Did I Make A Mistake

[Mark Day]

Hey guys, I went out and did a little research on the internet before I decided to post. Don't want to get chided again for not at least researching my question first before posting it here. Well, I was part of a group that made a movie a long time ago in a land far, far away when I was in college. That was pretty much before consumer VCRs, etc... Then I owned an old Yashica 60S that I shot about 12 spools of film on just because I had the camera, movie film wasn't too expensive, nor was processing. I got rid of the Yashica a long time ago and now use a Canon XL1. Recently,doing a little research, I have found that film cinema is still around. This forum (and others like it) seem to indicate this. Coupled with the fact that Kodak plans to start marketing a modern movie camera utilizing Super 8 also seems to support this. Recently, however; after doing some searches on the internet, it appears that more and more "Hollywood" productions are going to 'digital'. Cameras like the Alexa and Sony's HDC-F950 are being used as opposed to the familiar Arris and Panaflex cameras. I wanted to get back into film cinematography so I purchased a Canon 814. Did I make a mistake? Is it the general consensus around here that film cinematography is going to be around, or is it slowly going to be phased out by the digital 'movie' cameras? Film and processing is pretty expensive these days unless you're part of a production company where money isn't that great a problem. I was really just curious if I should've just stayed with video. I do love film though, and it took me forever to finally give up the Leica and purchase a Nikon DSLR.

[Anthony Schilling]

Digital Cinema has established a strong foothold in Hollywood, but has recently gotten a bit of backlash from a lot of serious and established directors, Some kind of deal was made between the directors, big studios, and Kodak to keep film alive as a viable choice when making movies. A good chunk of your more serious and big budget movies are still shot on film. Digital technology has allowed amateurs to shoot film and use digital workflows a lot easier than amateur film used to be. All of this is reason for the Super 8 promotion as well. People from all levels perceive film as more desirable or more superior than digital. While many others (George Lucas) like the ease of digital. So it's really up to what you like.

[Landon D. Parks]

Ultimately, things are switching to digital. While there are still some 35mm film projectors, these are not common any longer due to the digital cinema initiatives push to digitize the theatres. Film as an acquisition format is still around, though I have to wonder how long it can really survive. It's like Chevy trying to bring back classic cars --- great idea, but the actual user base is small and will keep shrinking, which leads me to think that film will start becoming more expensive as it becomes a niche product. Not saying film is bad at all, just pointing out that in the future, the only place where film will remain viable is large productions by directors who can demand to shoot on it. It's all fine and dandy to say that J. J. Abrams loves film, and that is proof we can all shoot on film, but the reality is film most often does cost more money to shoot than digital - especially now that DCI has overtaken. A $100 hard drive is vastly cheaper than $200,000 for negative film + $100,000 for processing and DI, just to end up with a digital product in the end anyway.

 

Like I said, in terms of 'big Hollywood' film is still around in a very limited amount only because most of the directors shooting it have the power to demand they shoot film. On large budget films the whole 'film vs digital' debate is not that important, because either one costs such a small portion of the budget that it's almost not worth mentioning. The push to digital cinema was the big money saver for Hollywood - no longer needing to strike 5,000 prints at $2,000 a pop, saving them $10 million dollars for a wide release.

 

Negative film on smaller budget production and indie films, including television works and direct to video is long gone and won't be coming back.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

Did I make a mistake? Is it the general consensus around here that film cinematography is going to be around, or is it slowly going to be phased out by the digital 'movie' cameras?

Kodak was for the first time in over 10 years, profitable once again in 2015. Film cameras are becoming cheaper and cheaper. For the first time, people can own real professional film equipment for digital camera prices. This in conjunction with Kodak's reduction in stock prices, have boosted indy film production to a level not seen in quite sometime. Just in the last few years, large format 70mm production has started back up again. Arri and Panavision are the only two vendors offering sync sound (quiet) 70mm cameras and those cameras are booked years in advance. Heck, there are over 90 theaters in this country currently outfitted with 70mm projection equipment! That's a larger number then we've had in decades. Even still photography on film has skyrocketed in the last few years. There are boutique labs popping up all over the place and the pricing is very competitive.

