Film Vs Digital, the DEBATE

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Still I could be unaware of how vast the leap has been in digital photography -
So if anyone knows of a digital camera which records 1,000 to 14,000 frames per second - Then please add a post I love to learn about what is out there .
Cheers
Bruce :dankk2:

I don't know anything about this company for the given url, however, they are offering a camera that does 1000 'pictures per second'. Perhaps they use that phrasing to avoid any confusion with 'frames', 'fields', etc of standard video terminology.

http://www.visiblesolutions.com/phantomv9.html

Here's another:

http://www.hsi.ca/products.htm

Admitedly these devices do not have the current 'film' resolution, but they do have something approaching 'HD' and definately surpass 'SD' video, at very high frame rates.

In the ancient days I use to work as a machinist for ferrite materials, and made the magnetic cores used by Spin Physics in their development of a 'high speed' recording system for video. This was ca. late 1970's. Spin Physics was later bought by Kodak as it began to diversify out of 'silver' based products.

 

[Greggl]

unless you have the infrstucture of George Lucas and the development background of Mr Edwin Catmull-see tha latest book "DROID MAKER" bu MICHAEL RUBIN ....

I'm not sure I get your point.

When we're talking the 'Film vs Digital' debate we need to at least get a few
things out in the open. First of which is that film needs to be an option for
the filmmaker. 'Digital', from start to finish, on consumer formats is the
ultra-low end and not really a valid area to discuss because film isnt an
option.

Second, 'film vs digital' happens in unique and totally seperate areas. I'm not
sure what you're talking about with projection and how it applies to produciton.

Aquisition - this is still mostly on film, but the newest generation of cameras
are changing this. We'll still see film cameras used in risky
and specialty situations for quite some time.

Effects - film is rarely even an option these days. Everyone does their
post effects digitally, minus a few opticals that are integral to
the negative cutting.. that is of course, if the negative is even cut!

Editing- We've got spielberg and some indie guys.. hehe, pretty much
everyone else on the planet is cutting computer based non-linear
and that means 'no film' there either. Thats only viable if you plan
to conform the negative.

Color correction and neg cutting - digital intermediates are rapidly becomming
the standard. Whether its a frame by frame scan, or doing the
entire post on a HD format after a sprit telecine-ike transfer. The
neg may never actually be conformed. Camera sources are archived
but the master is a 'digital' cut. Film is disappearing from this part as
well.

Distribution - film still owns the portion of the industry, mainly due to the lack
of a viable business model to replace projectors. Every one, other than
theatre financiers, saves money if 35mm prints go away. This is the
only place your 'throw' argument can come in, but the source of the
movie that you're projecting is irrelevent..

 

[novelt]

one of our local theaters just this week completed a complete outfit of digital projectors i believe in all 16 theaters. i'll find out for sure in a day or two.

 

[Bruce Morgan]

I'm not sure I get your point.

When we're talking the 'Film vs Digital' debate we need to at least get a few
things out in the open. First of which is that film needs to be an option for
the filmmaker. 'Digital', from start to finish, on consumer formats is the
ultra-low end and not really a valid area to discuss because film isnt an
option.

Second, 'film vs digital' happens in unique and totally seperate areas. I'm not
sure what you're talking about with projection and how it applies to produciton.

Aquisition - this is still mostly on film, but the newest generation of cameras
are changing this. We'll still see film cameras used in risky
and specialty situations for quite some time.

Effects - film is rarely even an option these days. Everyone does their
post effects digitally, minus a few opticals that are integral to
the negative cutting.. that is of course, if the negative is even cut!

Editing- We've got spielberg and some indie guys.. hehe, pretty much
everyone else on the planet is cutting computer based non-linear
and that means 'no film' there either. Thats only viable if you plan
to conform the negative.

Color correction and neg cutting - digital intermediates are rapidly becomming
the standard. Whether its a frame by frame scan, or doing the
entire post on a HD format after a sprit telecine-ike transfer. The
neg may never actually be conformed. Camera sources are archived
but the master is a 'digital' cut. Film is disappearing from this part as
well.

Distribution - film still owns the portion of the industry, mainly due to the lack
of a viable business model to replace projectors. Every one, other than
theatre financiers, saves money if 35mm prints go away. This is the
only place your 'throw' argument can come in, but the source of the
movie that you're projecting is irrelevent..

