How long until film is dead?

When digital video and HDTV become as easy to use and comprehend by the masses as it is becoming, my day rate is going to suffer. For those willing to learn film, in its impending obsolescence, still will get a better day rate working on the dinosaur of a format. Maybe it's not the old timers unwilling to learn or comprehend digital. Maybe its the ease of digital that is killing film. It doesent require as much knowledge as does all the elements and technical expertise that a film does, and its cheaper.
Film will die, and there will be people who still shoot on it when its dead, but then it will be a specialty niche, like it is now. As long as film buffs can tell the difference on the big screen, film will exist to the hardcore fans who believe celluloid takes you into another world.
 
I was at the kodak theatre a few nights ago, and picked up a complimentary copy of their "side by side" comparisons dvd. Basicaly it compares the same scenes shot on super sixteen and a variety of HD and mini DV camera's (sadly no DVX-chickens!). I can't tell if this is a sign of the end or the longevity of film. Personaly I feel that HD will have a long trial period on TV before it starts to cut into theatrical productions (i am talking aquisition). Does anyone know the percentage of theatrical films being shot HD now? Also, can anyone recomend a HD film with amazing cinematograpny? I have seen the Lucas, Rodrigues, Mann films as well as countless indies, and while they were not without their charms, I wouldn't say they have stellar cinematography.
 
I attended a SMPTE meeting in Toronto on HD v Film, and for all practical purposes, HD is more than good enough, and in many ways looks better than film. The only thing holding HD back was handling of highlights, and that has got a fair bit better in the 4 years or so since I saw that demo.

For you to get the best cinematography on HD Video, you've got to get people who love video, who know video, who understand video, who grew up with video, to make movies.

Graeme
 
Hooligan said:
I have seen the Lucas, Rodrigues, Mann films as well as countless indies, and while they were not without their charms, I wouldn't say they have stellar cinematography.
Click to expand...

Collateral won the BAFTA for best cinematographer(s!!!!). I think that was more of a technical decision though, because IMHO some of it looked quite ropey. Mainly the office chase at the end...Horrible highlights. Also watch the frame adjustments during the scene when Jamie Foxx is pretending to be Vincent in the nightclub..urgh! Some of the HD stuff does look good though

What I like about Collateral is that they used 35mm for the bits that they wanted to. I would have made more use of it personally, probably 50/50. I wonder if we will see any more HD/Film hybrid movies? It could be a good option during the transitional period.
 
The never ending saga of Film/Digital

One thing we get to hear alot of is "It will be a loooongggg time before Digital does do this." Well, how long? What is a long time?

It's already here; it is here without trial Hooligan. (Superman, Star Wars, Collateral, Sky Captain, Once Upon a Time, Jason X, Spy Kids, Personal Velocity, Band of Brothers (interview segments), Starship Troopers 2........................................

It's already happening.

I just did a quick search at IMDB.COM and there are hundreds upon hundreds of titles shot under the tech spec of HDTV and PCS:HDTV (1080p/24)

I always say it: It is already here. It has inpregnated the industry and will continue to do so. Technology is Quantam in nature. I can't fathom Bryan Singer shooting Superman Returns without being totally please with the tests of the Genesis.

MMM - Mann purposely shot that scene that way for what it is worth. (According to AC).
 
John_Hudson said:
MMM - Mann purposely shot that scene that way for what it is worth. (According to AC).
Click to expand...

Which one? The nightclub or office?

The bit in the nightclub is only one shot, and it isn't so bad on the DVD. It is the MCU on the bad guy. It doesn't look like a deliberate "24" shaky-cam style thing, it looks like the cameraman was readjusting very unsmoothly as the actor moves in the frame. Maybe it was just the best take they had! Blame the editor/director too I guess.

As they are running from Vincent, well standing in the elevator the highlights are particularly bad. I saw it in the cinema with a nurse (ie no camera experience) and when we came out she said "did some of that look like it was shot on a camcorder to you." That's when HD isn't good enough!!
 
HD is a pointless paradigm.
Let's call it digital just to call it something.
But not until a camera comes out with a 35mm chip with 4k resolution like the one arri does (but which only has 2 k resolution) will film become obsolete. The top digital cameras already got the lattitude and resolution (Viper...), I know the Arri has the depth of field, but none has the color latitude of film. IMO.
 
4K isn't really necessary for most work because audiences are already happy with 35mm films of today that only have a 2K DI (digital intermediate). 35mm project in cinemas will therefore almost always have a resolution below 2K because of the generational loss in printing. In a fully digital workflow, the 2K can be preserved perfectly throughout.

I agree that latitude is the biggest drawback. DOF can work for or against the cinematography.
 
