Film will out-last video

[DevonKrain]

You can snip all you want, the answer is there. In what practical use?

What is the practical application of your question? If the difference in contrast and "black levels" never presents itself, does it exist?

And an important point, also, is that slide film has an average 4-5 stops of dynamic range. Print film 8 stops. The 1DsII has a little more than 11.

In the end, you can talk all the esoteric specifications you want, I'm merely concerned with the real world, in which I live. And that real world demands comparisons in practical use, not mathematical vacuums.

 

[brianluce]

You can snip all you want, the answer is there. In what practical use?

What is the practical application of your question? If the difference in contrast and "black levels" never presents itself, does it exist?

And an important point, also, is that slide film has an average 4-5 stops of dynamic range. Print film 8 stops. The 1DsII has a little more than 11.

In the end, you can talk all the esoteric specifications you want, I'm merely concerned with the real world, in which I live. And that real world demands comparisons in practical use, not mathematical vacuums.

I don't understand. Contrast and black levels are objective, well defined criteria for evaluating picture quality. There's nothing "esoteric" about them.

The practical application to my question is that better contrast equals better picture which is a good thing.

 

[Spartacus]

Great threadjack guys...

 

[mikkowilson]

I think we´ll have to divide between image aquisition, which is a linear and technical process and storytelling here.

Sure, no argument there. Things happen in real time, so they need to be captured in real time. I don't care about the means in this discussion. (So yeah, all the digital vs film gear talk is irrelevant in this thread.)

Storytelling on the other hand already was taken a step further through a new kind of media: video games.
[...]
So maybe we should even not speak of "storytelling" anymore, but rather of "storycreating", since whole new worlds are created, with much more choices to be made than stop, pause, fastforward or rewind.

YES! This is exactly what I'm talking about.
"Storycreating" .. I love it! :thumbsup:

And I'm not only talking about the narrative use of video. But of media as a whole. "Multimedia" will swallow up "video" as part of the big convergence.
Youtube (for example) is all about videos hosted, using Flash to do it. But it's still video.
But how about the sites (& offline applications) out there that use video as part of a great flash presentation. Like PowerPoint even. Is it video any more? Or is it all just "Media"? How about things as simple as animated signs, advertisements, information screens... are those video? Technically, sure, but on a more general level .. I don't know.

You "Video games" example is great.
Played on a Nintendo, or a Mega-drive, it was clearly a 'video game' .. because it was displayed as video on your TV. Just like a PlayStation or X-Box today. But what about when the exact same games (content) is available for a PC? Is it still a Video game? Is it still video? Was it ever?


DVD, Digital Versatile Disc, not just for "video" .. the big thing was interactivity .. we got menus, alternate tracks, special features. It's an inherently non-linear format, which as any video producer who has had to learn DVD authoring (and I don't mean hitting "export to DVD" in Premiere) properly will tell you; is definitely a long step from video.

Sure, video is part of a DVD (and if you want to be picky, an awful lot of that video was shot on Film - hence why I don't want to confuse this discussion with technological nit-picking), but the DVD on a whole is much more than video.

Even CD-ROM's (as interactive publications) already dabbled with this idea to a great extent. I think CD-ROM was actually FAR beyond it's time in regards to what the general public was ready for.

BD and HD-DVD are more advanced formats still. The interactivity can take place, during, over, with, as part of, the "video" within.

I think as this development progresses, we will stretch the meaning of "video" even further from what it once was. Things like Flash animation for example already greatly blur the line, and once things develop, I think it will become too blurry to distinguish "video" from media as a whole. TV is changing too, insanely rapidly, as it too is integrated into the mass of media available to us today and in the future.

But still I think linear, non interactive forms of media like books or movies will always exist.

And that, in my opinion, is where Film will always have a place as a medium - regardless of the technology behind it. Or even any 'practical application' for that matter.


