If it's "obsolete" can it still be good?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Ideally, with a good story and good actors, you'd then proceed to employ all your cinematic skills at most effectively telling that story, so obviously I believe that format is intrinsically important ONCE you have the right elements in place. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is a more accurate qualification of my original intent.

 

The story and the acting are the first things you have to get straight. That said most filmmakers are too caught up in discussing what they're going to shoot their film on versus what it's actually about and who's in it. I always hear "I'm shooting my film on Super 16" versus "I'm shooting an awesome crime drama about.."

 

One of the reasons for this is the financial obstacle that is in front of them with buying filmstock and processing it. Most people can get the actors and locations for little, it's harder to convince a business like a lab and a camera rental house to give you something for nothing.

 

- G.

Edited December 8, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[John Sprung]

Storytelling is a process of controlled revelation. When do you reveal that somebody's lurking in the shadows? How much longer before you reveal who it is? Showing that there's something there that you can't quite see, something that you don't yet know, can pull people into the story.

 

Grain, limited dynamic range, B&W, and so forth can be useful in controlling what you reveal, and for creating a mood. If you replace them with 35mm color, all lit up bright, properly exposed, with no filters, it's kinda like visiting a haunted house at noon on a sunny day, when what you really needed was that dark and stormy night.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes and no -- while I agree that the jump in technical quality is quite obvious and severe between DV and 35mm, I still see all of those options on the same continuum as the difference between using 200 ASA film versus 500 ASA film, or a 1/4 ProMist instead of a 1/2 Soft-FX or Cooke versus Zeiss, in that all these choices affect the texture of the image, some more dramatically than others, and ideally what drives those choices are your artistic goals in terms of telling that story.

 

Because if you don't view all these choices objectively for what they can or can't do, you start falling into format advocasy (like the film always, video never people) and tend to employ a one brush-fits-all attitude.

[Alain LeTourneau]

Yes and no -- while I agree that the jump in technical quality is quite obvious and severe between DV and 35mm, I still see all of those options on the same continuum [...]

Because if you don't view all these choices objectively for what they can or can't do, you start falling into format advocasy (like the film always, video never people) and tend to employ a one brush-fits-all attitude.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What happens to your theory of "objectivity" when film is no longer available because many have been convinced that video is just as good as film (and besides its cheaper)?

 

A market is a market and by no means objective. Sony and Panasonic would love to see Kodak and Fuji stop making film, although what will likely happen (and is well underway) is that Kodak and Fuji with shift to making HD media formats in order to not lose any ground in the market.

 

Perhaps the change from fresco to oil paints, or daugerrotpye to plastic film emulsions were positive steps? The emlimination of acetate/estar base film for origination and exhibition is not a good step. It might be the next step...but that does make it a positive one.

 

Technology changes, but don't assume it gets better.

 

 

Alain

[John Sprung]

Technology changes, but don't assume it gets better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Technology produces new price/performance points, and the market picks the winners from among the available price/performance combinations. If a new technology reduces the price more than it reduces performance, it can win even though it's worse.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Alain LeTourneau]

Technology produces new price/performance points, and the market picks the winners from among the available price/performance combinations.  If a new technology reduces the price more than it reduces performance, it can win even though it's worse.

-- J.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Well put.

 

I find the psychology of this pretty interesting. The way DVX-100a cameras, with their 24P capabilities, are marketed to "filmmakers".

 

I think it starts with the marketing. And then some industry folks come along and say, oh this DVX-100a works from some things and not for others (video looks "edgy", or denotes a sense of the "real" thanks to the influence of ENG). It's said to have a quality or look that's interesting, not film but unique.

 

Those not in the position to jump into filmmaking due to the cost (students, others interested in using media to tell a story but not in the industry per say) read what's being said and have neither the experience nor the historical background to do anything but make a decision based on bottom-line concerns. (When one is paying a fortune to go to school its no wonder that there is little left over for actual projects.) Or an individual makes an educated decision and says I know about the virtues of film but I want the look of of DV.

