Death of Film

[Filip Plesha]

Pete..

 

Even though 35mm film is mostly not used any more in the professional photography where it was used before, it is not dead. I can still buy 35mm pro film

regulary and shoot it for pleasure. Nobody is stoping me. In fact, I bought a new 35mm SLR few weeks ago. 35mm is nice when I want to relax and take it outside to shoot some nature or street photography. Is that a foolish investment?

 

Same with super8. You think those who invested in super8 equipment are fools?

Why? They can still get the film stock, and process it, and telecine it. They might have to travel for that or do it by mail, but it is possible.

[Jo Laurits Aksdal]

I just saw Baraka again. Please let me know when that kind of film can be done digitally.

[Rob Belics]

In fact, Kodak has introduced new professional 35mm color and black and white films within the past several months.

[Andy O'Neil]

Didn't mean to wage civil war among commrades in this forum. I'll be the first to admit that I am an amateur, hence the evocative, forum title [First Time Filmmakers]. I appreciate film and its abilities. I appreciate tape and its abilities. While I think there are more important discussions, film vs. digital is a valid debate rather than an exhausted argument. I've raised my flag.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's a very different thing to say that "film will soon be dead" versus "film will soon be dead except for studio and high-end indie productions; everything else will be HD". That's a pretty big exception!

 

Sure, it doesn't take a genius to see that digital origination is working its way from the bottom up, nor why film schools are more interested in investing in digital equipment for its students, mainly because digital is cheaper to shoot for them as long as a 35mm print is not required. Digital will dominate low-budget indie production within a few years if it hasn't already.

 

But the broader question was whether film will soon be dead, not whether film will soon be dead for low-budget filmmakers. And by "dead" I define as "no longer available" not "no longer dominant." All of these new technologies take years to work their way into the system.

 

Like I said, a lot of these "film is dead" predictions were made when the F900 came out and those guys look foolish today. Even I predicted then that by now most TV production that used 35mm would switch to it, and that is far from what's happened four years later. Except for sitcoms but I was surprised they were shooting on 35mm to begin with, so a switch to HD is a no-brainer for them.

 

Things take longer than you think; a decade goes by faster than you think.

[David Mullen ASC]

"Film versus digital" is a more useful debate when it's specific -- like "I'm shooting a 4-month documentary in New Guinea with just me and a sound man and I'm trying to decide between Super-16 and HD..."

 

We can all make predictions about the future but what are the practical applications of that predicting? How does it help us shoot whatever it is we are shooting this week or next month? There are no brownie points for shooting digitally today because you predict that film will gone in ten years; if anything, with certain knowledge of that, one would just as likely be tempted to shoot as much film as possible until that day!

 

We all should keep abreast in new and upcoming technology if we are working cinematographers, but that was always true. And on your next job, if the director says "I was thinking about using the new Super-16 Vision-2 stocks with a digital intermediate" you can't exactly say "I'm sorry, but I've decided that digital cameras are the future so I've stopped learning anything that's happening with film technology these days." I mean, you COULD say that, but you'll lose work do so, plus sound like an idiot. Now if you're a news cameraman, I can see not bothering to concern yourself with film. And even if you're an independent filmmaker and you don't want to use film or prefer digital. But if you're a cinematographer, you have to learn all of this stuff.

[Wendell_Greene]

It's amazing to see that so many experienced cinematographers here, in such brief, but no doubt stellar careers creating work that rivals that of Rosher, Toland, Astuta, Rotunno, Cronenweth, and Deakins, have seen fit to boldly declare the medium of film, dead.

 

I guess having completely exhausted every conceivable way of shooting, processing and manipulating film, intermediate and print stocks,; limited in telecine and constrained by the narrow parameters of outlined in Masceli's [outdated] "5 C's of Cinematography" there are simply no longer any stories worth telling on film. :rolleyes:

[Jason Rodriguez]

Hey David,

 

Is that "Jason" me??

 

I hope I'm not labeling myself as anti-film, if anything I'm making plans right now to shoot my next "film" on film (S16), and do a DI from a 10-bit uncompressed Quicktime source bypassing tape compression (direct from Telecine into Mac and from there onto hard-drives to my Mac). Actually I'm quite excited, it looks like it's going to be a very neat process, and with uncompressed 10-bit, I should have exceptional quality, especially with the new Vision 2 stocks.

 

So please don't think I'm anti-film.

 

On the other-hand, I do see many advantages to shooting digital, except I'm waiting for the day when you don't have to excuse yourself for opting out with digital than with film-which is the way it seems right now, and I think what spurs a lot of this "film is dead" sentiment. Nobody like to feel as though they or their product is "second" class, so naturally you get people on both sides bantering away at the supposed advantages of each format, why one should supersede the other, why one is better, etc., as if shot on film = "high quality", and digitial = "cheap wannabe."