 

So motion picture film production ain't going anywhere, in fact if anything it's getting stronger then it has been in the last decade. Kids these days are very excited about film production because it doesn't exist. Like the current vinyl craze, which has taken over most record stores, the "retro" aspect of film has grown substantially over the last few years. Many filmmakers are using film to get a certain look within their predominately digitally shot content. You can't mimic film perfectly with digital technology, film always as that "filmic" look that even with the best emulation, is still not quite there.

 

One thing to note, the industry didn't move to digital JUST to save money. In fact, today's digital movies cost more then film movies of only a few years prior. The big reason films shoot digitally today is because digital easier to use, don't need as much light and you get instant, high quality results. This means, filmmakers know they have the shot, they can edit right away and deliver product with greater speed and reliability. Lets face it, film cameras can jam, they can get hairs in the gate and the labs could mess something up, it may take a day or two to see results depending on how far away you are from a lab, etc. So there are some downsides to film, but then again, film is for life! Once you expose negative, it will be there for 100+ years. It's also resolution agnostic, so if 20 years from now you want to scan your camera negative to get a 8k version, you can. Most movies are finished in 2k today, so imagine trying to upscale a finished 2k version to 8k for future release? In 20 years, there are going to be so many filmmakers looking back on that silly decision made so many years ago, scratching their heads why their movies look like crap. Yet the vast majority of 4 perf 35mm camera negatives retain more then 4k worth of information.

 

Now... is it a mistake to shoot Super 8? Well... I wouldn't. In my eyes, super 8 is a consumer format. If you really want to work with film, it's probably better to start with 16mm and work your way up. More expensive for sure, but you will learn a lot more because most professional 16mm cameras have interchangeable lenses with external controls. It's the lensing and exposing of film that will give you the skills necessary for the future. I always suggest people start by buying Kodak Vision stock rolled onto still cartridges. Start shooting still's with your SLR and learn how to lens, expose and compose properly. Then buy a low-cost 16mm camera, maybe a BOLEX and start working on motion picture film.

 

I teach film production to high school students and they absolutely love working with film. They love the technical aspects of it and how organic it looks. Many of those students have gone on to borrow my equipment and do their own productions outside of school. One of those productions just won a local film festival because frankly, it stood out amongst the other entries. This is why I think shooting on motion picture film is so important for low-budget shorts and features. Everyone has a DSLR that shoots video, everyone has a friend with a 4k digital camera, but very few people have access to good working film equipment. People take you more seriously when you shoot film, they know there is money rolling through the camera and that attitude runs through your entire production and distribution. When you walk up to a distributor and say it was shot on film, that means something.

[Landon D. Parks]

Not trying to argue, but I'd only point out a couple of things: Film is not really 'resolution agnostic'... Sure, you can scan a film frame at 500 megapixels - that does not mean you'd get any better quality increase than if you scanned it at 4k or maybe 8k. Film grain is exposed in such a way that it can only retain so much resolution. Scanning it at a higher and higher amount will not 'create' more resolution any more than exporting a 2k file as a 4k file in post.

I also find it improbable that shooting digitally costs more than film. The math just does not add up no matter which way you throw it. If you mean films cost more to make now than they did a few years ago - that is true, but it has nothing to do with the switch to a digital post workflow, it has to do with skyrocketing wages, increased spending on visual effects, and the like. In fact, how could it possibly be more expensive to shoot a film on digital than on film?

No, in my opinion, film is not as cheap to shoot as digital, at least not without making a lot of concessions. But the thing is, no one is shooting on film to save money - at least no one I know of it. They shoot film because they feel the quality is better, or they like the 'look of it'.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

Film is not really 'resolution agnostic'...