 

Individuals are making decisions based on their pocket books and of course this makes sense, but to say that DV was chosen over film for any other reason is a falsehood. If a 400' roll of film was $25 for B/W and $45 for color I'm certain the number of productions would increase x10 if not more.

 

The choice to shoot DV is pure economics. And soon enough it will be the ONLY choice, or some HD version of it. Now, one can say its a "choice" but soon enough it will loose its toehold in the market.

 

 

Alain

[David Mullen ASC]

The film industry has always gone through cycles where your technical options were either expanding or narrowing.

 

Look at the 1950's, with 3-strip Technicolor photography and dye transfer printing still an option (until 1955, when 3-strip photography was killed), plus all those 35mm and then 65mm formats and aspect ratios in combination with the printing options. Plus b&w was still popular. By the 1970's, most of that had narrowed back to a few choices for making a movie. And during most of this time, until the 1980's, you really had one choice in 35mm color negative for making movies in, more or less.

 

But given some of these narrower choices for filmmakers in the 1970's, for example, with 65mm dying and dye transfer printing on the decline, Cinerama gone, and one Kodak color stock to use in 35mm, b&w almost gone as an option, etc. we saw in some ways in INCREASE in artistic range on display in movies, not a decrease.

 

We are going through another Wild West show of formats and at some point, maybe in the next decade, we'll see some narrowing down of choices for awhile before it explodes again. But that doesn't mean that we have to let the artistry of movies suffer. I say, for now, take advantage of the chaos.

 

There is no law saying that the best format is what emerges on top. If that were true, we'd all be shooting on 5-perf 65mm...

 

>The choice to shoot DV is pure economics. And soon enough it will be the ONLY choice, or some HD version of it. Now, one can say its a "choice" but soon enough it will loose its toehold in the market.

 

This sort of absolute statement is almost always by its nature to be inaccurate. And there is even an contradiction inside of it, that we will be left with the lowest end video only, DV -- except that it is evolving into a low-end HDTV format. Which suggests that even the lowest consumer formats and cameras are improving over time.

 

As for the idea that the choice of DV is always economically driven, while that may be true 90% of the time, it is not true 100% of the time. There have been plenty of prominent DV features that could have shot in some other format with their budgets. Look at "Anniversary Party" and its 3.5 million dollar budget.

 

I don't it's so much only a case of rising costs of film forcing everyone to switch to video; it's also a case of lower costs of video allowing people to shoot who might have not shot anything at all otherwise. So this notion that video is a destroyer of film doesn't quite hold true; it's barely made a dent in mainstream studio production overall, and it's allowed a lot of people to make a movie who might have not gone into production faced with the costs of film, so in that case, it's an enabler.

 

In the big picture, I don't see film disappearing until digital is so competitive both in price, quality, and flexibility, that a majority of the professional market can't see much of a difference.

 

I also think you're going to see a new generation of film students who'd rather shoot their projects digitally, not because they can't afford film, but because they are more comfortable with digital technology.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

The choice to shoot DV is pure economics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You got that right.

 

There are of course moments when video's functional convenience also enters the picture. Even if 35mm and DV were priced the same, there are moments when I'm not using a camera for aesthetic purpose but only as a working tool - to record some event or whatever. In that case available light and a camcorder will do.

 

But in 90% of cases, it's all about price. Unfortunately the film manufacturers and labs haven't found a way to make a profit and reduce the cost of shooting film significantly (especially since it's not as mass produced of a product as it once was many years ago), and I doubt they ever will - so we're stuck with that problem.

 

This problem will abate, however, once digital imaging gets to the point where it can outperform film. How close that day is is up to debate, and since we're living in the here and now we have to work in the here and now...

 

- G.

Edited December 8, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Wouldn't this be something to embrace and encourage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the healthiest force is the market itself. Although there is a romanticism about film cameras, if someone gave me film quality using digital technology and at a price I could afford, with a similar functionality, I'd grab it tomorrow and put my film cameras on display as museum pieces at once. That will forever end the film versus video debate. But until they come up with that gadget you have to do what you have to do to get what you need to get. In the end it's all about using the right tool to do the job right.

