Roger Deakins predicts the end of film

Futchibon

Futchibon

Well-known member
I do believe that it will only take another year before we see the vast majority of productions being shot digitally - Roger Deakins.
Click to expand...

I was quite stunned to hear this, given that the "master", who has shot some of the most stunning films, from the Coen Brothers to KUNDUN, A BEAUTIFUL MIND and JESSE JAMES, is now currently shooting his first digital film - Andrew Niccol's (GATTACA) new sci-fi thriller NOW, on the Alexa.

Scorcese and Roland Emmerich have finished shooting moviers on the ALexa, and Peter Jackson is shooting his HOBBIT films with the Epic.

The quote is taken from here:

http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1672&p=8464#p8464

In addition he says:

It is hard to say whether the Alexa looks 'better' than 5219 or an image produced on any film emulsion. That's a very subjective question after all. It is also one that depends somewhat on the format you are shooting in and whether the film will be finished digitally or photochemically, projected digitally or on film, and whether the release prints will be done from an IN, from the original camera negative or from output DI negatives. If you ask me whether the Alexa can produce a more pleasing image (that is more pleasing to my eye) than film in a 1:85 format, I would say unequivocally yes! If you were to compare a print from an original anamorphic negative (a slower emulsion) with an equivalent wide screen image extracted from the Alexa, then I would say that, under optimum circumstances, the film image might be more 'pleasing'. But if you were to pose this same question whilst insisting that the the scene be lit by a single candle, I would say that the Alexa would win out every time. If you were to shoot using the Alexa and anamorphic lenses then the Alexa might win out over film in every circumstance including bright exterior sunlight.
My preference is to shoot spherical wide screen rather than true anamorphic. Judging by the comparison between a wide screen extracted image from the Alexa and a Super 35mm film negative (both being viewed in a digital format) I would give the edge to that from the Alexa. However, the Alexa has a sensitivity of 800ASA and can be used at 1600ASA with only a slight noise increase. That has to be a factor in any comparison.
I don't believe Kodak has any real stake in the digital market. If they really can produce an emulsion rated at 2000 ASA, which is truly comparable to today's 500 ASA stock, then I think they should do it very quickly! The Alexa can produce an image equivalent to one shot on a 500 ASA film stock, but at a rating of 1600 ASA and it can do it now. It seems to me that film is limited by its inherent physical properties but also, and more tellingly, it is limited in its practicality as a business model.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
People have been predicting the "death" of film for decades. It is obvious that there will come a time when the transition is complete, just like it has for stills photography. Whether that'll be in the next year or not, we'll see. Tools like the Alexa certainly have accelerated the viability of making the transition.
 
Barry_Green said:
People have been predicting the "death" of film for decades.
Click to expand...

I've been predicting that since the early 80's when I worked with image processing equipment and cameras that cost millions of dollars... just took 30 years for cameras that I could afford to show up...

I think the technology is getting to the point where the capture on negatives then digitized, will be seen as an unnecessary step... at which point the negatives will go. On the other side, when digital projection becomes the norm, film will disappear outside of specialty markets.

What I'd like to see is a resurgence of 'small theaters' and not just ones targeting porn markets... for venues that don't have a megaplex worth of overhead to demand only highly profitable fair be shown.

I think digital distribution and projection will allow for that. Don't know if anyone will exploit it though.
 
Barry_Green said:
People have been predicting the "death" of film for decades. It is obvious that there will come a time when the transition is complete, just like it has for stills photography. Whether that'll be in the next year or not, we'll see. Tools like the Alexa certainly have accelerated the viability of making the transition.
Click to expand...

You believe that after 100 years, film will just disappear within the next year? I understand that an all digital work flow, (and evidently, less use of film) has been made possible over relatively recent years, with obvious advances in technology. But I don't believe that film will simply drop off of the face of the earth, as soon as next year, as I'm reading it.
 
I don't think anyone's suggested that film will "disappear" within a year. Heck, even Super8 is still with us, 30 years after it was supposed to have "died".

As I understand it, Deakins' prediction is that within a year the vast majority of major Hollywood productions would be shot on digital, as opposed to historically when the vast majority have been shot on film. I sincerely doubt that there will be such a rapid transition, but I think within five years it is reasonable to think that digital would be the rule rather than the exception.
 
If asked to bet on the winning format (in terms of overall general adoption by the majority) in a battle between analog and digital anything, the smart money is always on digital in the long run.
 
He's not predicting the death of film just the death of film as the acquisition format of choice. Personally I think that is a no brainer. Digital formats now can exceed the resolution of film and are at least very close in latitude. Once the high end acquisition formats get the low light capability that the DSLRs have now that is pretty much it for shooting on film for 99% of the productions. Films all go digital now anyway for VFX and color correction. Starting digital is a pretty natural choice.

Films are still going to be released on film. Less and less in the US but that is going to be a much slower transition IMHO.

