Roger Deakins predicts the end of film

personally I think film has "character" that clean/clinical looking digital lacks. However, would I use film on any of my own projects? Hell no. Too expensive and time consuming. At the indie level.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
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.
Click to expand...


You're right... in a similar vein, my brother-in-law doesn't worry about the price of gas... 3, 4, whatever dollars, no problem... relative to his overall income... negligible... me... fighting for pennies...

On the issue of archiving, while there are issues with digital, we have seen many films decay into oblivion, because the studios didn't maintain the negatives, through neglect or even active destruction.
 
Archiving is an issue, but it's a lesser-of-two-evils issue.

Sure film decays over time, but it's still the best medium to archive, IMO. This is mainly because all you need to see the film is light. I can see a frame of film with a flashlight. That's it.

Meanwhile think about if you were an intergalactic alien and you found a BluRay or DVD of BladeRunner. How do you reverse engineer that?! First you must understand that the box opens... and inside is a silver disc... which needs to be read by using a laser as the disc spins about in a very particular way/speed. Then, if we can get readings from that laser, decode the way the light reflects off of the 'mini-mirrors' on the DVD to equate to digital information, in essence 1's and 0's. Then... if we've decoded that much.... we must know CODEC's. Those 1's and 0's are the basis of all human digital information... so we must know how to put them together and it's imperitive we know the codec. It would take thousands of years for someone to take such a random assortment of 1's and 0's and without any codecs to plug and test, create a codec that would decode the sequence as a movie. Once the codec is established, if ever, then you need to know how to translate that using a machine to a viewing system, like a television or computer screen.

Meanwhile, if an ET were to find my grandfathers 16mm films of my mother growing up... they'd simply need the ability to see light like we do and understand the concept of sequential images. Probably a safe bet in comparison to the DVD requirements.

Now you don't have to be an alien to see how with our ever-changing codecs, the issues at hand with digital. Not only can harddrives die, or corrupt over time, but codecs I used 8 years ago are becoming issues now as I can't open the video files on newer players.

I think celluloid film, if done properly, is our best bet. Take the Corbis photography facility. Underground fortress of sub-zero storage. Hold the worlds most prized photographs. Should keep them from decay for hundreds of years!

http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/76568/pict1967_corbis_fpf_pub.jpg

 
I wish people would stop calling it "celluloid." That material was phased out in the '50's as a motion picture film base. I know "celluloid" has sort of become the de facto generic term for motion picture film material, but it's wrong.

As for permanence, as long as you continually transfer from one digital medium to a newer one, future use should be pretty well be guaranteed, right? For the stuff that even matters? Or, just store the machine with the media. Also, motion picture film takes up a LOT of space compared to files or DVD type optical discs or even tape.

I don't think I'm going to miss film. It attracts dust, scratches, gets bent, creases, and it breaks. Certain colors on film don't translate very well when scanned. If you scan film and do a digital finish, you're at the mercy of more people in the post chain who have the ability to ruin the image quality.

Not to mention pollution from motion picture film manufacture (although I don't know how it compares to image sensor manufacture).

I too, preferred film up to a point, but now it seems to me to be unnecessary.




 
Erik Olson said:
Polyester-base silver halide negative film then.
Click to expand...

Well... by the time it's usable 'color' negatives... the silver halide has been processed away, and you are left with dyed layers of whateverthehell...

One of the more interesting 'archival' methods for film, was in the early days, 'copyright' could only be applied to a 'print', as in 'print on paper', and so film companies would print their movies on long strips of silver based paper stock... net result, we have films that the negatives are long gone, but these prints, when scanned, allow for us to see these films now...

But I will agree that a physical artifact, however produced, will in all likelihood last longer than any 'digital' means, if left unattended... We have clay tables from thousands of years ago... and some artifacts from those ancient times remain 'unintelligible'...

Few films get the clean room, temperature/humidity controlled environment that would be necessary for preservation. While there are also similar considerations for 'good' digital preservation, libraries can be distributed and so, while the entire world may to go hell in a handbasket, absent that catastrophic expectation, distributed digital storage can be superior to the current way film negatives are archived.

Although, it may also benefit to 'printout' digital films to some form of physical media that does not depend on 'the technology wonder of the day'... I think people do this with their happy shots... maybe they send their shots digitally to friends and family, but many people print them out for their albums...
 
Yes... despite the changes in what type of film we use, nitrate film, despite it's instability, did preserve the image the best and longest, if I can remember correctly. Anyone read this too??
 
Film and film cameras have been around 100+ years, digital cameras (at least in their modern form) have been around for a fraction of that. There isn't any doubt in my mind that eventually digital cameras will be just as highly evolved pieces of machinery, but so far that remains to be seen. I don't have first hand experience with Alexa, but I have shot RED on numerous occasions and to me, film still looks better (if all other things are equivalent). I think it's like the advent of CDs vs. records. Yeah, CDs are in most cases "better". But some people like the scratches and skips of analog sound - just like I like the grain and look of film.
 
Finnegan said:
I like the grain and look of film.
Click to expand...


