers’ technology committee."
Aside from technological advances in image quality vis-à-vis 35mm, I would add that digital acquisition is reaching critical mass as the gaming generation of below and above-the-line creators and technicians enter their "journeyman" or productive years. Unlike their predecessors, this generation does not have the residue of the long-standing infrastructural culture war between film and "video".
The cost savings of newer technology are often emphasized by OEM's, and certainly the viability of digital technologies arises primarily from the growing emphasis on solving the endemic vagueness and inefficiency in Hollywood financials. This trend is ultimately a result of the emerging Creative Economy. The engine of economic growth in the developed world is sustained creativity and the production of high-value intellectual property whether pharmaceuticals, video games, or movies.
In the shift to digital, infrastructure is often overlooked by commentators; while emphasis is frequently placed on the efficiency and aesthetics benefits of newer technologies. As the gaming generation matures, the industry will continue to develop a culture of technicians with dramatically different training cycles and models then its traditional and waning culture of apprenticeship. OEM's, however, are not in a rush to push out traditional acquisition technologies, unless they rely solely on digital for revenue streams. In fact, revenue streams inform the marketing strategies and angle of manufacturers when it comes to their positioning on newer digital technologies. Are they still making money from traditional technology? Then why disparage film. Are they a diversified? Then why not emphasize their choice. Common wisdom in business is that the most profitable years in a technological lifespan are the last years when there is less money invested R&D. Then, it's pure profit.
