Alain LeTourneau Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 I've often wondered why the whole film vs. video thing always boils down to the technical numbers game (latitide, contrast, and resolution) without touching on some of the larger issues that exist outside the film world's concerns (environment, working conditions and practices, and planned obsolesence). Maybe I'm just old fashion (at the old age of 31) but video cameras don't seem to last too long before they're considered junk, and the same goes for computers and most all other things electronic. Yet my 1969 Bolex, early 1970s NPR, and Steenbeck from 1978 seem to work just fine without the need for software upgrades. I realize this is a heady question (and for some over-the-top) but I'm curious about other people's response to this shift towards all things that have a short life and end up in the dump. I don't fully understand the talk about film and video "tools" being neutral. One is built to last, one is not. What's neutral about that? Tools are made by people and tied to working practices, what does that have to do with neutrality? Who knows maybe in the end its cheaper (and more environmental) to 24/7/360 power servers rather than climate control film collections. And plastic cameras will be manufactured out of corn oil and melted down into new cameras, along with having upgradable CCDs. I like the old ads that Arriflex ran in Filmmaker's Newsletter in the 1970s. The technician assembling cameras while smoking a pipe. A line of about (10) Arri S/Bs sit in front of the tech in a nicely light room (was this all for effect?). Now there are people in clean suits, or on the assembly line. My how things have changed....oh but for the better so I'm told. Alain LeTourneau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted October 9, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2004 Hi, Well, it's better in that I can actually afford to shoot stuff, yes. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted October 9, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2004 You have to remember that a lot of video is still used to shoot short term material like news; while film would be nice for archival reasons, it really makes more sense for video to be used. Same goes for live sporting events, etc. While I don't disagree with you -- film equipment DOES keep its value better over time and film is a very archival medium -- you also have to consider what Phil is saying, that video has an immediacy and costs less to shoot. I've switched over to shooting snapshots on my digital camera because I don't have to think about what film to buy for it and remembering to get film and get it processed, etc. It's faster to use it, dump it to my computer, etc. If there's a movement towards digital, there are some good reasons that you can't ignore. It's not just because people want to be trendy; the workflow and costs may fit better with what they are trying to do. IF you work often enough with the video equipment, it will usually pay for its costs of purchase before it obsoletes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain LeTourneau Posted October 9, 2004 Author Share Posted October 9, 2004 If there's a movement towards digital, there are some good reasons that you can't ignore. It's not just because people want to be trendy; the workflow and costs may fit better with what they are trying to do. IF you work often enough with the video equipment, it will usually pay for its costs of purchase before it obsoletes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I understand the allure of "cheaper" options, and workflow costs. I guess I am also concerned about wasteflow. I know people like to say that film manufacturing and processing are environmentally destructive, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusions that others do that video is somehow not environmentally destructive in it's creation, use and disposal, nor would I claim that its even less wasteful until I'd seen some good research to back this up. I don't know perhaps environmental issues are passe now. My day job is at a community media center. I'm on the ground level of seeing all the people who can afford to work in digital mediums. However, when I get home from work I cannot stand the thought of staring at my computer monitor, yet I'll gladly take a seat in front of the flatbed. I'm in a different world though and I'll admit I don't deal with the commercial pressures of film production (anymore). So working more slowly is not an issue for me, in fact after working quickly all day its kind of nice to come home and work slowly, or differently or whatever (how about work in a way that forces conscious decision making). Anyway, I appreciate your comments David. And understand what you mean about shooting stills. I'm selling my FM2n, but don't know if I'll replace it with a digital camera. Still have my Rollei so maybe the picture taking will become more deliberate. I tend to approach photos differently with a roll of 120 film. There's less images on the roll but a different frame area to take into consideration. I like what documentary filmmaker (though she hates that term) filmmaker Jill Godmilow said: Shoot less and think more. This was in response to someone asking here about the film/video cost comparisions. Neither Jill nor I work for clients though. Or at least Jill has not since leaving the production world to teach and work on her own films. And I don't have clients breathing down my neck to shoot something for no money, or get excited about HD because a New York Times article says its cool. If it just boils down to money (which all things seem to) then indeed video may in the end become the only option. Alain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted October 9, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2004 Hi, Given the choice I'd shoot every format that's available just for the experience of it. At the end of the day you can use inverted commas as much as you like but for what I spent on video gear I wouldn't even have been able to buy a decent sync-sound 16mm camera body, let alone the rest of it, the DAT recorder, stock, processing and transfer. I calculate that if I were to shoot what I shoot on 16mm, I'd be paying for my entire SD video outfit about every three days. Naturally, the environmental issue with film is that you're continually using a complex chemical process with every frame you shoot. The byproducts of manufacture and processing are pretty nasty. Other than that the worst bit of both media is batteries which frequently contain toxic heavy metals, but they can be recycled, as can the PCBs from electronic gear and the chassis metalwork is an easy reclaim. All these issues are pretty much identical for both formats, it's just the consumables that cause a problem with film. I appreciate that waste reclaim is not done much in the US, but that'll change, especially when we have to start mining landfill sites for discarded lightbulb tungsten. The whole "shoot less/think more" attitude annoys me, since it tends to paint video people as unthinking. No matter how hard you think, taking 16mm out is going to cost at least UK£2000/day by the time you have the VT in your hand, and I can economically do video for about an eighth of that. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Belics Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 FWIW, along the environmental issues, people seem to forget the process of making the integrated circuits, CCDs, etc. on the electronics end. The chemicals used for this manufacturing process are much more corrosive and damaging than anything on the film side and there are large quantities that must be cleaned up before being disposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted October 9, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2004 Hi, Sure, but you make one and it's good for thousands of hours of shooting. MKake a frame of film and it's good for 1/25 of a second! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 I had a whole Film v. Digital debate. It's about like watching the Bush v. Kerry debates. People will die to defend there beliefs, and nothing in gobs green earth can change there mind once they are set on somthing. I was just watching Bush v. Kerry last night in St. Louis (I think), and I found that presidents are about like filmmakers. The democrate section of filmmakers LOVES film, and nothing else. and the Republican side of filmmakers love Digital, and nothing else. Then you have you intermediates, which could care less (Most of the Ticket-buying audiance). When you start a film v. digital thread, It ALWAYS turns into a battle over peoples belief, and Im sure some filmmakers would kill to protect film. Who will win this election though? Who knows. Thats why I don't take sides in these anymore. Shot on what you can afford, or have available to you at the time you need it. I however, Am waiting till I can use 35mm, because I use to be so "In Favor" of HD, but that is wearing off. Oh an, P.S: I once said on here that HD was cheaper than 35mm :-), I was dead off. LONG LIVE FILM...... :) P.S) I am not fighting with anyone here, I am not running for president of the filmmaking world. So leave me out of the debate :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain LeTourneau Posted October 9, 2004 Author Share Posted October 9, 2004 Thats why I don't take sides in these anymore. Shot on what you can afford, or have available to you at the time you need it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I work at a video organization. I clearly understand that DV is an afforbable medium compared to film. Unfortunately, I worry that the choice to shoot film will be eliminated due to market competition with HD. The marketeers are clearly making a slash and burn path for DV/SD/HD. Kodak is make steps to insure the future of film but with straddling the fence who knows when their interest will shift dramatically (or more than it already has). The "democratic" comments about film make me laugh a little. The automobile was marketed in a similar fashion, as a democratizing instrument. As if democracy is born out of products being made available to more people. The media will still be owned by the few despite the tools being available to the many. I think my comment about "thinking more" with film was more to point out the deliberateness imposed on the medium by economics. I did not mean to say video people "don't think". I have certainly enjoyed a good number of DV works (Jem Cohen and Leighton Pierce have done incredible things with the medium). Its a strange time to be alive and working in film. As the prices for making standard 16mm RPs rises and if the cost of making 35mm RPs continues to steadily go down, things could change in a big way for making 35mm work. I guess rather than steer off wildly with my comments I should go back to my inital points about costs. My point is that there are upfront and backend costs to consider that exist outside the film world. Such as, environmental, working practices and conditions. I think its fair to assume that most cinematographers would not care to work in a factory where the equipment used by the production industry is manufactured. That says something. I don't know if I agree that the environmental costs are the same in both film and video as I've seen nothing to back that up. Film has obvious environmental links because the pictures of chemical manufacturing are foregrounded. Whereas computers and video gear are often linked with images of cleanrooms and concrete box facilities (no pipes). I appreciate the comment about chemicals used to make CCDs as these things should be acknowledged. How about the chemicals used to refine and form plastics. The world has changed so much that if an individual doesn't have to directly confront nasty environmental issues than why think about it. I know a guy who works at a local photo lab. He is indifferent to the transition in stating that working around chemicals is not such a great thing. He commented that he would rather work with digital tools. That is, he would rather pass the nasty chemical process on to someone else than have to continue to deal with it. Now I don't think he see it this way but that is essentially what is happening. Computer manufacturing and disposal is an incredibly toxic matter. This model of manufacture, use and disposal is highly destructive. Cheap? Yes. (Ore mining does not tread light on the earth but at least the percentage reclaimed through scrap recycling is greater than with plastics.) Alain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain LeTourneau Posted October 9, 2004 Author Share Posted October 9, 2004 I now fit into the category of "too cooky to respond to". Alain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 I responded!!!