Kodak continues to produce Film :)

I did not say film was of low quality. I said digital has *now* equaled or surpassed it in most fields. There are many places were quality is paramount and cost is not an issue yet digital is used in preference to film

When you say "Show me a digitally shot film that compares to Lawrence of Arabia." compares in what way?
Also are you suggesting that nothing has improved since 1962?




 
jagraphics said:
I did not say film was of low quality. I said digital has *now* equaled or surpassed it in most fields. There are many places were quality is paramount and cost is not an issue yet digital is used in preference to film

When you say "Show me a digitally shot film that compares to Lawrence of Arabia." compares in what way?
Also are you suggesting that nothing has improved since 1962?
Click to expand...

Look, I am not one of those "it is new so it must be better" type of people. I am Grad student in Comp. Sci. so I respect digital technology. But because I understand it, I realize its limitations. First off, why do you even call these cameras "digital?" They are not digital acquisition but analog. They are converted to digital data early in the chain with ADCs but not truly digital acquisition. A true digital photo site could only read two colors per pin. To get even 8-bit color depth would require 8 pins per photo site which isn't happening, let me tell you. It is reading a voltage range (analog) and converting it to approximate values based on the methodology that the camera company uses for interpreting sensor data. Problem with analog circuitry is, their is only so much precision that can be gleaned from those voltage values. You cannot infinitely divide the precision of those voltages down because you will get "tolerance error" due to the inherent interference or "noise" in the signal. Film may have grain but it is different than video noise. Film is able to resolve infinite amounts of color because it is photons hitting silver halides. It is a physical medium so it isn't bound by the same problems that digital has. I liken the comparison to comparing a digital piano to an acoustic piano. The digital piano can sound good but it will never be an acoustic because it will always be bounded by a range of useful values. The acoustic has infinite tonality because you never truly use the same press hitting a key every time you play or use the same force on a sustain pedal...etc.

I personally believe, even with celluloid, that we have regressed. I believe the great movies of the 30s-50s were superior in almost every way to what we have now. You can argue based on resolution, DR, etc, but there comes a point when all the arguments dont stand up to the important determining factor...the eyes. Do you think The Hobbit looks better than Gone with the Wind?
 
jagraphics said:
I did not say film was of low quality. I said digital has *now* equaled or surpassed it in most fields. There are many places were quality is paramount and cost is not an issue yet digital is used in preference to film

Click to expand...

No doubt that 4K can match film in resolution. Maybe kodak 5203 has more then 4K.

I like film for the gradation of tones, when your eyes get used to seeing it digital just doesn't look the same. Most people are hooked on contrast.
 
pkw11 said:
Tell you what, I'll just sit here and wait for all of the great photographers (and movie makers) to start producing works that are better than Adams, Smith and William Wyler.
Click to expand...

Do you suggest there will never be artists that equal or surpass these greats because they shot on film?
 
pkw11 said:
Or the Adams photo "Moon and Half Dome" (I have the print made by the Adams gallery from the original neg), surely by now someone could take as stunning a photo with all of the new digital cameras available today. Where are the photos?
Click to expand...

Not Adams' best, but we can use it as an example. I would point you toward one Tyler Boley in Seattle. His printmaking skills eclipse Adams, and Adams is a ledgendary printmaker if there ever was one. The major difference between the two is that Boley makes inkjet prints, while Adams made silver gelatin prints. I've held plenty of both in my hands, and Boley's inkjet prints are superior. But Boley captures to 5x7 film, then scans the negatives on a drum scanner.

If you want digital capture also, I would point you toward one Charles Cramer. Cramer used to use film but has been all digital for a decade or so. Works largely in color, but also makes some excellent B&W work. I've held some of Cramer's prints in my hands also, and I'd put a Charles Cramer print side-by-side with an Ansel Adams print any day. He has a different vision, but it's just as valid, and he's at least as technically competent.

Another superior digital printmaker is Jon Cone in Vermont. He's more or less the inventor of digital print making, and certainly makes the best B&W inksets available. And he knows how to use 'em.