 

I also think that George Lucas had a nice point when he mentioned that people point out the elephant in the living room when it comes to digital's artifacts, but they simply ignore the "elephants" of film, that by film being "first" or "established", it's inherently "more right" or "superior." We can throw around all the objective numbers or subjective statements we want, but in the end, there are simply some things that are inherint with both systems, that depending on which one came first, the other would be somehow offensive.

 

For instance, suppose film came after digital? You'd reached the end of digital's limits, the dynamic range, resolution, etc. Here's film now, more resolution, more dyanamic range, etc. But I bet you'd have Sony, et. al. complaining that until film solved the grain issue (to match digital), that nobody should use film. Film is "dirty", film is "grainy", film can get scratched, you can't see what you're exposing, etc., etc. These are all things we accept because film came first, and as a result, we compare digital to the pluses of film, not the minuses. And why not? Film's been around for 100 years, and we've worked our way around the shortcomings, so why complain. Instead, digital doesn't have the resolution, doesn't have the dyanmic range, doesn't have Marshall Mcluhan's "hot" medium label, etc., etc.

 

I think David you have a very balanced viewpoint towards the whole thing, and that's the way it should be. Digital's getting better, one day it will supersede film, and in the meantime lets do what we can with the tools we've been given, although I will be perfectly honest in that I am biased towards digital, although I think film looks great too (and why I shoot on that also).

[Matthew McDermott]

David, thanks for being a voice of reason and practicality in this discussion.

 

I am just starting by cinematography career. Though most of the jobs I do are shot on tape, I certainly hope film is around and in common use for the forseable future. I just shot my first film on HD and the quality was certainly excellent. But when comparing and balancing the cost of camera rental, image quality and camera size of HD v. S16, film would have been a better solution. Would I shoot HD again? Of course, but unless there was a reason why the production specifically wanted the use tape, I would advocate film first. It simply suits my aesthetic vision better than video. And that's in comparrison to HD; don't even get me going about the contrast range and huge depth of field of miniDV... While it is likely that HD cameras will become more like their film cousins in terms of ergonomics and quality, I'm not convinced that they will be better than film. Whatever "better" means...

 

And even though digital may have taken over the journalism world, to my eye 35mm still film looks better than the digital equivilent (6-8mp). Admittedly, it is very subtle, but a quality difference is still there. So unless you absolutely need the speed advantages, why use it?

 

We are in a profession where one of the primary concerns is aesthetics, so I don't understand why so many people seem to be willing to accept anything less than the highest standards. I acknowledge the economic concerns; they are the reason 80% of my jobs are shot on tape. I simply can't fathom why some people want to turn the economic neccessity of shooting on tape into a dogma that proclaims the death of something that in terms of image quality is simply better.

[David Mullen ASC]

No, Jason, I was referring to the other Jason...

 

And I've often said the same thing, that people ignore the fact that film also generates artifacts of its own.

[Marty Hamrick]

There are no mechanical parts in digital projectors. You will probably soon need less projectionists and maintenance.

I'm not too sure about that.They're still going to need technician/engineer types to operate the new sattilte dwonload equipment,and from what I understand,since weather and other factors can bring about problems of their own,many of the theaters that have added or converted to digital projection systems,still have a 35mm system with back up prints.

Marty

[Marty Hamrick]

I will add here that no one has really given me a dollars and sense breakdown showing an advantage of digi vs. film.I think someone said lab costs for a 35mm originated movie avaerage about half a mil??OK if you're already spending 30 mil on a movie with the majority of the budget going for salaries,what is the big advantage in the final analysis?

I was shooting news when the industry dumped 16mm Ektachrome in favor of tube cameras and 3/4 inch decks.The station I was interning in at the time dumped cameras,editing gear and processors almost overnight.They lost quite a few stories with the nightmares new technology sometimes brings.Their competitor went to video gradually and as such,didn't crash and burn on air as often,yet when technology moved again,they weren't as pepared.

I see the same thing happening with those very same stations in the switch to a tapeless newscast.One station went to an all Avid based system with no on air tape rolling for news stories and at first suffered some crashes and burns.Yet today,they don't suffer the same growing pains the station that approached "cautiosly" did.

It's been a trade off.

Marty

[Jason Maeda]

no i'm not vittario storraro, but i do work on photo shoots that have two day budgets in the same ballpark as norfolk. i like to think that my opinion counts for something, and i sincerely would like to contribute to this forum. i appreciate the exchange of ideas and want to continue to learn...and to help others.

