Dumbing down of the Industry

[Chad Stockfleth]

The digital versus analog debate is 100% elitist crap. Bring on the ugly-go digital.

 

Tiresome, yes, but not elitist when the decision to use one or the other (or both) is how you make your living.

[Joe Giambrone]

" there is no point in having sharp images when you have fuzzy ideas" --jean-luc godard

 

Every time I see this quote I can't help but cringe at the irony. Everything I've seen from Godard (not much) may have had clear ideas. But they were clearly BAD ideas. Different time, different culture perhaps. But, it does not speak to me, and I don't regard those films as holding up well.

 

As for digital, I like it when I can't tell that it was shot on digital. Hate blown out highlights, and I'm disappointed that so many filmmakers let blown out highlights (as in daytime car interior scenes) just roll on as if that's supposed to be okay. It's not okay. It's garbage. They should be penalized for thinking so little of the audience.

[Steven Boldt]

Professionally, film is on the way out. It's that simple. That's why we(non-pros) need a new format. Excellent movies can be made for theatrical release with 16mm but it doesn't make sense for this to remain a standard and 8 mm just doesn't cut it in a big movie theatre. What we need is something like a 12 mm film format for non-pros that pros can dabble in. All these 8 and 16 mm movies cameras out there are old as hell so why not push for a new format? The more film dies the more people will miss it. Digital technology is linear so it has an inherent ugliness that all the resolution in the world can't fix. All you can do is fake different looks. We need a new film format and you pros need to make it happen.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Steven Boldt

[Stephen Williams]

Professionally, film is on the way out. It's that simple. That's why we(non-pros) need a new format. Excellent movies can be made for theatrical release with 16mm but it doesn't make sense for this to remain a standard and 8 mm just doesn't cut it in a big movie theatre. What we need is something like a 12 mm film format for non-pros that pros can dabble in. All these 8 and 16 mm movies cameras out there are old as hell so why not push for a new format? The more film dies the more people will miss it. Digital technology is linear so it has an inherent ugliness that all the resolution in the world can't fix. All you can do is fake different looks. We need a new film format and you pros need to make it happen.

 

Let me get this straight, 16mm cameras are very very cheap now, you want to introduce a new format with new expensive cameras with no established work flow!

[Steven Boldt]

16mm film and processing isn't cheap and that's why so many people have gotten into Super 8. I know the difference between 8 and 16 isn't that much but it's enough. Film schools just don't give us enough time with their 16mm set-ups and theirs are definitely not cheap. Film is dying, that's all I know. I always wanted a new format for audio cassette tape- 1/4" instead of 1/8" and that never happened. I should know I'm wasting my breath on this. People who really love film will continue to do it after the pros have all given up on it.

 

In the 1960's 16mm may have been the peoples format but not any more. There's Super 8, DV, HD.

[Tom Jensen]

I know the difference between 8 and 16 isn't that much but it's enough.

In the 1960's 16mm may have been the peoples format but not any more. There's Super 8, DV, HD.

 

The difference between super 8 and 16mm is huge. You also left out the 70's, the 80's and the 90's. Most music videos were shot in 16 and many features were shot on Super 16. The video revolution was a cost issue, not an aesthetic issue. Now that the quality is high, it's here to stay.

[Steven Boldt]

I was talking about the difference in the cost of processing between 8 and 16. Most of my teachers at film school preferred 8 over 16 because of the look. They were art majors not film majors in school. They don't know much about film but they could see. 16mm is elitist and it's killing film altogether. Too many formats.

[Tom Jensen]

I was talking about the difference in the cost of processing between 8 and 16. Most of my teachers at film school preferred 8 over 16 because of the look. They were art majors not film majors in school. They don't know much about film but they could see. 16mm is elitist and it's killing film altogether. Too many formats.

16mm is elitist? How is it killing film? I'm lost. 16mm has the been the backbone of the industry forever. I have to run but the significance of 16mm is tremendous. Video is what's killing film and it has nothing to do with elitism. It has to do with cost and the replacement of old technology vs new technology.

