Could Digital Kill Film?

[Samuel Berger]

...just to lighten the mood....this looks nicer than any digital camera at least no??? hahaha

LOVE your camera, Stephen.

 

Here's mine, hehe. And it still produces better images than even an Alexa.

 

[Stephen Perera]

LOVE your camera, Stephen.

 

Here's mine, hehe. And it still produces better images than even an Alexa.

 

zc1000-small.jpg

 

oh yeah thats a sexy looking piece Samuel hahaha this is going to turn into a 'camera porn' thread now I think they call it that no? haha

[Tyler Purcell]

Pictures? Someone said post pictures? LOL :D

 

[Tyler Purcell]

And yes, you can keep a film camera for 30 years. But during that time it will need maintaining and shooting a reasonable amount of practice material will cost, what, $100,000 for film and processing? All of which you would have to store physically, applying your logic. Buying a GH2 - or even a GH5 - every three to five years seems much cheaper. Buying a used GH2 and shooting until it falls apart will probably cost $250 for 5 years shooting. That's, what, 10 to 20 minutes of practice footage on film?

Yep, Yep and... wait for it... Yep!

 

People forget that film cameras need serious maintenance too! I mean, every 10 years or the cameras need complete overhauls, which can come at great expense if you aren't up to speed on how to service them yourself.

 

Where I never go out and shoot random stuff, I'm always out "on a job" that will be seen by people, I have around 8TB worth of media for those projects. At 220Mbps (which is the camera's max bit rate), that's 80 hours worth of content on "personal" projects in the last 4 years! I don't even wanna do the math on shooting and processing that much material in 16mm. Besides, I could't capture what I captured on 16, it would be actually impossible because the pocket goes everywhere and shoots anything. I would have been kicked out of the places I've shot with the pocket if I had a "real" camera.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

I was talking about shooting for end product, not for shooting only tests and for operating experience.

But what quantifies an end product? I go out and shoot a cute video and get 50,000 hits on youtube in a few weeks. I mean my little pit poop videos have nearly a million clicks since I started shooting them 4 years ago. To me, that qualifies as a "final" product. Ohh and no, they won't be on Netflix or Hulu, but does it matter? Viewership IS viewership in my opinion.

 

by my experience, a 4 or 5 year old low or mid range camera is worth nothing when doing even basic indie stuff here in Finland.

Well, that's because until the Blackmagic Cinema Camera, EVERY OTHER CAMERA even remotely close to that price bracket had shitty codecs. The cinema and pocket shoot 10 bit 4:2:2 or 12 bit 4:4:4, using two first-class i-Frame codecs. Even today, nobody else has even attempted that quality. Even the GH5 "claims" to have 10 bit recording, but even that is heavily compressed LONG GOP MPEG, which dates back to the days of HDV. People don't get it, but CODEC IS EVERYTHING, if ya can't get a quality image without outboard gear, you're just wasting your money.

 

For web content 1080p, 10 bit 4:2:2 is perfectly acceptable and will ALWAYS be acceptable because at that point, content is king, not "how you shot it". I bet MOST web content is shot on cell phones today.

 

In terms of "indie" now you're probably talking "long-form narrative" and ya know what, I wouldn't use a pocket camera for serious long-form narrative work, it's the wrong camera. I do documentary, industrial, commercial/marketing and short subject narrative, but not long-form narrative. It's a very "specific" genere of filmmaking where camera size isn't as important.

[fatih yıkar]

this is exactly it for me David, I'm 51 years young...it's the emotional connection one has to what a film looks like.....who can forget the look of French Connection...The Godfather.....Apocalypse Now....Blade Runner......Alien......long list.....

 

 

I believe emotional connection alyaws be there but people can always make objective judgment. I'm 23 didn't watch any movies from 70s 80s 90s on theater first movie i watch on theater was spiderman 2 (2004).

 

After i grow up and watch movies like godfather, taxi driver,midnight cowboy,easy rider,blade runner,scarface,pulp fiction,scream,Saving Private Ryan,boogie nights,fight clup,mulholland drive etc.. from bluray i amazed by how movies look old days and i wish them to see at theater :(

 

Sometimes i watch old movies (jaws,back to future,jumanji) with teenagers or kids on tv and each time they shocked movies look and said to me ''ıts look so beautiful'' ask me all time ''why this is look more better? why too much different than nowadays movies?'

Edited October 13, 2017 by fatih yıkar

[Keith Walters]

I couldn't imagine not knowing the equipment I use and maybe even own, inside and out, to the point of even memorizing certain part numbers.

 

So, what's the biggest-budget production you've ever worked on?

As far as the DOP/camera operator is concerned, Arri, Aaton, Panavision, Moviecam and any other commonly-used brand pf cameras all work pretty much the same way; you get the exposure and framing correct, and basically push the "go" button when someone says "roll film" and the "stop" button when they say "cut". However, the magazines are all quite different, and loading those with expensive new film and unloading the irreplaceable captured footage, is best left to an expert. The clapper/loader may be not the most highly-paid person on the set, but if they screw up they can cause just as much damage as the highest-paid person.

Same with the focus puller and the people who push the camera dolly.

They hire people to do all those (what many people imagine to be) "trivial" jobs, so other people can get on with theirs.

[Tyler Purcell]

So, what's the biggest-budget production you've ever worked on?

Don't actually know the answer to that. Some of the commercials I've done pickups and glamor shots on, were easily half mil shows. Mind you, we had loaders, AC's, focus pullers, the whole 9 yards. When ya got money, ya get those things. We shot with Arri III, 435's and 2C's quite a bit back then and usually I'd turn my head and there would be new film in the camera. I actually asked one of the loaders to teach me and they did... this was back when I was shooting 16mm on my personal projects. TO me the "mechanics" of it all is just as much fun as the creative aspects.

 

They hire people to do all those (what many people imagine to be) "trivial" jobs, so other people can get on with theirs.

Yep, that's very true. I mean, there should be no reason to load my own mags on my own projects, but yet I wind up doing it because I can't afford someone to do that work. I also can't afford for someone to mess up the focus, so no focus puller either. I generally have an assistant with me, someone I trust in many areas, both in handling the camera and lensing. However, I've learned over the years, the fewer people you have on the ground, the more money goes into what's on screen. I can't afford "good" people... I'd be hiring someone like myself to do the work, so why not let me do it? I will say that when it comes to lighting, I try to get someone to help, even if it's just hands that understand what a light looks like, it's better then nobody!

 

Ohh and generally on my own projects, we're scraping together short ends from 10 years ago to shoot with, so it's not like they're "funded" in any way. But hey, if it looks good on screen, then go for it!

 

I also do a lot of AC work these days, people hire me to "take care" of all the camera stuff from loading to handling lenses/prepping the camera. It's fun when there is a problem/challenge, but fortunately my cameras work flawlessly and when they don't I know how to fix in a second or two, which means I get bored quickly.

[Aapo Lettinen]

LET'S SWITCH BACK TO CAMERA PORN, IT WAS MUCH MORE INTERESTING THAN COMPARING WHO HAS THE BIGGEST, EHM, SHOW ON THEIR RESUME :lol:

 

 

Here's a Konvas 1KCP on Ronin, I will make a video tap for it soon which goes in the place of the viewfinder tube :lol:

I now have the C-arm extensions so that it tilts a little better than with standard setup

 

[Pavan Deep]

I agree looking at cameras is far more interesting as for the debate, it used to be video might kill film and that went on for over 20 years, but film is still here. All artist needs as many tool available.

 

Pav

Edited October 14, 2017 by Pavan Deep

[Pavan Deep]

My set up, it has taken me almost two years to put together. It’s an Éclair ACL 2 which has been modified to Super 16, I have some 200ft magazines for it, they haven’t been modified to Super 16, the guy that serviced the camera told me that I didn’t need them converting, they don’t scratch film. I have used a viewfinder from an old CP-16 and have the Eclair ergonomic handle for it, I have built an on board battery by using a Canon 12 volt NC –E2.. The camera's small, quiet running and makes great movies.

 

Pav

Edited October 14, 2017 by Pavan Deep

[Samuel Berger]

Aapo, I had no idea you could put a Konvas on a Ronin. I've often wanted to get a 2M but the price of Oct-19 lenses put me off. It's a side effect of the "democratisation" of cinema, every lens for everything is now overpriced compared to even 2010.

 

Pav, nice ACL 2. What lens?

 

Here's my NPR.

 

[Pavan Deep]

Personally I think Eclair cameras are great. Thanks in that picture it's the Ikonoskop Kinoptik 9mm c-mount.

 

Pav

[Max Field]

it used to be video might kill film and that went on for over 20 years, but film is still here.

You'd probably have to wait 30 years. Digital feature cinema really only start making significant waves maybe 10 or so years ago?

 

The fact everyone is posting pictures of their film cameras makes the shooting itself come off as a novelty...

 

I still agree that THEATER showings should be printed to film whether shot digitally or not, film projection provides an experience of coloration.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Macks Fiiod

[Stephen Perera]

Liking the camera pics....I have the Coca Cola LITE versión Of the Aaton Tyler has but you have to like that Cooke Varokinetal 9-50mm lens on it

[Tyler Purcell]

You'd probably have to wait 30 years. Digital feature cinema really only start making significant waves maybe 10 or so years ago?

I mean the death of film was 2012/2013 really, when the video cameras became good enough, Kodak filed for bankruptcy and Fuji stopped making camera negative. So we have to look at from 2012 ish if we're "setting a clock" on the future of the format.

 

The fact everyone is posting pictures of their film cameras makes the shooting itself come off as a novelty...

Huge novelty. That was kind of my point from earlier when I was discussing how digital costs next to nothing once you own the equipment.

 

I still agree that THEATER showings should be printed to film whether shot digitally or not, film projection provides an experience of coloration.

The only thing that will truly save film are striking and projecting prints. Once that completely dies, film will be a dead medium in my opinion and that of the filmmakers and executives at Kodak.

[Jon O'Brien]

Interest in film projection amongst the much-talked about 'general public' is growing. Here in Brisbane we have the Gallery of Modern Art that is showing 35mm film prints now. At this stage they are old prints from people's private collections but hopefully the movement back to film projection will grow in Australia. There are cinemas in Melbourne, Sydney and Katoomba that, according to the internet, can show 70mm prints. Support these cinemas if you love film. I read that a lot of cinemas actually threw out their old projectors when the digital revolution came - I can hardly believe it. If I'd been following what was happening at the time rather than being distracted by other things I would have gone around picking up a few projectors and stored them in a shed. When Tarantino's recent film came out they scrambled to get hold of projectors. Luckily a retired projectionist had saved two 70mm projectors at the back of his garden shed. I'm wondering who they get to do the projection here.

 

An excellent new line of projectors could be developed and manufactured - there are places in the world with low manufacturing costs and they would love to get the work. Though big studios call the shots. Depite the interest, film projection might not take off big time because there mightn't be a big enough dollar in it. But if film had to survive as purely an origination medium with digital projection film will probably still survive. The end of classical music has been prophesied for about about 60 years and it's still going and people make careers out of it. Audiences pay for this music. When studios realised total digital does not result in big mega bucks they will remember real film and realise that that's the one thing you can't get at home. You can truly only get real theatre film in a cinema.

[David Mawson]

Interest in film projection amongst the much-talked about 'general public' is growing.

 

When studios realised total digital does not result in big mega bucks they will remember real film and realise that that's the one thing you can't get at home. You can truly only get real theatre film in a cinema.

 

Growing from a very low level to a slightly higher low level doesn't really matter in a business sense.

