Film is a walking corpse

[tigeba]

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.

Audio production went digital largely because of convienience, not purely because of quality. Essentially the same reason that everyone cuts movies on an NLE instead of a razor blade. In fact, the early 16 bit systems were quite audibly inferior to normal analog mixing and recording. With more recent 24 bit systems, most people feel they are "good enough". Even now, some people record their source material on tape and transfer to digital for editing. Just like 35mm -vs- video, tape has a "sound" that a purely digital recording does not have, and if you want it you either need to emulate it digitally or just get it with tape on the way in. There are actually a decent number of high end (and crappy) products that are designed to emulate the sound and artifacts of tape based recording without the hassle of tape. Despite all this, tape is essentially dead in audio because of convienience and cost, and we are talking about a situation where your costs are a $200 reel of tape and maybe a machine that costs between 2-10K. Since film is many many multiples of this cost, digital will eventually kill it too.

I shot 35mm still film for years, and I recently got a Canon 5D. I think I would be hard pressed to find a convincing argument for shooting film vs using that body. It is probably superior to emulsion in almost every way possible.

 

[Greggl]

How many prints do you actually archive?

I have every negative I shot till I 'went digital' with my stills. Since that, I've
physically printed... like 20

 

[tigeba]

I have every image I have shot on digital. I used to have a Canon D30 so it was a lot less space intensive. The images are huge with the 5D, but a 4gig flash card fits convieniently on a DVD. Right now I'm moving everything into Aperture and I will probably just handle backups with that.

I don't make archive prints at this point. I have an Epson 2200 printer which is supposed to have ink that can really last a long time, but I'm not sure if I believe it. I consider my digital negatives my archive for better or worse.

 

[AshG]

Let's not confuse delivery (MP3, compressed HD) with acquisition. There is no major artist recording in MP3. Most albums in the top 200 are either done on analog 2" tape or in ProTools 24bit. This is the equivalent of film or 2K/4K digital... well beyond HD. Plain and simple, film WILL decrease but it will be 2K and 4K cameras, not HD cameras to finally dethrone it and that will be a decade from now. As proven in the audio world, it is TALENT, not TECH that is the great divide. People have this silly idea that it is the tech that is the thing holding them back. I say it all the time but for indie movies, it is not about the tech, and for the most part, not about the script/cinemtography/directing but about the marketability of the talent. You shoot a very good movie on super35 with unknown talent you will have 1/100th the chance for distribtion as something shot on DV that has Gary Busey in it. Are there exceptions? Sure, Napoleon Dynamiye, etc. but those are like lightning in a bottle. ash =o)

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Let's not confuse delivery (MP3, compressed HD) with acquisition. There is no major artist recording in MP3. Most albums in the top 200 are either done on analog 2" tape or in ProTools 24bit. This is the equivalent of film or 2K/4K digital... well beyond HD. Plain and simple, film WILL decrease but it will be 2K and 4K cameras, not HD cameras to finally dethrone it and that will be a decade from now. As proven in the audio world, it is TALENT, not TECH that is the great divide. People have this silly idea that it is the tech that is the thing holding them back. I say it all the time but for indie movies, it is not about the tech, and for the most part, not about the script/cinemtography/directing but about the marketability of the talent. You shoot a very good movie on super35 with unknown talent you will have 1/100th the chance for distribtion as something shot on DV that has Gary Busey in it. Are there exceptions? Sure, Napoleon Dynamiye, etc. but those are like lightning in a bottle. ash =o)

Nice post Ash

 

[Loki]

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

what do you need to reproduce images with digital.

How about we expand that so that it is more inline with reality:

film reels > light > lens > surface

and for digital... drum roll please:

storage medium > light > lens > surface

the differences are astounding.

 

[thematthewbone]

astronimical.

 

[omar_]

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.

Well, I hear ya but HD cameras are fairly new and how many (Hollywood) feature movies have already been done using it over FILM ... yikes! and we're only talking about the start. For you to even think about digital and to have to push for 35 mm says something pretty interesting actually.

Not "still", in the world of narrative film production it does reign, hands down.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I said that FILM still reigns; meaning it currently reigns ... but may not in the future. Meaning, the people who are doing direct comparisons between FILM and digital now to prove that FILM is better are only fooling themselves because FILM simply has better quality ... currently.

Let's not fool ourselves here and compare FILM quality to the DVX.
Digital movie cameras have only begun and already they're being used in a HUGE way - in Hollywood - and you haven't seen anything these cameras can offer just yet! It's only the start.

I don't agree with your comparison because MP3s and the internet had a major impact on distribution and not production.

I think you missed my point a little here or I didn't clarify properly. What I said was related to an earlier post by Lakmir0 claiming that Hollywood determines everything and not caring about what's going on in the real world, the market and the thousands of independent movie makers. I wasn't comparing them through the metaphor you provided, although distribution is closely related to production btw.

The point was, digital formats, accessible to the public, shook the music industry in a HUGE way. Case closed.
And that will happen to Hollywood if it doesn't pay attention, just like the music industry didn't, until they caught up.

As i recall audio production had become a digital process years ago because it could produce a clearer and non-degradable sound over analog.

Another bow for digital.

That's not the case with 35mm vs. Digital.

That goes back to our main point of discussion

It's typical; I think many purists will maintain this argument about FILM reigning supreme over the new wave of digital technology ... until it all just happens!

 

[Greggl]

Hehe... I lost all my digital backups in Hurricane Wilma. I hadn't known that
cds rust. I have no idea how I'm going to do any long-term digital archiving
at this point. CD/DVD has me gunshy.

Every single one of em (100+) either turned completely clear or looks like
someone burned holes in the foil. I think I was able to get maybe 200 images
total off the disks. The 35mm negs in the same box just needed to be
cleaned.

I have a love/hate relationship with digital. Right now, the worst of both
worlds are still compelling enough to NOT make it an easy decision to go
in either direction.

 

[Michael Carter]

It's so fun how this debate just won't die...

And every time it comes up, the "quality" of digital gets thrown in, either for stills or motion. Yeah, my nice Nikon SLR shoots some snappy shots and I haven't been to the lab in ages. (And once they get the highlight detail figureed out, well... hell yeah.)

But, I was watching "The Marathon Man" (ouch! "Is it safe"? Bzzzwhirrrrrrrrrrr...) and, as I usually do watching "filmed" movies, noticed how nice that real film GRAIN can be. There's not a filter yet that can add organic grain to digital. For the right film, some subtle grain is just pretty as heck. And for still shooting, I still think it's gorgeous. (And there's something truly awesome about the way Photoshop grabs hold of scanned grain, too... another plus for the film-to-digital workflow for me).

That crisp, clear, HD digital quality isn't the whole of this argument... film (like my old vinyl records which, yes indeed do sound warmer and "sweeter" than my CDs) (and are scratchy as hell, another argument for digital) just has something nice about it. And there are projects -- still or motion -- where I'd choose that look over digital. I just think it's gorgeous. And yep, waiting for the lab sucks after being spoiled by the digital now-factor... but sometimes it's worth it. Just my .02...

 

[AshG]

I thiink there is mass misconception about how much, or should I say how LITTLE, HD is happening in Hollywood. I bet there are 50+ studio movies shot on film for every one shot in digital.



ash =o)