Ebert on the Future of Digital

Batutta said:
The thing is, technology improves exponentially. The tipping point will soon arrive when digital is superior to film in every aspect, and then it will quickly be far superior. I'm betting in less than a decade, maybe less than five. And then the issue will be moot. Nobody will shoot on film for any reason other than nostalgia.
Click to expand...

Although Digital will take over, it can never be the SAME. Since film is an art which has almost always been ruled by business, film is dead... but even when digital emulates and then exceeds film in resolution and etc... it will never be the same. There is a difference, and I'm not necessarily saying it's 'better'. Even if an audience can't tell... it is different. If you think differently, take the blue pill. :)

KyleProhaska said:
Digital projection is great. The first time I saw something projected that way was when I saw Star Trek and it was nice and clean, no scratches or anything like that (obviously).

It's funny he mentioned the DVD and nobody noticing. Most film prints by the time they hit the theater anyways are like 720p in resolution...so 853x480 (16x9 DVD) isn't far off.
Click to expand...

Isn't far off? 1280 X 720 is over 2x greater then 16:9 SD... by about half a million pixels! I'd say that's a good amount off. If you are watching letterboxed SD you are talking ridiculous amounts.

But I don't mind him doing so. He is a critic of story, plot, and technical fundamentals. If he can't tell it's a good movie regardless of resolution, he shouldn't be a critic. Good for him and us, that's not the story.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
... it will never be the same. There is a difference, and I'm not necessarily saying it's 'better'. Even if an audience can't tell... it is different.
Click to expand...

But who says it has to be different. It's only different now because of the limits of the technology. I'm sure one day the look and feel of film will be perfectly reproduced by a digital camera. Of course by then, digital cameras might be able to do things no film camera ever could and people might not even find that desirable.
 
Film grain-type plug ins and post-processing will only continue to improve, along with everything else.

Making a fully digital product that is visually indistinguishable from originated-on-film doesn't really sound like any kind of leap, at all.
 
grinner said:
Ebert will have to make a movie that is badass before I value his viewpoint on badass movieisms.
Click to expand...
Do you have to be a car designer to critique new car styling? Do I have to be a vacuum cleaner designer to critique usage of screws where clips would work better? Do I have to be a mechanical engineer to point out to a problem with a dishwasher?

One person cannot work in EVERY field, but he can have either enough knowledge about the field, or he can be a mere consumer. Ebert is a consumer of movies, he does not really care how hard or easy was it to shoot one, he gets a final product and he either likes it or not. I personally don't care how many man-years it took Honda to design and built the current TL or Pilot. These are dog ugly cars, period. IMHO, of course. I don't press you to subscribe to my opinion just like Ebert does not press you to subscribe to his opinion.
 
Sad Max said:
Film grain-type plug ins and post-processing will only continue to improve, along with everything else.

Making a fully digital product that is visually indistinguishable from originated-on-film doesn't really sound like any kind of leap, at all.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, it's not the SAME. Physics. It may be indistinguishable to the consciousness but it's not the same. I guess I'm being picky and downright literal to the point of prickishness, but it's true. There is something about true film that will never be right... and will digital ever emulate film totally? Probably not. Not because it can't get 99.9% there, but by the time that happens we will be used to more video look and feel, therefore a nill point. When color came out, many perfered b&w... soon enough you get used to the new, and the old seems 'out of place'.

But as far as being different. No matter how much you digitally manipulate digital it can't be the same:

Origination & Projection:
Photochemical, organic, 'circular', a-symetric : digital, pixels, square, grid

Projecton:
Light passing THROUGH film. (photochemical) : Light origination from Digital Projector

Film shutter physically blocks 1/2 light: Digital, not sure.... what is it? I miss that 'flicker' :)


Yes, this is exact, a little too nit picky... and i'm an asshole.... but I rarely make absolute statements such as "never be the same" if I don't mean it literally.

Long live film in it's 0.01% that will never be matched! Subconciously you'd agree, you just don't know it. :)
 
*shrug* at the point where the viewer can't perceive *any* difference, for all conceivable practical purposes there *is* no difference. Visually indistinguishable is the standard I mentioned; all of the actual differences in physics etc are irrelevant when the end products cannot be told apart by the viewer.

