Film will out-last video

mikkowilson

mikkowilson

Steadi-Guru
After some thought, I've come to the conclusion that Film will probably outlast "video" as a format and a medium.

Video is evolving so fast, whereas film - fundamentally - isn't. The lines of what is video are already being blurred, and I think that with time video will dissolve completely into other media, whereas film is here to stay.


Thoughts?

- Mikko
 
Welcome to the discussion we were having 10 years ago regarding digital stills.

I remember reading an article in 1997 - when the only digital still out were 640x480. There were some higher, but few and really expensive. At that time, the article said that digital stills will "NEVER" match the quality if 35mm. That was accomplished 3 years later with the 3MP Canon D30. And it wasnt the pixel count, it was their choice to go with the "inferior" CMOS.

Now, 8 years after that, my 1DsII exceeds medium format. Heck, 4 years ago, my 1Ds gave medium format a serious run for it's money.

Film will always be around, and just like in stills, you will have the film diehards. They will mostly be the "artistic" "purists". But in professional photography where you need to turn a profit, film hasnt made sense for almost a decade.

Digital film is not there yet, but it will be there within 5 years. Within a decade, I will bet MUCH more than half of films made (and I dont mean YouTubers, I mean IN THEATERS) will be digital.

BTW, in case it was missed above, the "expert" critics said digital would NEVER match 35mm. It was matched in 3 years and medium format was matched in 5.
 
film does have a quality that can't be matched digitally. but the gap is narrowing. as digital video resolutions go up and costs come down, i think more people will hop on the digital bandwagon.
 
Look around you on this forum. Very few people here are shooting film. I don't think film will ever die out, and I don't really want it to either, but the next generation of feature filmmakers will be mostly shooting digital. There's a lot of 15, 16, 17 year old filmmakers here right now, and when they're in their 30's and making feature films, digital will be even more amazing. I don't think film, nor video will outlast one another. I'm sure what I'm saying has been said time and time again. Hell, we'll probably still be having this debate 10 or 15 years from now.
 
I'm not talking about Film vs. Digital. Or quality, pixels, etc of various image formats. I'm talking about the exsistance of video itself as a clear-cut medium.

There is no question as to what "film" is, but who will be able to even tell what video is in the future?

- Mikko
 
mikkowilson said:
I'm not talking about Film vs. Digital. Or quality, pixels, etc of various image formats. I'm talking about the exsistance of video itself as a clear-cut medium.

There is no question as to what "film" is, but who will be able to even tell what video is in the future?

- Mikko
Click to expand...

i don't exactly understand what you're talking about, mikko. it's over my head. :)
 
I also have no idea what you are talking about.

As of now, as with stills, digital is moving towards replicating/replacing film. Aside from that,

What you talkin' 'bout Mikko?
 
Define "video"

1) 20 years ago
2) today
3) 20 years from now ... can you? I don't think anyone will be able to.



However, do the same for film.


- Mikko
 
Mikko is basically stating that eventually what we call video today will evolve into a higher form and video will no longer exist.

I tend to agree.

I mean you only have to use your imagination. How about smart film, where it acts like film, works like film, looks like film and dog gone it doesnt even require your film camera to be upgraded because the tiny film panels can store a digital 20 megapixel image which are recorded onto in the exact same process film is now. But the at the head all the digital information is gathered and compiled on a reusable solid state chip for each reel. This you simply dump into your 1000 TB solid state card in your pc (which crashes and requires a 0.05 milli second restart :P ) or mac, which you edit with using your hands on the screen.

I am off to patent that right now. So its video film for the future !!!!!
 
Bartender! I'll have what he's having.

I think even when mainstream films are in head experiences like in Strange Days, film will still be around. it will, however, not be the norm. And it will be quite rare.

Film is what it is. It cant be much else. Digital, on the other hand will forever evolve.

You say "Video", and I follow you, but it's a straw man to display the broad change. What is the definition of "Video"? Or, what is your definition? I know Wiki's.

I think the biggest change will be from "video" to "digital filmmaking".

And considering we are supposed to be flying hovercars and wearing silver space suits, I dont think anyone can said definitively what will be here in 20 years. Ans while Moore's Law was expected to start slowing down, they find it's actually speeding up.

I think trying to figure out what "video" will be is as impossible to determine as what I am going to have for lunch on this date in 20 years. no way to tell right now.

But I will bet my life that "video" (and I'm only talking filmmaking here, "video" can mean 100 different things) will move towards matching/exceding the qualities of film and improving the process and workflow until the next VIEWING revolution has taken place. Once we're in immersive holographic theaters, I dont think film will be the capture medium. I also dont think we'll call it "video". But, it will have originally evolved from "video".
 
As an archival material, properly stored 35mm negative lasts way longer than any videotape made these days.

I think the problem we will all face as more and more movies are shot on digital formats is the constantly evolving nature of the various digital codecs. The digital format you use today will invaribly be obselete five years from now. In fact it seems like there is a new digital format created every day.

If you produce a digital movie and you'd like it to still be playable 30 years from now, then it seems like every couple of years you'll have to convert it to the latest digital codec. In comparison, if you shot on 35mm negative, you can just strike up another print.
 