I could talk about George DeWolfe, and go on and on, but what would be the point? These people are out there; if you will but look for them, you'll find them.

pkw11 said:
Or could it be, that the new digital technology is inferior and that the people using this new technology are also not as skillful as the past masters?
Click to expand...

You're getting hung up on direct comparisons. Comparing analog to digital photography is like comparing apples to concrete blocks. They are different technologies. Each has strengths, each has weaknesses. The main difference though is that analog is at the end of a 150+ years of continuous development. The Kodak Vision3 films are truly amazing accomplishments. The ultimate film. Digital is still in its infancy, yet it's already being used by accomplished cinematographers like Deakins to make beautiful films. Every generation of sensors gets better to the point that they obsolete sensors that are just a few years older. This level of rapid change is indicative of the infancy of digital. And it also makes it difficult on photographers and film makers, because it's difficult to master a constantly moving target. That major cinematographers are willing to climb these constantly shifting learning curves is testament to the promise of digital, at least as they see it.

pkw11 said:
Question, could Bill Gates with all of his money make a fully digital recording of Beethoven's 7th Symphony that sounds better than the 1962 Deutsche Grammophon recording by von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic? Surely with a billion dollars Gates could make a better sounding recording than something made in 1962 on a tape recorder using 2 channels.
Click to expand...

Gates? Probably not. But Keith Johnson can, and does. Look up Reference Recordings. Scary good. Beats anything out of the old RCA and DG catalogs. And some of the old RCA stuff is dynamite. You want quality audio recordings, RR is one of the best.

pkw11 said:
And the fact that so much of what is being produced is just horrible, both from a technical and content standpoint, I think that it's obvious that the new cheap digital revolution is resulting in a serious decline in overall quality.
Click to expand...

You can think that if you want. I disagree.

In the age when anything is produced, the vast majority of it is inferior to the very best. It was just as true of Mozart's time as it was of Rock and Roll. We've saved and treasured Titan's paintings, but the lesser paintings of the period can't find room in the museums and are therefore forgotten. People literally wouldn't give a farthing for a Van Gogh when he was painting them -- because like you, they thought it "just horrible" and "a serious decline in overall quality" (must have been those newfangled blue paints -- damn that new technology!). Me, I think that Van Gogh guy was really pretty good. But I'm looking back at it through the lens of history.

I'm just sayin' that it's a struggle to make good new work. And in the process of making it, there are far, far, far more "failures" than there are "successes". So yeah, a lot of what's being made today is junk. As it should be. As it has to be.
 
Last edited:
I remember watching A woman under the influence in 1973. There was a scene with the boom still in the shot and Cassavettes edited it in. Pure genius I thought . For some overly philosophized reason...the accidents of film are just so much more aesthetically pleasing than the accidents on digital. Will that still hold true in 100 years , when digital will be the archaic medium on it's way out ? Really beautiful Hunter.
 
bitcrusher said:
No doubt that 4K can match film in resolution. Maybe kodak 5203 has more then 4K.

I like film for the gradation of tones, when your eyes get used to seeing it digital just doesn't look the same. Most people are hooked on contrast.
Click to expand...

As far as film projected in a theater, I have installed one or two 35mm theater projectors in college venues many years ago. The very best projected resolution I saw from a calibration test film was around 850 lpph, roughly equal to the best HD resolution. In a traditional film finishing process, not modern DI, by the time you went from camera original through internegatives to release prints you were 3 generations down, sometimes 4. Film is not as much about resolution as one might think. Modern 4k digital projection is far ahead of film in virtually every meaningful respect. Film acquisition finished and projected via modern digital intermediate and digital prints looks so much better to me. A recent example that blew me away for on screen quality was The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. Gorgeous rich natural color and far better resolved in a 4k digital theater than you would ever see from a film print even though finished at 2k.

The same can't be said of most digital camera originals though, and most of the defects certainly at the low end are more related to color and tonal rendition, codec compression artifacts, rolling shutter artifacts, aliasing and moire. At the high end, the top of the line Sony's, Alexa, Reds can come awfully close to film, even better it in some ways, but still seem to lack a certain depth and richness that film originals still retain. Most digital color looks flat and lifeless by comparison with very few exceptions.