Hello Again and thanks for clarifying what you see as the aim of the debate .
I agree and concurr with all the evolutions going on in each catagory .
But
Early in the discussion
someone referred to the fact that the indepentant with an eyemo or an arri 2c
had a chance to compete with majors in terms of producing good images .
My aim is to say
while we (independant filmamkers )lack the depth in digital infrastructure for independant filmmaker work -

(I hope you allow them to be included in this perview )

these independants can augment the areas where digital is weak by taking along
something like a bolex non reflexed h 16 and some fine grain stock .
Now these independants can
-buy short ends
-develop film
-scan in edited shots that were weak in digital

This scaning issue is problematic and it could be the reason why you say it is not an option . I hold out some hope .
-and therefore enhance the look of the project .
When "easy rider " was filmed these guys out on location had the same basic technology(16mm) on thiers side that the majors had (35mm) .
My point to the independant filmaker is keep film and a film camera around as a support tool .
even in ulta low end there are great things being attempted .
On the comment regarding
Distribution
I like the comment "the source of the movie your projecting is irrelevent"
This leads to a question
What is the acceptable file formats and resolution of digital images that can withstand a "looks good test ' at let us say 50 -100 feet .
I d much rather learn than debate .
And did I miss something at the head of this debate ?.
Were there indeed ground rules about what could be included in the discussion .?
Thanks all the same for the overview Gregg , I do think you have an accurate long view of where this is heading (Film vs Digital)
Cheers
Bruce

 

[Greggl]

This scaning issue is problematic and it could be the reason why you say it is not an option .

You can have 16 and S16 'scanned' on a Spirit Datacine if they have the gates
for it. Its really expensive though. I'd think that the only real use of it would
be crashcams, maybe underwater - though thats a stretch, and high speed...
though cameras like the HVX are starting to really check those off the list
one by one. And with 16/S16, you've still got that nealy unlimited DOF.

I like the comment "the source of the movie your projecting is irrelevent"
This leads to a question
What is the acceptable file formats and resolution of digital images that can withstand a "looks good test ' at let us say 50 -100 feet .

Anything. The aesthetic is what it is. Digital projection is pretty seamless at this
point. The blacks are really nice and black and the projectors have a competitive
throw. Garbage In - Garbage Out is definately at play. Its gonna look as good
as if you your stuff transferred to 35, minus the 'free grain' you get from it
being on film. It'll also lack scratches so after your 150th showing, its still
gonna look the same as showing #1.

 

[Bruce Morgan]

Very informative Gregg!!!
Thanks a Bunch
Bruce

 

[cinemakinoeye]

[...] It is technically incumbant upon science and medicine to keep such film recording devices around . Still I could be unaware of how vast the leap has been in digital photography - So if anyone knows of a digital camera which records 1,000 to 14,000 frames per second [...]

Bruce, there have been many developments in high speed video/digital cameras, check these out:

Photron APX slow motion digital camera (provides full resolution up to 2,000 frames per second and reduced resolution up to 100,000 frames per second).
http://www.photron.com/

Shimadzu HyperVision HPV-1
http://www1.shimadzu.com/products/test/hsvc.html

Phantom and Heim High Speed Video Cameras from Photo-Sonics
http://photosonicsinternational.co.uk/index3.html

Digital imaging technology will take us farther than silver-halide imaging technology ever could. I love the look of motion picture film, but there is no technical reason why we will not eventually surpass each and every feature and benefit of silver-halide imaging technology over time.

 

[PaPa]

someone posted earlier on that advances will be made witih film to make it even better!

well guess what, I'm pretty sure that advancement is exactly what were talking about right now.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

someone posted earlier on that advances will be made witih film to make it even better!

well guess what, I'm pretty sure that advancement is exactly what were talking about right now.

I don't think so. Sort of like how Kodak, in the 30's had film sizes and amounts of silver in papers that they down graded to the point of discontinuing them. This was in the stills world. With the medium format digital backs, even with a $10,000 price tag most 'pros' are at least thinking if not already moving to digital. Then with the usual art director's 'whims', digital revamping a look just makes film almost out of the question. (Film then scanning is a pain in the hassle...).