Jim: That's true for now, and for the foreseeable future, but as digital replaces film, that film technology will become more and more rare. It will be more difficult to "strike up another print" as fewer and fewer resources and facilities will exist.

Also, as formats change as the developers are learning with stills and now motion digital, standards will emerge and resources will develop to make the format transitions and archiving more possible.

Film lasts longer than videoTAPE, but I dont think this is at all about tape, especially as cameras move toward tapeless acquisition. It's about the DATA, and it's a matter of developing a digital data storage medium that lasts. As I dont think film is the be all, end all in archival formats, in time a better digital archival format will emerge.
 
Noel Evans said:
Mikko is basically stating that eventually what we call video today will evolve into a higher form and video will no longer exist.
Click to expand...

DevonKrain said:
Film is what it is. It cant be much else. Digital, on the other hand will forever evolve.

[...]

I also dont think we'll call it "video". But, it will have originally evolved from "video".
Click to expand...

Exactly. And I think the evolution will eventually diminish what is now known as video out of exsistance. (Be it on tape, a re-time signal, or as data-files.)

But film will remain what it is.



It's kinda like the old question; If you replace all the parts of a ship over the years [not all at once], is it still the same ship?

- Mikko
 
mikkowilson said:
After some thought, I've come to the conclusion that Film will probably outlast "video" as a format and a medium.

Video is evolving so fast, whereas film - fundamentally - isn't. The lines of what is video are already being blurred, and I think that with time video will dissolve completely into other media, whereas film is here to stay.


Thoughts?

- Mikko
Click to expand...

I agree in principle but the thing is, "Video" as normally defined is the technology of electronically recording a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion. That's such a generic, all encompassing definition that there won't be a reason discard it unless we want to--this goes to my earlier point about web 3.0 and is a semantic point more than anything else. Words basically mean what we *Say* they mean provided enough people are using the word in a similar context.
 
Last edited:
when photography was invented, some crazy guys said it would replace painting, and today we can see as they were wrong.
cheers
 
DevonKrain said:
\
Now, 8 years after that, my 1DsII exceeds medium format. Heck, 4 years ago, my 1Ds gave medium format a serious run for it's money.

.
Click to expand...

I don't keep up with this--but is this a consensus opinion? Black level and contrast? rez? digital exceeds film?
 
:::: crickets ::::


I think all that is a given.


The only other thing, not yet considered is the next type of film, if we are only considering film as an analog medium. We had Deguerreotypes - captured on silver, Tinypes - on tin, and Ambrotypes - on glass. Now "film" is cellulose. I imagine it would be possible to develop a new, better analog "film", but I think the future is in digital and those new films wont be developed, at least not for mass consumption.

I think the very first post could have just been summed up by "Film will always be around." That is, of course, until it isnt.
 
I think we´ll have to divide between image aquisition, which is a linear and technical process and storytelling here.
So the Video we now use for recording "real life" will develop further in terms of resolution and quality. Maybe we will even get 3D information into image aquisition and with the right projection technologys can have "walk through video".
But Video, as a form of electronical image recording, will basically always exist.
Film will die out.
Storytelling on the other hand already was taken a step further through a new kind of media: video games.
There still is a predefined frame in which a player can act, but the outcome of the indiviual game can´t be predicted.
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. But still I think linear, non interactive forms of media like books or movies will always exist.
And Video (real world image recording) won´t change as long as we need eyes to see...
 
It depends what you mean by exceding film. It exceeds it in practical use. Photos are not meant to exist just on film for the sake of existing. They are meant to be displayed. The two main methods of display are printed and light projected. The Canon D30 was proven to print equally to 35mm film up to 8x10. Film exceeded it above that, but 35mm drops in quality greatly above 8x10 so it wasnt long before 35mm was exceeded entirely by digital. When I first got my Canon 10D, it easily exceeded 35mm to all print sizes. I printed up to 20x30 just for tests, but my business is in 9x12s.

Moving to the 1Ds, medium format film was matched, up to 9x12, but film still held the edge at higher print sizes. The 1DsII matches medium format at all sizes. PRINTED. There is still large format film, and that has not been hit. I imagine the sensor will have to be quite big to match an 8x10 sheet of film. Now, the technology might exist in a lab somewhere or at NASA, but I'm just talking readily available technology.

Transparencies are another factor. I dont shoot transparencies and I dont project slides. I have also stopped following the tests that test digital vs. transparencies, but back when I last looked - back when I bought the 10D - digital was behind in raw, captured detail. But not far. I have no idea, nor does it matter to me if my 1DsII matches or beats anything at this point - it handles all printed media without fail.

Also, I imagine the biggest bottleneck in projection, digital vs. film, is the digital projectors. Even if the captured digital has more info, the projectors cant resolve it.

And let's not forget there are 40MP medium format digital backs. I assure you those beat everything. But no, I have not tested them against every possible option.
 
DevonKrain said:
It depends what you mean by exceding film. It exceeds it in practical use. snipped.......
Click to expand...

Okay but it sounds like you're talking about resolution. How does digital still match up to film in regards to contrast and black levels?. Those are two of the areas digital often comes up short in regards to film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top