How long until film is dead?

Once again folks are trying to make commodities something more. This argument is like saying we should have switched to other sources of energy other than oil years ago. We could have easilybut its not about commodities.
 
Is it true that for some applications, film cameras are alot more robust and reliable than a goofy high def camera with all sorts of cables and monitors attached to it? Although for feature films this isn't so much of a problem, some people would probably still rather have a film camera....
 
But it's really not about robust and reliable with film, but about the final image. Film is based on random bits of iron and as much as folks try to create higher definition cameras, they can't seem to satisfy the film crowd. Today those TV shows you see shot in HD make pictures more like good 16mm than 35mm. ANd another problem we are finding out is that regardless of how high the high is in high def, in the broadcast system it gets lost in many ways. In screens HD is blurry as of today and just doesn't have the depth of film. Perhaps some of the newer cameras will offer better looking images. But then again its not about formats.
 
First to answer the first question, I agree with Jarred and believe it will take 10 years before 90% of all theatrical features are shot digitally. That being said, I believe that the decision to go digital will be made, for the most part, because of economic concerns and not based on aesthetic choices. The studios are going to reap great savings in production and distribution with a digital work flow. All things being equal that alone will fuel the shift to digital.

Even at that point, film will not be dead. There will still be people that will chose to shot on film. Look at it, 35mm film was introduced in 1898, 16mm film was intrduced in 1923, Standard 8mm film was introduced in 1933 and Super 8mm was introduced in 1965. Even though Standard 8mm cameras have not been produced for almost 40 years yet you can still buy the film and shoot with it. Kodak has just annouced a revamped line-up of Super 8mm films, regrettably with the demise of Kodachrome 40 also announced. What does this mean? Just that each of these formats, like video formats, are just tools, that the artist can chose to use. Each format, film and video, has inherent aesthetic qualties that an artist can choose to exploit to make the visual statment of their choice.

Even with the great advances that the DV revolution has fostered, I can not help but to have a little bit of disapointment. With the ease of use and relative high quality of DV cameras and editing systems. I really had high hopes for the development of a new aesthetic, a Digital aesthetic, divorced from the video vs. film debate. One of the best examples of this hope was expressed by Jon Jost here:

http://www.dv.com/news/news_item.jh...=/xml/feature/2001/jost0901&_requestid=660472

Well as anyone who has looked through the post on this site knows, the development of a new aesthetic is not really a priority for most DV users. Most people want to figure out how to make their $3500 DV camera record pictures that look like 35mm film. When they don't get it exactly right and post their project for others to see, they will almost inevitably get the dreaded, "Looks like video to me" post. How sad.

35mm film is what it is. DV is what it is. The new crop of cameras comeing out willl be what they will be. Let's use these tools, or rather, let's use the tools we can afford to use, to the best of our abilties and make beautiful images.
 
"That being said, I believe that the decision to go digital will be made, for the most part, because of economic concerns and not based on aesthetic choices. "

The cost of shooting any film makes up about 1-3% of the total budget of a major motion picture so your argument is without merit. Example: The total budget of Star Wars One was US$115 million. The cost of film was $600,000.

"The studios are going to reap great savings in production and distribution with a digital work flow. All things being equal that alone will fuel the shift to digital. "

On a major motion picture you are incorrect. The cost of doing things digitally is the same as film. The only savings is on the front end with tape costs. Equipment rentals for camera is the same and the persons and equipment costs to make digital costs the same and some times more. And distribution is a political issue which has little to do with anything but who controls what.
 
I'd say that it will be a while before everything is distributed digitally. I used to work at a theater and we had some projectors that were made in 1972. They had all of the latest DTS, SDDS and Dolby 5.1 sound equipment but the projectors are like a $100,000 investment. Don't forget that many theater chains are still trying to crawl out of chapter 11 because they had to spend so much money on stadium seating and new megaplexes (which often used the projectors from older 8 plex theaters that they were shutting down)

For a 16 plex like the one that I just worked at to replace all of the projectors with $100,000 digital projectors is $1.6 million for technology that could be obsolete in 5 years. Theaters have always been slow to adopt new tech. That's why in the 1960s they adopted anamorphic widescreen, so the theaters only needed a new lens set and aperture plate to show widescreen, not new projectors.

As for when more features will be shot digitally, that's coming faster than you think. Digital has already taken over the film schools since if the school owns a $100,000 camera that you can use for free as a student all you need is a few $80 tapes for hours of footage. Much better deal than if the school owns an Arri (16mm or 35mm) and you have to spend hundreds (or thousands, for a feature) on tape stock, development and transfer cost out of your own pocket. When the current generation comes of age many of them will have never shot on film because of the cost at the indi/student level and will simply know the digital workflow better. They will be used to lighting using zebra stripes and a monitor rather than a light meter and an exposure index. They will be used to being able to watch the dailies from that morning at lunch. Last year I was part of the last undergrad class at GA State to shoot on film, 16mm in fact transferred to BetaSP and edited on AVIDs that were part of macs from like 1998. The following fall they switched the class to shooting on PD 170s and editing on FCP. Grad students almost never use film anymore either because the grad department owns a CineAlta 900, a DXC-D30, an XL1S and a DVX100.
 