[Steven Boldt]

I like the look of 16mm but it is an aquired taste these days. Times have changed. There's nothing wrong with using video for a comedy for instance because all focus is on dialog. It just seems like the whole debate itself, film-video is bad. Film is simply becoming too expensive for hobbyists. I going to stop whining and go get this tripod I need. Sorry for the rant.

[K Borowski]

Film is dying, that's all I know.

 

Dude, this is totally unprofessional to say, but shut up!

 

If that's all you know, then you know nothing.

[K Borowski]

I like the look of 16mm but it is an aquired taste these days. Times have changed. There's nothing wrong with using video for a comedy for instance because all focus is on dialog. It just seems like the whole debate itself, film-video is bad. Film is simply becoming too expensive for hobbyists. I going to stop whining and go get this tripod I need. Sorry for the rant.

 

I think YOU are an acquired taste.

 

What are you, 18?

[Chad Stockfleth]

I think YOU are an acquired taste.

 

What are you, 18?

 

I'm curious, why do people take this debate so personally? We're talking about "image acquisition", not human rights or war crimes or baseball! :P

 

If students and hobbyists and even certain working professionals want to declare film "dead" what difference does it make to you? Can you still buy it? Can you still expose it? I don't see anyone stopping you.

 

You know what? HD can make a beautiful picture too! I swear, it can! Does it have limitations, of course, but every format does!

 

I'd love to see people comparing demo reels as opposed to camera formats.

[Paul Bruening]

Please, don't kill the messenger.

 

I really hate to say this: But, it's the consumers who set the intelligence level of the product. The industry doesn't actually care what it grinds out. If the market would actually go to smart or sophisticated or artistic or what-the-f***-ever-other-than-hack-formula-crap then the industry would deliver that. I am worried about the dumbing-down of all of the arts in America.

 

It's us, guys. We're dumbing down. We're expecting less. We're accepting less. What's happening to us? How would we know if we, collectively, were dumber than we used to be? You only detect when you're getting smarter, not dumber.

[Steven Boldt]

I'm not in the industry so I don't really know if film is dying or being phased out. If pleople say it's here to stay then it's probably true.

It is becoming a big pain to do it as a hobbyist. It took me quite a while to get a super 8 camera and projector that would work and suit my needs and to learn the basics. I'm going to do my stupid Super 8 music videos and not worry about what others are doing. Like I said, sorry for the rant.

[Steven Boldt]

Chad,

You are right. That's why I characterized my posts as rants. I can see now that I'm scapegoating.

[Chris Keth]

I like the look of 16mm but it is an aquired taste these days. Times have changed. There's nothing wrong with using video for a comedy for instance because all focus is on dialog. It just seems like the whole debate itself, film-video is bad. Film is simply becoming too expensive for hobbyists. I going to stop whining and go get this tripod I need. Sorry for the rant.

 

So you're saying that any film that concentrates on dialogue can look like poop because it doesn't really matter?

 

Also, who cares if film is becoming too expensive for hobbyists? On this forum, in general, we are not hobbyists. We are working professionals and the discussion here is geared toward that. Go to DVXuser if you want to talk about film as a hobby. On that same note, there are plenty of other pursuits that are very expensive hobbies but people do it. Don't complain about the cost of a hobby since your pursuit of it is voluntary and optional. Nobody is forcing you to buy film.

 

As a fairly recent student who has been there, I suggest you read more and educate yourself more about what we do, why, etc. before you spout too much stuff as fact.

[K Borowski]

I'm curious, why do people take this debate so personally? We're talking about "image acquisition", not human rights or war crimes or baseball! :P

 

Maybe because people are casually talking about the end of my f*cking livelihood.

 

Maybe it's not the end of my life, but it's the end of a life-long passion that I've dedicated my life*to*

[Steven Boldt]

Chris,

I wasn't suggesting that a comedy can look like "poop" as you call it, I was suggesting that digital(well shot) might be a better choice over 16 or 35mm for a comedy perhaps. This was just an obsevation- not a fact or even an opinion.

 

In the future I will confine my questions to the 8mm forum where people have been friendly and helpful. And let me remind you that Super 8 is and always will be a consumer format so I'll stay in my forum if you stay in yours.

