Probobly because film is not as true as real life look and gives things a romantic glow.
Kodak continues to produce Film :)
- Thread starter >Edward<
- Start date
Probobly because film is not as true as real life look and gives things a romantic glow.
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
That is a good point that few realize. Film can be much cheaper than going the Alexa route if you are smart about it and plan ahead. The whole "Digital is cheaper" is a myth at the higher levels. But it depends on what your priorities are.
El Gato Negro
Well-known member
I'm with you.
16mman
Active member
Some general thoughts about this thread:
Why are people so emotionally positive about film dying? Even if I wasn't a film enthusiast, I'd still be sad to see it go, or at least feel empathy for the people who use it. It's almost as bad as bad as the Playstation and XBox fanboys celebrating the slow demise of Nintendo. Also, I keep hearing the words "wealthy" and "eccentric" being tossed around. I don't consider myself either, but I'm still a huge film enthusiast. I collect and shoot with vintage film cameras, both still and motion picture. I guess you could call that eccentric, but I do it more for the price and quality. I own some amazing cameras and glass and have taken some gorgeous photos with them, all for a very small price compared to modern equivalent cameras and lenses I'd have to buy now. I've also been able to shoot some really moody black and white films on 16mm reversal.
Bottom line: please don't dance on the sick bed/grave of film. There are a lot of us out there who love shooting the stuff who will feel really bad when and if it dies. And we'll probably figure out a way to make it ourselves anyway : )
Why are people so emotionally positive about film dying? Even if I wasn't a film enthusiast, I'd still be sad to see it go, or at least feel empathy for the people who use it. It's almost as bad as bad as the Playstation and XBox fanboys celebrating the slow demise of Nintendo. Also, I keep hearing the words "wealthy" and "eccentric" being tossed around. I don't consider myself either, but I'm still a huge film enthusiast. I collect and shoot with vintage film cameras, both still and motion picture. I guess you could call that eccentric, but I do it more for the price and quality. I own some amazing cameras and glass and have taken some gorgeous photos with them, all for a very small price compared to modern equivalent cameras and lenses I'd have to buy now. I've also been able to shoot some really moody black and white films on 16mm reversal.
Bottom line: please don't dance on the sick bed/grave of film. There are a lot of us out there who love shooting the stuff who will feel really bad when and if it dies. And we'll probably figure out a way to make it ourselves anyway : )
combatentropy
Veteran
Maybe one day someone will make a film about film.
We all love film, and we all love films that were shot on film. But we also loved film quality. For many, it was ideal we thought we might never reach. Now the Berlin Wall is crumbling. And there is much rejoicing. But later, when the party's over, we will wax sentimental about our memories in our mother country, even if it was ol' East Germany.
We all love film, and we all love films that were shot on film. But we also loved film quality. For many, it was ideal we thought we might never reach. Now the Berlin Wall is crumbling. And there is much rejoicing. But later, when the party's over, we will wax sentimental about our memories in our mother country, even if it was ol' East Germany.
David W. Jones
Veteran
I have around 40+ years of working with film, but there is really no place for it in my workflow today.
On a related note, there are discussions just like this on writers forums where young writers claim their scripts are so much better because they used a typewriter and whiteout!!!
El Gato Negro
Well-known member
"Maybe one day someone will make a film about film." Shot on film?
16mman
Active member
That's great. I'm glad you've moved on and embrace the best tech rather than what you're comfortable with. I'm not arguing that film has better value, just that there are a lot of people who still like and use it and because of that we shouldn't wholesale dumpster it. I for one hope it sticks around in some form or other. It's a lovely tool and I thoroughly enjoy working with it, just as I enjoy shooting video with my DSLR.
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
It's not about the qualities of film but the commercial viability of continuing to produce film where the market for for film is shrinking to the tipping point. It might be "The Best thing Ever" but if it is not commercially viable to produce it at a "sensible" cost it will die.
The reality is al the major users of film have gone so continued production will be a commercial, not an artistic, decision by some business men looking at the bottom line.
The reality is al the major users of film have gone so continued production will be a commercial, not an artistic, decision by some business men looking at the bottom line.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Even in Film film days... 70mm film was 'better' than anything done on 35mm stock... yet the costs, for the negatives, intermediate stocks, projection prints, and last but not least... the fact that relatively few theaters had a 70mm projector... led to 35mm remaining the standard, with 70mm being downsized to 35mm for most distribution, no matter that 70mm was acclaimed by all to be superior.