*edit* in fact the technical differences you cite aren't particularly compelling, either. I'll pick them apart, if you want.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Long live film in it's 0.01% that will never be matched! Subconciously you'd agree, you just don't know it. :)
Click to expand...

Bollocks!...When it comes down to it, at the quantum level, everything is digital, discrete little packets of information. Film is sampling that information at a certain rate. Digital will soon be able to sample that reality at an equal and then higher level...Then the robot overlords will take over.
 
Well...there's a lot more to it than sampling rate. But film's other disctinctive idiosyncracies could certainly be simulated, given the right tools.
 
Yeah, I know...I just wanted to say bollocks for some reason...Must be the Queen's new influence on my life.
 
Nektonic said:
Show some short films before the main feature instead of Pepsi commercials. Didn't they show short films way back in the day? I would love to see some great short films. It would be another way for up and coming filmmakers to get their work seen.
Click to expand...

Heck yeah! Now that's what I'm talking about. An award winning short film or two. Hell, give me a Bugs Bunny marathon. But, "F" the commercials. Pardon my language but they REALLY piss me off. I'm spending $25 bucks for two tickets to a flick, another $20 bucks for a popcorn and a couple of drinks and you're gonna have the audacity to bombard me with commercials?! I'm paying you for entertainment SANS the commercials. If I wanted commercials I would just stay home. You freaking kidding me? That's balls.

Or as Batutta would say, Bollocks.
 
Sad Max said:
Film grain-type plug ins and post-processing will only continue to improve, along with everything else.

Making a fully digital product that is visually indistinguishable from originated-on-film doesn't really sound like any kind of leap, at all.
Click to expand...

I knew you would call me out. And that's why I love you Sadmax... seriously... I love you. hahahahaha!

Perceived isn't the same as .... the same. And I'm not fighting film making digitally. I just kinda wish I was a top earning DP during the transition of both. I want to shoot film more then anything... it's what I was taught and what I have studied.
 
And you can say bollocks if you want. I've been shooting a doc in England for two months... it's actually part of my language now. That and bloke, takin' the piss, wicked, mental, mullered, minger, slapepr, fanny, etc.... fun times.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Perceived isn't the same as .... the same.
Click to expand...

If there is no recognizable difference in viewing a filmed versus a digital image - none at all - then what is the point of endlessly bringing up the imaginary difference for the viewer?
 
Your audience is nothing but critics pretty much. So, I would hope you care what they think even though most of them probably never made a film. You may do it for the love, passion, art, or whatever... but without an audience...

I don't really agree (in general) that you must be a competent filmmaker in order to intelligently discuss one and/or have valid input.

Nor, does being a great filmmaker mean that you can teach and/or discuss the craft in a way that the masses can relate to or understand, etc, etc...
 
On the subject of Ebert and criticism:

Critics do not have to do the things they are critical of for a living, but it helps to have some knowledge/hands-on experience. Real criticism is tough and takes a long time...the stuff Ebert does is more like an opinion column. Someone like Jon Rosembaum or Ray Carney is more of a real film critic- questioning things, exploring how the film maker and films work, writing pages and pages about one type of aesthetic. Ebert is more "yay or nay" in his reviews. His film commentaries and his great bllog offer more in the way of criticism.

And as far as his opinion, I more often disagree than agree with him, but when he likes a movie I find great, he usually gets it spot on. I find him too generous a lot of the time, but I'll give him points for never being afraid to say what he thinks and genuinely loving film and film history.


On the subject of video vs. film:

Can't say much about the technology, but Tarkovsky once said he believed the future of cinema will be when it becomes as common and easy to use as a pen or typewriter, freeing it from cumberson technical machinery and high expenses. He was, as usual, correct in his prediction- the easier and cheaper it is to make cinema on digital equipment, the better is for talented people. It will free us up both in time and cost- and we can be much more independent in our visions. Hell, I think it's already begun to happen with cameras like the DVX.

Not that film still doesn't have great merits (and I'd still like to learn how to use it some time in the future as part of a film history education, so to speak). But I disagree with purists who believe digital images are not "cinema". Even if it's simply a bunch of 1's and 0's, it's still a communication, a way to speak, an artform. It's still light and sound hitting your eyes and ears, a realization of a dream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top