Film is a walking corpse

5

500lb Productions

Well-known member
Not to beat a dead horse (groan) but seriously.


People talk about "Film vs Video" as if the absolute image quality actually matters. Please. If the absolute best quality really mattered, there would be no IPOD (mp3). McDonalds would be broke. Musicians would still be making music instead of sampling everything and "producing" the bimbette of the month. As the current paradigm changes, so will tastes change to embrace it. Always has. Always will.
Click to expand...


There is more, especially using the current state of the music business as a barometer for the future health of the film business.

The rest of the article is here: http://fashion-style-trend.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79
 
right.

art is dying in our society. or the perception of art i should say.

film is about as dead as the real musician.

popularity is not the barometer for good music/ a good picture/ good art.

film is about as dead as vinyl or still film photography. it may be used less and less but it won't die. not for quite some time.
 
^
Apparently still digital photography can be just as sharp and beautiful as still film photography. Apparently in fact it can be sharper if needed.

Right now, 35mm film still looks better than HD but HD is getting closer and closer and will eventually surpass it. I don't think anyone can really tell the difference between 35mm and something shot with the new Genisis for instance. Give it a few years. Film will stop being the norm and eventually die.

Oh, and for the record, the only reason I keep my vinyl around is because I don't have the time/money to get all those damn things on CD again.
 
i have to disagree.

it is very evident that miami vice was shot on video.

but that was shot on VIPER not the "genisis"?

have you worked with it?

what was shot on it?
 
DavidBeier said:
^
Apparently still digital photography can be just as sharp and beautiful as still film photography. Apparently in fact it can be sharper if needed.

Right now, 35mm film still looks better than HD but HD is getting closer and closer and will eventually surpass it. I don't think anyone can really tell the difference between 35mm and something shot with the new Genisis for instance. Give it a few years. Film will stop being the norm and eventually die.

Oh, and for the record, the only reason I keep my vinyl around is because I don't have the time/money to get all those damn things on CD again.
Click to expand...

Film wont every fully die... people will still use it IMO... just like vinyl. They could have stopped making that along time ago, even for DJ's. You can scratch CDs and everytyhing now yet people still buy records. Vinyl technicaly is better then digital, since there are no samples. Digital, having samples still sounds great and no one really can tell the difference, but they say the more samples you have, the more accurately you can describe the sound. Thats why they keep jumping up... 44.1k ---> 96k ------> 196k etc....

Just different strokes for different folks. Is it and will continue to be cheaper to do digital stuff, so yes it will be come the norm And thats fine. styles evolve, times change, but there will alwasy be a place for film. :love4:
 
You cannot reproduce all the information in a single frame of 35mm film in a digital signal.

HD or any other format that comes after will only get closer.

Also about not going to CD.

another point.

All you need to see film is a light and a lens. nothing else.

what do you need to reproduce images with digital.
 
DavidBeier said:
I don't think anyone can really tell the difference between 35mm and something shot with the new Genisis for instance.
Click to expand...

The incredible thing is, when I first saw the film "Click" (which at the time I didn't know was shot digital on the Genesis) I took it as 35...because thats what it looked like. I didn't come across a single frame of that film that I could associate with a digital origin, even after learning it was shot on the Genesis and seeing it again.
 
thematthewbone said:
right.

art is dying in our society. or the perception of art i should say.

film is about as dead as the real musician.

popularity is not the barometer for good music/ a good picture/ good art.

film is about as dead as vinyl or still film photography. it may be used less and less but it won't die. not for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed, though CDs and such are much better than vinyl. Film photography will always be better than digital cameras, however.

Good point made.

And in response to the starter of this thread who quoted someone else, your both right. I still want to know whose idea it was to let Paris sing.
 
Art itself has always been a small niche in society and never has been mainstream. Don't confuse the mainstream with the end all
 
thematthewbone said:
art is dying in our society. or the perception of art i should say.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that for a second.

If you produce something, I may now actually have a chance at seeing
it, via the internet. If anything, I'd say the exact opposite is happening...
art is explosive right now. The problem is getting your art, to your
target audience and cutting through the noise.

Pick a musical or film genre.. pick a niche topic... then run it through
itunes, youtube, google or any of the 20 other sites vying to provide
you topical art, on demand.... globally.

There are those in here that say that 'film is dead'... what does that
mean? The technology is changing and there is a new alternative
to the mainstream format. Same as 16mm, then super 16 and who
knows whats next. Film hasnt changed, tools just got cheaper and
once again, the BIG change is that there are cracks in the walls
of distribution and its now possible to walk around that wall completely.

Distribution and exhibition have always been the 'bottlenecks' for any
artform or message. Now any average joe can get up on his soapbox
and start filming/recording/podcasting/blogging/virtual gallery till the
cows come home. In the end, the same thing will happen.. the cream
will rise. If anything, what we're seeing is that we get to choose the
cream... its not forced upon us.
 
Greggl said:
If you produce something, I may now actually have a chance at seeing
it, via the internet. If anything, I'd say the exact opposite is happening...
art is explosive right now.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. Art is flourishing now in ways never before possible.

There's probably never been a better time in human history to be an artist. You can independently publish, market, distribute, sell, etc. your art (whatever it may be) via the Internet.