Film is simply a tool to create a flavor.
When enought people think Taco Bell is real Mexican, then film is dead. If you don't know anybetter, then you don't know.

I think every video guy should shoot at least a few hundered feet of 16, if only for perspective.
DV, HD, Hdv, x,y,z ... they all are like that TV spot ... "It's just like a BMW". No, I'm sorry ... it's a Honda.
I Think clients want it, but as craftsmen we should at least know the difference.

Lost of Love,

Steve
 
"Digital has already taken over the film schools since if the school owns a $100,000 camera that you can use for free as a student all you need is a few $80 tapes for hours of footage. "

This is a generalization and not based on fact. Fact is the better more respected film schools all still teach film. They offer digital filmmaking too but I don't know a person that attends who doesn't take film classes in at least four schools where friends teach. Others have switched to cheaper video but you will more than like ever see anyone come from them that makes a living in the field of filmmaking. The real film schools like UCLA, NYU, USC Columbia, AFI, etc all make a strong foundation in film and its those people that will end up for the most part making a living in major motion pictures, not because they shot film in school but the better schools attract the better more serious students and have the connections one needs to make it in the world of major motion picture filmmaking. And to this day the graduate thesis are all shot on 16mm. Walk around any park in NYC during the school season and you will see student after student project being done on 16mm. In fact come to think of it, I have never seen any student using video for such a project. Sad the rest don't see the advantage of teaching the film basis. Learning film makes your foundation in any other medium much better IMHO
 
Rosestar said:
...the development of a new aesthetic is not really a priority for most DV users. Most people want to figure out how to make their $3500 DV camera record pictures that look like 35mm film. When they don't get it exactly right and post their project for others to see, they will almost inevitably get the dreaded, "Looks like video to me" post. How sad.

...35mm film is what it is. DV is what it is.
Click to expand...


I for one have no qualms about desiring to make a moving picture, shot with a $3500 DV camera, look like 35mm film. Fortunately I have seen examples (albeit a few), of movies shot on DV that to my eyes, and 99% of the non-filmmaking audiences eyes, are indistinguishable from celluloid. At that point it is irrelevant what a film buff or veteran filmmaker sees. Yes, that is the goal for some of us (motivated primarily by economic factors), and the reason it's the goal, as opposed to accepting a new digital aesthetic, is because viewing audiences around the world have been trained to watch the 35mm/24p type of moving image, and anything else just looks different, i.e. it stands out and often times distracts, though I bet that if I polled that audience last night at SIFF (primarily film buffs), that probably 80% or more were not distracted by the video look of 'Lonesome Jim', I was, but I'm one of the almost impossible to please technophile filmmakers that was scrutinizing (mostly the lighting decisions), but nonetheless, I really doubt the audience was distracted at all. Would the same exact shots, lit the same way, look different on film, you bet, but it doesn't mean that DV lit accordingly can't look as good as film, i.e. not distract an audience with the fact that it's a different medium.

In the end most of us just want to tell a story, entertain, provoke, and/or educate, without the distraction of a new aesthetic that will cause the audience to focus more on the “new aesthetic” than the actual story being told. Perhaps pieces like 'November' will help usher in such an aesthetic transition, or blur the lines sufficiently whereby more DV projects that are well light will not be noticed for their format but watched and enjoyed for the pure visual storytelling.

I can't help but go back to the audio analogy as the comparison is perfect: As a musician myself I am extremely grateful that I can record 48 tracks of amazing sounding audio for less than $1000 when 20 years ago this would have cost hundreds of thousands in equipment or tens of thousands in studio time. There was a time not long ago where almost everyone from the old school of audio complained that "they could hear the difference" and even today I occasionally hear that claim, though almost nobody on the planet could actually discern one from the other in a blind test, which I believe will become true for DV/film comparisons as well. In the end what I need to care most about is what I hear or see, and what the audience hears or sees.

The moral of this story is: please yourself first, then your audience, and never hold your breath waiting for 100% of the filmmakers to agree with you about anything that you say is "good" *oh, and when will 90% of all films made make the transition? Ok, I’ll say about 12 years, see you in 2017! :happy:
 
Shawn, I agree with you regarding how great technology is. I have a recording "studio" in my apartment that would have cost over $250,000 to build when I was in college. It's fantastic, and that's not even getting into where midi and soft samplers have taken us (EW Quantum Leap Orchestra for example). We are even reaching a point where we can simulate the "mistakes" of analog to fake the sound, so maybe I'm just a dinosaur in this regard. But it's interesting that even after the digital revolution in audio, you now see studios investing big dollars on older analog gear. They're not going back to recording analog completely, but they do use analog components in the signal chain, and they do it for a reason. It's why even for a home based studio, you would be willing to fork out over $2,000 for a pre-amp instead of using the one that comes with your audio interface.