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Laurent Andrieux Posted October 9, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2004 I really like your staring poszt, Alain, and agree 100% with you. Landon : I however, Am waiting till I can use 35mm, because I use to be so "In Favor" of HD, but that is wearing off. Oh an, P.S: I once said on here that HD was cheaper than 35mm :-), I was dead off. LONG LIVE FILM...... I think I took part on this debate with you somewhere sometimes... I like the fact that though you seemed to be so sure you now changed your mind (I had already noticed this abilty of yours before). As you made quite an interesting work of costs comparision on the 2 medium, I would like to know what exactly made you change your mind, if you didn't say it yet somewhere I didn't see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Oliver Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Hi; Hey Phil, if you don't mind me asking what is your SD set up? especially your camera......? Thanks, Olly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted October 9, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2004 Hi, Panasonic AG-DVC200, Fuji S6.4X20 lens. Very bottom of the range, about £10k's worth new with all the bits. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 I think I took part on this debate with you somewhere sometimes... I like the fact that though you seemed to be so sure you now changed your mind (I had already noticed this abilty of yours before). As you made quite an interesting work of costs comparision on the 2 medium, I would like to know what exactly made you change your mind, if you didn't say it yet somewhere I didn't see... Well, I did not post it anywhere yet. But still, I was figuring Film with the most expensive Post Production step, and HD wit film out. If you compare a film-out in HD to the cheapeast way to shot 35mm, then 35mm is cheaper. But if you do the best post process to 35mm, then it becomes more expensive. But if you plan to shot HD and film-out. Then it would be cheaper to shoot 35mm film with the inexpensive post process... :blink: Hope that makes since? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Laurent Andrieux Posted October 9, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2004 Yes it makes sense, that's what I was thinking. Thanks to confirm that, and for your reply regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 "Unfortunately, I worry that the choice to shoot film will be eliminated due to market competition with HD. " If that happens, it won't be "HD" as we currently know it. -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain LeTourneau Posted October 10, 2004 Author Share Posted October 10, 2004 "Unfortunately, I worry that the choice to shoot film will be eliminated due to market competition with HD. " If that happens, it won't be "HD" as we currently know it. -Sam <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's right. It will be high res and highly toxic HD. : ) Alain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 I'm both an analog and digital freak, so I don't want what I'm about to say to be mistaken for luddite ramblings... I think that for all the pro's of digital, someday it's going to be a huge curse. I agree with the statements about the immediacy of digital, but there's the trade-off. Immediacy vs archival capabilities. What happens to all your snapshots when your hard drive crashes? Sure, you can make prints of them, but how many prints do you actually have of your digital photos? Imagine that digital still cameras had come out 10 years earlier. We'd all have our snapshots backed up on Commodore 64 or Apple II disks, and the cameras software interface would still require us having those computers. (Remember, there's a limit to how long the camera manufacturers bother upgrading, because they make more money on the new products). We can't imagine right now, that someday Windows, Mac, and even Linux is going to be a thing of the past, but it's happened before. If you magically came into possession of this next weekends winning lottery numbers, but they were stored on an Amiga formatted disk, how long would it take you to retrieve the numbers? See my point? ALL digital formats of ANY kind become obsolete, and it's happening at an ever-increasing speed. All our history is being archived in libraries digitally. In my opinion, hundreds of years from now, this period in history is going to be largely blank. Nobody will have any idea what happened. The world history we understand best, is directly quantified by how much of it they wrote IN STONE!! I have both a Nikon FM 35mm camera, and a Canon G2 digital. The Nikon is 30 years old. Do you think I'll still be able to use the Canon G2 30 years from now? Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain LeTourneau Posted October 11, 2004 Author Share Posted October 11, 2004 I'm both an analog and digital freak, so I don't want what I'm about to say to be mistaken for luddite ramblings... Matt Pacini <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't mind being mistaken for a Luddite. A term which these days does not seemed to be linked to its origins. Luddites were not opposed to technological advances per se, but rather against being cut out of making a living. I read a great quote earlier today: "New media don't succeed because they're like the old media, only better: they succeed because they're worse than the old media at the stuff the old media is good at, and better at the stuff the old media are bad at." If this is linked to the Luddites in particular well then one could surmise that the mechanization that replaced the Luddites hand labor was better at cutting hand labor out of the market, and also better at making the textile factory owners rich. Which wasn't great for those who worked in the factory either. Good in some ways, bad in other ways. Alain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 Exactly. Good at some things, bad at other things. The problem is that the core technology is what are the selling points for all things that fall under consumer electronics. You know, as in, how lame is it to have a 200mhz computer? A few years ago, it was cutting edge, now you see them at thrift stores, and even more of them at the city dump. I tried to donate a fully functional Macintosh (early PowerPC model), monitor, and LASER PRINTER! to the Purple Heart Thrift Store, and they wouldn't take them!!!!! They did take the broken toys and 1970's era lamps I was donating though... The downside, in my opinion, is in the big picture. 800 years from now, people are going to dig up these shiny round disks in the rubble of the Library of Congress, and either have no idea what they are, or if they do, will scratch their heads and say "what the hell does Windows XP mean?" Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now