 

- G.

Edited December 8, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Guest lonedog]

you have to do what you have to do to get what you need

 

A lot of great historical figures have forged ahead chanting this rhetoric.

[John Sprung]

I say, for now, take advantage of the chaos.

 

In the big picture, I don't see film disappearing until digital is so competitive both in price, quality, and flexibility, that a majority of the professional market can't see much of a difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said, take advantage of the chaos.

 

We should be seeing the Genesis in use in the first half of next year. From the Daviau tests, I'd say it's pretty much there in quality. Flexibility is, if anything, somewhat better than film. You get longer loads and quicker reloads in a smaller package. They're not talking price yet, but it could be high in the beginning. Arri's D-20 is also coming right along, probably mid-year. It's still theathered to an off-board recorder, which is a flexibility limitation. But I'm sure they'll do something about that.

 

Film will certainly have a reduction in market share and absolute volume. But it's hard to say if it'll disappear completely. There's probably some volume below which it no longer makes sense to keep the coating plants and labs open. Sort of like trying to make a car idle too slow, you reach a point where it just dies. Somtimes a technology gets supplanted in its primary application, but has enough volume in other markets to live on. Passenger aircraft today are nearly all jets, but for cargo and small private planes, you still see lots of propellers.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Max Jacoby]

Grain, limited dynamic range, B&W, and so forth can be useful in controlling what you reveal, and for creating a mood.  If you replace them with 35mm color, all lit up bright, properly exposed, with no filters, it's kinda like visiting a haunted house at noon on a sunny day, when what you really needed was that dark and stormy night.

It is still the cinematographer who controls the look through lighting and exposure, not the camera. Shooting on 35mm makes more sense, because you have more control and can still degrade the image later, if you want to.

[Annie Wengenroth]

I suppose there are two sides of the issue when it comes to fulfilling a vision- the practical and the ideal. This being said, if ever there came a point when we stopped shooting on film and proclaimed it dead and buried, I would probably cry! Just picturing the headlines, "FILM OBSOLETE- VIDEO THE NEW REVOLUTION" fills me with a sense of panic and dread. I hope it never happens. As interested as I am in new technology, I am also a die-hard fan of the old, because as a society we need to constantly be aware of where we came from and not just where we're going. Not to mention, there is a certain sense of working with your hands that is being lost to the point-and-click era of Instead of Opening A Book I'll Look it Up Online. I fear that this will cause us to atrophy, in a sense, and pretty soon there will be generations who don't know how to fix anything unless it's in the Windows control panel.

 

I realized what I truly had when my Bolex started having problems with its motor. I think I emailed and called at least 14 different places about fixing it. Most of them were clueless. Some of them tried to convince me to ship it to Switzerland. One suggested a complete overhaul, a new motor, (for about $350 and $150) and if that didn't work, a new body. Well, I bought the whole package for about $500, lenses and accessories included, so I'm now considering a new camera body, an upgrade to the Rex-5 instead of the 3.

 

Long story short, it occurred to me as I sat there calculating the costs of shipping my baby to Switzerland, that this wasn't as simple as reformatting my hard drive or cleaning the heads of the GL-1's because they've been eating people's tapes. I had this profound sense of owning something that was not as disposable as an operating system. To think that my camera is 40 years old and my computer is 4, and guess what I've had to reformat twice?!

 

Someone asked me once, "Well, if you really want a 24P camera, why don't you just sell your Bolex?" I was absolutely speechless. I tried to explain that as a student, I feel it necessary to become equally competent in both formats- video and film; and also that potentially, one could end up paying for the other. I know of a few fellow students who videotape weddings and then use their earnings to pay for film. I think each format can have its advantages and disadvantages but that in each case, you should do the best you can to accomplish what you want.

 

Maybe another way to think of it is to imagine every single stereo mix being reworked in 5.1 Surround. Would it be interesting? Probably. But necessary? I don't know. We are living in a unique time period where disposable technology seems all the rage, in many ways. But on the other hand, you have to make a decision and invest in *something* eventually. What if one were to refuse to shoot on video, how many opportunities would s/he lose out on then?