And back on topic, it's largely thanks to ones and zeroes. :)
 
Last edited:
Sean Michael said:
There's probably never been a better time in human history to be an artist. You can independently publish, market, distribute, sell, etc. your art (whatever it may be) via the Internet.
Click to expand...

I suspect that that will change, as "everyone" still wants to be an artist, only now every CAN. Imagine watching the NBA if any 5 guys who wanted to could enter their team. It's going to get mighty crowded might soon. Kinda like music today. The bar to entry just might be TOO low. ;-)
 
500lb Productions said:
The bar to entry just might be TOO low. ;-)
Click to expand...

lol - well, I think there will always be a premium placed on quality content.

Regarding the NBA analogy, I can pick up a basketball, dribble, and shoot--but no one will EVER confuse me with Michael Jordan. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
DavidBeier said:
^
Right now, 35mm film still looks better than HD but HD is getting closer and closer and will eventually surpass it. I don't think anyone can really tell the difference between 35mm and something shot with the new Genisis for instance. Give it a few years. Film will stop being the norm and eventually die.
Click to expand...

From a business point of view, why does everyone assume Kodak is going to just sit and wait for digital to close in on them and allow their blue chip to fall. Their R&D is working on better, more efficient stock all the time. Not to mention the relationship they have with Hollywood and the stalemate between Theatre chains and Hollywood over who should eat the cost of digital projection. Politics has more to do with this than supply and demand do.

My take is that film will not be gone in our lifetime.
 
Lakmir0 said:
From a business point of view, why does everyone assume Kodak is going to just sit and wait for digital to close in on them and allow their blue chip to fall.
Click to expand...

Um, because Kodak has already done the exact same thing, first with microfilm (business records), then with still photography, and now most recently with medical imaging (XRays).

Lakmir0 said:
Their R&D is working on better, more efficient stock all the time.
Click to expand...

The point is that unless Kodak can sell and process 1 hour of film for $10, it will never be cheap enough for low budget indie filmmakers.

Lakmir0 said:
Not to mention the relationship they have with Hollywood and the stalemate between Theatre chains and Hollywood over who should eat the cost of digital projection.
Click to expand...

And that same stalemate lasted in the music business for a while too, until cheap bandwidth shot them all in the rear.

Lakmir0 said:
My take is that film will not be gone in our lifetime.
Click to expand...

Not gone. Merely irrelevant (to everyone except the rarest of the purists, the hobbyists, and the fine artists).
 
500lb Productions said:
The point is that unless Kodak can sell and process 1 hour of film for $10, it will never be cheap enough for low budget indie filmmakers.
Click to expand...

You are making the mistake of assuming that the decisions of Hollywood are going to be based on indie choices which has never been the case.

The survival or death of film will be determined by what Hollywood, as a majority, decides to do. If Hollywood continues to shoot on film, or send out film prints for release, film will thrive. If not, film will mostly die. The main thing to remember is that it is doubtful that indie perspective will have anything to do with it.

Check this scenario...

How many people on this site would stand firm for digital to the point that if a producer offered you a deal to shoot on film, you would decline the offer and do your own thing digitally?

Even if some declined, there are a dozen willing to do it for every one that wont.
 
in 2005 54% of kodaks revenue came from digital revenue .. true they are in the red..
kodak has been restructuring and should be back to reporting profits in 2007 ..
note that kodak has a little over 1 billion CASH on hand ..
Kodak only reports that film entertainment area had a 5% decline .. they do not show in their financials any $$ figures on the film business area ...
kodak will adapt to changes ...
based on financials i think the film industry should be more concerned with panavision then kodak film...
 
Last edited:
Lakmir0 said:
How many people on this site would stand firm for digital to the point that if a producer offered you a deal to shoot on film, you would decline the offer and do your own thing digitally?

Even if some declined, there are a dozen willing to do it for every one that wont.
Click to expand...
That may be so now, because FILM still sort of reigns, but we are talking in the near future. We're not talking FILM vs the DVX here.

and personally if I had the opportunity of FILM or DIGITAL I would still shoot digital. I'd go with the Sony HDW-F900. That has a look I personally want and I would save a lot more money and workflow would be better. Btw, it's a $100,000 camera, not very cheap, if that is your criteria.

It's not just Independent film makers who want to save money you know. If producers know they can get the same look of film (and even better) for less and better workflow they'd go for it too.

And yes, Hollywood will be forced to adapt when the world does just like the music industry did when the concept of the Internet and MP3's almost crushed them, until they got with it.
 
If producers know they can get the same look of film (and even better) for less and better workflow they'd go for it too.
Click to expand...

Well right now there are only a handful of cameras that can maybe come close (still not there yet far as I'm concerned) to exactly duplicating the range of 35mm. And they're not exactly cheap workflows. So the cinematographer on my upcoming project really pushed for 35mm. Because that's what will work for us.

because FILM still sort of reigns
Click to expand...

Not "still", in the world of narrative film production it does reign, hands down.
And yes, Hollywood will be forced to adapt when the world does just like the music industry did when the concept of the Internet and MP3's almost crushed them, until they got with it.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your comparison because MP3s and the internet had a major impact on distribution and not production. As i recall audio production had become a digital process years ago because it could produce a clearer and non-degradable sound over analog. That's not the case with 35mm vs. Digital.

But i do agree that a shift is coming I just don't think Film will be dead or even used as infrequently as many of the people in this thread think it will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top