Film vs Digital

[Michael LaVoie]

A lot of the time the tap for film cameras is more about allowing the director to see the action. It's a framing tool but it doesn't really help you light. We used a tap for the director but I wasn't concerned with checking it all the time to make sure it was giving an accurate representation of picture. I had to rely on my own knowledgebase so in that sense, maybe it was more difficult but practically speaking, the lenses and accessories on film cameras are often a lot more sophisticated and user friendly than pro-sumer and even professional digital gear.

[John Holland]

I think you Americans have been breast feed on Kodak , i think you need to look east to Fuji .

[Michael Lehnert]

Darn! Then, what of my plans to produce film stock with lead, cyanide and mercury halides as the emulsion?

 

Come to Switzerland: I just invented a car here with 225" overall length that runs on quicksilver and 12 out of the 15 plutonium isotopes. I call it the Cadillac Alpha Emitter. Great thing! People die when they see it, so much do they want it (I guess).

 

I wish people would start to chill-out in respect to image acquisition formats. These Film vs Digital threads pop up like zombies and they never solve or contribute much.

 

I respect, however, the original posters very important point, namely that from an tech-industry perspective, this film vs digital meal is much less hotly eaten that it is served. Kodak was at the forefront of pioneering digital technology, is patent holder of most what drives cheap East-Asia digital still cameras, and is also clearly commited to R&D into both cine-film for ALL four leading cine-formats, S8, 16, 35 & 65/70, as well as catering for those with a increasingly well-structured and adequate (in respect to film texture and resolution) digital post-chain.

 

I am always astonished by the amount of people who actually get insecure in face of the marketing bla and anecdotal seamans garn tales of RED being the new Panaflex 70 killer, or miniDV being better than Super 8 and so on... this is all quiddlediburb.

 

I also cannot see in the foreseeable future any attempts to kill cine-film off as primary acquisition medium for theatrical or even major televised productions. In fact, the DI post -chain has provided (also economically not that much more cost-efficient than a conventional Steenbeck chain once was) cine-film a generous life-line by integrating it into the digital distribution means and potential channels many firms and theatres think about to increase the cost reduction or capacity utilisation of their assets. And for movie theatres, that could also be quite a life-line in respect to their increasing problems.

 

Having followed this "demise of film" debate for some decades now, at all levels of filmmaking, from S8 amateurs to DOP here, I think many video codec or video formats days are counted before anyone will actually start counting down cine-film in the boxing ring.

 

Many thanks, hence, to the original poster for attempting to put a calming view from Rochester itself into this debate. Kodak shot itself in the foot many times, and so have many other companies, from Apple to Cadillac to IBM to Zony... they are still around.

 

After all, for any Lucas, you will find a Spielberg... (I just wish there would be more demanding film ware to watch... that lack of intelligence on any screen size is honestly killing me!)

 

 

 

P.S.: one of the big debates right now in fashion photography here in London is how to replace Polaroid 3 1/4 by 4 1/4 test shots, now that Polaroid is selling of production assest to focus on... uhm, portable mobile-phone digital still printers... now there is a company that shot itself not in the foot but in the head... or rather the bean counters pulled the trigger for Land, in fact.

[Dan Goulder]

I wish people would start to chill-out in respect to image acquisition formats. These Film vs Digital threads pop up like zombies and they never solve or contribute much.

By comparing them with these insipid film vs. video debates, I think you owe an apology to zombies everywhere.

[Michael Lehnert]

By comparing them with these insipid film vs. video debates, I think you owe an apology to zombies everywhere.

 

You are damn right, Dee! I shall ask my friend here for atonement straight away!

[Michael Lehnert]

It makes me wonder how many of the priceless digital images we have today will be around in 60 years!

 

Not many, that is for sure. I just had to find out that the BBC had taped over their Moon Landing broadcast with Sir Patrick Moore to re-use tapes in the 1970s.

(something Phil or Freya would love to hear :) )

 

But the point of my reply is to ask whether you have ever considered publishing these amazingly beautiful pictures made in such a horrific situation.

I am awestruck!

 

Those would make an astoundingly good photo book. I am sure a British publishinghouse or a dedicated company like Pen & Sword would relish at this opportunity!

[Leo Anthony Vale]

P.S.: one of the big debates right now in fashion photography here in London is how to replace Polaroid 3 1/4 by 4 1/4 test shots, now that Polaroid is selling of production assest to focus on... uhm, portable mobile-phone digital still printers... now there is a company that shot itself not in the foot but in the head... or rather the bean counters pulled the trigger for Land, in fact.