I take it you've not seen too many contact prints from 8x10 negatives... nothing like it... for movie film I'd say that 70mm gives a superior look than some puny little super35mmpostagestamp...
(And don't get me started on 'fractalintripolationupscaled' looks 'just like shooting on 8x10 film...)

If we are to talk about certain features of 'film'... but for me the democratizing effects of 'digital', I think will allow eventually... for superior movies... ok, perhaps a bit to Polyannalike ever hopefulness... because my aesthetics about 'movies' doesn't reduce down to specifically 'film film as media'.

In terms of 'film film', few people have the local facilities to view 'film film' in a pristine state... I go to movies, and in the 'film film' houses, frequently the credits are telling on how well thei projectionist has aligned the lenses to the screens... how well the sprockets holes have 'held up' as the film has been sent around to the theaters... etc... We of course apprise the staff of these problems... but that's not going to change much... while the management is polite, one can 'read' that this sort of thing is almost never brought up by 'ordinary' guests...

While flatness of field, color calibration, etc. are part of the 'digital' setup... scratches, dust, and sprocket wear are not...
 
Last edited:
You'll probably still be able to shoot on film (if you have the money to do so) for a long time coming. You can still go out and take 35mm still pictures...even get them developed.

Hell, some people are touting 35mm point-and-shoot cameras as a benefit!

 
The same market those ads target wear necklaces with LifeAlert pendants dangling from them.
 
Erik Olson said:
The same market those ads target wear necklaces with LifeAlert pendants dangling from them.
Click to expand...

The Wife is given seminars at the local library on 'how to shoot your digital camera'... We have a session on 'knobology', and then lighting+composition, etc.
We had wanted to have a Photoshop Elements (chosen because PS-Elements is 'cheap' and we've been using PS for about 20 years...) recipe for every session... but most of the attendees don't have laptops, if they have a computer at all... the average age is commensurate with 'have LifeAlert pendant'...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I take it you've not seen too many contact prints from 8x10 negatives... nothing like it... for movie film I'd say that 70mm gives a superior look than some puny little super35mmpostagestamp...
(And don't get me started on 'fractalintripolationupscaled' looks 'just like shooting on 8x10 film...)

If we are to talk about certain features of 'film'... but for me the democratizing effects of 'digital', I think will allow eventually... for superior movies... ok, perhaps a bit to Polyannalike ever hopefulness... because my aesthetics about 'movies' doesn't reduce down to specifically 'film film as media'.

In terms of 'film film', few people have the local facilities to view 'film film' in a pristine state... I go to movies, and in the 'film film' houses, frequently the credits are telling on how well thei projectionist has aligned the lenses to the screens... how well the sprockets holes have 'held up' as the film has been sent around to the theaters... etc... We of course apprise the staff of these problems... but that's not going to change much... while the management is polite, one can 'read' that this sort of thing is almost never brought up by 'ordinary' guests...

While flatness of field, color calibration, etc. are part of the 'digital' setup... scratches, dust, and sprocket wear are not...
Click to expand...

I don't know how any of this is related to preferring the aesthetics of film. I grew up watching movies that were shot on S16 and S35, so for me, those aesthetics best reflect what the cinema is. It's totally 100% related to my perspective. I'm sure a lot of the kids nowadays will have an entirely different perspective, since they're going to be growing up during the digital revolution, and a lot of the movies they see in theaters are likely to be shot digitally.
 
Finnegan said:
I don't know how any of this is related to preferring the aesthetics of film.
Click to expand...

You mentioned 'grain'. For me 'grain' is the least of 'film's appeal'. Latitude of film is for me the most significant element. I personally associate significantly 'visible' grain with shooting at too low a light for the stock, then pushing to compensate. The development of faster stocks in recent years has minimized this.
 
Here is another quote from Deakins talking about the Alexa:

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...
 
Last edited:
It seems pretty clear to me that HDR is on it's way in. When the added latitude of this process becomes the norm, I see no reason why film will stick around. Yes, there are organic aspects which are unique to film, but I think up to this point the greatest argument for film was the additional latitude it offered compared to video. I think RED has launched the first salvo, but I fully expect it to become a standard feature on most cameras within a very short time.
 
I very much admire Roger Deakins' work - it's a large part of what makes the Cohen brothers films such a big draw for Me - and I was pleased to see Him win a Bafta last night for his work with True Grit.
(It also has an added interest for Me in a way, as He grew up in the same small southern England town of Torquay as Me!)

The BBC broadcast an interview with Him this evening, (the Deakins bit starts at 16:50 in) and He touches on the quality of digital technology now surpassing film as a shooting format.
It's also interesting to hear His opinion on how to work with Directors to achieve the right look for the story, and trying to avoid those Directors Who want to simply copy the 'look' of some other film.
He speaks a lot of sense, so It's a shame His segment of the programme was berely 8 miniutes!

Subjective arguments of 'film' v 'digital' rage on of course, but I'm sure I am not the only One that thinks that the real key to success in using any of these tools/formats/materials effectively, (as with all the other aspects, realistically) is in dealing with people!
 
Yes. Luddites still use film and say that it's part of the cinematographic pallet.. which is all true. But given the costly nature of the film beast, Digital is a democratising force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top