I don't miss Film film all that much... occasionally I do wax nostalgic for those days of yore, when I would pay 25 or 50 cents for a all night movie house, put up with snoring, the occasional drunk pissing in the corner, watching movies that would occasionally break, and for the most part projected with equipment that dated from the 30's, the scratches, the sprocket jitter... and all that... but for the most part, watching a digital presentation avoids most of that, no matter how many times the media has been projected.
David W. Jones
Veteran
I miss the smell when I opened the can.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Is that all that needs to be done for that 'film' effect, a spray bottle of 'eau du Kodak'?
"For those nostalgic moments of former romance"...
Maybe I'll try out that standard 8mm Bolex, that I bought for a prop, and make a parody ad spot.
For the more hardcore, I could have 'eau du Fixaire'... or 'Bain du Stop'...
"For those nostalgic moments of former romance"...
Maybe I'll try out that standard 8mm Bolex, that I bought for a prop, and make a parody ad spot.
For the more hardcore, I could have 'eau du Fixaire'... or 'Bain du Stop'...
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
Nothing you have said in this entire thread makes you seem genuine about wanting alternatives. You have an axe to grind about film (I dont understand why?) and you will rejoice when film is gone.
Edit: With your thinking, DPs will be a thing of the past too because they arent worth the cost when Directors can work double duty and shoot and light it themselves. Sadly, I think that day is coming too (it already has in ultra low budget sectors)
bitcrusher
Well-known member
Film is dead! Long live Film!
I think the film hate is because it is represents a huge cost bearer that digital was able to erase.... or maybe resentment for not being able to break into the industry due to high cost..... or the whole DSLR revolution mentality..... more then likely its because we are on a gear forum and we love to argue whats best.
I think the film hate is because it is represents a huge cost bearer that digital was able to erase.... or maybe resentment for not being able to break into the industry due to high cost..... or the whole DSLR revolution mentality..... more then likely its because we are on a gear forum and we love to argue whats best.
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
All I was doing was countering your arguments. Perhaps you should look in a mirror when you say an axe to grind. You have twisted and turned in your reasons from the technical to the artistic and not really been able to substantiate any of them.
All I have been saying is that with the decline in film and the industrial process required to make it there will be a commercial decision made buy an accountant and some businessmen that it is no longer *commercially* viable to produce and film will cease. It is that simple. If there was a bright future for film Kodak would not have closed their plant.
I have a large amount of Nikon Digital still cameras. As the lenses work on all Nikons I thought I would get a Nikon Film body to relive my youth with 35mm still cameras. The problem is that few places sell film, even fewer places develop (and it is 7 day turn around) and the whole lot is a damned site more expensive to run. So in the end I did not bother.
The stills world has had the same argument over film and digital over the last decade yet the use of film in stills is down around 98% compared to 20 years ago. AFAIK no main stream camera producer makes a 35mm film camera any more.
I will mourn the passing of film still and movie in the same way I do glass plates and the early positive plate photos..... each was a passing phase in photography. When the new thing came in the old guard put up *EXACTLY* the same arguments used by those vehemently opposed to digital.
In a decade or three I expect the same arguments in favour of digital against the new imaging system what ever that will be. Like those who embraced glass plates, roll film and digital I have no idea what the Next Big thing will be.
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
Look, what do you want me to say? You speak as though the only scientific measures of image quality are resolution and dynamic range. If that were the case then yes, digital has arrived and in some cases exceeded film.
But that is a very narrow way to look at an image. I have repeatedly pointed out the color science but you say I am touting a religious argument and "artistic." There is nothing artistic about the argument that film has virtually infinite
color reproduction and digital (analog chip technically downsqueezed to digital) has a limited color acquisition that gets even further squeezed with compression.
I have also made the case for movement. I realize that global shutter has addressed many motion problems but, lets be honest, the majority of lower end cameras do not have global shutter. Rolling shutter is terrible for recording movement
and is not on par with a well registered film camera. This is also not a religious debate. Test it with two cameras and try a variety of pans, tilts, tracking shots, etc. You know what I mean.
Highlight roll off is also not an artistic argument. Film can handle more stops of detail in the highlights. This is a fact. Dont beliee me? Shoot a chart with different F-stops. The degree of latitude in the highlights will surprise you. Digital is, AFAIK,
not capable of matching film's high end latitude. Which brings me to...
Latitude in general seems to favor film. Film is more forgiving of mistakes. Sure, you can argue that "if shot right, digital can...blah blah" but anyone who has been on a film set (I assume you have been on many) knows that you need
some slack amongst all the craziness in production. Stressing over a blown shot is not something that you want to have to do. And if you are a DP, "shooting over" is going to be a very dubious idea when your Director said he loved the
last take but you feel you overexposed the shot. Ouch.