John, aren't you here yet? We could have used you on the show! We're planning some beach time in your future neck of the woods for August once we wrap.

I have 4k in my pants! Just thought I'd add that to the HD conversation.

e
 
mmm said:
4K isn't really necessary for most work because audiences are already happy with 35mm films of today that only have a 2K DI (digital intermediate). 35mm project in cinemas will therefore almost always have a resolution below 2K because of the generational loss in printing. In a fully digital workflow, the 2K can be preserved perfectly throughout.
Click to expand...

Yes but what matters is that you start with the highest resolution possible. Even if you down convert down to 2k or lower you will still have a better picture because your original footage will be sharper. If you shoot super 35 and bring it down to 480 lines of resolution it will still look better than SD video or HD for that matter.

When I saw the footage shot on the new Arri with the 35 mm chip and 2k resolution it looked more like Super16 or old 35 footage than contemporary 35 footage, because of the resolution.
 
But really, in a cinema, you can't tell any difference between good HD and 35mm film by looking at resolution. The only thing that gives it away is the handling of highlights, and current cameras are a lot better than the ones I saw the demo with those years ago.

The quality issue is a dead duck - the quality of HD is more than adequate for cinema presentation of movies. Indeed, in many ways it surpasses that of film. The only thing holding back HD from being used more often is enough cinematographers that can under understand HD and are not blinkered by Kodak's film marketing FUD.

Graeme
 
Film is a generation away from being dead, or ten years away from being mostly dead. Electronic capture is already preferred for independent films in the $50K - 200K range. This has been my experience in my somewhat limited exposure to independent filmmaking. I can't imagine film being preferred in ten years for anything besides familiarity with crew members. Even that is changing. Sure there will always be a Spielberg kind of fellow who refuses to use a hybrid automobile in some attempt to "preserve the midbeginnings of the automobile industry" by only driving a gas guzzler antique roadster. The past will not simply disappear, but it's relevance in the mainstream does vanish-- and much quicker than we could possibly have imagined. Anyone remember cars WITHOUT catalytic converters?
 
Digital acqusition will replace film, not when it is absolutly technically "better" than film. It will replace film when the costs of the entire workflow is significantly less than that of the film work flow. In the current state of the technology, HD is "good enough" for theatrical use. However, we are only in the infant stage of the technology, therefore, the cost savings are not at a point where it can be universally accepted. That will rapidly change. The HVX should remind everyone of that. What will happen in seven years, when Sony has a $50K HDCAM-SR cam that records to an external HDD (or other IT based system) that can be plugged into the current crop of dual 10ghz Mac desktops with 15tb of storage standard? Cinematographers and in most cases, Directors, will not make the decision to switch from film to the digital systems, it will be made by Producers and the other providers of the finacial resources of filmmaking.

The arguments about resolution and latitude and color representation are nice intellectual excersises, but we have to be realistic and understand that the bottomline is the bottomline. As far as the BS that film format is such a small percentage of the total budget of Hollywood film that it won't matter, it is just that, BS. With time, the cost savings will make all the difference, no matter what the minute quality differences are.
 
Rosestar, I think what you say will definitely be true for lower budget projects.

But if you are paying Peter Jackson or some big director $20m to make a film, you won't force them to shoot HD in order to save $500,000. You won't force big name directors to do anything.

For filmmakers with real power, HD will have to surpass film for their aesthetic needs if they are going to use it.
 
Like you say thisiswells, I think HD/video has several other important advantages over film that MOST filmmakers want. I know some people don't like to see the footage back immediately and think it disturbs the set. Personally I like to know what I have shot.

It does change the way you shoot too, which some cinematographers dislike, ie using a monitor instead of a lightmeter.
 
Even if digital aquisition accounts for 95 percent of the movies being produced, i don't think that this would mean that film was "dead". I mean 90 percent of movies nowadays totaly suck. Does this mean that good cinema is dead?
As long as brilliant artists/craftspeople are working with any particular medium it will still live. As for their relevance, good movies tend to have a lasting universal appeal. There are hand cranked, silent flms that are still relevant today.
 
mmm said:
Rosestar, I think what you say will definitely be true for lower budget projects.

But if you are paying Peter Jackson or some big director $20m to make a film, you won't force them to shoot HD in order to save $500,000. You won't force big name directors to do anything.

For filmmakers with real power, HD will have to surpass film for their aesthetic needs if they are going to use it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, nobody is going to force those guys to do anything. I think that in relatively short order, the technology will offer too many advantages for these hotshots not to jump on board. Of course, they will be useing what ever the current crop of supercams are available and will pay the price to use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top