How long until film is dead?

You guys are preaching to the choir here with this post. Find some "Filmlovers.com" forum and post this same question there. Or ask people out there now in the Hollywood film industry (that do it for a living). See what they say.

90%. All we can do is take blind guesses. That's a complete changeover for Hollywood and there's a lot of history there to call about such a sweeping change. As far as I know most film students still learn on film, and they hold it higher than digital (the one's I have talked to at fests). There's a history there with that medium and a level of prestige from working in it. That's why you probably don't see too many top schools teaching the history of DV. It's still a footnote.

Shouldn't we all be driving around electric cars by now? Why aren't we? We are more than capable and have been for some time. There's more things to consider in this scenario and more factors than just, "I shoot digitally for my xxx thousand dollar productions and two blockbusters were released this year that were shot digitally and that means in a few years everyone will". I don't think anyone can guess or assume that yet. Sure I want this to happen too, and sure some young new filmmakers in the machine are going digital and other old-schoolers are maybe open to it, but not everyone in Hollywood is Robert Rodriguez.
 
Rosestar said:
Matt, there is a lot more to making a movie than what you've listed. Talent, perseverance, confidence and a good bit of luck are required also.
Click to expand...

Jeez, really??? I would have never thought that, thanks!
:thumbsup:

Seriously, I don't mean to rain on anybody's parade Rosestar, I think I have done more than my share in this forum (audio) to try and help young folks without much bread to try and get good results on the cheap. But the statement was made that you can make a movie for less than $5,000 including the camera purchase. Now, first I assumed that they were talking about a real movie. Not an epic, but a real feature length film that is meant either for theatrical distribution, direct to video distribution, or significant festival play (which would probably be a precursor to one of the other two). The second assumption, based on:

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.
Click to expand...

Is that some folks think that, including all costs both hard and soft, you can make a feature film for under $5,000. I just don't see how it can be done, and even you say that to do it, most of your equipment would have to be donated. Well that's still fundraising, your just getting the donation/investment in-kind instead of being paid in cash for you to purchase, lease equipment with. Hey, I good around with this stuff like everyone else, I don't think I'm any better and I go out of my way to encourage others to express themselves creatively, regardless of their means. But if you are going to put a bench-mark out there for folks to aspire too, I think it should be realistic and I just think $5,000 is too low. Hell ever add up all the little incidental expenditures even on a stupid short? I'm just finishing one, a stupid joke really, it has one actor and a few props, and it cost a few hundred to make. Could I have done it cheaper? Sure, but even though it doesn't look GREAT it would have looked much worse if I hadn't. And even though it's a stupid joke, it looks good and the audio is great. As far as the artistic side goes? It's stupid! But that's what can be debated all day. But to achieve usable technical results costs money. Not studio money to be sure, but more than $5,000.

Matt
 
I'm sure Warner, Mayer, Zanuck and the rest didn't think the studio system would collapse overnight either. Put your head in the sand and keep thinking film is forever, film is forever, film is forever...

Back in 1990 - what now seems like years ago - I was the guy working at Post Group who went out and bought an Arriflex package, ignoring the rantings, dire warnings and conniption-fits of my videohead contemporaries.

I told them that video would have no chance of replacing or substituting for film until latitude and frame rate (not through FilmLook-style processes) was remedied. Natrually, it was already well-known at this time that stretchy videotape was a poor archival medium to boot.

I was young and in that one instance, I was actually right about video not being ready to replace celluloid acquisition. Resolution for resolution's sake has not been the true limiting factor for quite a while, but the benefits of larger, higher res. imagers is undeniable. Increased sensitivity (just like 35mm versus same-stock 16mm), DOF and colorspace have all become vastly better with each new generation of digital imagers.

Ten years later this Filmboy would never consider investing in a 35mm BL package or even an A-Minima (The HD Killer!). The writing is on the wall. If you've been on eBay or Christy's or any of the Hollywood rags lately to see the old DPs trying to unload their packages - well, it's depressing!

Do you think Panavision is going to invest more R&D money and resources in the next-generation Millenium (warmed-up Platinum) or Genesis? Really. I'd bet that Arriflex has the same biz-dev plan with 2nd generation D20 versus 565 / 535 / 435 and so on. Which camera is on the top of their list? Oh, it's The D20. When was the last time Panavision made a sizable investment in Elaine? Really, come on!

e
 
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.
Matt
Click to expand...

Matt, honestly I agree that $5000 dollars is totally unrealistic for the vast majority of people who want to make films. I was just responding to your above quoted post, where you say there is no way to do it (BTW, in your post, you said, "Even if you don't include th cost of the camera...). I just wanted to point out examples of individuals that have done it.