These aren't all of my points but these are some of them. You can dismiss them as religious arguments or artistic, or you can refute them with actual evidence (charts, specs, etc) that show that I am wrong. Or you can just accept that
film still does some things better. Even if you believe digital is the future that doesnt mean you cannot admit that film can and should have a place in the modern world.
combatentropy
Veteran
This thread is cursed or something. Everyone is saying basically the same thing but act like there are two sides and are arguing with each other.
Film is very fine.
But video is nearly there.
Plus it's easier and cheaper.
So most people now use video.
But still some people use film.
And probably always will.
The end.
This is the most milquetoast, inoffensive, level-headed, uncontroversial, reasonable, mere statement of the facts. And both sides are saying it. Yet they're still arguing about it.
"Film is great, but most people use video nowadays."
"No!!! Most people use video nowadays, but film is great!"
Matthew, I agree, in latitude film exceeds most videocameras. Also, I think rolling shutter is awful, a terrible shortcut. I'd rather have 9 or 10 stops and global shutter --- although we've seen that nowadays 12-14 stops are possible even with global shutter. It's literally so awful that for me it's a dealbreaker. I won't buy a camera with it. I have that luxury though, because video's not my day job.
However, the whole color thing --- I don't see that much of a difference nowadays. In fact, in a properly graded video, I can't even tell the difference. It's getting to where sometimes I think something actually shot on film was shot on video. I would really like to see the phrase "color science" go away. In usage it means nothing more than "color." And the people who use it, they don't sound like they understand electronic imaging. So they use it kind of to mean, "some voodoo color pixie dust that makes this camera for some reason look better than the other one, and that matters to me, because I forgot that I can change it all in post."
Shot with a GH2: https://vimeo.com/28454865
Shot with a 5D: https://vimeo.com/17424690
Film is very fine.
But video is nearly there.
Plus it's easier and cheaper.
So most people now use video.
But still some people use film.
And probably always will.
The end.
This is the most milquetoast, inoffensive, level-headed, uncontroversial, reasonable, mere statement of the facts. And both sides are saying it. Yet they're still arguing about it.
"Film is great, but most people use video nowadays."
"No!!! Most people use video nowadays, but film is great!"
Matthew, I agree, in latitude film exceeds most videocameras. Also, I think rolling shutter is awful, a terrible shortcut. I'd rather have 9 or 10 stops and global shutter --- although we've seen that nowadays 12-14 stops are possible even with global shutter. It's literally so awful that for me it's a dealbreaker. I won't buy a camera with it. I have that luxury though, because video's not my day job.
However, the whole color thing --- I don't see that much of a difference nowadays. In fact, in a properly graded video, I can't even tell the difference. It's getting to where sometimes I think something actually shot on film was shot on video. I would really like to see the phrase "color science" go away. In usage it means nothing more than "color." And the people who use it, they don't sound like they understand electronic imaging. So they use it kind of to mean, "some voodoo color pixie dust that makes this camera for some reason look better than the other one, and that matters to me, because I forgot that I can change it all in post."
Shot with a GH2: https://vimeo.com/28454865
Shot with a 5D: https://vimeo.com/17424690
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
While the term may have been popularized recently, there has always been manufacturer's differences in how their respective color materials responded, and some people preferred Kodak over Fuji, or vice versa, for that difference.
Canon 'color science' for their DSLR cameras have always had a tendency to have a 'yellow cast'... don't know why... other than the Canon engineers 'like it' and the Canon customers like it... Early on the digital Nikons had a 'purpleish/violet' twinge. etc...
While these may be 'graded' out, they have a tendency to have residual effects, especially when trying to match cameras.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Kodak is reputed (as in, I've seen and read some of the studies in the literature, but it's been decades and I don't have any idea where to find it now) to have actually produced a neutral color negative film. As in, really, really, neutral -- no color casts at all. A nearly exact match to nature. And... no one liked it. And I mean zero people liked it. In double blind tests, it never won.
It was a great lesson in the difference between what people say, and what they do. What they believe, and the actual facts. What Kodak learned is that belief != fact. And they were smart enough to learn the lesson.
Kodak films have nearly always had a warm bias. That is, an orange cast. Very light, but it's there. Fuji films tended toward green. Agfa tended toward red.
I have no doubt that human nature remains the same. People say they want a neutral camera, but they won't buy one. So Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and Sony all have their "signature color" because they have found that this is what the customers actually want.
Me? I'm afraid I like the "Panasonic look" which is completely silly since I can make it do anything I want in post, as I can with any of the "looks" from any of the camera makers. Still...