The silver that makes up film is non-uniform. Size and density, vary considerably from frame to frame. The larger the frame, the more pieces of silver, the more random the image is. Unlike digital, which has fixed pixels, film doesn't and as a consequence of this, scanning film at it's theoretically highest line of resolution (4.5k 4 perf 35mm and 2.5k S16mm), still doesn't give you all the data. There have been several filmmakers that have experimented with higher resolution scans of film and the results are amazing, there is far more data in the grain, then once thought. All this time we've been putting noise reduction on the grain because it's too noisy, thanks to the low resolution scans. However, if you scan and project at much higher resolutions like 8k, you don't NEED noise reduction because the image is all contained, there is little to no lost data.

 

With digital, you have fixed resolutions. There are black lines between each pixel, data is actually missing between them. Same goes for digital projection, there are spaces between each pixel (mirror) of the imager. As a consequence when you blow it up to larger sizes, all you do is expand the black lines. This is such a problem with IMAX digital, they currently use two projectors in that system. One projector is crisp and the other is displaying a slightly softer image to help coverup those black lines.

 

Next time you're at the theater, stand up during the show, walk up to the screen and you can see those lines. If you do that same test with film, there is no grid, no lines, it's just moving/roving grain.

 

I also find it improbable that shooting digitally costs more than film.

If you're making a real movie, with real high end cameras, real high end lenses, on set colorist/DIT and real post facility doing the coloring/finishing process. I've done the math many times, shooting 2 perf 35mm or S16 is actually cheaper in the long run, if you're doing it right. People are willing to give away camera packages and Kodak/labs are willing to strike amazing deals.

 

I'm actually working on several film and digital shows right now. One of them is being shot scene by scene digital and film. Even though it's a short, it's a great comparison that I can't wait to share when we're done with it. The entire film aspect of the short will be $500 dollars.

 

no one is shooting on film to save money - at least no one I know of it. They shoot film because they feel the quality is better, or they like the 'look of it'.

That's very true.

[Will Montgomery]

The costs are really hard to nail down. For real multimillion dollar productions that will be in theaters, film can be very competitive and/or cheaper and is really down to aesthetics...what they want it to look like.

 

The strange cost vs. quality issues come in at lower budgets. By it's nature film will be touched by colorists in transfer and finishing. In both of those steps major issues with exposure and lighting can be fixed where it isn't always the case in digital (although it's getting better everyday). At lower budgets, there's rarely the time and expertise available to properly light scenes and though it may be counter intuitive, I've found that in 16 & 35mm I can pull a beautiful image out of poorly shot material much easier than from even RAW digital footage. And with the grain and general look of film it seems more organic and natural in those situations.

 

If you want to create a movie for the least amount of money and production quality is secondary then digital would win. If you have a top notch crew and DP and time to shoot, you should consider film.

 

With film you basically have a physical 4k storage (6-8k for 35mm) that will last for 100+ years if decently taken care of.

 

For home movies, I love the fact that everything I shot on 16mm and even Super 8 back when DV was king can be rescanned in beautiful 2 or 4k with flawless color and clarity. Try "UP-RESING" DV or VHS footage and see what you get. That may not be an argument for shooting film right now since you could shoot 4k digital...but with a $150 16mm K3 camera you can create some amazing 4k imagery and use the $8000 you saved to buy a lot of film and processing. Then you also have a great storage medium for your images that will be readable for hundreds of years vs. something like the JAZ & Syquest drives I had to pull data from a few months ago. That was quite a process.

[Landon D. Parks]

$150 16mm K3 camera you can create some amazing 4k imagery and use the $8000 you saved to buy a lot of film and processing. Then you also have a great storage medium for your images that will be readable for hundreds of years vs. something like the JAZ & Syquest drives I had to pull data from a few months ago. That was quite a process.

 

A $150 K3 will only help if you plan to make a silent short film, which while nice and stylistic, is not a common way of doing it. The K3 is a very loud camera - my uncle STILL has one. You might be able to blimp it, but that is just an extra step.