Even though it has been done, I still say that these examples are extraordinary films, made by extraordinary people who had extraordinary circumstances. I agree with you that these should not be model for most people.

The lowest total out of pocket cost I have personally seen for a feature that was bought for home video distribution was $3000. However, this film was my buddies 81st film. He had made 80 other shorts, features, tv shows, ect. before he made this film. He knows what he is doing. Can everybody do what he did? No.

Now, I agree with you that the $3000 figure does not represent the full value of the services used to make this film. I'm pretty sure that the cast an crew worked for some type of back end deal or percentage (Which in most cases means they worked for nothing). It also does not represent the full value of my friends time and effort in writting, pre-production and in post. All that went into this figure is the total of all the reciepts for cash (or credit card) purchases during production and post. If you add in the value of the services rendered, it would more likely be $30K. All he has reciepts for is $3000.

Some people have the ability to gather people around them and get them enthusiatic about working on something with out monetary renumeration. Most folks do not have this ability and if you could buy it, you'd need more money than Lucas or Spielberg could raise.

$5000 is not a realistic figure to use to make a movie on, I agree with you. However, never say never.
 
mmm said:
Pookie,

You have to agree that ONE DAY 90% of cinema release will be shot digitally...? But how long?
Click to expand...

And why is that?

"Hollywood" is going digital for economic reasons, not artistic ones.

Any on "Hollywoods" latest slop will be just as bad on film or digital, so shoot it cheap.

Movies will always be shot on film.

"Hollywood" will go digital.


I think you need to understand the industry first.

Is film dead, no.
 
...how long until film is dead....??

A long time if Kevin Smith, Speilberg, and Cronnies have anything to do with it. :(

~reservoir~
 
All I can say is - reading this thread, I became bored very quickly. A lot of unfounded, redundant points on both sides of the argument.

I work in my other life as a software engineer (fancy word for programmer). My tool of love and choice is Smalltalk. Ten years ago, when Java hit the streets, everyone proclaimed, Smalltalk is dead. Today, it's still not dead.

I know a guy downtown Toronto who's making quite a decent living taking mostly portraits with a 8x10 camera and making platinum prints. Those were supposed to be dead a hundred years ago. He charges like $800 per sitting.

I'll let everyone make their own conclusion.

Cheers, go out and have some life! :beer:
 
The question wasn't will film exist, it was when will digital acquisition be at 90%. What do you mean by unfounded - the whole thread is speculative.

e
 
overlandfilms said:
The question wasn't will film exist, it was when will digital acquisition be at 90%. What do you mean by unfounded - the whole thread is speculative.

e
Click to expand...

Thankyou!

Pookie,

You honestly believe that we will never, ever see the day when 90% of US cinema releases are shot on film?? Apart from the world ending, I just can't see that, even if it takes 200 years!

HD is on the brink of aesthetically surpassing film. The price will only drop for the cameras. There are a million other advantages of digital... instant replay, no mag changes, no scratches hair or dirt, etc etc etc...

Therefore the only reason to continue to use film in the future (not the present) is because you are either traditional/irrational or just mad. This accounts for the 10% who will still be using film in the year 20XX.

Some in the industry are scared of HD and know that film works so why change, but as people realise the potentially better quality picture of the latest HD cameras, no one in their right mind will continue to pay a PREMIUM for having the massive disadvantages of film.

I also agree that film will not die. Like vinyl, it will have a cult status for many, many years. However, also like music, one day 90% of the market will be digital.

BTW, if you think a thread is long and boring, why read it, let alone add to it...
 
"HD is on the brink of aesthetically surpassing film".

That's an entirely different subject, and opinion.

"the only reason to continue to use film in the future (not the present) is because you are either traditional/irrational or just mad".

You've never shot film.

"no one in their right mind will continue to pay a PREMIUM for having the massive disadvantages of film."

LOL
 
Yes I have shot on film Pookie. As a director, camera department (although I haven't been DoP, which I accept has the major input on this topic) and lighting - spark to gaffer. I doubt I have as much experience as you.

I am not talking about the present!!! I am talking about the future!!!

Please explain why you think HD will never surpass film. I see why film will always offer something that digital won't... like in music, but we're talking cinema release here. I am honestly interested in your opinion!

I am not interested in you trying to discredit my opinion!

You keep shying away from the question that I am asking.
 
My attitude is closely aligned with Pookies. I think that most of the majors will switch to digital in about a decade, however, this switch will be done for economic reasons.