[Tom Jensen]

Chris,

I wasn't suggesting that a comedy can look like "poop" as you call it, I was suggesting that digital(well shot) might be a better choice over 16 or 35mm for a comedy perhaps. This was just an obsevation- not a fact or even an opinion.

 

In the future I will confine my questions to the 8mm forum where people have been friendly and helpful. And let me remind you that Super 8 is and always will be a consumer format so I'll stay in my forum if you stay in yours.

 

Steven, you are a student and there is nothing wrong with that but when you get into the working film world, you will see that it is nothing like school. In school, everyone is going to be the next Spielberg or Michael Bay. Nobody's film is as good as their's. In the film world decisions are based on a myriad of things and practicality is one of them. Cost is another. Usually it will be based on where it will be seen, be it on the web, the TV, a movie theatre, a theme park, a corporate conference. It's just like auto mechanics or carpentry, you just have to use the right tool for the right job. If anything is dead, it's super 8. When I was in film, there was maybe one lab and one store that sold Super 8 film and this was even before video caught on. Video is the upcoming medium. As far as 16 mm being an acquired taste, I don't get it. There was a time when there was no other choice. If you couldn't afford it or the project didn't call for it, you had no choice but to shoot 16. Super 8 was used for the "look" and for school projects because it was cheap.

[Steven Boldt]

In school I was surprised to find that many students didn't like to see any film grain. They just see it as a flaw. I'm used to it because I grew up watching old movies. Some younger students get used to it after going to the film festivals and such. This is what I meant by it being an aquired taste-in part. I grew up with it and it doesn't bother me. I watched Double Indemnity last week because I wanted to, not because I had to.

[Chad Stockfleth]

Maybe because people are casually talking about the end of my f*cking livelihood.

 

Maybe it's not the end of my life, but it's the end of a life-long passion that I've dedicated my life*to*

 

Yeah, I get that, but does a student on a message boards comment really change your life or your job?

 

If you are working in the industry then you know it isn't dead. Why get so angry?

 

But man, I think it probably will die eventually. Maybe not totally, but practically. Are you devoting yourself to the tool or the trade because the tools are gonna keep changing.

[Tom Jensen]

In school I was surprised to find that many students didn't like to see any film grain. They just see it as a flaw. I'm used to it because I grew up watching old movies. Some younger students get used to it after going to the film festivals and such. This is what I meant by it being an aquired taste-in part. I grew up with it and it doesn't bother me. I watched Double Indemnity last week because I wanted to, not because I had to.

 

In film school grain often is a flaw from underexposure and big projection but on TV it is that big of an issue if exposed properly. It's all about the story. Just remember that. If a film is bad I start picking apart the production. If the story is good and the productions isn't great, I can watch it. Take Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It." Many flaws and I still think it's his best film.

[Tom Jensen]

Yeah, I get that, but does a student on a message boards comment really change your life or your job?

 

If you are working in the industry then you know it isn't dead. Why get so angry?

 

But man, I think it probably will die eventually. Maybe not totally, but practically. Are you devoting yourself to the tool or the trade because the tools are gonna keep changing.

 

That was a mistake that I made. I had spent 20 years learning film and exposure and became very bitter when Video reared it's ugly head. It was an affront to everything I had been taught. I made the mistake of devoting myself to the tool and I couldn't see the forest for the trees. If I had any sense I would have embraced it and learned the new tool. I had this love affair with film. A lot of editors had the same problem. Guys who were cutting on Moviolas and Steenbecks that had no computer skills didn't want to touch video editing. Now how popular is it?

[John Sprung]

. What we need is something like a 12 mm film format for non-pros that pros can dabble in. ...

 

There was a 9.5 mm format, now long obsolete. The market didn't support an in-between.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

Yeah, I get that, but does a student on a message boards comment really change your life or your job?

 

No, he doesn't change my life at all, just makes me angry with an attitude of embracing some change he reads about in books without any grasp at the immense practical ramifications thereof.

 

Maybe people weren't so casually dismissive of film imaging, I wouldn't get so violently angry sometimes, but they are. :blink: