How long until film is dead?

the-lyons-den.com said:
I say never in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

Really? Are you 60 years old by any chance? (I'm kidding) Think about this; something I illustrated in another thread awhile ago. Sorry for the CUT and COPY from the thread...

Think about the rate technology advances over the course of say 20 years. Now; today MAJOR MOTION PICTURES are being shot Digitially. And not just by INDIE FILMMAKERS but the players: Lucas, RODRIGUEZ, Mann, Singer and lord knows who else......

10 or 15 years from now it will be stupid.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=26286&page=10&pp=10&highlight=DIGITAL

20 Years? Are you completely deranged? Do you know what advances that will take place in 20 years?

20 Years ago Mac introduced the Mac Plus with 1 megabyte of RAM. 20 Years ago, Microsoft was listed on the NYSE for the first time. 20 Years ago Microsoft and IBM were working together. 20 years ago, people were using the TANDY 1000.

20 Years ago VHS overtook Beta. 20 Years ago about 2000 Computers had access to the Internet.

Technology is exponential.

20 years? 20 years ago the Russians were a World Power. 20 years before that Kennedy was assasinated. 20 years before that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

Hey, I love film; I prefer film; but I am a realist and I see a revelution in technology coming. 20 years? Dude that is so far away; alot is going to happen.
 
Latitude. Specialty stocks like infrared. 1000+ ASA (yeah, yeah, but I grew up with ASA...screw it) and such.

When digital can (easily) do everything film can do, then you won't need film.

Dan
 
..id say john is correct . technology changes so fast now that whos to say what well have 20-30 years from now. 20 - 30 years ago digital anything barely existed.. now look at what we have.. and since technology increses on a curve our advancements should be more than 2 or 3x better than what was accomplished in the last 20-30 years over the next 20-30 years. id personally even estimate that advancemets will be more than 10 fold what they were over the last 20-30 years.

films days are numbered for being the major roleplayer in motion picture production.. that is for sure. ..but i think it will always be an available artistic choice for a very long time.
 
Nobody has tried to answer the question yet... how long do you think before 90% of cinema is shot on HD?
 
This life is what you make it.

This life is what you make it.

It's so interesting how far back all this [film-versus-digital debate] goes," concludes the cinematographer. "The book titled Electronic Motion Pictures said that soon we'd all be able to shoot motion pictures with electronic cameras, and that was published in 1955! It's a very straightforward history, but this change has been coming for a long time. In covering the first videotape recorder, a noted trade publication used the headline 'Film is dead' and that was in 1956! But at the end of the day, it's all about the telling of the story - how do you want to tell your story? That's the joy of working in this medium - we work in a medium that never stops changing. For people to say electronic is bad is wrong. You have to realize that these are just tools.
Click to expand...

[font=arial, helvetica][font=&quot][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Allen Daviau, ASC Experiments with Mini-DV[/font][/font][/font]
http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/daviau_minidv.htm
 
Walter_Graff said:
"I read where Spielberg did War of the Worlds digital. He loved it. It only took like 72 days to film (video!!)"

No he used film. He hates video (see quote below). He did do digital previzualization. Perhaps that is where the error comes in. Even cuts it the old fashion way. As for film is dead, who said that? Even 16mm is now being used more than it has in the last five years. And 35mm is far from dead. Video has its place but it is not and will no replace film in the major motion picture industry unless the new Panavision camera gets some use and folks like it. HD (HDCAM and VARICAM) is somewhere between 16 and 35mm in quality and the new Panavision camera is even par with film, but as I said, its up to the filmmakers. Just because you invent something does not mean everyone will use it.

From:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/war.html?pg=4&topic=war&topic_set=

"Neither pre-viz nor Zeno has softened Spielberg's almost fetishistic appreciation for film - not just shooting on film, which is still the norm in Hollywood, but editing on film, which is all but unheard-of anymore. For most directors, editing a huge, rush picture on film would be a suicidal luxury; for Spielberg, who's worked with the same editor since 1977, it's just a luxury. "I love being able to have an actual byproduct of photochemistry in the room with me," he says. "I love the smell of it. I love being able to hold up the film and see actual frames. I love hearing the butt-splicer cut through the celluloid. I'll do everything else in the digital era, from pre-viz to digital dinosaurs. But there are certain things I'm hanging on to tenaciously."