- Mikko

 

[Spartacus]

And I'm not only talking about the narrative use of video. But of media as a whole. "Multimedia" will swallow up "video" as part of the big convergence.
Youtube (for example) is all about videos hosted, using Flash to do it. But it's still video.
But how about the sites (& offline applications) out there that use video as part of a great flash presentation. Like PowerPoint even. Is it video any more? Or is it all just "Media"? How about things as simple as animated signs, advertisements, information screens... are those video? Technically, sure, but on a more general level .. I don't know.

You "Video games" example is great.
Played on a Nintendo, or a Mega-drive, it was clearly a 'video game' .. because it was displayed as video on your TV. Just like a PlayStation or X-Box today. But what about when the exact same games (content) is available for a PC? Is it still a Video game? Is it still video? Was it ever?


DVD, Digital Versatile Disc, not just for "video" .. the big thing was interactivity .. we got menus, alternate tracks, special features. It's an inherently non-linear format, which as any video producer who has had to learn DVD authoring (and I don't mean hitting "export to DVD" in Premiere) properly will tell you; is definitely a long step from video.

Sure, video is part of a DVD (and if you want to be picky, an awful lot of that video was shot on Film - hence why I don't want to confuse this discussion with technological nit-picking), but the DVD on a whole is much more than video.

Even CD-ROM's (as interactive publications) already dabbled with this idea to a great extent. I think CD-ROM was actually FAR beyond it's time in regards to what the general public was ready for.

BD and HD-DVD are more advanced formats still. The interactivity can take place, during, over, with, as part of, the "video" within.

I think as this development progresses, we will stretch the meaning of "video" even further from what it once was. Things like Flash animation for example already greatly blur the line, and once things develop, I think it will become too blurry to distinguish "video" from media as a whole. TV is changing too, insanely rapidly, as it too is integrated into the mass of media available to us today and in the future.


And that, in my opinion, is where Film will always have a place as a medium - regardless of the technology behind it. Or even any 'practical application' for that matter.


- Mikko

True interactivity has been made possible through the WWW. You´re right with DVDs and CD-Roms, they added sth to simple distribution of one content and added ways of interlinking various content eg print, movies, audio...
But a DVD still is limited to it´s 4,7Gb of space, it is solid state.
When going to the web, given unlimited bandwith and ultra highspeed connections, there just is no limit. There´s no end to the possible input.
But still, just because a recorded image is presented differently eg a "live" video sequence with alphachannel inside a dynamic flash presentation on a website - it´s still video.
A moving 2D representation of sth that actually exists in real life.
The computer is the key to all, a machine that can incorporate different media. And through the WWW, the endlessly interconected sum of all computers (well, those online...), the way we read, hear and watch media has changed dramatically.

 

[Spartacus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus
"""But still I think linear, non interactive forms of media like books or movies will always exist."""

Mikko: And that, in my opinion, is where Film will always have a place as a medium - regardless of the technology behind it. Or even any 'practical application' for that matter.

Well, that´s not why i think linear media will always exist:smile:
Just like we need guidance as childs, we also like guidance in storytelling.
You may injoy a movie or book because you like the plot. But maybe you rather enjoy how the plot is being presented :evil:?
So besides the new freedom of interactivity and "all access media" we still like to walk down a clearly laid out path...

So Film as seen as "Movie" - yes, but Film as seen as "celluloid", better say good bye...

 

[David Jimerson]

I would define "video" as the electronic gathering of moving pictures.

As such, I don't see what could replace it or what it could merge into to make it cease to exist.

 

[Anhar_Miah]

Ans while Moore's Law was expected to start slowing down, they find it's actually speeding up.

I'm sorry to intercede here, but this is my field of expertise, and I can assure you its not the case, in fact the opposite is true, Moore's Law is actually breaking down [note its not broken YET, but it can not be sustained for much longer] this is because we are actually reaching physical limits of what is possible with silicon, and you can not "cram" any more so to speak.

