Film will out-last video

Film is film, video is video, and no one can say what anything will be in 20 years.

Unless you just want us to start writing science fiction.
 
Yes. As David said, it is "the electronic gathering of moving pictures."

What you are merely pointing out is different places it has been embedded.

Putting video in the middle of a video game doesnt make it any less "video" than "modge podging" a photo to a suitcase makes it any less a photo.

It is still a video, it's just the use that is changing.

How those uses will change in 20 years.... who knows. How video aquisition will change in 20 years... who knows. How video is viewed in 20 years... who knows.


Or is your question: "At what point does video cease to be "video" and is now the "next thing"?

I dont think it will stop being "video" until it is being directly "jacked" into our brain.
 
mikkowilson said:
yeah, but what *is* video? Define it. Is it the same thing, fundamentally, as it was 20 years ago?

- Mikko
Click to expand...

As I've been trying to tell you Mikko, the word "Video" is generic and all encompassing. I defined it once and David did it again (though I thought mine was more comprehensive), basically as it stands now, if you're using electricity to record moving images, that's video.

Now...getting back to web 3.0...
 
I believe we are still in the early stages of video. Film has been around forever. I agree that video will evolve into something else entirely. In some ways it already has. We went from VHS & BETA to mini DV, and HD digital formats in less then 30 years. Where it will stop is anybodies guess.

It will be a fun ride in any event.
 
Technically...

Video is drawn a scanline at a time. In NTSC and PAL, it's drawn every other line on each pass of the electon gun(s) on a standard television. For progressive displays, it's drawn one scanline at a time, not skipping fields between display cycle. For computer displays and video games, it's the same as a progressive television.

Film is viewed a full frame at a time. There aren't any scanlines. You see each part of the frame at the same time.
 
DevonKrain said:
Just digital now and higher resolution image. But the same.
Click to expand...

That is the difference I'm speaking of. Digital is a huge leap from analog. Thats like saying that recording sound to anoalog, to DAT, then from DAT to hard disk or CD is the same, and its not. The application of the tech to the consumer matters greatly. The difference in media does make a difference to the consumer, and the higher resolution that comes with it adds to the point. I understand what your saying, but at what point does one thing become another. At what point does man separate from the pool of primate (if you believe in that sort of thing)?
 
In some regards its the same thing in Audio. Digital has taken the place of analog but many of the great mixers of today will still master to analog because it blends the sound in a way that you can't possibly simulate with digital.

S.
 
Film is still the most efficient storage and archival system we have. The digital
and electronic formats need to be constantly updated. Even digital storage media
degrades at an alarming rate, not to mention that it is a 'catastrophic' loss
system - ie, minimal damage can make entire archives 100% unreadable.

1000 years from now, some archivist is still going to be able to hold a piece
of 35mm film up to a light and see the past.... this move to digital, is a move
toward 'temporary' media.
 
Greggl said:
Film is still the most efficient storage and archival system we have. The digital
and electronic formats need to be constantly updated. Even digital storage media
degrades at an alarming rate, not to mention that it is a 'catastrophic' loss
system - ie, minimal damage can make entire archives 100% unreadable.

1000 years from now, some archivist is still going to be able to hold a piece
of 35mm film up to a light and see the past.... this move to digital, is a move
toward 'temporary' media.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and think it doesn't get enough attention.
 
I'm sure it is being handled. We have little idea what they are coming up with in regards to digital long term storage. Although I'm sure Anhar has written a dissertation on it.

And let's not rule out that all this can be archived on cellulose DIGITALLY.

Do you really think that light exposed cellulose is the best that will EVER be invented? Or has been in invented? Just because you dont have the technology in your bedroom office, doesnt mean it doesnt exist or isnt being perfected.
 
Greggl said:
Film is still the most efficient storage and archival system we have. The digital
and electronic formats need to be constantly updated. Even digital storage media
degrades at an alarming rate, not to mention that it is a 'catastrophic' loss
system - ie, minimal damage can make entire archives 100% unreadable.

1000 years from now, some archivist is still going to be able to hold a piece
of 35mm film up to a light and see the past.... this move to digital, is a move
toward 'temporary' media.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this, the only thing I would add, is that with digital once you have digital data, then making copies results in perfect 100% copyies

That means that once you have digital data, so long as you can make copyies, in theory its lifespan is unlimited, since it becomes indipendent of the medium which carries it.

For example my words documents may be saved on my HD, then later copyied onto my USB, then later attached to my email etc, then later burned to my CD, etc, the data is identical, the medium can chnage but the data remains 100% the same, its 1's and 0's after all.
 
Anhar Miah said:
For example my words documents may be saved on my HD, then later copyied onto my USB, then later attached to my email etc, then later burned to my CD, etc, the data is identical, the medium can chnage but the data remains 100% the same, its 1's and 0's after all.
Click to expand...

Yep, and none of the aforementioned last as long as film. Digital is the 21st century and film is not 20th century but 19th century technology!
 
Stones were 20,000BC technology, but steel still replaced it. Nothing is forever. But, stones will always be around. They'll just continue to be used less.
 
Greggl said:
Film is still the most efficient storage and archival system we have. ...1000 years from now, some archivist is still going to be able to hold a piece
of 35mm film up to a light and see the past.... this move to digital, is a move
toward 'temporary' media.
Click to expand...

This is true only if the film is preserved properly. If not, it's also "temporary".
 
brianluce said:
Yep, and none of the aforementioned last as long as film. Digital is the 21st century and film is not 20th century but 19th century technology!
Click to expand...

I think you have misunderstood me, I wasn't saying that mediums last forever, I quite agree with you the medium degrades as per 2nd law of thermodynamics, what I was saying was that Information/Data in theory lasts forever because it is Indipendent of its medium AND it can be reproduced perfectly.

I'm not sure how to explain this further. If anyone wants to make an anolgy to explain the above please feel free.
 
Greggl said:
Film is still the most efficient storage and archival system we have. The digital
and electronic formats need to be constantly updated. Even digital storage media
degrades at an alarming rate, not to mention that it is a 'catastrophic' loss
system - ie, minimal damage can make entire archives 100% unreadable.

1000 years from now, some archivist is still going to be able to hold a piece
of 35mm film up to a light and see the past.... this move to digital, is a move
toward 'temporary' media.
Click to expand...

Not really. Digital data is very commonly archived on tapes that are much more rugged than film.

And even if you do destroy one, the cost of producing many and storing them in several places is significantly cheaper than doing the same with film.

I guess its due to my background in software, but I never understand why people think HDDs are how we intend to archive data. They are not meant for long term storage, and we have known this for 30 years, at least. It's common to back up all kinds of enterprise and very important data to tape all the time. The same can be done with digital film data.

If you can take a tour of even the most basic data center these days, you'll see they are likely many times safer (safe from fire, collapse, power loss, etc) than most Hollywood film vaults.

And I'm not sure why you think film does not degrade...isn't it Scorsese's mission in life to save many old films that ARE degrading right out of existence?
 
first thing i was taught at this new film school im going to is that film is pretty much dead. So is that good when schools are teaching film is dead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top