 

Sometimes I resent being a part of the 20-something crowd because I think most of us grew up in a time where the given lifespan of any particular technological gadget was maybe 4 years or so. And that was just the beginning- it's getting even shorter now. I think this tends to limit our perspective in the long run because everytime something new comes around, it comes with an expiration date. It's created a lot of skeptical people who spend endless amounts of money on things that they become convinced they "need", if only because nobody knows how to fix the older models (and the mentality seems to be, who needs the older models anyway?!). Needless to say, as much as I look forward to plunking down my hard-earned dough for a 24P camera, I am taking every stop possible to understand what I'm truly getting into.

 

Oh christ this is really long... :unsure: sorry...!

[David Mullen ASC]

Hopefully it won't as dramatic as a switchover to digital from film in one day. I suspect that film will have a long twilight before it fades away from use and we're talking about another decade from now in terms of motion picture work before that starts to happen. We've had the F900 for nearly five years coming up, new cameras like the Panavision Genesis and Arri D20 are probably two or more years from being common enough to see being used a lot -- all of this takes longer than you think. And Super-16 has been having a boom year in terms of usage.

 

I was just watching some student films at UT Austin when I was there and I saw a mix of 16mm and 24P DVX100 projects and I have to say that some of the DVX100 stuff looked better than some of the 16mm stuff, so I can see some students wondering why they have to deal with 16mm if they don't want to.

 

Funny thing is that for me, I only shot a lot of 16mm in my three years of film school. I shot Super-8 for a decade before that and I shot mostly 35mm for a decade after film school. So when I was learning how to shoot back in the 1980's, 16mm wasn't particularly practical for me, not with the difficulties of editing it, the costs, etc. pre-NLE days -- Super-8 was my ticket to shooting film.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I agree with Annie in that there is a romanticism about film equipment. I absolutely love my Bolex, if I could shoot everything using that camera alone (just gimme a better viewfinder and good glass please!) I would.

 

I thought of selling it but I couldn't get myself to do it. There's something about it that makes it feel solid, yet delicate. Swiss engineering at its best. I also love that mechanical sound of its motor, being aware that you're rolling on film - runrunrunrunrunrunrun.... the cool winding handle and frame counters, etc. It was bigger and more solid than my Super 8 cameras, yet portable enough to run around with anywhere and delivering a very solid image.

 

I think what was the most exciting thing about it for me at the time was being aware that I was shooting on real film as opposed to deplorable videotape, getting back that B&W reversal footage and projecting it on a screen in the basement. It was even cooler when I'd process my own film, that was like a mad scientist lab.

 

I remember also the different feelings I got when it was loaded with different film - B&W felt good because it was relatively cheap, color reversal and especially color negative was like "Okay, this is a serious thing now..."

 

However, today I'm a much more practical person. My priority is to make films - that's it. I have stories to tell and that's what I'm doing all of this for in the end. I need to use certain tools to get that across, and some tools do the job better than others.

 

My Bolex is really a fun camera, but if I can get better results one day with a digital camera, I will be using the tool that does the best job as long as I can afford it. I'll be honest, I like my Bolex more than my Arri IIc (and way, way more than that 35mm piece of rock called the Eyemo), but I gotta use that Arri because it delivers what I feel I need.

 

- G.

[John Sprung]

It is still the cinematographer who controls the look through lighting and exposure, not the camera. Shooting on 35mm makes more sense, because you have more control and can still degrade the image later, if you want to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or, as I said before, shoot side by side with 35mm and whatever else you want to try. If it works, fine. If not, you have the 35 to fall back on.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

As interested as I am in new technology, I am also a die-hard fan of the old, because as a society we need to constantly be aware of where we came from and not just where we're going. Not to mention, there is a certain sense of working with your hands that is being lost to the point-and-click era ....

 

I realized what I truly had when my Bolex started having problems....  I had this profound sense of owning something that was not as disposable as an operating system. ....