And as an interesting side note, I'm actually in the process of finding published papers for my proposed Dissertation, which I'm hoping is going to be a new CPU Architecture, away from the Von Neumann model, and one of the resoning is that very fact there is a need for new innovations to meet future challanges, infact a conference was held, regarding this exact issue of Moores Law in the not to distant future.

 

[brian.wells]

I personally don't like the word video because it sometimes seems to carry negative connotations in some social circles, such as the film industry. Digital cinema is the phrase that rocks my face off.

In any case, I often enjoy considering the future possibilities of movie production and display technology. Imagine a display with billions of nano-sized pixels. Now imagine a image sensor with the same capacity of pixels only, of course, at a much smaller scale. You might think, how could this many pixels even be displayed in real time? Oh, I have an idea. How could the data be stored? Remember all the talk of molecule-based solid state memory systems? We are very close to these ideas that sometimes sound quite insane.

Image sensors will continue to become more sophisticated and color ranges will evolve once we go back to the true three colors of red, green, and violet (bringing back colors that have not been achievable since technicolor film).

Light loss in lenses can be reduced. Why do I spout such "insanity?" Yesterday, they announced a material that rejects 99.9% of all light, making the deepest blacks. Who says they can't figure out how to make a glass that passes 99.9% of all light that hits it directly through to the other side.

When my father talks of his life in the '60s, he said that he didn't even think about the year 2000. Knowing this, I want to be conscious of the future and dream for what could one day become a reality.

I digress.

I just refreshed and saw Anhar's post. The food for thought is that there is no longer a need to cram. The real power has always been distributed computing, hence the development of multiple cores. This has developed even further now.

Recently announced is the possibility of multiaccess memory, meaning that you could simultaneously access multiple areas of memory at the same time. There is always the crazy hope for new innovations. Good luck with your dissertation Anhar.

Back to the subject of this thread:
Film is a wonderful piece of technology. I love it a lot. However, I see a bright future in which digital image processing will become something grand. It can quickly reach the same level of sophistication of our eyes and it can become truly 3 dimensional, both in the capture and projection. I'm a firm believer that this could happen in our lifetime.

Why/how do I think like this? I took a computer graphics class in college, and my mind starting doing it's thinking thing while I listened to the currently state of image processing.

To sum up, now you know what the brian thinks about when he's not busy. Also, I think the word film my outlast the word video.

 

[DevonKrain]

Anhar:

Moore's Law has been the name given to everything that changes exponentially. I saw, if Gore invented the Internet, I invented the exponential

I apologize. I wasnt speaking of transistor count, I was speaking of technology in general. I erroneously applied Moore's name to it.

 

[DevonKrain]

So Film as seen as "Movie" - yes, but Film as seen as "celluloid", better say good bye...

Absolutely.

I would define "video" as the electronic gathering of moving pictures.

As such, I don't see what could replace it or what it could merge into to make it cease to exist.

Well said.

And Brian, you still have not given me a practical application. "Black levels and contrast are objective" in what practical application? A print? A silver halide print? A magazine print?

 

[krish]

sorry guys did'nt read every response on this thread but just throwing in my 2 cents -

Isnt it true that what makes a Film like a real "Film" is not just the recording of the image on the film but a million other things like Lighting, Super high end lenses etc.. Assuming everything being equal between film and video besides the recording medium , the so called video (HD) is already proving to be adquiate for big screen. Ok there are lot of other things which a true film guy might hate like the workflow etc. but otherwise its getting pretty close.

Making films is a very colloberative process so if certain parts of the industry is movng towards digital for coats and other factors then film has no choice but to follow along.

unfortunatley.

cheers,

-Kris

 

[brianluce]

Absolutely.



Well said.

And Brian, you still have not given me a practical application. "Black levels and contrast are objective" in what practical application? A print? A silver halide print? A magazine print?

That's cuz someone here was whining about thread hijacking--as if all threads always maintain laser like focus on one original idea.

I don't know anything about still photography, but in motion pictures, either with film or video, I can't think of an application that contrast and black level does NOT matter. Some people, myself included, think contrast is more important than resolution. Or is you point that black level and contrast are not quantifiable they way pixel count is and therefore not a useful measure for image quality.