Lately, Spielberg and Lucas have been arguing over whether to shoot the fourth episode of Indiana Jones, one of the many projects on Spielberg's to-do list, in digital. "If anybody is able to get me to shoot on digital, George is the one," he says. "But do we want to evolve things to a clarity that is indistinguishable from real life? Movies suspend reality - suspend and extend reality. We're interpreters. If things get too clear, it won't look like there's an interpreter."
Click to expand...

I shouldn't read through magazines at Borders so fast. Then you see a line out of wired like this, ' How Steven Spielberg reinvented War of the Worlds in 72 days and learned to love digital filmmaking - fast.'
 
mmm said:
Nobody has tried to answer the question yet... how long do you think before 90% of cinema is shot on HD?
Click to expand...

I say by 2020; Hollywood and a majority of Major Motion Pictures will be shot Digitially almost exclusively sans the Speilbergs and Purists who won't let go. I believe the technology will indeed take over and surpass the chemical method (which it has not yet although I'm very curious how Superman holds up).

I believe we will see a rapid exponential surfacing of digital methods and photography in Hollywood due to the filmmakers that are not there NOW but will be there TOMORROW.

SO THERE; mmm. 2020. 90% will be shot Digitally.
 
dolby said:
A few years ago I had a client in the control room with me who considered himself to be a true "audiophile" and while we listening to a solo piano piece being played in the studio he told me how great the piano sounded because of the analog mixing console and Neuman mics that were being used. He then explained that he hated digital and how much it "hurt" his ears to listen to anything other than vinyl or reel to reel. I almost felt bad telling him we were monitoring through a DIGITAL 16 bit/48k DAT deck.
Click to expand...

Couple of things. First, that's a bad example. Just because something is distributed digitally does not mean it was originally captured digitally. It's like saying we're watching movies digitally on DVD, so therefore digital capture is indistinguishable from film capture. Of course, that's absurd. Same goes for music. Analog capture through Neve preamps and tube microphones is still preferred for many applications, especially guitar amps and vocals. It's a warm, round sound that can be faked with plug-ins much the same way we'd use color correction on video for a film look, but at the end of the day, the analog tape or film is still unique and some prefer it.

My take on all of this:
The people who shoot film today are safe. The people who don't will resort to digital capture and filmlook tools. It'll be "good enough" for most applications. Still, celluloid, like analog tape, will be available for a long time to come and will continue to be the first choice of most D.P.'s. Why wouldn't it? They know how to make it look awesome. It's better because they can create better results with it.

As time goes on and the dichotomy in the cost of digital v. film cost increases, fewer will have the opportunity to learn film as a medium. Access is reduced and eventually there won't be as much demand because the next generation is learning on digital tools. Think about R.Rodriguez. Why does he shoot digitally? Because he learned moviemaking on VHS when he was a kid, not S8. He's uncomfortable with film and likes video better of a familiarity complex. That's the only reason.

Film will always be preferred as long as there are D.P.'s, Operators, and Crew that know how to work with it. Eventually, these folks will retire and the DVX100 generation moves on with P2 cards and so called "film-look" plug-ins. Oh well.
 
I guess it's simply unavoidable and that simple. It's a generational and technological advance.

I liked the music analogy but to be fair; from my experience alot of musicians choose analog/tube over digital/solid state because simply because it is cool to do so. Sure, it has a percieved 'warmic' quality. Reminds me of the only buying an AMERICAN made Electric Guitar; it's just hype. Taking a tasters choice most people, including musicians, could not tell the difference if something was being played on a tube amp or solid state assuming all things were level; say Clapton was the one doing the playing? But I do see your point.

I also agree with your take on film/digital subject. But we already know that is going to happen and is happening; but when.......?

10 years? 15? 25?
 
John_Hudson said:
SO THERE; mmm. 2020. 90% will be shot Digitally.
Click to expand...

Thanks John!
:thumbsup:

Some great comments too! Maybe we should all take a wager on dates and then share the money out in how ever many years on the SHDVX90000user.com website.

I'll take ...er.... 2017 as the year that 90% of theatrical release (in the US) is HD.
 
a shameless post about my guitar stuff collection

a shameless post about my guitar stuff collection

John_Hudson said:
analog/tube over digital/solid state because simply because it is cool to do so. Sure, it has a percieved 'warmic' quality. Reminds me of the only buying an AMERICAN made Electric Guitar; it's just hype.
Click to expand...

John,

Agreed. I've owned five valve amps and a slew of lesser priced models.