 

Sometimes I resent being a part of the 20-something crowd because I think most of us grew up in a time where the given lifespan of any particular technological gadget was maybe 4 years or so. And that was just the beginning- it's getting even shorter now. I think this tends to limit our perspective in the long run because everytime something new comes around, it comes with an expiration date.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Annie, I have a favor to ask of you. Please find a junior college or trade school that teaches machine shop work, and get them to give you a tour. I want you to get your hands on a lathe and a Bridgeport mill, and find out a little about what they can do and how to use them. There's a whole world of tools out there that aren't ephemeral crap, that can make any shape you can imagine out of solid steel, and accurate to within a thousandth of an inch. I think you might like this. And if you do, you can get started at it as a hobby with some of the small hand tools, vernier calipers, a tap and die set, .... Good used stuff isn't expensive at all.

 

Anyhow, I think it's worth looking at. You might find something you'll love.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Alain LeTourneau]

I think the healthiest force is the market itself. Although there is a romanticism about film cameras, if someone gave me film quality using digital technology and at a price I could afford, with a similar functionality, I'd grab it tomorrow and put my film cameras on display as museum pieces at once.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

"Romanticism"?

 

I thought that buying something that was well-made and built to last was called being "practical" or having "common sense". I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but when I hear comments like this I have to wonder what's happening to our ability to discern quality in a sea of garbage.

 

100+ years for the 35mm format. 82 years for 16mm.

 

I believe there's more to liking something that's old than because a person is a "romantic". I think it has to do with being time-proven to work and work well. That a 1960s Bolex can create such wonderful images is a miracle in light of current economics and product longevity.

 

I don't hear people calling Leica camera collectors romantics, and architects who work to preserve old buildings romantics. Each is thought to understand the importance of continuity, heritage, quality and longevity. That this can be tied to machinery is not such a bad thing.

 

 

Anyway, good comments all around. And thanks to Mullen for your enthusiasm...."its not dead yet". Indeed its not.

 

 

Alain

[Guest lonedog]

"Romanticism"?

 

I thought that buying something that was well-made and built to last was called being "practical" or having "common sense". I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but when I hear comments like this I have to wonder what's happening to our ability to discern quality in a sea of garbage.

 

100+ years for the 35mm format. 82 years for 16mm.

 

I believe there's more to liking something that's old than because a person is a "romantic". I think it has to do with being time-proven to work and work well. That a 1960s Bolex can create such wonderful images is a miracle in light of current economics and product longevity.

 

I don't hear people calling Leica camera collectors romantics, and architects who work to preserve old buildings romantics. Each is thought to understand the importance of continuity, heritage, quality and longevity. That this can be tied to machinery is not such a bad thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Spoken like a true romantic.

[Alain LeTourneau]

Spoken like a true romantic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

And a "practical" romantic at that. ; )

 

Alain

[Guest dpforum1968]

Did any one point out in this thread yet that DV hasn't even managed to kill off Super 8mm film?

 

I mean Super 8 for pete's sake it's still going! You can buy it and get it processed quite easily.

 

I love Super 8 and made all my student films on it. That was back in the day when film students where real men, and shot on film no matter what. Heck you had to :-)

 

The yahoos in this forum that constantly go on about films demise at the hands of HD just make me laugh. I would venture that most of them don't have the skill to even load a mag, so of course they'd like to see us all suffer with the hideous video formats.

 

TV didn't kill off the cinema, neither did VCRs or DVD players. The multi-plexes just keep getting bigger and bigger. Of course the content is a different story :-)

 

HD will take it's place in the industry just as each new technology has done since 1900. The phone hasn't been replaced by e-mail, heck even the fax machine is still going strong in this internet world of ours. The internet has simply taken its place along side the existing technologies.

 

Ok I have to stop typing now and go feed my carrier pigeons. Yep still usin' em'!!!

 

Then off to see the blacksmith and the chimney sweep.