 

Let us not forget large format Polaroids, a unique format.

[John Sprung]

It makes me wonder how many of the priceless digital images we have today will be around in 60 years!

Like Michael, I'd love to see the rest of those pictures published and preserved. Do you have any notes with them, perhaps dates and places? I hope the ball turret gunner was able to get out before that landing.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Burke]

I think there is a forseeable expiration date toward using film as an acquisition tool. Film is not exactly green technology. I think there are EPA regulations preventing any labs from opening up in NYC and if a lab closes, it's closed for good. At least in NY. It can't be moved down the block. This general principle that motion picture film is a toxic and wasteful technology is a sound argument toward making the move to electronic alternatives. I'm all for the aesthetic chaos of the medium of film but I also side with the argument that it's extremely polluting and that once we're able to mimic it's characteristics exactly and that day will come, there will be no reason to continue using it. Arguments can be made that cluttering our landfills with harddrives isn't good either but I think eventually we'll have a greener solution only I don't think photochemicals will be involved.

 

 

Perhaps film labs were once big polluters, but these days?? I highly doubt it. It isn't like labs freely dump the chemical down the drain. With digital, you need electricity to acquire and maintain the information for the rest of the it's life. Think of the energy used to do that. Where does that electricity come from, oil and coal, hardly a green technology at all.

[Michael LaVoie]

I think perhaps some folks are missing the point that shooting on motion picture film to make a movie isn't strictly an analog process anymore. More and more films are going through digital intermediate stages and so the fact that they're shot on film is even more wasteful since the data is then ingested and stored digitally as well. So really, what are we arguing here? How can film possibly be greener even from a post perspective or any perspective since it goes through all the stages of a digital film as well as the extra step of running film through the camera and then all the post steps and the scanning etc and then the burn back onto print?

[Christopher Arata]

I think you Americans have been breast feed on Kodak , i think you need to look east to Fuji .

 

 

This was in no terms just related to Kodak. I only used them in the original post because of what I knew they had done & have had knowledgeable discussions with one person that I believe is a big part of Kodak & a great mentor overall. Fuji in my mind is just as great of a product.

[Christopher Arata]

I just wanted to thank Fran Kuhn for posting those pictures.

 

I agree with what many others have already mentioned, and I would like to see more of those as well.

[Francis Kuhn]

But the point of my reply is to ask whether you have ever considered publishing these amazingly beautiful pictures made in such a horrific situation.

I am awestruck!

 

Those would make an astoundingly good photo book. I am sure a British publishinghouse or a dedicated company like Pen & Sword would relish at this opportunity!

 

Dear Michael,

 

I realize I’m going way off-topic, but since a few people have asked, I hope the forum members won't mind if I provide some of the information I’ve come across since finding the old photos I attached to my last post. Honestly, I’m a little awestruck myself. To find these photos in the back of a closet after all these years is almost beyond belief--especially since my dad (like many WWII vets) never spoke about any of this.

 

The Crucifix is in the town of Montebourg, Normandy region of France, June 1944; The crash photo shows the B-17 Wolfel-Bear on November 10th, 1944 after being hit by AA fire near Jamoigne, Belgium, about 51 Km southwest of Bastogne, Capt. James J. Dimel and all crew survived; My father's Battalion, the 1278th Combat Engineer “Forward Echelon” aboard an LCT heading for Utah Beach, June, 1944. I have many more, and I’m trying to organize them, clean them up and get copies to as many of the 1278th’s survivors and family members as I can.

 

The photograph below is of my father, Cpl. Francis Kuhn (on the left) and one of his best friends, Cpl. Horace Derrickson. I believe it was taken in Belgium sometime in the fall of 1944. Horace grew up in the East Falls neighborhood of Philadelphia (home of the actress Grace Kelly, later Princess Grace of Monaco); my dad was from Manayunk a few miles away. They both enlisted, were assigned to the US 5th Combat Engineers, 1278th Battalion/Company C, went through basic together and then spent the next three years moving from Iceland, England, France, Holland and into Belgium. They just happened to be near Bastogne when the German High Command launched their massive Ardennes assault, the Battle of the Bulge.

 

With the 101st Airborne (the Band of Brothers Easy Company) surrounded in Bastogne, the 1278th and another Engineer Battalion, the 299th, were sent to secure the town of Martelange, 22 Km to the south, to allow General George Patton’s Third Army Armored Forces a clear path to Bastogne. The Engineers had nothing more than M1 Carbines, mortars, two Browning .50 caliber M2HB machine guns and a few truckloads of TNT. They managed to hold off the elite 5th Fallschirmjager (paratrooper) Division under the command of Luftwaffe Generalmajor Ludwig Heilmann, as well as elements of a Panzer Division, by blowing up every bridge crossing the river near the town.

 

My dad was the first soldier called up after C Company was ambushed by infantry, tank fire, 20mm and 88s while approaching the bridge at the center of Martelange on the morning of December 21st, 1944. He was carrying one of the .50 caliber Brownings. His ammunition carrier was hit immediately; my dad dragged him to safety, and then went back to firing the gun until the barrel burned out. As he was replacing it, he was hit twice by a German paratrooper with an MP40 Submachine gun (sometimes called a Burp Gun). His friend Horace was then called up with the other machine gun, and as he advanced, he was shot in the head and died instantly. Another of my dad’s close friends, Paul Mailliard, was also killed that morning. I found a copy of the two US Battalions' After Action Reports which list nine KIA, 21 wounded, 12 POWs and 2 MIA and never found. Unable to advance, the German fighters pulled out the next day.

 

My dad’s friend, Pvt. Ed Podsczski, told me Patton came right through there on his tank and said he wanted to kiss those guys for what they did! (Oddly enough, I found out only a few years ago that Patton was born and raised a few miles from my home in San Marino, CA; Patton's father was San Marino's first mayor.)

 

So, how does this relate to film vs. digital? Well, it doesn’t, of course. Unless you think about the fact that many of these photographs were made with a 1933-vintage Agfa Ansco roll film camera with two shutter speeds. Makes you realize that—film or digital--it’s still what’s in front of the camera that’s really important. How's that for a tie-in!

 

Anyway, sorry again to go so far off-topic.

 

-Fran

[Christopher Arata]

I don't mind it was worth it!

 

Thanks again Fran!

[Keith Walters]

How did you produce the images?

Did you just put the negatives on a light box and photograph them with a macro lens?

I just recently found a stash of 1930s era negatives in one of my late father's old suitcases, I wouldn't mind doing the same thing.

Years ago I resurrected some old 8mm home movies that had been stored in a garage for over 30 years, by projecting them and shooting the screen with a tube Betacam. That worked amazingly well, I must try it again with a digital camera. It was really gratifying to be able to unexpectedly bring so many long-dead people back to life for their relatives.

[Serge Teulon]

That was great Fran!

Hearing about events like that I wonder if in our culture these days we would have the strengths that guys like your dad had to fight a war like that.

I have utmost respect for the people that fought in WWI and II!

 

As for the topic.....Film for me will always be favored over digital!

 

Cheers

S

[Francis Kuhn]

How did you produce the images?

Did you just put the negatives on a light box and photograph them with a macro lens?

I just recently found a stash of 1930s era negatives in one of my late father's old suitcases, I wouldn't mind doing the same thing.

Years ago I resurrected some old 8mm home movies that had been stored in a garage for over 30 years, by projecting them and shooting the screen with a tube Betacam. That worked amazingly well, I must try it again with a digital camera. It was really gratifying to be able to unexpectedly bring so many long-dead people back to life for their relatives.

 

Dear Keith,

 

That's almost exactly what I did. I had the first few images drum scanned, but at about $40 each, I realized I'd never be able to afford to scan them all.

 

I set up a light box on the floor, placed some cropping Ls on top, made a black 5x7-inch mask out of foamcor to lay over the neg and croppers, then put my 1DsMKII on a tripod over the whole thing. I don't have a macro lens, so I used the 70-200 2.8L with a 1.4 extender to try and get the largest image I could (the 1.4x lets you focus as close as the lens normally would while producing a larger image.) I put the camera on mirror lockup and used the 10-second self-timer function to reduce vibration. I typically did a three-stop bracket in RAW mode, reduced the saturation to zero to remove the yellowish color, then played with the curves to produce the best "negative" I could in Adobe RAW.

 

After RAW processing, I opened each image in Photoshop and went to the menu and selected Image>Adjustments>Invert. It's like seeing a print come up in the developer in a traditional darkroom! Below are the before-and-after: interior of a bombed Cathedral in Valognes, France (Normandy region).