 

i don't know why this has to turn into a personal debate. my humble opinion is that film will be replaced by digital capture. period. my supporting evidence comes from photography where i have seen a universal trend, rapidly gaining momentum, towards digital. i am not "anti-film". i own a super-8 camera and shoot with it almost daily, instead of my mini-dv camera. with the exception of one spec commercial, all of my real work has been done on film. i have spent years testing films, printing difficult negs, exposing chrome in rapidly changing conditions etc.

 

let us try to accept each other's differing opinions with as little cuntiness as possible.

jk :ph34r:

[Carlos M. Icaza]

If you read the latest American Cinematographer on the Cinematography for Collateral, you will see that even with the most advance cameras, the filmmakers had a hard time trying to get the look they wanted.

 

Issues such as hard drives, raw data, lenses, all came into the "picture" and it was a surprise to read how much time and effort went into determining what HD camera was going to be used.

 

Very interesting, and money wise, I think that the cost of film vs digital is around the same at present moment. What baffles me is that they shoot HD to have it then transfer it to Film.

 

Cheers,

 

C.-

[Randy Havens]

I still remember the days in film school when I bought my XL-1 (4years ago) and said, 'no more film for me!!' I said this because I shot crappy exercises with 16mm reversal, and thought mini dv can look better (wrong). But then a month later I shot my first color negative (7274), and I could never go back to dv again. 6months later, I shot my first 35mm short, now I shoot 35mm whenever humanly possible.

 

Even if it came down to HD and super 16, I will go with the latter any day. And because I do music videos mostly, shooting super 16 is usually cheaper.

 

As everyone has said, people who think film is dead are people who never had shot film, or amateurs.

 

Is Fuji ever coming out with new stocks??

This is what I wait for...

[David Mullen ASC]

Sorry for sounding too cynical, Jason K. -- I think most of us agree that digital will replace film someday. The only bone of contention is to the speed of the change and whether it ultimately matters in the bigger scheme of things... IF the swap happens at a time when digital cinematography has reached parity with film in all aspects. Obviously in the still market, that change will happen sooner than in motion pictures for a lot of reasons, which is why you can only take the comparison so far.

 

And I must admit in other cases, I have made the same argument as you just did that one can talk about technical details without necessarily implying that broader artistic concerns are being neglected. Usually in response to people who say that cinematographers are too picky about the technical quality of digital cameras!

 

It's just that when an experienced filmmaker talks about technical nitty-gritty, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt more than a beginner in regards to how they are prioritizing. I'm not being fair, of course! But I think a lot of us are worried about the sheer degree of obsession Pete Wright has with technical issues, seemingly to the point of freezing himself from actually going out and making the film. You can only make and remake the movie in your head so many times before you have to actually commit something to film (or tape, whatever.)

 

There have always been a lot of contradictions about filmmaking and we all resolve those contradictions in our own ways, in regards to how important one element is over another and how much control should we exert or expect to exert over the process -- basically the process of being practical and realistic without compromising one's art too far. Some people will seem to compromise too much and others not enough, but the trouble is we all draw the line at different points.

[Jeff Tanner]

These debates on film vs HD (or insert digital format of your choice here) are tired. Everyone seems to forget that the format is not the most important element of a good movie. We are lucky to live in a time where there are so many formats readily available for documentaries, features, commercials, corporate work, etc.

 

The bottom line still remains this: If you can't light a scene it doesn't matter whether you're shooting 70mm film or miniDV, your career will be short.

 

It's obvious to anyone working in this field (cinematography) that film will be around for at least a couple of decades and probably beyond. Do you think that a show like "Friends" or "CSI" or any other popular show is concerned about film costs? If the cast can make $1,000,000+ per episode why would the studio be concerned about a minimal savings using digital technology over film? These shows make HUGE amounts of money and if the producers, directors, cinematographers and crew are comfortable with a format such as 35mm why does anyone think that the production is somehow itching to go digital? As David Mullen stated earlier, the vast majority of features, TV shows and regional or national commercials are still shot on film. There is no reason to change that now.

 

IMHO the downfall of HD is that it is still in its infancy. There have been so many "new" HD formats, so many "new" cameras, so many progressions in the technology over such a short time span that it is worrysome to a great deal of people. "Will we be switching cameras and post facilities and formats every season" seems like a question worth asking before making the final decision on a format.

 

Respectfully,

 

Jeff

[John Pytlak RIP]

This has been a very interesting discussion. :)

 

Here are some links to Kodak's view of the future, and Kodak's leading role in both film AND digital technology:

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...v2/sehlin.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why....1.4.3.14&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

 

http://www.kodak.com/go/dcinema

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/sensorsMain.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...ighlights.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...h/35hd24p.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...s/v2/news.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...wvision2P.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...3/sciTech.shtml

 

Kodak received a Scientific and Engineering Award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences this year for their work on Kodak Vision premier color print film. This product helps create cleaner, longer-lasting movie prints.