But anyway, others have made my point better. There will come a time, when folks like me (in audio) and you (film/video) cease to exist and the new generation will work with the aesthetic that pleases them the most. At that point it wont matter what video can or can't look like, it will be their artistic choice. In the end, isn't that what matters?

I like the idea of pursuing a new aesthetic, it's sort of Left Bank. But hey, I'm strange that way. I was watching a rerun of Battlestar Gallactica last night. Obviously shot on video, but man it's beautiful. Does it have a film look? Sure in a way, but it has it's own look more than anything else and that impresses me.

The problem with folks saying "it looks like video to me" is that that statement is so vague. Are you talking about gamma curves, are you talking about lighting, framing, art direction? WHAT looks like video? Sometimes you can't pin it down, it's just "something"... For example, I've seen the trailers for November and it looks like it was shot on video to me. But it looks freaking gorgeous!! Do I care that it was shot on video or that it looks like it? Not at all.
 
your right about a blind test.. here are some frames splitting a viper filmstream with 35mm
both taking the same shot.. without previously knowing which was which or just guessing it right by some chance.. id laugh at anyone said they could tell.


viper-35mm3large.jpg


viper-35mm1large.jpg




one difference in the otherwise very controlled test that should have been corrected was that one camera was focused closer than the other.. thats why one forground may be sharper and one background may be sharper..




and for those who dont know already.. or want info on how the test was done, heres the answers

http://freespace.virgin.net/shaw.clan/dpviper35mm.html
 
Walter_Graff said:
"
The cost of shooting any film makes up about 1-3% of the total budget of a major motion picture so your argument is without merit. Example: The total budget of Star Wars One was US$115 million. The cost of film was $600,000.

"The studios are going to reap great savings in production and distribution with a digital work flow. All things being equal that alone will fuel the shift to digital. "

On a major motion picture you are incorrect. The cost of doing things digitally is the same as film. The only savings is on the front end with tape costs. Equipment rentals for camera is the same and the persons and equipment costs to make digital costs the same and some times more. And distribution is a political issue which has little to do with anything but who controls what.
Click to expand...

Walter, so are you saying that the inevitable switch to a digital production and distribution is being done for artistic/aesthetic reasons?

I understand that the cost of format is a small percentage of the total budget. The largest expenditures on a major motion picture is the above the line cost with fantastic fees to the stars, directors, writers, certain other creatives and producers. I also know that the majority of below the line costs are consumed by labor costs. However, I think that you are looking at the current state of things. The huge above the line costs are a corner that the majors have painted themselves into and there is not much that can be done about that. However, there is a concentrated effort to lower the below the line costs. Just take note of the prevalance of "runaway production" to Canada and elsewhere. This is an effort to lower the labor cost of movie production. I believe that these efforts to lower cost will extend to the eventual adaptation of digital production for the majority of productions done by the majors.

"Example: The total budget of Star Wars One was US$115 million. The cost of film was $600,000."

Walter, I again humbly disagree with you on these figures. Rick McCullam, Producer of Star Wars 1 has been quoted as saying the they saved an estimated $2million by switching to digital for Star Wars 2. $2million is $2million!. Even with a budget of $115million, it would be wrong to say that Star Wars shot vastly more film than the average major production, which has a budget in the range of $50million. The lower the budget, the larger the percentage of costs (or savings) the format represents. There is one simple fact. The cost of film production will continue to rise, year after year. The cost of digital production and distribution will (or has the potential to) decrease year after year.

"The only savings is on the front end with tape costs."

Walter, again, I must humbly disagree with you on this. Let's use the Star Wars analogy again. Star Wars 3 opened on 3661 screens. Let's be conservative and say that that they only paid $0.20/foot for these 13,000 foot 35mm prints. That is $2600 per print or $9.5million to open this film. That is just for the prints. What does 13,000 feet of 35mm film weigh? What does it cost to ship these prints? Now, I know digital copies will not be free, but an all digital distribution system would reap great savings, on a per project basis. Studio executives are a lot of things, stupid is not one of them. You can not say that digital distribution would not be cheaper, even with smaller releases. They know that.