 

Thanks

DC

[Alain LeTourneau]

TV didn't kill off the cinema, neither did VCRs or DVD players.  The multi-plexes just keep getting bigger and bigger.  Of course the content is a different story :-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I shouldn't respond to this but I cannot resist.

 

The TV/VCR/DVD have all taken its toll on the cinema, that is, a cinema of plurality and diversity not the hum drum drone of the h-wood factory.

 

Look back at the number of film societies that existed in the 1920s all the way through the 1960s and then take account of what is left...not many. And then there's all those 1970s rep theaters that died in the 1980s. Around the time of the VCR's rise in popularity.

 

People will take the path of least resistance. And stay home and watch the tube or tape or disc instead of going out to the movies. It's sad and true.

 

What's left of the cinema is small independently-run and non-profit run theaters struggling to get by and attract an audience admidst the lavish press (read: big money publicity junkets) doled out to studio pics. Try to competing with this...its not easy. I've done my best to offer an alternative.

 

http://www.lighthousecinema.org/

 

Our culture (or government, how ever you wish to look at it) is much more interesting in funneling huge amounts of capital towards bogus war efforts then on culture let alone anything having to do with the public sphere.

 

 

Alain

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I occasionally (more occasionally now than last year) project for a venue run by the local authority here; we show both popular and less-well-known stuff in a programme I find quite interesting. They seem to strike a decent balance, and it doesn't particularly need to be profitable (although it is, and I get the impression they'd rather keep it that way).

 

Phil

[Annie Wengenroth]

Phil- that sounds like a good gig. John- I like your suggestion, thank you and I plan to look into it. I often get frustrated at owning this camera and yet realizing that if I were to take it apart, I would be helpless!

 

Actually, I may be teaching a video class in the summer to kids in the 10-15 age range, and I must admit I am hesitant about how to approach it. I plan to do a brief run-through of all the different film and video formats, some examples, and advantages and disadvantages. Then I will talk about how if/When You Go To Film School (insert dramatic music), yes, you will be able to shoot on film. I'd like to present each method of moviemaking as an equal opportunity, but without being unrealistic. Actually, the program used to have super 8 cameras and then upgraded to video cameras as soon as they could fit it into the budget. So if I dig into the archives a little, I might be able to show the new students what the "old school" was up to.

 

Then again I might not even get the job, but the reason I bring it up is because I think it's interesting to consider how we, as film- er, movie!- makers, describe our work to those who don't know as much about how a movie is made. And similarly, what do "non-filmmaker" people ask about first? How should we field these questions without coming off either as arrogant tech-heads, or dare I say "old-fashioned"? I found myself at a holiday party being asked, "So you shoot on video AND film??" like it was this extravagant thing, the subtle implication being "how can you afford to shoot film?" I was tempted to reply, "Oh well, I just ask people at Christmas parties for money." :lol:

[Sam Wells]

Respectfully Alain, I disagree.

 

Jeeze thanks to DVD I've seen in the past month I've seen great films like Suzhou River,

Hanna-bi/Fireworks, uncut version of Hero even....

 

Film societies still exist, saw a Mizoguchi silent "Taki no Saraito" at one 2 weeks ago.

 

If I'd had time for the one hour drive to Philadelphia I could have seen Pierrot le fou in 35mm, Harry Smith show, Cassavettes retrospective among other things. etc etc.

 

I saw Gjon Mili's famous "Jammin the Blues" w/ Lester Young, Sweets Edison etc" in a very nice 35 B&W print.

 

I'm sorry but I came of age in the time of 16mm reduction print film societies and ok, they're rare... but the diversity of films on DVD is amazing, it's opened up Chinese cinema, Iranian, you name it, like never before. And honestly I *prefer* a well mastered DVD to a bad 16mm reduction.

 

Plus I don't see any conflict re theater/prints vs DVD. Can't I have the experience of both ?

 

Yes it would be wonderful to have more collective experience, but hey - I read books alone ;-) So community has to happen sometimes in other ways, it can work.

 

 

Truthfully, the major thing keeping me away from "major film viewing experience" is I'm too busy with my own film work, don't have time..

 

-Sam