Roger Deakins predicts the end of film

How so, Ryan? I would have thought the Alexa would cost much less than a 35mm camera setup, and then when you add film stock and processing on top of that surely it would be cheaper?

And aren't just about all big films put through the DI process, which I would imagine would favour the Alexa?

Or do you mean that because 35mm has the infrastructure in terms of projection in theatres already, whereas digital projection is still relatively rare?
 
35mm film cameras are less to rent versus high end digital cinema cameras. Arri Alexa, shooting ArriRaw to a cine deck would be roughly $2,500/day in my estimates. An Arri 535 or MovieCam Compact would be around $800/day- 1,000/day. A fully pimped package with a newer film camera (film cameras it does not matter, since film stock + lenses = look, so long as it can pull the film properly through the camera at 24fps) can perhaps get to 1,500/day. Still, a possibly huge savings.

35mm to DI is also not what I am talking about. That can get pricey when having to process the film stock and then take it to Digital Pacific and scan on a 4k spirit scanner, taken to 10bit DPX, colored on autodesk and then arri-scanned back to film. That is professional film DI workflow and that is not cheap.

I am talking about photo-chemical all the way to release prints struck from the inter-negatives.

But furthermore, the DI process, and digital post workflows are just now getting to be more efficient. The amount of extra work, and employed people it takes to work a film through DI, and to a finish can quickly add up, even on digital origination. This again, is for big films, not people editing on FCP and exporting on a MBP.

If I remember, when I was at the PGA/ASC camera assessment presentation at the Academy, I believe the film camera was still the least expensive, and I also believe that might not have been photo-chemical. I think they did 4k scan it, 10bit DPX down to 2K because all the footage was 2K'd.
 
Last edited:
timbook2 said:
which you must admit is awesome and a dream come true somehow. same for audio work...I used to rent a truck with a 2" tape recorder and MCI desk, now that technology fits into a suitcase ( but doesnt sound as good).
Click to expand...

A Film & Video interview of John Lee, an additional editor of Inception, a film that was shot and finished photochemically (as was Dark Knight w/ exception of VFX):
F&V: Some editors have told me that’s been the biggest technological advancement of the last few years — because full-fledged editing can be done on a laptop it’s very freeing.

JL: Yeah, but it’s also a bad thing. When you’re traveling, you may fly to London or wherever and it’s, “Can you do that scene while you’re on the way?” And it’s like, “No, I was thinking of eating peanuts and watching a movie.”
Click to expand...
:)

It is awesome.

But finishing a professional film is still being done at large agencies such as Laser Pacific. However, indie productions are taking RedOne footage from RedCineX -> FCP -> Color -> FCP -> exported end medium... and god willing if you have the time and HD space, you can do that on a calibrated monitor and powerful laptop.

What we really need, and what the committee of standards at the ASC is trying to do, is get a more unified way of standardizing workflow and color calibration. Soon we will have the power to finish a film completely on a desktop or laptop, but scrambled for a standard way of doing it.
 
Last edited:
I think it's hard to say at this point, whether film will be completely overshadowed by digital. For example, people began to lose interest in vinyl records (at their peak, 33 1/3 and LPs), and less were mass produced, but they never quite disappeared because people still owned vinyl records, and/or record players. Some people tossed their player or records in the attic, some kept them in plain sight. Vinyl records (78s) were being produced since the late 1800s and blossomed in the late 1900s, More recently, they have found an audience again, partially due to the fact that people still owned records or record players. Enthusiasts could be credited to saving the medium. Yes 33 1/3s are produced yet 78s have been left behind, but all records are still readily available and new players are being mass produced to accommodate the demand. Yet, MP3s and CDs co-exist, but cassette tapes have disappeared in between. Of course, processing film at the moment is not as inexpensive as buying a used record and a new player.

People still own film cameras, and may or may not in the future. If people still do own film cameras, and decide to revisit them, maybe we'll see a resurgence of people shooting on film as professionals or as hobbyists, or maybe film cameras be soldered together to create a work of art.

New exhibit coming to the art museum in the year 2055: ARRI ala sculpture.
 
Jimmy Pierce said:
New exhibit coming to the art museum in the year 2055: ARRI ala sculpture.
Click to expand...

Never!!!

08010701_blog.uncovering.org_maquina-escrever.jpg
 
I, for one, am not going to hold my breath waiting for the "Death of Film". If anyone really thinks that digital acquired images look better than images acquired on film, when projected on a 60' screen, well.... they may want to get out more.
 