 

And, yes, total digital does make "mega bucks". Print duplication is expensive and a major bottleneck for the industry. Re-using hard drives instead of making prints saves literally billions a year (and billion is about a thousand meagbucks, yes?) And zapping extra hard drives to meet unexpected demand is much faster than making prints.

 

...The film industry is about industry first and film as a very distant second. The clock will not turn back.

 

>> realise that that's the one thing you can't get at home

 

Other than a large screen, the social event of seeing a film with other people out of the house - you know; all the things the audience actually care about..

 

Really: you can't wish away business realities like this. Well, you can wish- but it won't work. Film projection is dead.

Edited October 15, 2017 by David Mawson

[Jon O'Brien]

You're doing the very thing you're saying I'm doing, David. I'm always surprised at how fervently digital people wish that film really is finished. Have you noticed how Hollywood is failing in quality film production? That quality will continue to erode if film is pushed totally out. Some very 'big' and powerful people are saying it. Are they all wrong? I'm really commenting on what is plainly observed. I'm just re-telling what's been told by others. Total digital production is a pretty boring experience for at least some film goers.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Jon O'Brien

[Stuart Brereton]

I'm always surprised at how fervently digital people wish that film really is finished.

I don't think that the film-making world is divided into 'film' people and 'digital' people. Fans of film may certainly wish that there is still an opportunity for films to be made and screened on celluloid, but I have never heard any digital shooters actively wish for the demise of film. What would be the point?

 

 

 

Have you noticed how Hollywood is failing in quality film production? That quality will continue to erode if film is pushed totally out.

The quality, or lack thereof, of Hollywood movies has nothing to do with the medium it is shot on. A good script, with good actors, and a good director, will shine whether shot on film or digital.

 

Let's not fetishize technology. Film has a long history, and a look and feel, that for many people can't be replicated. Digital offers a different look and feel. They are both equally valid mediums for telling a story, but neither make that story any better or worse than it is written.

[Jon O'Brien]

That's true, Stuart. I enjoyed Rogue One. It had a good script. I keep saying, there's room for both, and digital has won the lion's share.

[David Mawson]

You're doing the very thing you're saying I'm doing, David. I'm always surprised at how fervently digital people wish that film really is finished.

 

That's very poor logic.

 

If you've check my posts, I've quoted multiple ways in which film is superior to current digital sensors. I just don't let my preferences override my intelligence: film projection will not be making a mass comeback; the film industry is an industry and the economics don't favour it. The studios will not throw a billion dollars a year away.

 

>>Have you noticed how Hollywood is failing in quality film production? That quality will continue to erode if film is pushed totally out. Some very 'big' and powerful people are saying it. Are they all wrong?<<

 

And even bigger and more powerful people are pushing film out or it wouldn't be going.

 

And also, no, no one who matters blames the decline in script quality on digital being replaced by film. Again, Deadwood was shot on digital; any episode is a match for There Will Be Blood in script quality and is just plain more compelling. Film is a nice thing to have... But it isn't really that important. It's a slight boost to one aspect of film making - cinematography - which doesn't matter as much as story, direction, casting or acting. And then wardrobe, design, music and audio pull something like equal weight to cinematography - not to mention sfx and stunts. So we're talking about a slight tweak to something that realistically accounts for 10% of the quality of a film. It really isn't going to matter.

 

..It may even help. Because although digital isn't as good, it is cheap. That opens up new possibilities outside the studio system, for the people with the will and the wit to take them.

Edited October 16, 2017 by David Mawson

[Tyler Purcell]

Few things to note...

 

Making a film print in 2012 before film prints started to die was $1500 - $1800 USD. They also lasted what... arguably 30 - 50 years if stored properly. If that print was struck off the negative, it would probably retain nearly 4k (in digital terms) worth of data. Yes I understand prints get damaged, but a good projectionist can run a 35mm print for a run without damaging it to the point of being "throw out" quality when finished.