My favourite amp?
A Russian-made Sovtek MIG-50 Head I bought used for $125.00. With 212 cabinet!!

Tone is tone and this one sounded better than my Custom-Shop Fender ToneMaster w/ matching blonde 412 cab, a 67 Marshall JTM45 head with 1960A cab, Mesa Trem-O-Verb (2xEL34) 212 combo w/ Celestion Vintage 30's, Orange AD30TC 212 combo (again, Celestion V30) and played countless others: Vox, Budda, several excellent vintage Fenders from '63 to '87. The best tone was from the Sovtek. Freakin' unreal mad tone. I love that amp.

"Lables mean nothing to me."
 
I use Valve (tube) amps too, but for hifi, not guitars. They do have a warmer sound. This sound is less accurate (ie distroted) but sounds nice, so I don't really care. Music is about enjoyment, not osciliscopes. I'm running an 80s vintage Audio Innovations 7.5w amp with ECL86 tubes, or a 60s vintage HMV555 Stereoscope (with built in osciliscope) with EL84 tubes for 10w. I'm building my own design with ECL82 I think, similar to the ECL86s. Should be good for about a couple of watts. I have a 80s vintage Michell Engineering Gyrodec (record player) for a source, and a pair of large horn loaded loudspeakers, with single Lowther units in them. Plays all the volume you need on 1 watt. It all sounds fab!

Accurate, no, but fun YES!

Graeme
 
Stop it already. Your making me drool. Man, I haven't played in years other than an acoustic screwing around. Music and Art (Oil Painting). Two things I wish I applied myself more towards.

Guitar was fun. Damn; jamming was cool. Never got past 'Garage Band Level' unfortunately. We sucked hard.
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
This sound is less accurate (ie distroted) but sounds nice, so I don't really care. Music is about enjoyment, not osciliscopes. Plays all the volume you need on 1 watt. It all sounds fab!
Click to expand...
A string of truths has never been more accurately stated. You've got some really fine equipment there, Graeme. I'm happy for you and glad to hear a technology wizard appreciates music as much as me, but then again, you're British right? What else could one expect? Of course you love good music! What you say about watts is so true.. The efficiency of the good stuff boggles my mind. (thousanths-place THD levels are sick!)

So far as lower wattage valve gear for guitar, I recently heard an Alessandro Beagle, a 10W Class A amp, and must say I think I've found my new love!

Brian
 
Sounds good to me. I love listening to music, and I also like to create with audio gear, hence my project to build tube amps. I built the loudspeakers myself, and I have plans for bigger and better ones if I ever get the time to devote to such a project....

Graeme
 
I just finished off making my own speakers as well.. found partsexpress.com a few years ago and has kept my little hobby of building stuff alive. I have a tablesaw under my bed.

I dont know about the analogue vs digital, I just got a new reciever that reproduces a pretty warm sound pretty damn well, and the little microphone you put in the middle of the room to set up thespeakers and match each tone is incredible.

Oh I just got my laptop to run off of DVX batteries :)

Oh.. and... im going to say 2015 re the 90% cinema. If you look back at just the last 3 years and realized the advancements I think things are gonna start steamrolling.
 
The music analogy is a good one. John, up until the time I had to stop playing, I used every bass amp available for both electric and string basses and found there was definitely a difference between tube and solid state - and they both had sounds I liked for different purposes (as an aside, one of my favorite combos was a mix of old and new - an old hand made custom tube amp with modern Hartke speakers - great for jazz string bass). I've also recorded in studios from London to LA. But there is a difference between creating a sound and capturing one (even though I'm sure you could tell the difference between true tube distortion and solid state distortion, although new modeling amplifiers have come a LONG way).

But when it comes to capture what we're really talking about is the perception of sound. Many folks like the "warmer" sound of analog - especially in rock music. Well really when they say that, they're usually talking about distortion. It's just that in the analog world a bit of distortion is pleasing to us, unlike in digital where it simply breaks up. But using distortion on purpose in the analog world, was not something that was always done. It was done to create a certain sound and it is a sound that many came to like and want. Doesn't mean it's better, just different.