Another item not mentioned in the above posts, or at least I didn't see it... was the fact that 'film' is at least 2-3 generations from 'negative' to 'distribution print', and if there are some special processing involved, may be several more. This has an effect on the 'quality' far greater than the 'lower res' digital.

There are many effect which we now 'take for granted' which are digitially created or at least digitally enhanced. This requires scanning of individual frames, and it is, in my perhaps not so humble opinion, just a matter of time to when high end production cameras are scanning the original scene at the same resolutions.

 

[donkathon]

I, honestly, when it comes to looks, like film better. Digital has that digital look, even when shot at 24p. You can add all the filters in the world, all the grain in the world (though that would be ugly) and you still wouldnt get that film look.

Something organic, I think.

 

[kgg]

Film is organic. It's got gelatin in it. And it is more natural as a reflected image being captured-as opposed to something captured via circuits etc. But it's definitely on the way to the fringes along with the vinyl record. The major companies will shift to advancing digital technology, and film advances will be negligible, even if there is room for development. As a creative-industrial tool, it doesnt have the staying power of the paint brush vs the air brush. The latter never replaced the former, but photography is more about convenience. And this is especially true with the film business.

It was cool to film some animation in 16mm and wait a couple months to project it--but convenience-wise, forget it.

I am glad that respectable digital imagery is possible for the ultra low budget indie filmmaker. Especially for compositing. Many of the problems with raw digital magery can be corrected digitally. If there is a downside-its the sheer volume of choices and constant advances. Compared to 20 years ago and 16mm, we're spoiled.

 

[zoostory]

why film versus video? Neither are the determining factor in the success or quality of a movie. So howabout the realy question: What makes a movie great?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I, honestly, when it comes to looks, like film better. Digital has that digital look, even when shot at 24p. You can add all the filters in the world, all the grain in the world (though that would be ugly) and you still wouldnt get that film look.

Something organic, I think.

Was doing some research a couple of weeks ago, and it occured to me that 'digital' is far more like Technicolor than current sandwiched film stock. In the Technicolor processes the light was divided into R, G, and B, then recorded on basically BW film stock. This also indicates that if one had the original three negatives, one has far more archival preservation than on the dye type sandwich film.

In the case of digital, with the current 'three chip' sensors, the light is again divided up into R, G, B, and can allow for far more manipulation in the processing than 'timing' either the Technicolor composites, or the sandwich negatives of current film stock.

Of course in 'consumer/prosumer' cameras the spliting of the colors and subsequent compression sort of limits the amount of manipulation that can be applied before the effect becomes obnoxious. But in the beautific future, when there are high resolution sensors digitizing to 12 bits on each color, at each sample point on the grid, the thought will be 'how on earth did they cart around all that film equipment to the desert to shoot a 'Technicolor Lawrence of Arabia''...

As a side note, and unfortunately I didn't come out with my animated block buster 2 years ago... but the 'stop motion' of the recent 'Corpse Bride' was shot with a Canon 1-D still camera, with a Nikon lens (Still haven't figured out exactly why that was done, since Canon lenses are superior to Nikon's these days.) But the Canon 1-D sensor is approximately the same area as standard 35 mm still film.

 

[Bruce Morgan]

Just to support your Claim

Just to support your Claim

:crybaby:

I don't think so. Sort of like how Kodak, in the 30's had film sizes and amounts of silver in papers that they down graded to the point of discontinuing them. This was in the stills world. With the medium format digital backs, even with a $10,000 price tag most 'pros' are at least thinking if not already moving to digital. Then with the usual art director's 'whims', digital revamping a look just makes film almost out of the question. (Film then scanning is a pain in the hassle...).

Another item not mentioned in the above posts, or at least I didn't see it... was the fact that 'film' is at least 2-3 generations from 'negative' to 'distribution print', and if there are some special processing involved, may be several more. This has an effect on the 'quality' far greater than the 'lower res' digital.

There are many effect which we now 'take for granted' which are digitially created or at least digitally enhanced. This requires scanning of individual frames, and it is, in my perhaps not so humble opinion, just a matter of time to when high end production cameras are scanning the original scene at the same resolutions.

:crybaby: More on the Contra film issue .
In addition to generation loss (specificaly -grain build up and unwanted contrast increase ).
There is a physical aspect to camera negative .
As I was told at one Lab -
the negative can tolerate about 11 (eleven) passes in the printing process

before the "PERFORATIONS START OPENING UP"!!!!!Holy Cow !!!!

these all important perfs are the key to registration .

