Why film can still keep its place in a digital era

Richardson Leao · December 21, 2006

I've found some 30m rolls of Maco Rolei IR that were purchased by my department. I've got so excited that I bought a konvas from rafcamera.com (after finding in this wonderful forum that old russian cameras accept KS perfs). These rolls can be loaded in low light as the sensitivity for light lower than 750nm is quite low. Seriously I can't wait. Since I watched 'I am Cuba' I always wanted to try the IR film to get white leaves and black sky. Now finally I have the chance. I wanna see the digital defenders match this one now (unless they use a IR ccd off course...)

Unrelated to the post, a emulsional marry christmas for all

Will Earl · December 21, 2006

Film or Digital?

David Mullen ASC · December 21, 2006

I wonder if there will be a parallel with what happened when synthetic cloths hit the market like nylon, rayon, etc.

Everyone assumed that the clothes of the future would be synthetic, but now cotton is more popular than ever and there are a lot of nice hybrid synthetic/natural combination cloths.

As long as the ecomomics keep it viable, film may never go away even if digital comes to dominate. As much as digital has taken over the still market world, for example, there also seems to be a fairly solid core of film users that probably won't dwindle much further.

Just a thought.

Nathan Milford · December 21, 2006

Film or Digital?

Looks digital. Definetly doesn't look like Kodak EIR. Certainly the way the blacks are 'occuring.' Looks like the output of a coolpix with a filter on it or perhaps a dSLR with he IR filter replaced with a clear filter.

- nate

Stuart Brereton · December 21, 2006

I'm prepping a promo for early January. We were looking at using a Varicam as the director wants a lot of slo-mo. It wasn't quite working for our needs, and so eventually I said to the producer - 'look, how about we shoot 16mm?' He said - 'Thank god for for that! I'm so sick of looking at HD!'

And just like that, we switched to film. It may cost more, but as long as there are Producers who love it and are willing to pay for it, it's going to stay with us.

Happy Christmas!

Matthew Buick · December 21, 2006

Wow, that's wonderful these days.

HAPPY XMAS!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

Jon-Hebert Barto · December 21, 2006

Film or digital?

Umm, manipulated images over the internet and on to my rather lackluster pc monitor. Fun....

Is it a manipulated film negative? Who knows? Mr Milford probably took the best educated guess anyone can take...

Now tell us...

-Jonnie

Edited December 21, 2006 by Jon-Hebert Barto

James Steven Beverly · December 21, 2006

I wonder if there will be a parallel with what happened when synthetic cloths hit the market like nylon, rayon, etc.

Everyone assumed that the clothes of the future would be synthetic, but now cotton is more popular than ever and there are a lot of nice hybrid synthetic/natural combination cloths.

As long as the ecomomics keep it viable, film may never go away even if digital comes to dominate. As much as digital has taken over the still market world, for example, there also seems to be a fairly solid core of film users that probably won't dwindle much further.

Just a thought.

I actually think that the WORST case senerio is the film follows the route B&W film does today. Most films are made in color but many films are still done in B&W even today. I think film has it's place for certain projects that digital can never replace and digital works better than film with some movies, particularly those with a ton of FX in them. I think as long as theater owners continue to project film (Which shows NO sign of ending anytime soon) there will always be movies made on film. B)

Will Earl · December 22, 2006

Now tell us...

Does it matter what medium it was captured on? Does it matter if it was manipulated or not? Does knowing these things change your opinion of the image?

Film isn't going to keep it's place in a digital era because it can shoot IR images, it's going to keep it's place because artists will still prefer it as an artistic medium. To make a rather rough analogy - artists still paint with oils or canvas, even though they could paint with light, a lens and a frame of film.

The images were shot digitally - there are obviously some minor aesthetic differences between film IR and digital IR if you look hard enough, but you could attribute those to the type of IR filter used or how much Photoshop work that was done on the image.

Tenolian Bell · December 22, 2006

A friend of mine has shoot stills for entertainment mags such as Premiere, Entertainment Weekly. Which has mostly gone digital.

He told me they discuss and debate Photoshop grain filters to be used on their pictures. To add some slight texture and cut down the ultra-clean look. Because its too clean and doesn't feel real.

Daniel Smith · December 23, 2006

I think it should be, why digital can still keep its place in a film era.

Sorry I just hate it when people think that it's a case of 'one of the other'.

Our mediums are better than our artists.

David Mullen ASC · December 23, 2006

He told me they discuss and debate Photoshop grain filters to be used on their pictures. To add some slight texture and cut down the ultra-clean look. Because its too clean and doesn't feel real.

It's funny that something with an overlay of grain is more "real" than something clean like the way our eyes see things... when I drive around the city at night, I see a more deep-focus and hyper-clean image than something that high-speed film shot on fast lenses would create.

One person's reality is another person's artifice...