Is digital going make film go extinct?

U

UncleKornicob

Member
I know a lot of companies are switching over to digital because digital cinema cameras are far cheaper. Even some smaller companies have moved over to some of the higher end DSLRS. Do you think that in a few years all companies will move over to digital, making traditional film extinct?
 
It's my guess.The same way digital made cassette tapes, dv tapes, audio (reel-reel), go obsolete. There's no doubt that many many studios, television shows, and producers world wide have made the switch. Now that Sony has an affordable camera with global shutter, @4k Will most likely be the nail in the coffen. Thats not to say there won't be people still shooting film. There's a whole underground network of folks that still shoot super8 exclusivley.
 
Wait... cassettes are dead? I still listen to my Black Sabbath collection on cassette!
I can't be the only one left with a cassette deck...can I? :Drogar-Thinking(DBG
 
I don't think film will go "extinct" per se...it'll end up like still photography on 35mm. You can do it, but you have to look harder to find suppliers.
 
When Roger Deakins went from disappointment with the RED to stating he found the Alexa to be a very viable machine he enjoyed working with... made me remember when all my favorite still films bit the dust.

I'm in the process of setting up a B&W still darkroom, and I'm pleasantly surprised by how many materials are still available, and the talent and energy going into filling the voids from Kodak, Polaroid, etc. (and how cheap some amazing darkroom gear is on eBay...) It's a smaller market but very vibrant - I imagine motion picture film may hang on, but a big reason so many photo labs went under wasn't just demand - it was tightening environmental regulations as well.
 
Gary Huff said:
I don't think film will go "extinct" per se...it'll end up like still photography on 35mm. You can do it, but you have to look harder to find suppliers.
Click to expand...

Not quite. The problem is that film takes a huge amount of equipment and quite a few highly skilled people to run that equipment. When the demand for film drops to the point where either Kodak or Fuji can no longer pay those people without taking a loss, they'll close the film making operation. They'll have to.

And at that point, film will be effectively dead. Especially color film. So you won't be able to capture to it, or distribute with it, because you won't be able to buy it -- at any price. At that point color films will be completely gone. As in zero suppliers. None. Nada. Zip.

And this event should take place in the next couple of years.

If you want to know what it takes to make film, there's an interesting book by a retired Kodak engineer called Making Kodak Film. Very impressive. And it'll show you exactly why no one is going to be making color film when Kodak and Fuji quit. It's mind bogglingly complex to make an optically perfect medium with 24 or more layers. In absolute darkness. At 100 km/hr.
 
Extinct as in nowhere to be found, ever? I don't see that happening, honestly. It will simply become an extreme niche, nostalgic choice, or gimmick. Heck it's already become those things to some degree since it died last year.
 
Film is still alive and well as we speak. Numerous productions are currently shooting on it, both high and low-end. Just looking at some of the higher profile film releases from the past few months:
Argo
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
Anna Karenina
The Master
Samsara
Lincoln
Moonrise Kingdom
Beasts of the Southern Wild

Even The Dark Knight Rises

I was speaking to the people over at Kodak in about July last year and whilst they were struggling comparitively to when film was the only capture medium available, they actually mentioned a pickup in sales, especially of S16mm, particularly in the lower budget films.
Now, film certainly isn't as numerous as it used to be, but it's not dead yet, and I don't think it's going away for a while.
 
Last edited:
The problem for the viability lies in distribution, not acquisition. For each movie, the distribution prints were the boon to the film companies in terms of feet. Now that digital distribution is becoming the norm, less demand, less supply. The clock is ticking. I would think that in the future there will be boutique use of film for acquisition for those who can afford it. It's far from over but I think it's inevitable that digital will command all but a small percentage of films in the coming years
 
Yes, 35mm distribution is low, however you'll notice Kodak's commitment to archival films, as that's seeming to be the new market - archival on film is still the best way to archive material.
 
jax_rox said:
Yes, 35mm distribution is low, however you'll notice Kodak's commitment to archival films, as that's seeming to be the new market - archival on film is still the best way to archive material.
Click to expand...