A little fun fact is that film is actually digital also. the silver particles are there or they are not, it's just that the float in a layer of gelatin so the "digital" bits overlap at times.
 
And Nolan will still be shooting on 70mm negatives with chainsaw cameras! Yea!



j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
What I'd like to see is a resurgence of 'small theaters' and not just ones targeting porn markets... for venues that don't have a megaplex worth of overhead to demand only highly profitable fair be shown.
Click to expand...

This would be great! But I think it will only come when the economy makes a turn for the better.
 
You know it kind of makes me sad. It might be a decade before I get anywhere near the mainstream industry, and by then it might very well be an industry thats not so reliant on 35mm. Of course I know that in the end a camera is just a tool, but you can't forget the history of it. Hitchcock, Malick, Chaplain, Capra.. all of them shot on film. I'd like to think that I might at some point get to be part of that same tradition.
 
get a 16mm or 8mm cam :) lots around for pretty cheap. still gonna have to buy the film and develop it though....$$ :)
 
If digital anything had been around during the advent of motion picture film, they would have bypassed celluloid acquisition completely. The Lumieres, Muybridge and Edison were much too pragmatic to get choked-up with nostalgia over a medium. We shouldn't let it bother us either. Always forward.
 
Noiz2 said:
A little fun fact is that film is actually digital also. the silver particles are there or they are not, it's just that the float in a layer of gelatin so the "digital" bits overlap at times.
Click to expand...

Interesting. But still I wouldn't consider that "digital" since the silver particles change randomly across frames, in size and position, so you cannot read them as a sequence of "symbols" and apply algorithms upon them. The concept of digital doesn't mean having discrete elements, but having the structure of a "code", a "language" (for example the binary language of two states: 1s and 0s, but it could be any algorithmic language for that matter).
 
Heck, even Super8 is still with us, 30 years after it was supposed to have "died".
Click to expand...

Yup, there's like an underground super eight users group that shoots it exclusively, Believe it or not , there's stil R&R that goes in to improving and making new super eight stocks. It's just not real popular. But it's certainly not dead. Just unconsious, hehe

I think that when people say " Films dead" their thinking of the masses, I imagine they know there's always going to be certain people that use it for specific types of shooting.
 
jscottprice said:
And Nolan will still be shooting on 70mm negatives with chainsaw cameras! Yea!
Click to expand...


Hasselblad has been offering a large sensor still camera for a few years now, and other manufacturers have offerings for 4x5 cameras, that is a sensor that would appeal to the crowd who likes 60mm x 60mm type negatives, or larger... I would imagine that even the 70mm of Nolan's will eventually borglike assimilated...

The two big problems with large sensors is the yield with minimal defects, and in terms of electronics, the rapid rate of reading the data out of the sensor array...
 
Futchibon said:
I was quite stunned to hear this, given that the "master", who has shot some of the most stunning films, from the Coen Brothers to KUNDUN, A BEAUTIFUL MIND and JESSE JAMES, is now currently shooting his first digital film - Andrew Niccol's (GATTACA) new sci-fi thriller NOW, on the Alexa.

The quote is taken from here:

http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1672&p=8464#p8464

There are plenty more quotes of this ilk by Roger on his forum.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Yes it will take a long time, but it's going. Would you start a film processing business right now? My point.
 
I've worked with film. It's nothing to be heralded IMO. Maybe because I grew up with digital. Don't get me wrong, it's taught me a lot. It's taught me to take my time, to rehearse, to check check and double check (to not waste film). To do test rollls. To do as much prep as you can to get it right the first time. There is a certain quality to film as well, but part of me just wants to be rid of it. It's a clunky way of approaching the work flow IMO. The old Film vs Digital debates have gone out the window.

Erik Olson said:
If digital anything had been around during the advent of motion picture film, they would have bypassed celluloid acquisition completely. The Lumieres, Muybridge and Edison were much too pragmatic to get choked-up with nostalgia over a medium. We shouldn't let it bother us either. Always forward.
Click to expand...

Exactly! If they had the technology, things would be different. Film has always been a medium about technology. Always pushing forward, working with the best. If we stay back and become nostalgic, where would we go? The film industry, while it's been around for 100 years, is still relatively young. Let it grow and breath.

Sure there will be some traditionalists. It depends on the generation and what they grew up with, what they're used to IMO.
 
Thinking that film is inferior is a mistake however. If digital video was around 100 years ago, things would be different, but I think film would still be used quite often.

It's like thinking the native americans were 'primitive'. It all depends on how you measure progress.

Film done right and traditionally (photo-chemical process down to the release print) is still the cheapest and sometimes fastest way to make a film in today's big budget world. Just ask John Bailey or the Producers Guild of America. The benefits of digital in regards to cost and ease of use (workflow) really only surface as the overall budget shrinks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top