Did Film-Shooters move the goalpoasts on Digital?

[Max Field]

I have been on this forum for exactly 10 years and I think back to debates on film vs digital (which are somehow still going on) where people would shout digital is too expensive because of the hardware needed to run certain codecs, or it wasn't 14 stops, or the color science was bad, or so on and so forth. Statements like "maybe if digital could do THIS I would consider film less"

Because these debates are still going on as fiercely as ever here, do you feel the film people moved the goalposts on what digital capture was falling short in? State of the art cameras when I first joined this forum are well under $10k now and the currently best cameras retain 16+ stops of dynamic range. For the longest time we (myself included) would chew out manufacturers for harping on big rez and only having like 11 usable stops of DR.

Let me know what you think...

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, you and me both man. 

Ever since I saw Joker on 70mm, I have been sold on digital finally working. It was just down to brining that look to lower cost cameras and I feel like it's happened. 

The consumer film-only people are for the most part younger and grew up with digital. So their rejection of digital is purely the same rejection so many of us middle aged people have with records, cassette and VHS tapes. Plus it's very hipster to have a CRT setup for your Nintendo 64 and VHS player. Those same people have two dozen old stills cameras and home movie cameras, with probably 1% of them ever being used. None of them are actually serious, they're just messing around. They will always move the goal posts, because it's not about quality, it's about vibes man. 

The commercial film people shoot whatever the client wants. Some of them may be hipsters, but the majority of them are just creatives. I don't know a single one who lives in an all-analog lifestyle like the hipsters pretend. 

It's funny because few weeks ago, this super awesome music industry guy came over. He did a music video on 16mm, I was scanning it. Anyway, I sat him at my all-analog stereo and threw on some audiophile records. Man his mind was blown away, he spent over an hour listening to multiple albums and at the end, kinda understood where analog sits today.

His first shoot on 16mm came out perfect and his listening experience on a very old technology was also flawless, even better than some digital representations. When I talk to hipsters, they can't even grasp those things. To them, it's not about seeking the quality within the analog medium's, it's simply about the vibes they get from it. That's why in the end, it really doesn't matter what they say or think about it. They still secretly shoot nearly everything on digital and absolutely listening mostly to digitally. They just make a fictional representation of who they want others to think they are, which is unfortunate. 

[David Mullen ASC]

You could say that digital moved the goal posts for film just as much. Before digital, Kodak kept working on making film finer-grained with better resolution, but after digital, people wanted film to look like an older "retro" technology.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

10 hours ago, Max Field said:

Let me know what you think...

We now have digital cameras with the resolution of IMAX that are surprisingly affordable. Like the Blackmagic Pyxis 12K. It does force the film people to ask the question: do we need to shoot IMAX movies on film anymore?

A further point: when are people going to stop attaching sensor size to image quality? With digital cameras, that relationship is elastic. Some people say they want progress in tech, but then refuse it when it is produced.

[Max Field]

17 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

You could say that digital moved the goal posts for film just as much. Before digital, Kodak kept working on making film finer-grained with better resolution, but after digital, people wanted film to look like an older "retro" technology.

That is... annoying. I recall seeing 16mm film shorts from over a decade ago and thinking "wow this actually feels quite modern and even better than ALEV 3 in many aspects."

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

I don't think that people that call for more "vintageness" from 16mm are necessarily the ones shooting the most footage or some kind of a representation of the majority, they might be more vocal or visible in the socials though.

I'm quite confident that anyone really strong on shooting 16mm, genuinely wants to get the best possible image outcome from the film stock with as little issues as possible.

 

[Philip Pritchard]

I was on a call as part of a film forum/class with Kodak's VP & Head of Motion Picture, Vanessa Benedetti, recently and I asked her if they could bring back earlier stocks with the 'old look'! She said that is the 'most asked question' they get right now (!) and that they have something in the works. They can't bring back previous Vision stocks exactly, but they are looking at creating a 'version' with those (vintage) characteristics etc. I see no difference between this and people using 'vintage' lenses on Digital cameras to get an older look. It's a nice to have option.

Edited March 11 by Philip Pritchard

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

51 minutes ago, Philip Pritchard said:

I see no difference between this and people using 'vintage' lenses on Digital cameras to get an older look. It's a nice to have option.

I'm sure there'd be quite a bang (even if a bit superficial in nature) if Kodak brought back the EXR stocks. 

Edited March 11 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Tyler Purcell]

2 hours ago, Philip Pritchard said:

I was on a call as part of a film forum/class with Kodak's VP & Head of Motion Picture, Vanessa Benedetti, recently and I asked her if they could bring back earlier stocks with the 'old look'! She said that is the 'most asked question' they get right now (!) and that they have something in the works. They can't bring back previous Vision stocks exactly, but they are looking at creating a 'version' with those (vintage) characteristics etc. I see no difference between this and people using 'vintage' lenses on Digital cameras to get an older look. It's a nice to have option.

What they have is a slightly altered current stills stock but setup for motion picture with the proper friction coatings and AHU. They have been testing it for multiple years now and it was supposed to come out in late 2024, but pushed back for some reason. Not sure if it was due to the remjet issues or what, but lots of people have shot with the stock and the results are pretty cool. A daylight balanced, high speed stock with different color science, it's kind of what people have been after and using a pre-existing but still in production formulation makes sense. 

I think a lot of people have tried Ektachrome as an "alternative" look and haven't been very happy with it, possibly because it does require you to light as it falls off a cliff in the blacks, even when cross processed. As a projected image, straight from the camera positive, it does look dramatically different than color negative, but the added cost vs negative/print, just doesn't make too much sense because PRINT stock is way more robust than Ektachrome. I feel bad for all those home movie people shooting Ektachrome super 8 and projecting them two or three times, just to get scratches because the anti-scratch coatings are just not very good. 

Anyway, we all await the next film release announcement from Kodak, but it's been 3 years now so don't hold your breath too much. 

[Robin Phillips]

wonder what the minimum order size is for the new stock in order to get it. I imagine its probably north of 500k feet if not 1m

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

wonder what the minimum order size is for the new stock in order to get it. I imagine its probably north of 500k feet if not 1m

They probably made quite a bit for Euphoria season 3, which is what they originally developed it for. I don't doubt they shot a million feet for that show. 

Venessa is cool, I bet you could ask via email.