Very true! I remember Scorsese in Side by Side making that very point
 
jax_rox said:
I was speaking to the people over at Kodak in about July last year and whilst they were struggling comparitively to when film was the only capture medium available, they actually mentioned a pickup in sales, especially of S16mm, particularly in the lower budget films.
Click to expand...


"People over at Kodak" are always making these claims. They were always the biggest film holdouts and spent mucho dinero trying to show how film was better than DigiBeta and HD.

And yet, Fuji has ceased production of motion picture film, film cameras are no longer manufactured, and motion picture film labs are closing all over the world.

Certainly if Kodak can keep the production going and there's even one lab left, studios can shoot on 35mm or 65mm if they want to but even then, at some point it won't make a whole lot of sense to do so. Red's new sensor rivals 35mm (and possibly 65mm film) film and who knows what Arri is cooking up.

It's over.
 
Last edited:
As Bruce says film will go extinct because it needs an industrial process to make it. ALso film has a shelf life and practically speaking a minimum batch run. SO unless some senile millionaires want to make a movie on film there will come a point in the not to distant future where fill will go obsolete. The nail in the coffin was hollywood going digital, that was the last big user of film.

In the UK two major photo gear suppliers told me that between 2000 and 2010 their still film supply side dropped 90%, of the 10% left 8% was academic and 2% int he field. Most of the universities and colleges are moving to digital so by 2016 they estimate their film business wil be 1% of what it was in 2000. I think I saw ilford quoting a similar decline. Consumer use of film (still or movie) has virtually completely vanished in the UK. (some one will find an exception I am sure)

So as Bruce says in the near future it will become uneconomical to make film, certainly at a price anyone will buy it at.
It is very sand and the end of an era but that is "progress"

This is why glass plate photography will probably outlast film... You can make photographic glass plates at home. You can't make photographic film at home.

The other point for movies is distribution... in the UK most cinemas have gone digital Just remembered a friend was telling me. They have their own high speed network between all the cinemas and the HQ. (all the major chains do this apparently) So they can put *any* digital movie in their catalogue in to any of their cinemas in about 5 minutes. Only the few independents can still show film. SO even if the movie is produced on film there are fewer places to show it so a much smaller market.

Also lets face it any one can run a digital movie most homes, businesses and shops have a CD/DVD/Blue Ray player.... how many still have projectors? And will they be the right size?
 
Last edited:
Kodak, Fuji and a few others have already shut their domestic film businesses - the price of film processing will soon mean that cost and speed will remove it from all but the mega budget movies.

We've been turning away cassette audio from our theatrical productions for years now. We've had reel to reel, cassette, El-cassette (remember them?) 8 tracks, Phillips PCC and we're still moving with so many different card formats, and even now with a drop in player for apple kit, we now can't do i-phone 5. Technology is racing - film has so few advantages, and lots and lots of disadvantages. Can it hold on? I doubt it.
 
But film is still the only viable HD archive material for long term use and I think that will keep it valid in the pro world for quite a few years yet.

as for audio there are also still people who record to 24 track analogue and then dump to pro tools for mixing.
 
I can't see how film is the only viable archive? Film degrades unless it is kept in perfect condition. though I understand even that degrades. AFAIK the big film archives are trying to digitise their archives. (though AFAIK this is partly commercial to make them more easily available for hire etc)

With a digital store it has an infinite life as it can easily be moved to new storage. The digital medium separates the content from the storage medium.

Even if it is the case that archivists use film if the film is not being made or is so very expensive I think they will move to digitial. Besides all the new material is digital anyway. Why convert it to film?
 
I think film for video might die sooner than film for photography merely because of the resources required with filming video analogue whilst most of the other processes around it is digital. What I think is still lacking in digital is the dynamic range that film offers - in its various guises.

Photography is a bit different. What a couple of photographers are enjoying about film again is in the result and merely the process of taking photographs. Digital makes photography almost easy, impersonal. Film captures if you will how the photographer goes about taking a picture. EDIT: And as mentioned, glass plate photography.

But that is just my observation based on few examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top