 

I still say it's cheaper to make a digital movie, no matter which way you calculate it. Considering a DI and eventual DCP of a project (since film projection is basically dead, you'd need to do a DI and DCP no matter what), I compared the cost to shoot digital vs. Film. I left out the cost of the DCP, since that may or may not be needed, and would be needed in either case if a theatrical release was required.

 

Control: $500,000 production, 35mm negative format, 90 minutes, shooting 5 to 1 ratio, processing 3 to 1 ratio.

 

Shooting on film:

40,500 feet of film x $0.50 = $20,250

25,000 feet of film processed x $0.17 = $4,250

DI Scan: $7,500 ($0.30/foot).

35mm Camera Rental: $2,100/week x 4 weeks: $8,400

Pure cost of shooting film: $40,400.

 

Shooting on an Arri Alexa:

Arri Alexa Package: $9,600 for 30 days (ARC rate)

Digital Imaging Technician (if one is really needed, which I question: $8,740 (IATSE rate for 4 weeks).

Pure cost of shooting digital: $18,340.

 

Now those figures take nothing into account beyond the pure differences between recording film and digital on the set, and bringing it all digital in post. Does not include things like production cost, crew needs (except the DIT), etc. For the film workflow I did not include traditional film printing, because there is little reason to assume that is a good idea. Most theaters can no longer show it. Since things like color correction and grading, editing, etc., are digital now anyway, those cost remain the same regardless of capture format.

 

Maybe in the day when film was the dominant release medium, perhaps film could approach digital in cost by doing a straight processing to print process for a film with no need for a DI... But now that even the most basic of films would need a DI for any sort of meaningful release, that is no longer a valid argument.

 

SO, like I said, the math just is not there. On a large budget production, it really doesn't matter because the cost between the two is small enough, and the budget is large enough that most studios will allow a director to shoot film if they request it... Though watching Season 4 of Project Greenlight proves just how hard it can be to fight for film with someone like HBO.

 

People shoot film not to save money, but because they like it. It might well be easier to shoot with to some people, they might feel that have more control, or that the colors and highlights look nice, or that it's easier to save it in post than digital... But those are not money saving reasons. There is also the argument that film stock lasts longer than digital and can be better preserved, or scanned for better resolution in the future... Whatever. BUT, since I'm talking pure money, that does not really apply.

 

-----

References

 

Adorama Camera rental - Arri Alexa Package.

 

CineLab commercial rate card for processing and DI cost.

 

Kodak for negative stock pricing.

 

DIT rate from Local 600 rate card.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Will Montgomery]

 

A $150 K3 will only help if you plan to make a silent short film, which while nice and stylistic, is not a common way of doing it. The K3 is a very loud camera - my uncle STILL has one. You might be able to blimp it, but that is just an extra step.

 

In that instance I was talking about home movies or no budget art film.

 

For more serious film making an Arri SR3 can be owned for $3500 or less, nice and quiet.

[Tyler Purcell]

Control: $500,000 production, 35mm negative format, 90 minutes, shooting 5 to 1 ratio, processing 3 to 1 ratio.

But whose talking 35mm? Also, it's difficult to make a movie with a 5:1 ratio. I always work with a 10:1 ratio at the minimal when budgeting. Buy enough film for an 8:1 ratio and if you run out, you can always buy more.

 

Super 16 has 2.5k of resolvable resolution, which is perfectly good for digital projection. You would buy a camera and lenses on ebay using a credit card and sell them after the movie was done, so your cost for equipment would be maybe an interest charge, since you can usually sell for what you bought it for.

 

I've posted the S16 numbers MANY times, from actual quotes I've received, not guesses.

 

S16, 10:1 ratio, 100 minute movie.

 

Stock = .32/ft * 400 = $128 * 92 rolls = $11,776

Processing = .12/ft * 37,000ft = $4400

Transfer (4k) = .50/ft * 37,000ft = $18,500

Complete work = $35,000

 

That's "retail" pricing. If you walked up to Kodak or a lab and gave them this job, you'd get a MUCH better deal. You'd also need a credit card to deal with the payment of the camera, but $10k credit card that you'll wind up getting back in the end, isn't too difficult. The other ancillary items you may need, you can do the ol' ebay trick with as well. In the end, the only number that will absolutely come out of your pocket is the $35k.

 

With the digital workflow, you COULD buy a camera, but you aren't getting an Alexa or RED.

 

So to RENT a digital camera, decent glass, support, monitors, drives/storage and have all the ability on set to download/manage, you're talking quite a bit of money.

 

Typical ultra-low RED package deal is $3000/day with glass, monitors, support, etc.. booked at 3 day week. So for a 4 week shoot = $36,000

 

A typical ALEXA package deal, with ultra primes and zooms, will be about double that.

 

Then you've gotta deal with storage and it's very expensive. Right now, the storage budget on this little indy I'm shooting is $3k and we're not shooting RAW or Pro Res. The typical drive budget for a small feature is around $5k. Then you've gotta transcode all the footage to a workable format from the camera RAW, either arriraw or RED code, which gobbles up even more drives and time. Plus, you really need to pay a DIT, it's a critical job because the cards only last a few minutes and someone has to deal with the data. Where an AC could do that job, they're usually too busy on set. Loading magazines in the morning and at lunch is easy, but a DIT job is full time. The DIT's I know, get $5k a week with their package included.

 

In post, digital requires far more work as well and since work equates to time and time equates to money, it's more expensive to "treat" digital material then film. Generally film looks good out of the camera and only needs small tweaks during the coloring sessions. I've worked with many top colorists who all say the same thing, a typical film job will take HALF the time of a typical digital job.

 

So if you look at the cost breakdowns in that light, you can see how much MORE digital is then S16mm. There is also no argument that a S16mm film shot well with low ASA stocks, has enough data to warrant a 4k scan. So if the argument is that a 4k digital movie will have more resolution, so it's somehow better... I wouldn't exactly say that.

 

People shoot film not to save money, but because they like it. It might well be easier to shoot with to some people, they might feel that have more control, or that the colors and highlights look nice, or that it's easier to save it in post than digital... But those are not money saving reasons. There is also the argument that film stock lasts longer than digital and can be better preserved, or scanned for better resolution in the future... Whatever. BUT, since I'm talking pure money, that does not really apply.

It costs thousands to store digital original camera files for years. Drives fail on their own from not being used. So re-compiling original camera data, can be very challenging with a digital show. With film, processed camera negative can last on a shelf in normal room temperatures for 100 years without much deterioration. This is why I like at least striking an IP from a cut negative, at least you've GOT your movie on film. The only way something could happen if it was lost and that's even a bigger problem with a digital show, where drives are so small these days. It's far easier to loose/misplace digital media then film.

 

Your "cost" includes everything from the day you start production through the day you sell. Having that camera negative sitting on shelf is a HUGE asset. A bunch of hard drives, isn't so much.

[Robert Houllahan]

OK I have been on quite a few sets where they still shoot everything but the gaffer picking his nose between takes, and if you are shooting Arriraw (the equivalent of 35mm OCN) and not ProRes the rate goes way up. Throw a few cameras in there and lens kits and Codex mags by the bag full shooting Digital can really add up.

 

Compare a 3-Perf 35mm with a deal from Kodak on film, say $0.45/ft or less. at 100K ft = $45000

 

We would run that for $0.11/ft with prep

 

I would then do a 1080P scan to DNxHD or ProRes with Keycode and Sound sync, say $0.13/ft

 

Then select scan the takes you need for about $3500 or so on our Xena 5K Pin Reg True RGB scanner.

 

So about $26K for develop editorial and finish scan at 4k

 

Or scan everything to 2K DPX for $0.20/ft with DPX and editorial files like DNxHD or ProRes and let editorial sync takes.

 

A couple ways make it happen and with 3-Perf you get a real 4K image not an uprezzed bayer pattern 3K sensor, as nice as the Alexa is it's not film negative or 4K

[Robert Houllahan]

I think it depends on what kind of film or tv or home movie you are trying to make, Carol did really well with S16mm and many other films have as well. Digital can be shot super cheap if that is the look your after or you can get the Codex and a Alexa or F65 and have at it.

 

Similarly we get people shooting docs and weddings on Super-8mm because they want that look and they are spending allot less than buying a DSLR like a A7s maybe a few hundred bucks for a S8mm camera and a few hundred bucks for film, process and scan.

 

It's just a medium, when Acrylic paints came on the painting scene Oil paints didn't dissapear because they are different looks.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Lots of numbers being thrown around. I just wanted to say that I recently rented my Arri 416 + Super Speed package to two features - one with a total budget of $47K shooting on 7222 doing a 2K scan finish, and the other with a production budget of $50K shooting color negative scanned and finished at 2K..

 

So micro scale features are being made on film. Kodak is very very open and willing to work with small productions.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Will Montgomery]

It's just a medium, when Acrylic paints came on the painting scene Oil paints didn't dissapear because they are different looks.

 

Yep. It's also a comfort level...people want to shoot what they know and that's probably a good idea. I would suggest any DP that has entered into the business in the digital age go out of their way to shoot some film projects even if its just for fun to understand what the it is about.

 

Talking to some Panavision guys, they said that crews & DPs often pushed for digital about 5 or 6 years ago so they would have it on their resumé and wouldn't be "left behind" in the brave new world even though they'd say film looked better. That's fine, I just think the format should serve the story (and the budget) and there should be options. Hopefully Kodak will keep it alive. Panavision started gifting their film cameras that were used on big films to directors for the extra goodwill instead of mothballing them all.

[Landon D. Parks]

OK I have been on quite a few sets where they still shoot everything but the gaffer picking his nose between takes, and if you are shooting Arriraw (the equivalent of 35mm OCN) and not ProRes the rate goes way up. Throw a few cameras in there and lens kits and Codex mags by the bag full shooting Digital can really add up.

True, but this more the fault of the production than the medium itself. I see little reason to shoot digital any different than shooting film. Roll the camera on roll, and cut it on cut.

 

Not saying that is the way it is done, but that is the way I do it - and that is the way it should be done if you're attempting to save money by shooting digital

[Peter Bitic]

I seriously think that digital is not there yet as far as quality goes. To me, the image from CMOS sensors doesn't look good at 100%, let alone upsampled, it needs to be downsampled to achieve a certain "stability" (and then it looks wonderful). Film on the other hand, looks good at any magnification. It's not just about the resolution, it's about the characteristics of a physical medium that contribute to the picture as a whole.

 

8k resolution should be the future-proof goal IMO (huge TVs will become a norm at some point, and the PPI should be at least 100:1 to preserve the solidity of the picture even when you get close to the screen), so you would need approximatelly 32k digital camera to get what I consider a great 8k picture (based on my experience with current CMOS sensors). And film can be scanned at any resolution and it will look good (not necessarilly good in terms of resolution, but good in terms of representation of the physical medium), so currently the film is for me the only possible option that meets this quality criteria.

[Landon D. Parks]

Yeah, I don't ever see 4k becoming a standard - at least not for the next 10 years. There is just not the infrastructure to make it happen in place, and given how far behind we are here in America in terms of technology, we'll probably not be the first to get there either.

 

So for me, 8k distribution is basically overkill. Even film prints sent to theaters only had about an effective resolution of 2k. 8k acquisition just seems overkill to me, and in fact sharper does not equal better in my mind.

[Tyler Purcell]

The truth is, there is no infrastructure for anything more then what we currently deliver. The vast majority of people on this planet are incapable of watching 1080p content pixel for pixel. Getting people to pay for faster internet, better computers, higher resolution monitors, it's just not going to happen fast. There are populated places in this country that don't even have cell towers, let alone fast internet. The vast majority of people don't live in media-rich places, so they aren't exposed to higher resolution. The desire to upgrade just doesn't exist and had terrestrial broadcast stayed SD, they would have been fine, I know I would have.

