Skeptical of Digital

Howard Stringer, chairman and chief executive of Sony, wants to see the American Film Institute take a leadership role in “redefining the moving image in the digital era. This is a de facto revolution and we have to embrace it” (“Stringer Is Chosen to Head AFI’s Board of Trustees,” by Kathleen Craughwell, Jan. 8).

What this really refers to, in everyday English, is shooting movies on videotape rather than film. For some years now, Sony has been waging a campaign to persuade filmmakers that film is old-fashioned, and that video origination is the inevitable future of the industry.

The reason isn’t hard to find: Sony has developed a high-definition video camera that it claims produces images equal in quality to those shot on film. The company also has a proprietary method of doing tape-to-film transfers. In Sony’s ideal digital future, no one will be using film; they will be doing everything with Sony video equipment instead. A good thing for Sony, obviously, but not necessarily a goal anyone else would want to work toward.

I’ve seen a demonstration of Sony’s high-definition tape-to-film process. While it’s a remarkable achievement, it still doesn’t look like film--or as good as film.

Why do I care about this? Well, in addition to being a film editor, I’m also a filmgoer. I don’t want to pay my $8 and have to look at mediocre images on the big screen. My fear is that all this hype about a digital revolution in image production may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we don’t retain a healthy skepticism about such claims, we might all look forward one day to a theatrical experience little different from staying home and watching television.

PAUL HART

Glendale