"And distribution is a political issue which has little to do with anything but who controls what"

Abolutly g*d d*mn right!! It has been widely reported that the majors are gearing up for large investments in the digital distribution infra-structure. Are these quys softies, who want to take the financial burden off the theater owners? Of course not, with collaborative efforts to control the digital distribution chain, they see a competitive advantage. He that controls the projectors, controls the content. This is the sad fact of the matter. Instead of the democratizaton of media we are all supporting, this system will be a barrior to entry for the independent. The majors, will reap the rewards of the lowered cost of digital distribution and if you want to play, you have to be with them.

Yeah, I stand behind my belief that the move to digital production and distribution will be propelled forward by the profit motive, pure and simple.


BTW, in my above post seeking the rise of a new aesthetic, I did not have the intention to diss anyone seeking to obtain a film look with their mini-DV gear. I just want to foster a spirit of experimentation and for people to use the inherent qualities of each format for personal expression.
 
I would say that in 20 years you can choose if you want to shoot in 35 or digital like a painter choose to paint with oilpaint or do it with Photoshop because it looks the same.
 
I am new in filmmaking, and i can say that honestly--I bought the DVX and I do all of my video and audio digitally--do i do that for artistic reasons? NO! I shoot on digital and edit that way because I am able to do that by myself, and I can afford to do that. For the Robert Rodriguez "Rebels Without A Crew" or for the low-budget indie films, digital is GOD! There has never been a time before that we could make our own films for less than $5,000 (including the cost of a camera) until now. Truth be told, if I had the pockets, I would have a couple of $100,000 35mm cameras and an editing system in my house. But I obviously can't afford that. But, to the studios--what's the difference between a movie that costs $5 million and $50 million when they are going to gross $500 million for it when all is said and done (those are numbers I pulled out of my backside). That being said, as those of us in the digital realm begin to move into the high budget film industry--we will be much more likely to embrace the digital filmmaking.

Here is the main difference. The studios do not like for one person to have control over a picture. Ask Bob Fosse and Robert Rodriguez--who have both gotten crap from studios for wanting to have singular artistic control of the editing process. When more people work on a movie, you get more people's input. Therefore the film is much more likely to be a success, because we all bring different things to the process. Digital is easier--but it will mean a major revamping in the way we make films.

Who knows what any of that means--I guess I'm jonesin' too.

J.D.
 
Its just not the tape stock savings during production. you have processing as well. Plus, you gotta scan the film because everything is done by DI nowadays. Those last 2 steps are completely eliminated in the digital world.
 
It doesn't matter whether you paint with watercolours or oil paint - it's still art. It doesn't matter whether you use Film or Video, as long as it's an informed choice, not done through predjudice. It's not wrong to like video, or to like film or both. Video is now more than "good enough" for projection on a big screen. Anything beyond that is your own personal artistic choice.

Graeme
 
jdsmith19 said:
There has never been a time before that we could make our own films for less than $5,000 (including the cost of a camera) until now.
J.D.
Click to expand...

And that time still isn't here. Whenever I read this, and I read it plenty, it blows my mind. There is no way that you can make a movie that anyone other than friends or family would care to watch for less than $5,000 even if you don't include the camera in that figure.

But maybe I'm wrong, so please. Break down your $5,000 budget for me and tell me how you will use that to make a movie.

Matt
 
MattC said:
And that time still isn't here. Whenever I read this, and I read it plenty, it blows my mind. There is no way that you can make a movie that anyone other than friends or family would care to watch for less than $5,000 even if you don't include the camera in that figure.

But maybe I'm wrong, so please. Break down your $5,000 budget for me and tell me how you will use that to make a movie.

Matt
Click to expand...

It has been done before. Tarnation by Johnathan Caouette. Cost to first cut, $281.

http://www.i-saw-tarnation.com/

Red Cockroaches by Miquel Coyula. Cost, $2000.

http://www.redcockroachesmovie.com/light/index.htm

The Last Broadcast by Stefan Avalos and Lance Weiler. Cost to first cut, $900.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122143/

I'm not saying everybody can do it, but it has been done.
 
In 10 years we'll be transitioned over almost completely.

Within the next decade, 8k or higher resolution raw imagers with latitude surpassing perhaps by two-fold today's 35mm celluloid stocks should be hitting the top-end market and filmless distribution will be well-established at 4k - very old news by 2015.

Acquisition will be entirely solid state, with at least fifth generation removable media on consumer and professional systems alike. Usable form factor is more likely to influence the physical size of this meda than physical data storage restrictions. Incredibly fast wireless data transfer technology might well negate the need for anything more than repetitive hard-patched safety dupes anyway.

Film labs will likely cease to exist as we know them - surviving players will have since transitioned into post-production data centers processing and securely distributing media measured in perabytes. If there is any market for film processing, it will be small, boutique house spin-offs specializing primarily in restoration and conversion efforts.

This is the future I see based squarely on what has happened to still photography in the past six years. Of course, it'll be fun to look back and see what really happens!

e
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top