 

I do agree that for archiving purposes, 8k is probably pretty smart. However, the industry standard compression standard for long-term storage (JPEG2000), isn't very efficient. 16 bit RGB 444 8k video is around 8GB per second. So for a 100 minute movie, you're looking at 800GB, most movies would be a Terabyte. So imagine storing that much data, I mean you're looking at dozens of petabytes that needs to be constantly backed up or a shelf with 6 cans of film.

Original 35mm negative is around 4.5k and original 5 perf 70mm negative is around 8k. So if you want high res on a shelf, that's the way to go.

[Peter Bitic]

Yeah, I don't ever see 4k becoming a standard - at least not for the next 10 years. There is just not the infrastructure to make it happen in place, and given how far behind we are here in America in terms of technology, we'll probably not be the first to get there either.

 

So for me, 8k distribution is basically overkill. Even film prints sent to theaters only had about an effective resolution of 2k. 8k acquisition just seems overkill to me, and in fact sharper does not equal better in my mind.

I am not talking about next 10 or 20 or 30 year, I am talking about sometimes in the future. Also, I am not talking about "effective resolution" (the film print is more than an information it contains, it's a physical medium with characteristics that get represented more accurately at higher resolutions), so my ideal is not an 8k of effective resolution, but 8k of a "quality picture". And my taste is such that you get quality picture from digital sensors only by hugely oversampling.

[Peter Bitic]

Also, I think it is very possible that at some point there will be a technological break-through that will make it easy to store huge digital files and it will be more reliable compared to hard drives of today. 50 years from now it might be entirely possible to stream uncompressed 8k videos and you might be able to store thousands of such videos on a small device that will have much more longevity than hard drives.*

 

At that point video from current digital cameras just wont be able to compare to the quality of better sensors, while film prints will retain it's charm the same way prints from 100 years ago do.

 

That's why I say that we aren't there yet with digital cameras and that film is currently the only medium we have availible that will pass the test of time.

 

*a possible example of one such technology: http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/artificial-dna-stores-1-million-copies-of-a-movie-160405.htm

[Mark Day]

Knowing that even "Hollywood" is slowly moving toward digital technology, I think that's really the direction I'm going to move in. I'll keep the D8L, but I'm gonna put the H8 and the 814 on e-Bay. I've kept my Nikon F4 and even my Minox, although I use the D2 about 99.9% of the time. I may shoot a roll of 8mm here and there.

[Tyler Purcell]

The funny part is, we as a culture create more content today then ever before in our history. Yet, the digital age has one huge consequence, in 50 years, where will all that media be? Forget about movies and television, lets focus on still images and audio. A recent research paper said our future will be the least documented in the previous 50 years.

 

Digital storage solutions don't mean anything because we are analog beings. So even if there was a breakthrough in storage, hold petabytes in a 1x1" cube, the devices necessary to playback that media will be the determining factor. Plus, imagine storing an entire lifetime of media in such a small device. Where would it be stored? When people pass away and their house is cleaned up, where will that content be? How will the family members get that data and view/save it for later use?

 

We still have some of the first images ever made on paper and glass, they still exist over 150 years later. Will OUR life be viable by whatever creatures inhabit the world 150 years from now?

[Peter Bitic]

I think internet will play a role in preserving important images, film and music (assuming the technological breakthrough where it wont be a problem to store and transmit large data). Obviously 99.999% of personal stuff will get lost eventually (and mostly rightfully so), but there will also be the content that will be deemed important enough by the public that it will continue to live on on the internet, stored and curated by the people themselves. This happens to some extent now already, but all the content availible is heavily compressed and degraded.

 

If there will be a good solution to digital storage sometime in the future, I can see huge libraries of various uncompressed content on the internet, backed up by thousands of people. This includes personal photos and videos that will attract the attention of the public (via channels like youtube, flickr etc.).

 

I see digital archiving as a good thing in principle (it doesn't deteriorate with time and with copying), but there will have to be technological advancements to make it viable as a long term solution to preserving our heritage.

[Mark Day]

Never really considered the storage aspect of it. What about your old u-Matic, Betamax, and VHS tapes? Y'know that those players are becoming scarce. And what if you never transfered it to some other media? OK, say you did transfer it to another media. If that media is subject to magnetic fields, adverse temperatures, etc.. now, it too is gone. Film stil exists. Just like vinyl. Hmmmm...... gets you to thinking. hell, I still listen to vacuum tube audio. I listen to vinyl as opposed to CDs.

[Tyler Purcell]

I think internet will play a role in preserving important images, film and music (assuming the technological breakthrough where it wont be a problem to store and transmit large data)

That's the assumption everyone has, but nobody has come up with a solution. Most internet today isn't fast enough and we currently produce more content then we can afford to store. Most of the people I know, produce well over 128gb a month worth of stills alone. Just uploading/managing all of that content is a job most people won't do. Plus, there is no "free" service to upload that much data. Everything costs money and the moment you stop paying, you could loose all that data. Plus, there is no instant access to any of it since it requires internet. So most people walk around with 1000 or so pictures on their phone that's not backed up which cover years worth of their life and that's it. Then their mobile device fails or is lost and they loose everything.

 

So it's not JUST about the lack of long-term hands off storage, but it's also about data loss with digital devices. I've actually lost more content thanks to digital technology then I've ever lost during the film days. Probably because I take MORE pictures, shoot MORE video and have more content, so the ratio of material shot vs saved is the same.

 

Never really considered the storage aspect of it. What about your old u-Matic, Betamax, and VHS tapes? Y'know that those players are becoming scarce. And what if you never transfered it to some other media? OK, say you did transfer it to another media. If that media is subject to magnetic fields, adverse temperatures, etc.. now, it too is gone. Film stil exists. Just like vinyl. Hmmmm...... gets you to thinking. hell, I still listen to vacuum tube audio. I listen to vinyl as opposed to CDs.

Well, magnetic tape stored properly isn't too bad, it can last quite a while. The problem is that most people don't store properly and the back coating of the tape fails. With audio tapes, you can bake them and still get data off, but with video tapes, generally they are too damaged. I use to build archiving solutions for magnetic tape, so I have quite a bit of experience dealing with bad tapes. I've threaded up 2" video tapes from the 60's that were stored correctly and they've worked fine. Yet 3/4" tapes from the 80's that weren't stored properly, clog heads so badly, they're impossible to playback even if you bake them. I actually designed a machine that kept the heads from clogging, but the company I did the work for, didn't see any potential. I was shocked and dismayed because my success rate was much higher, but still not enough. Tapes that clogged heads, would be thrown away in most cases, which is too bad.

 

With audio, we had a 24 bit 192khz multi-channel encoder. For video, we had a very fancy 10 bit 4:2:2 Pro Res encoder that worked great. Our system was robotic and it drove the tape machine automatically. The files were then automatically stored on to A/B LTO6 tape AND a Proxy version was stored onto a hard drive. We'd hand back the client a hard drive and the LTO Tapes. It was a great system as LTO's last around 50 years sitting on a shelf, which is pretty good. Yet, the same problem exists, whose gonna playback an LTO6 tape in 50 years? I mean, it's going to be such an obsolete format, totally worthless in the grand scheme of things.

 

Good Vinyl, good tube pre-amp's and solid state transistor based amp's are really good. Really well mastered CD's and high-end D/A converters sound good as well. Computer audio, generally sounds like crap, mostly because the clock of the computer and the clock of the D/A converter's, don't match. So it's very hard to get your computer to spit out higher quality audio then a really good playback device. I've done 100's of tests with a myriad of different devices over the years and being an audiophile, I can tell you computers never sound that good without specialized hardware. Same goes for computer displays... I mean most of them are 8 bit!