One thing that has not been brought up in this debate is the fact that Kodak and Fuji also have at their disposal tremendous techology and very smart people to utilize it. While DV and HD have been on the rise, the film manufactures have not been sitting on their thumbs. Anyone taken a look at the new Vision 2 stocks? OH MY GOD!! I do not care what kind of side by side demo anyone has seen, HD is not, at this point in time, able to surpass the image acquisiton capabilities of these stocks in good cameras with good optics. I mean they have a true 500 EI stock that is virtually grainless and has the latitude and color reproduction that only lower speed stocks could provide just a few years ago. If I had my druthers, I would shoot the Vision 2s on everything I make. Even though I haven't tested it, I am sure that the '18 stock could take a full or half stop push without even beathing hard and come out looking great. In this scenario, using the '18 stock, rated at 1000EI, I could shot with a smaller crew, under more difficult environmental conditions, using fewer lights than any HD camera system could ever even think of doing, right now.

"Ok hot shot why don't you do it"- ****ing economics!

And do you think that these are the last film stocks we are ever going to see. Of course not. I fully expect to see a virtually grainless, low contrast, high color reproduction, true 1000EI stock within a very shot time.

Then there is the DI wildcard. I believe that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the capabilities of the DI process. I also believe that we are seeing the highest cost for this process right now. The digital revolution will continue to lower cost in this area, till desktop CC for DI is available to almost everyone. The proliferation of laser scanners will also help to lower cost for filmout.

"So, what's the problem?" Rawstock and processing. The cost of rawstock and processing will continue to rise, lacking the inherent advantage of price accomodation that digital technology has.

"What's the answer?" Well for a lot of folks, Hollywood majors included, will be the continued cost advantage of digital acquisiton and distribution. I believe that the price advantage will out weigh aesthetic advances in the short term and will lead to the mass acceptance of digital production. While this is happening, I still think that film will continue to advance and will be used by individuals commited to the aesthetic choices that film origination will offer.
 
Rosestar, I toured the Kodak facilities in Rochester, NY last month and was part of a presentation on Vision 2 as well as several software packages they are getting involved in. Really incredible stuff.
 
the-lyons-den.com said:
Rosestar, I toured the Kodak facilities in Rochester, NY last month and was part of a presentation on Vision 2 as well as several software packages they are getting involved in. Really incredible stuff.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've heard about some of their software stuff. They are standardizing LUTs, for DI, right?

If not, what where you turned on to?

Cool, I would love to go to Rochester. Did you check out Eastman House at all?
 
#7299 is providing a way into film for video guys through a "lookless" 500ASA stock and DI.

Just think about how far video companies have come in only three years since the announcement of the DVX... look how far they've come with filmlook and feature set. It's crazy!

Learning to expose film properly using old equipment and an inexpensive telecine is stupid anymore. A new filmmaker would actually be better off getting a HVX200 and experiment with things they couldn't on film without a 60K investment: shutter speeds and frame rates.

Those experienced on film will continue its' use until they are forced into something else.
 
thisiswells said:
#7299 is providing a way into film for video guys through a "lookless" 500ASA stock and DI.

Just think about how far video companies have come in only three years since the announcement of the DVX... look how far they've come with filmlook and feature set. It's crazy!

Learning to expose film properly using old equipment and an inexpensive telecine is stupid anymore. A new filmmaker would actually be better off getting a HVX200 and experiment with things they couldn't on film without a 60K investment: shutter speeds and frame rates.

Those experienced on film will continue its' use until they are forced into something else.
Click to expand...

I'm confused, what $60k investment? Dude, I respect your opinion but am confused, please elaborate.
 
Hey Dave!

My point is it would be more helpful, imho, to a new filmmaker (which isn't the point of this thread, I know...) to have access to features like a variable shutter to try out different looks. SFAIK, no new film camera below 60K offers a variable shutter angle. That's something you get on a DVX100 used for $2K that isn't even found on a $15K used Aaton LTR-54 or used Arri SR.. Sure, it is there on SR2 or 3, but that package would be way more expensive to own/maintain than a 24p DVX. Point is: you can't adjust the shutter on a film camera without spending big bucks. You can adjust the shutter on a 24p camera (or nearly any video camera for that matter).

Film still offered a benefit for budding cinematographers in the variable frame rate category, but it appears the HVX200 will plug that gap as well. Sure, there's the film aesthetic, but what's more important when someone is learning how to take motion pictures? A beautiful aesthetic they can't afford to use often, or a camera that offers a similar flexibility (especially combined w/ 35mm lenses and depth of focus) to a film camera, at a tenth the price? Sure, it doesn't look the same, but it lowers cost of entry to traditionally high-end feature sets. I see that as being quite valuable. :thumbsup:

brian

Rosestar said:
I'm confused, what $60k investment? Dude, I respect your opinion but am confused, please elaborate.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top