 
Both those films are soft and did nothing for me ,true some over sharpened video looks bad in the opposite way but video as a rule is superior now adays.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
So what video have you seen that is superior to Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Lawrence of Arabia?
Click to expand...


So you are not arguing Film vs digital technology and pragmatics of use but art and religion. No empirical evidence will ever satisfy you. There is no point in the discussion.
 
jagraphics said:
So you are not arguing Film vs digital technology and pragmatics of use but art and religion. No empirical evidence will ever satisfy you. There is no point in the discussion.
Click to expand...

I was responding to flinty's remark that video looks better. So I put him to the test. You can argue that it is subjective but, nonetheless, one should be able to publicly quote some sort of digital production
that rivals some of the best works of film. Of course we are all entitled to our opinion but I noticed digital fanboys are reluctant to put their names and reputations into stating that some digitally acquired "film"
is equal in quality to the best film has to offer. Why do you think that is if it is textbook "better" than film?
 
Well last time I saw Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Lawrence of Arabia they were all digital projections.... Never seen them on the original film. They may have been shot on film but since that point I bet most people have only seen digitised versions.
 
jagraphics said:
Well last time I saw Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Lawrence of Arabia they were all digital projections.... Never seen them on the original film. They may have been shot on film but since that point I bet most people have only seen digitised versions.
Click to expand...

You are confusing projection with acquisition. Did you really not understand what I was saying or are you deliberately stating a red herring?

I do not deny that digital projection can be a good thing (lossless transfers, etc.) like some film fanboys do. I am referring to film and digital as acquisition mediums. In a perfect world (IMHO) digital technology would be
increased for the purpose of better scans, better editing, and better projection. I think film should be used for acquisition and for archival. So each technology would have two items in the chain and it would be the perfect
medium. Sadly there are narrowminded people on BOTH sides of the argument that fail to see that they can coexist and even complement each other without calling for the opposite side's demise.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
You are confusing projection with acquisition. Did you really not understand what I was saying or are you deliberately stating a red herring?

I do not deny that digital projection can be a good thing (lossless transfers, etc.) like some film fanboys do. I am referring to film and digital as acquisition mediums. In a perfect world (IMHO) digital technology would be
increased for the purpose of better scans, better editing, and better projection. I think film should be used for acquisition and for archival. So each technology would have two items in the chain and it would be the perfect
medium. Sadly there are narrowminded people on BOTH sides of the argument that fail to see that they can coexist and even complement each other without calling for the opposite side's demise.
Click to expand...

It is clear you are a fanboy for film as your arguments keep chaining and are emotive not empirical. There is nothing wrong with film per say but the economics and work flow mean it will die. As stated many times in this thread once the volume of film usage drops below a critical point (and it is plummeting to that point as some speed) it becomes uneconomical to make it. Then the huge factories needed for production will close. After that film will become very expensive and not an option for big Hollywood type films.
 
jagraphics said:
It is clear you are a fanboy for film as your arguments keep chaining and are emotive not empirical. There is nothing wrong with film per say but the economics and work flow mean it will die. As stated many times in this thread once the volume of film usage drops below a critical point (and it is plummeting to that point as some speed) it becomes uneconomical to make it. Then the huge factories needed for production will close. After that film will become very expensive and not an option for big Hollywood type films.
Click to expand...

Empirical? The problem with your reasoning is that you assume every difference can be quantified. According to how you interpret things, a CD should be able to sound as good as a live performance because the sample rate and bit depth should support it. Everyone knows that isnt true though.

And I still feel that color is one area where digital is not there. If it were then why do pretty much all professional colorists prefer film?
 
arniepix said:
I fear you may be confusing acquisition with storytelling. The 2nd really has very little to do with the 1st.
Click to expand...

Well, I am shooting a dramatic feature soon. I do not think that digital supports drama like film does. Soft and warm supports the mood more than sharp, harsh, and flat. Come at me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top