 

 

That was great Fran!

Hearing about events like that I wonder if in our culture these days we would have the strengths that guys like your dad had to fight a war like that.

I have utmost respect for the people that fought in WWI and II!

 

As for the topic.....Film for me will always be favored over digital!

 

Cheers

S

 

Thanks, Serge. I also prefer film, but I realize that these old film negatives would have never seen the light of day without today's digital technology. :) I guess I just believe (like most of us, I suspect) in using the right tool for the job.

 

And I wonder as well how we could have had the strength to make the sacrifices those guys did. It's like I told my dad's former Sergeant, Dave Hoyer (who was able to give me much of the information to solve this photo mystery), no matter what I can accomplish, I don't think anyone's going to be researching my life 65 years from now.

 

-Fran

[Nate Downes]

Once they make a Digital that:

 

Can last 80+ years of active use

Can be rebuilt by hand using tools you'd find at Home Depot

and most importantly...

Whose output can be viewed for centuries without active archival proceedure

 

*then* I might shelve my film cameras.

 

But till then, smile as I take your picture with my 4x5. And do action when I shoot with my Filmo.

[Robert Houllahan]

The MANUFACTURE OF FILM BASE is toxic, and guess what, they used basically that same sort of material to make computer cases and other plastics.

 

 

Actually most film base (acetate) is organic plastic, Kodak from Bone and Fuji from seaweed...

 

All Organic chemistry...

 

 

-Rob-

[K Borowski]

Actually most film base (acetate) is organic plastic, Kodak from Bone and Fuji from seaweed...

 

All Organic chemistry...

 

 

-Rob-

 

Wrong, that's the emulsion, which comes from gelatin. Polyester and triacetate are both plastics which are manufactured and create toxic dioxins as biproducts.

 

I know John is rolling in his grave for me posting this:

 

http://www.kodakstoxiccolors.org/dioxin/dioxin.html

 

Sorry John :ph34r:

 

It isn't like Kodak and Fuji intentionally make this stuff, but the manufacture of plastics of this nature is an inherently toxic process. Remember again though that computers are encased in the same sort of plastic, and just about every product on the market today is encased in layers of plastic. So it is not as if Kodak is the only polluter of this type. They just make their own plastic instead of buying it from other companies which are just as bad.

[Sam Wells]

Those are great images Fran !

 

Your restoration initiative rather negates the "versus" premise of this thread -----

 

-Sam

[Michael Lehnert]

I think Sam's post just above perfectly summarises what most people should realise in respect to the perpetual "versus" debate.

 

At the moment, the point of playing out these two formats against each other is short-sighted, as an increasingly synergy develops between the two. Sure, video formats enter productions previously only thinkable to be done on cine-film, but recently, I also encounter mostly among young people who work with digital video formats that they are actually terribly keen on using cine-film for their pojects - that is a novelty component I hardly heard that just 4-5 years ago.

So the ship juggernauts in both directions here, I think.

 

Looking from a corporate perspective, I actually agree that the biggest challenge - as David said - will actually be for Kodak to transition form a domineering company to a lesser player, and here, corporate culture and innovation sustainability will matter as much as financial aspects. Otherwise, they end like Polaroid.

 

 

Which brings me to...

 

Let us not forget large format Polaroids, a unique format.

 

Absolutely!

Unsaleable.com just took delivery of the last batch of 55 expiring in late '08 - all stock was sold in 30 min, apparently.

[Paul Bruening]

"Looking from a corporate perspective, I actually agree that the biggest challenge - as David said - will actually be for Kodak to transition from a domineering company to a lesser player"

 

But, I liked calling Kodak, The Yellow God. What will I call it now? I am lost and confused.

[Robert Houllahan]

Wrong, that's the emulsion, which comes from gelatin. Polyester and triacetate are both plastics which are manufactured and create toxic dioxins as biproducts.

 

 

Cellulose Triacetate is made from wood pulp or cotton, then solvent cast, polyester is a petrochemical derived product.

 

My point is film can be made from organic renewable resources where many computer products cannot. I think chemical remediation will be a very big business in the coming years and we will have to find new ways of dealing with these chemical byproducts and using different solvents to do the job.

 

-Rob-

[Paul Bruening]

Hey Robert,

 

Could you take a stab at this one? http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=30413