Well, its no question that HD Is a lot better for post production. Specially editting and CGI insertion, but as you said...for amateurs. Even though HD works better than film during post production, the expense of making it actually look good on a big screen is high. i never had the chance to see Episode2 on a digital projection equipped theater, but i have to say that the resault i witnessed on a normal theater and from the dvd's are just...not good. You have to understand that imperfection in a scene adds to the reality that it tries to "sell". Backrounds in episode 2 were blur... sometimes, specially during the fight with count duku v.s. the brat & yoda the backrounds, and specially the floor looked like wing commander 3 (a pc video game from the last decade).
Even though filmaking is an art that was directly given birth from technology and invention (kinetoscope...etc etc) and even if that every filmaker should embrace new technologies that make the process easier, HD is just not enough yet for theater screenings.
The process and money you save from editing equipement and time are now being invested in SFX houses...ammounts are not reducing...just shifting.
I Recall mr. Puccio talking about "Sin City" and how "flat" the image was...due to grain absence etc etc...i completely agree with him....But to be Honest...i think HD will replace Film...but not now.
Also i dont believe that HD adds anything to the creative process...what you could shoot with film, you can shoot with dv...you still need a good screenplay and good acting to achieve success, so i dont see the reason for an arguement...
its like giving leonardo da-vinci a copy of Photoshop CS2 and a Mac.

The reason the standard 24 fps schtick came to be in the first place was largely based on price. Now it's not so much about cost as it is about sticking with what people in the NTSC region are used to.

I'm all about shooting in HD for my projects. Film is...a lot of things...none of them in my opinion being good. The two main arguments for using film these days are:

1) Looks better than HD.
2) It's better to edit on film so you have a more intimate experience while editing.

But that's just old filmmakers who don't want to change their ways. In reality, HD is:

1) Much easier to light sets for. IE there's no light meter to register, you just look at the monitor, if it looks good, shoot!
2) You don't have billions of film reels to look through while editing, you have HD tapes which can be loaded into the computer half an hour after shooting.
3) No watching dailies all frickin' night after shooting. There's no worrying about film coming back out of focus because you see what you're shooting as you're shooting.
4) Shoot sound and film on the same tape, but with separate tracks, all live. This cuts down on the need for looping during post-production, which is a HUGE help. Sometimes (especially with amatures) it's hard for them to tap back into their emotions after shooting in a little recording booth.
5) Can shoot in 24FPS (with a good HD camera) to make it look just like film without any of the problems.
6) You can see a lot more in the background and in landscape shots and skies, best example being Collateral by Michael Mann, shot in HD.

Suffice it to say, HD rocks. Thank you George Lucas for supporting yet another wave of technology for the film industry. However, no thank you for the last two Star Wars movies.

S_Coaster, I agree with you to a large extent. To me, the most exciting potential for digital filmmaking as well as for computer graphics is in the forming of a new visual language - NOT in its ability to try to replicate reality or to imitate film. I actually think the CGI in Mars Attacks is wonderful - it doesn't even attempt to be realistic and goes for an entirely unique look. This is the same reason I don't like films such as "Final Fantasy" (with all due respect to Eddie which is, to say, no respect) - movies like that reflect a real lack of imagination. Why should I go for the pale imitation of reality when I can get reality? Give me something different. I'm not saying photrealist effects don't have a place in filmmaking - I'm just much more interested in the DIFFERENT look and feel we might be able to achieve with new technologies.

And right now, we still can't get around the terrible flatness of the image in digital/HD. Some filmmakers can make that work, but it's something that needs to be addressed.

There's no question tha HD is great for students. Its like a gift from heaven. shoot it, edit it on a powerbook, score it...and present it..no arguements here.
About the old star wars movies...i think that when you saw episode 5 or 6 you new from the begining of the scene that this is a puppet.The subconscious part of you accepted the fact that this is a rubber mass...therefor you give more weight to the character complexity (if any...c'mon its yoda)..your mind automatically understands that this ruber thing was not put there to act...but to simply give a face to some lines...to symbolize some lines if you like... cgi on the otherhand....is trying to convince you that its real...and it can act...it tries to overjump this " subconscious part " and make you accept it during every single frame it shows up...you simply use your logic...and deny it. thats why almost every viewer while looking at a cgi character (with importand to the story parts like jar jar's) is subconsciously looking for bugs...glitches..bad animation...so the viewer can verify his instinct...that this is not real. The same thing does not happen with objects...such as spaceships...or big explosions...not only because you never actually saw real tie fighters in person so you can compare...but also because its not trying to speak a line and interact with your perception of a current storyline.
I Also noticed that faces with minimum or no expressions on them are making more impact just by their design. Superheroes allways wear a mask...some..like spiderman are covering all their faces...puting on a face that doesnt morph..or change reaction...it just wears its action face and keeps you in it. Same thing can be told with other numerous movies...i.e. Milos Forman's amadeus. Salieri uses mozart's father's mast to commission the requiem mass from amadeus himself....a cold ..black mask...that has the expression and the mood of its purpose..even though it doesnt express it self..the mask can invoke feelings like agony and psychological extortion during certain scenes. The same goes with our friend yoda. His puppet face is old...tired...moves barely his lips and eyebrows and has a very tired old voice...you allready know he is a puppet..but atleast you can know put a face on the lines.
Then you have movies like toy story...or nemo...i believe that the reason those movies are meeting success with older and younger audiences is that they dont try to sell reality...instead they use a prism of viewing splendor and characters to give a literally fantastic story some "color". Thats why you buy it. its not trying to fool ya.

The funny thing is, I was watching "Episode V" and "Episode VI" to look at puppet Yoda, and despite how crude puppetry can be, the darn thing actually had emotions! Even Admiral Ackbar looked kinda sad-but-relieved during the final space battle in "Jedi". I get no sense of genuine feeling from any of the CGI junk in "Episode II".

By the way, I don't mind CGI, but the CGI in "Episode II" is so atrocious that I laughed until my stomach hurt when I first saw the movie. That is, I laughed when I wasn't asleep.

That's where I disagree, luc. I thought Episode 2 looked awful. What amazes me the most about the Star Wars films is that the first three simply _look_ better than the last two. Even after nearly three decades of technological advances, and all of Lucas' fretting, the fact is that his last two movies look like trash. The frame is absurdly cluttered, the image is flat, and the effects are generally unconvincing. The "ping pong" Yoda scene (his light saber duel) may well be the single worst movie scene I have ever witnessed. Jar jar just looks like a cartoon character. Forget about story, acting, etc - the last two Star Wars movies are just plain ugly to look at.

lucboone,

What works for low-budget student movies does not work for polished, professional, big-budget features. Therefore, be careful when you make blanket statements that appear to be views about the total state of cinema.

Eddie

I said ">>>>cuts down<<<< on the need for looping", I didn't say there is no need. Of course you always have to do some ADR, I was speaking specifically for my low-budget student filmmaking purposes it is very advantageous to use HD. And when used correctly it can work for big budget films as well. Despite the story and other gripes, Episode II looked awesome. Also take into account that film was shot on one of the earliest HD camera models.

Final fantasy was exatcly that...replication of reality. if the characters in final fantasy where fishes and the backdrop an underwater paradise then it was probably gonna be a success.
Tere are numrous effords to enhance the cinema right now....(3d movies etc etc) Studios are trying to enhance anything to sell...its kind of funny if you think that a film shot in 16mm and in mono with a good script can actually feel better and immerse you in it far more quickly and effectively than a cgi-fest movie.