When those started going bad before our present digital age

GOD HELP YOU !!

On a note of progress towards the digital future -
I have a call for help question for the informed folks contributing to this thread .

I am trying to rephotograph( Digitally ) some important film shots from my extensive air force library .

I am trying to use the cannon rebel on a pedistal
to shot the gate of a projector with a low wattage lamp.

But once these shots are digitized with registration outer marker image (picture a frame around the image with targets and triangles)
What the hell to I do!!?
Any suggestions would help .
I imagine us film retreads oten sound more like techno retards with questions like the above
Still
I am happy for any help .
Cheers
Bruce

P.S. I may have to write my own target registration program or maybe there are tons of them prexisting .
The last one I saw was called a stablization program by discreet logic ...Any links ? Suggestions/
Thanks
Bruce

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

But once these shots are digitized with registration outer marker image (picture a frame around the image with targets and triangles)
What the hell to I do!!?
Any suggestions would help .

This is just off the top of my head... but if you have registration marks, then import the sequence of stills in to After Effects, as a image sequence, then use one of the 'stabilzation' filters, and use the registration marks are your stabilization target.

I think Final Cut Pro has some stablization feature as well.

Once the sequence has been stabilized to the marks, export a cropped version as yet another series of stills.

This of course is given that you have AE... or FCP... If not, then it's .... does anyone in the Open Source community have a GIMP widget???

I have used the AE stabilization to allow me to remove 'road jostling' etc. However, it does have some drawbacks when trying to filter out pitching, yawing, and just plain bumpy road action...

But for a setup where there may only be X, and Y deltas between frames, I think it would work ok.

 

[Bruce Morgan]

Excellent suggestion Thanks !
There is a post effect wizard working in the Eastern europe .He reflected more upon what you found with after effects
He says
"I like it when the stabalization effort is way off and I have to make gross or large adjustments .
However when working inside the perameters of AE, he found limits to fine tuning small
stabalization efforts .
In short
Thanks again!!! great idea-
Ill start with these existing tools before reinvention .
Cheers
Bruce

 

[novelt]

one of our local theaters just this week completed a complete outfit of digital projectors i believe in all 16 theaters. i'll find out for sure in a day or two.

well it was more than a day or two, but our local carmike i believe outfitted 8 screens with DLP projectors and i must say watching superman returns which was shot in HD was very nice...i suspected it wasn't film due to the red cape not really being red, but overall the quality was very nice indeed.

makes things easier for me now i can keep my project digital for the time being.

 

[zoostory]

The Red Cape wasn't red because Singer darkened the color as a costuming decision, not because of the aquisition format. Believe me, if they wanted it to be "red" as you say, they could have made it red, no matter what they shot on.

And I wouldn't necessarily call the Genesis generic "HD" It's not HDCAM or HDVCPRO50.

 

[novelt]

For an added twist to this version of the Superman story, the film was shot in high definition using the Panavision Genesis HD camera.

so that's not true??? and there's really not much red in the movie...

 

[mcsmooth]

Most of the arguments for film talk about what film is capable of now that digital isn't (ie. high speed film, film look, etc). But what is to say that digital cams 15 years from now (the subject of this thread) will not be able to accomplish this and more? With storage space increasing as well as DSP technology, I think the digital cams will be able to replicate any of this and do more. For today and the next few years, I agree with idea of having different tools for each job.

People do keep saying that digital does not quite have the look of film. It is also possible that people will come to perfer the look of digital film. The look of film itself has changed quite a bit over the century (people today aren't usually trying to emulate the look of film from the 50s for a feature movie). I would think the majority of clueless moviegoers want the clearest, cleanest picture over having grain. Kind of like how most consumers perfer CD over tape or vinyl. Not that CD is *better* in all aspects, just that average joe wants the newest cleanest technology.

I also can see the price of film stock going way up if digital does take over in a few years. If it gets to a point where it is not mass produced, it would eventually either get very expensive, or stop being made altogether. This has happened for some pro audio tape formats where people had to scrounge for all the remaining stock for personal studio use or to resell at a high price to the purists.

Sure there will be plenty of people that will perfer andwant to use film. The question is, will it still be avaiable or affordable in 15 years?