David G. Smith said:
I, for one, am not going to hold my breath waiting for the "Death of Film". If anyone really thinks that digital acquired images look better than images acquired on film, when projected on a 60' screen, well.... they may want to get out more.
Click to expand...

Have you seen Alexa footage?

You do know who Roger Deakins is, right? And he has clearly stated that he finds ALL other digital cameras inferior to 35mm film. He won't shoot on the Red One for that reason. But he has changed his mind working with the Alexa.

I believe the first Alexa feature to hit cinemas - correct me if I'm wrong - is Roland Emmerich's ANONYMOUS (about Shakespeare!!!!) due in the second half of the year, then Niccol's NOW, which Deakins shot. We''ll soon see how it looks on the big screen.

Then Peter Jackson is shooting his HOBBIT movies on the EPIC...so Mann, Fincher, Rodriguez, Lucas, Coppola, Niccol, Emmerich, Jackson, Lynch, Soderburgh are all shooting digital....there's still Scorcese, Spielberg and Tarantino steadfast in the film camp, but that camp's getting smaller...
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
35mm film cameras are less to rent versus high end digital cinema cameras. Arri Alexa, shooting ArriRaw to a cine deck would be roughly $2,500/day in my estimates. An Arri 535 or MovieCam Compact would be around $800/day- 1,000/day. A fully pimped package with a newer film camera (film cameras it does not matter, since film stock + lenses = look, so long as it can pull the film properly through the camera at 24fps) can perhaps get to 1,500/day. Still, a possibly huge savings.

35mm to DI is also not what I am talking about. That can get pricey when having to process the film stock and then take it to Digital Pacific and scan on a 4k spirit scanner, taken to 10bit DPX, colored on autodesk and then arri-scanned back to film. That is professional film DI workflow and that is not cheap.

I am talking about photo-chemical all the way to release prints struck from the inter-negatives.

But furthermore, the DI process, and digital post workflows are just now getting to be more efficient. The amount of extra work, and employed people it takes to work a film through DI, and to a finish can quickly add up, even on digital origination. This again, is for big films, not people editing on FCP and exporting on a MBP.

If I remember, when I was at the PGA/ASC camera assessment presentation at the Academy, I believe the film camera was still the least expensive, and I also believe that might not have been photo-chemical. I think they did 4k scan it, 10bit DPX down to 2K because all the footage was 2K'd.
Click to expand...

I'm sure 35mm cameras are currently cheaper to rent than the Alexa, but again it's due to the existing infrastructure whereupon the market is saturated with film cameras while cameras like the Alexa are much rarer.

And the DI process is such an integral part of films nowadays that it has to be taken into consideration.

It seems like we're on the verge of another industry-changing period, like in 1999 when all media houses around the world en masse moved to digital still images.
 
Scorcese's shooting digital? I never thought I'd see the day.....And 3d no less!

CAN'T WAIT

And I see Michael Bay's using an Alexa on TRANSFORMERS 3.
 
Last edited:
3D isn't for the benefit of the filmmaker, as HDR isn't for the benefit of the audience.

Shooting HDR won't get ticket sales up or butts in the seats. Comparing HDR and 3D is comparing two different things for two different results.

One is a tool for cinematographers, the other is really for the audience experience and ticket sales.
 
I am lucky enough to have been around long enough to have worked extensively in both film and digital. The DVX really was the first video camera that really impressed me.

Until the DVX I always said I would NEVER shoot video. After it came out I shot a music video and we had a DVX on the set with us and shot a few shot as an experiment. Long story, short. We ended up cutting almost all the DVX shots in with the 35mm with amazing results.

From that day on I began a transition to digital that I have not regretted. Sure, I am nostalgic about the days of film but I don't miss paying the bills to Kodak, the lab and the telcine.
 
phudsontx said:
I am lucky enough to have been around long enough to have worked extensively in both film and digital. The DVX really was the first video camera that really impressed me.

Until the DVX I always said I would NEVER shoot video. After it came out I shot a music video and we had a DVX on the set with us and shot a few shot as an experiment. Long story, short. We ended up cutting almost all the DVX shots in with the 35mm with amazing results.

From that day on I began a transition to digital that I have not regretted. Sure, I am nostalgic about the days of film but I don't miss paying the bills to Kodak, the lab and the telcine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the DVX was a groundbreaking camera, although the limited resolution and fixed lens meant the results were nice, but not quite good enough for most pro pruposes.

The DLSRs have really changed the game and industry dramatically. I watched TINY FURNITURE and LIKE CRAZY, both 7D features, and was amazed at the quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top