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/.../filmTech.shtml

 

February 18, 2004 - Kodak received a Scientific and Engineering Award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (AMPAS) for the development of antistatic layer technology. The new technology controls static electricity that can cause fogging on color intermediate and sound negative films during high-speed printing operations.

 

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressRelea...980624-02.shtml

 

The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences recently awarded an Emmy statuette to Eastman Kodak Company and Philips Broadcast Television Systems Company for the design and manufacture of the industry standard Spirit DataCine multi-standard digital telecine.

 

http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/2001/1...rttakes_nov.htm

 

Emmy for Development of 24P video: Eastman Kodak, Laser Pacific, Sony Corporation of America.

 

FWIW, last year set records for the sales volume of motion picture films, and this year is on a pace to be even better than last year.s

 

As others have wisely said, today you need to be well-versed in BOTH film and digital technologies. Kodak is a leader in both.

[Filip Plesha]

You know mr. Pytlak , however long film last's, it is going to last 5 years

more because of you. ;)

 

If I had a company, I'd put you in charge of public relations and advertising.

 

(take all that as a compliment of course)

[Nate Downes]

Something else people forget, Film is not a product that can only be produced by companies with huge factories. As an experiment in high school, we made our own film and box cameras. So even if Kodak and Fuji stop, it does not mean the death of film, just a changing of the nature. There remain smaller companies like Ilford, AGFA and Fomapan as well. It might become a small-scale enterprise, but I suspect it will never vanish completely.

[Tenolian Bell]

On the other-hand, I do see many advantages to shooting digital, except I'm waiting for the day when you don't have to excuse yourself for opting out with digital than with film-which is the way it seems right now, and I think what spurs a lot of this "film is dead" sentiment.

 

 

 

I also think that George Lucas had a nice point when he mentioned that people point out the elephant in the living room when it comes to digital's artifacts, but they simply ignore the "elephants" of film, that by film being "first" or "established", it's inherently "more right" or "superior."

Part of the problem is the introduction of 24P HD, the whole way that was done polarized everything. It was proclaimed as the "film killer" which forced everyone to take one side or the other. And that developed zealots on one side or the other, who made over statements of the advantage of their view and overstated the disadvantages of the opposing view.

 

There was no clear dialogue about the truth and myth of shooting HD, nor a truthful discussion about the advantage or disadvantage of working with and how it can fit into today?s production market. I think Robert Rodriguez and George Lucas as much as they are HD advocates do it a disservice in their over inflated claims of its advantages as well as equally ludicrous claims of the disadvantage of working with film.

 

They should be able to speak of its advantages in the context of their own workflow, that would truly help people determine if HD will work for them or not. Instead of using dogma to build a religious HD following.

 

Comparing HD to 35mm is really unfair to the format and its possibilities, HD should not have been introduced in that way.

 

Now that the hype and glitz has settled and the truth as come more to light film zealots get to say ?see HD isn?t as good as 35mm?. Which then makes HD zealots continue to rail against the disadvantages of working with film. And in a way continues the divide.

 

Which leads us now to those who like to shoot HD feeling as though it?s a second rate format after film. While in reality its not, it?s a very useful tool finding its place in the production market.

 

 

 

George Lucas wasn?t sitting at the Vision 2 presentation, where DP?s nitpicked over every little thing about the stock, how it performed, and how it was presented.

 

DP?s don?t give Kodak or its products a pass just because its film, they are very critical of both.

 

But once George brings the discussion to a level of unfair dogma then yeah, traditional film shooters will more fiercely defend film and its advantages over HD.

 

Stop comparing HD to 35mm and it will be free of this expectiation, it will be free to develop find its own place.

[Filip Plesha]

Something else people forget, Film is not a product that can only be produced by companies with huge factories. As an experiment in high school, we made our own film and box cameras. So even if Kodak and Fuji stop, it does not mean the death of film, just a changing of the nature. There remain smaller companies like Ilford, AGFA and Fomapan as well. It might become a small-scale enterprise, but I suspect it will never vanish completely.

I compleatly agree with this. This is probably the distant future of film, at least film for photography.

 

You know, there used to be dye transfer printing in photography too, and even though it is a dead craft, there are some people doing everything at home even making relief emulsions for printing.

[Rob Belics]

You can still buy liquid emulsion for glass plates, too.

[Nate Downes]

Hmm, I wonder how hard it would be to actually make my own film. Has anyone ever tried it? I think it would be a fun experiment.

[DanStewart]

We're talking B/W only right? Or a liquid for each layer?