I think the real analogy there is more akin to frame rates. Digital recording has reached a point where it is more accurate than analog in many respects. But the harsh reality is not necessarily pleasing for all forms of music (at least any that please me). Now look at video. 60i is much more realistic isn't it? And yet we shoot 24p, an anachronistic unrealistic frame rate, for aesthetic reasons. Well if I'm recording a jazz quartet I still want to record analog (or use analog components in the signal chain) because I want that certain sound (Stan Getz meets Chet Baker maybe or Sonny Rollins or Miles or whatever). It is more than 0s and 1s, it is a feeling that the music has when processed a certain way. Maybe in time, when folks like me die out there won't be anyone doing it anymore, but as long as cats like me exist, that technology will exist, not because we're afraid to move on, but because we like that distinctive sound.

I think film will have a similar fate. Pretty soon video will offer much of what film offers - not all of it, but much of it. And once it is realized that most folks cant tell the difference or don't care (and other factors come into play as well such as new digital distribution chains) then most films will be shot digitally - even if there are those that can still tell the difference. But those who can tell the difference and prefer the differences that film has, will still shoot on film. That doesn't make them ludites. Look, for most music it doesn't make a difference. I mean if you record Brittany or any of this rap **** who really cares if you record digitally or analog, and in fact digital is part of what gives current pop music its sound. But if you're recording the three tenors with the New York Philharmonic, you might care how it's recorded. So if you're making "Dumbass and Jagoff go to Taco Bell", yeah, maybe you don't care if you shoot digital. But if you're making art, well, you may still want to shoot on film, for the sake of the art you are trying to create.

Just a thought.

Matt
 
The thing is, with audio, digital / solid state gear is now so good it can realistically fake the tube sound if you want it, but there's something magical about tubes that cannot be faked, and it might just be the nice warm red glow you get from them!

However, you might think that the analogy would be that there's something magic about Film too. There is to some people, but not me. I yearn for the look of old tube video cameras recording to Ampex quad video tape. There's a certain feel about this old technology, the smoothness, the comet trails on highlights etc. that's just beautiful. The amazing thing is, that the 4k HD video demonstration I mentioned that Sony were displaying had that smoothness of tube/quad that I love so much. It didn't look like harsh, digital video, or grainy unstable film, but beautiful smooth, high resolution, lovely detailed video.

I think what it comes down to, is that the like of video or film is a cultural thing, not a technical thing. I do believe that although HD video (not super HD video) is still technically inferior to Film for shooting, in the end result, that is, people watching the movie in a cinema, there is no superiority over the Film chain, especially with the digital intermediate process. It will also help tremendously when the people shooting high quality video are those who grew up watching video and shooting video and editing video. I'm sory, but it really does seem that Film shooters often don't know how to shoot video, and just as I would have a hard time seeing through the traditional Film development process to "know" what the end result will be, I can shoot boring, flat looking video knowing full well how great it will look after I've "developed" it in the NLE with advanced colour corrections and effects. I don't see how anyone who doesn't love video could produce great video, or someone who doesn't love film could produce great film. And then you get people who just love cameras full stop, and they can produce great results with anything as they've trancended the media.

Graeme
 
As an aside, a related one I hope:

A friend and I went to see the film 'November' the other day, you know, the one that won the cinematography award at Sundance last year, shot on the DVX... anyhow, after the film was over I said to her that I would be quite pleased if something I shoot on my DVX looks that good, and she said, "yeah, well, it still looks like video to me", and although I have to admit that almost every DV feature that I've seen does look like video to me (for example, I just saw 'Lonesome Jim' tonight, and it looked VERY video to me), but almost all of 'November' did not remind me of video even remotely (good lighting? of course)... So, I walked away thinking that she's just one of those purists that will never feel good about watching something shot on video unless someone lies to her and says it was shot on film first! ;-)

*then again, I'm open to the possibility that my hopes were so high for ‘November’ that I went into an altered state of denial just to get my DVX/”film” fix! ;-)
 
..man i hate that. .. its like me being a vegetarian now after years of being a total meat head. (health choice only .. im not totally strict about it, but i do stick to it pretty well) my freinds tell me they wont touch my "nasty tofu garbage" .. but if i invite them over for a barbeque, and feed them the quality veggie hotdogs (not the cheap stuff) and other type "fake meat stuff" and they love it. I told one guy the other day and he then turned and said he vowed never to eat "meat" at my place again. ..i then asked him why he thought vegetarians would have meat lying around... ..anyway point is that peoples will percieve what they want to percieve.. even if its against logic.

...digital -film.. whatever.. nobody cares if they dont go into the theatre looking to play the digital vs film game.. people with no preconcieved perceptions only percieve what they should be.. and that is the story..


(and in the case of food.. it should be the actuall taste.. :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top