I apoligize for my wrong assumptions.
But why do we have to use the slow shutter speeds like the motion picture guys are doing?
You don't, but real convergence is when you shoot once, get stills and moving image and that's the problem. Fast shutter speeds on film don't look nice. It is used occasionally for the interesting effect it produces but for general shooting, you would not use it. Otherwise they would have used high shutter speeds years back and got rid of stills photographers on set.
But as acceptable quality thresholds for images seem to be constantly dropping, frame grabs will soon be seen as OK and photojournalists will be told to use video.
For an example of high shutter speeds being used in film. The opening battle scene in Saving Private Ryan was shot with a high shutter speed and that's what causes the slightly strobe like flicker, which adds to the telling of that story, but is not good otherwise. Technique is [or should be] subservient to the telling of the story.
I know very little of the work flow of the motion or even short film industry. I don't plan to learn it either because it is not suitable for my work as it seems very inflexible and ridiculously expensive for no other reason than it has always been that way.
You make a judgement as daft as that, after admitting you know nothing about the subject. It's expensive because telling stories is much, much more complicated/time consuming than stills or wedding videos, plus you need more people and as people cost money. Then you need more time and even more people to prep and do post. Duh!
Don't you think some serious pruning would have gone on if they could make it cheaper? Movie peeps want to make money and if they can cut costs they will, so if money is being spent, there's normally a very good reason. I've worked on low budget shoots and even then there's a lot of people on set and needed there
, not all getting paid admittedly.
If you want to read an entertaining story about the ultimate in overspending on film, read Stephen Bach's 'Final Cut". This is how a entire studio was brought down by a single film/director.
Personally I believe it is easier for photographers knowing stills RAW shooting for years of commercial work to both measuring light with respect to sensor performance and color correcting a bayer raw file quickly and well than the motion film guys - read the posts on red forum and you will see they complicate simple issues enormously and struggle with the new way of thinking. Just like the stills photo industry did + 7 years back with the first LEAF/Sinar backs with idiotic work flows and people new to digital capture.
Most of the issues/difficulties with lighting a film set will be altered very little by RAW capture, as it's how you artistically light your subject that is time consuming and it's always much easier/cheaper to do as much as possible in front of camera, rather the lazy relying on post to fix the problem. Also did it not occur to you, that the filmmakers who aren't struggling with RAW are simply shooting and not complaining on forums