 

[Spartacus]

That's cuz someone here was whining about thread hijacking--as if all threads always maintain laser like focus on one original idea.

No, most threads get watered down, because two people pic one single and only remotely connected issue of the debate and start splitting hairs over it...
And even if the thread manages to regain focus on the original topic, some of those people are arrogant enough to come back, make fun of that and start their kindergarden sub-genre discussion all over.
Well done.

 

[Tom Marshall]

That's cuz someone here was whining about thread hijacking--as if all threads always maintain laser like focus on one original idea.

I don't know anything about still photography, but in motion pictures, either with film or video, I can't think of an application that contrast and black level does NOT matter. Some people, myself included, think contrast is more important than resolution. Or is you point that black level and contrast are not quantifiable they way pixel count is and therefore not a useful measure for image quality.

It seems to me that you're talking about contrast in the shadow regions... Black levels can always be adjusted in a photo editing application like Photoshop. It's the equivalent of film developing, only digitally. You have so many more options with digital than with film when "developing" the image - especially with RAW camera data.

The more data you have to work with (i.e. dynamic range), the more options you have. You can "crush the blacks", which, in my opinion, never looks good. You can blow out the highlights, but you don't want to do that either. 11 stops of dynamic range is a lot to work with...

 

[brianluce]

It seems to me that you're talking about contrast in the shadow regions... Black levels can always be adjusted in a photo editing application like Photoshop. It's the equivalent of film developing, only digitally. You have so many more options with digital than with film when "developing" the image - especially with RAW camera data.

.

Okay but you can't exceed the latitude of whatever format you've originated in right? In other words, if you shot a video with your Nokia Phone, that's going to be the limiting factor and no amount of post is going to give you more of anything--at least under realistic conditions. Likewise with film and video one of the two should presumably have more latitude, I'd been under the impression it was film. Devon is saying digital, I think, and that the delivery medium is the main factor and that digital stills have more stops anyway--which I don't dispute, I just didn't know we were there yet. So if digital stills exceed 35mm, why doesn't HD video? I read an article by David Mullen a few months ago and I didn't get that from him.

 

[Tom Marshall]

Right, you're limited by the dynamic range of the medium. The more stops you have, the more light you can capture at each end of your range. You're also limited by your bit-depth. Most consumer cameras are 8 bit, I believe the HVX included. A higher bitrate camera, which the RED is, gives you more data. So instead of 256 values, you now have 1024 or more values to store your data. That's why Cineon film scans are 10 bit scans. You get more of the dynamic range that's useable. Of course, you can fit a wider dynamic range into an 8-bit format, but then you really start to over-quantize your data. (i.e. stair-step the individual pixel samples.)

With digital photography, digital has the higher dynamic range images than a traditional 35mm film camera. But as far as dynamic range for motion photography, film still has the upper hand.

Also, digital video is linear, while film is logarithmic. If you look at the gamma curve of a Cineon LUT, you'll see what I mean. You basically reserve a lot more pixels for your higher range. You'll preserve your highlights with film for this reason...

 

[DevonKrain]

So if digital stills exceed 35mm, why doesn't HD video?

Simply because digital video has not caught up to where digital stills are. It will get there.

And to be clear, I only brought up digital stills as an example of technology advancing in an attempt to find something meaningful in the original post. I was in no way equating digital stills with video or motion film. Only technology advancement.

 

[Tom Marshall]

Here's something to take a look at. It was written by Juan at Reel Stream (the guy that created the Andromeda setup for the DVX). It does a good job of explaining dynamic range and latitude.

http://www.reel-stream.com/DynamicRangeAndLatitude.pdf

 

[mikkowilson]

I still haven't heard those defenitions...

What is film? What is video?

20 years ago?

20 years from now?


I'm not saying compare which has better DR, or higher resolution. I'm talking about what each "is" - as a concept.


- Mikko