 

Do you how much it costs to store a feature length film @ 4k for 30 - 50 years? $7,000 per year. Yes, that's how much the studio's are spending to store their masters. Will that price eventually go down? Yes... I've heard rumors that pricing as low as $500 per title per year, but those aren't "gauranteed". You wanna use Iron Mountain, it's $7k. By contrast, original camera negative of a movie, costs around $700 per year to store at the same facility.

 

It currently costs $600 to make a DCP. It also costs the studio's thousands more because the attribute aggregators charge hourly rates to QC and verify product before it hits the theaters.

 

There is NO DOUBT digital delivery is saving huge amounts of money, but that savings went into the pockets of the studio executives. We lost 150,000 jobs when the industry went from film to digital. That includes projectionists, lab workers, film manufacturers and even delivery drivers. The money saved didn't go towards the little person, ya know the 30 something with a family who is now working construction. The savings go right into the pockets of the big businesses and with 3D, they're making more profits today than they've EVER MADE in the history of this industry.

 

Let me remind you, before the hostile digital take-over, movies were $7.75... this was prior to Avitar. When digital projectors were installed for Avitar, the prices went up to $10.00 overnight. Then two years later, $12.00, then two years later $14.00. Today the cinemas out here are $16 - $22 for one seat in a darkened room to see a 2 hour piece of media, presented in identical fashion to a home theater DLP projector and UHD BluRay. In fact, MOST theatrical supply houses send BluRay's for older movies to theaters that want to show them, not prints or even DCP's.

 

My problem is that currently THERE IS NO OPTION, PERIOD. Since there is no lab competition, labs over charge for even the basic of work. They also no longer need to uphold the standards of the past, there is no other competition, so what do they care? Making a good photochemical finish, requires excellent technicians and well maintained equipment, both are hard to get with so few movies finishing that way. Furthermore, even if you do pay to get a photochemical finish, most theaters that can run film, haven't taken care of their equipment nor trained experts to run those projectors. So they scratch the living poop out of prints and the experience is a complete waste of time. Two of the last three "new" movies I've seen on 35mm were destroyed prints only a week into release, only one of them - David's very entertaining "Love Witch" which was playing at a hole-in-the-wall theater - looked great, thanks to a projectionist who cared about his job. So we are currently stuck with digital delivery until the chain can be fixed.

 

What are the solutions? Well the first one will be to fix the photochemical chain by developing competition, here in Hollywood that will put "the current unnamed lab" in a bind. They'll either back off and close their lab (which would be bad) or they'll have to come to terms with their raping of customers. Then there needs to be a new training course, funded by Kodak that goes around to re-train projectionists and things like film cleaners need to be installed into every booth. They also need to replace broken/worn components on projectors that haven't been serviced. Finally, Kodak needs to spend millions on making film important again, by giving away signs to theaters who run film and using that as marketing/promotional material. If someone walks by a theater at a cineplex and the word "Kodak theater" is on the door, that means a lot. People will recognize it as something different, something special and they will visit. So far what we know is that film print business does WAY BETTER then digtial business when shown in the same theater against one another.

 

I don't mean to spill any beans, but some of this is happening right now. Kodak, Warner Brothers and a few other companies have joined forces to really help with these issues. It's a long road and Kodak doesn't have the resources to do as much as they'd like to do, mostly due to being understaffed and as a consequence, slightly unorganied. Steve is working his ass off to keep film alive, but one man can't do it all and unfortunately, Kodak doesn't have the money they use to either. So it's going to need more resources, an outside firm who can raise money and deal with these things. I had hoped my 501c3 could be one of those firms, but unfortunately I need help... lots and lots of help. I can only do so much myself and it's a 6 day a week full-time job for someone, without any money... so it's hard. There are also some technology gaps that need to be filled when it comes to lasering out onto film, mostly related to the speed of the current systems being slow. Development in that area is critical and nobody is spending a dime on it due to cost.

 

So better lower cost lab solutions, better trained and maintained projectors/projectionists, marketing of film and better laser-out solutions. It seems easy, but the cost is huge.. $2M to make a new lab that's worth anything and probably another $10M or so in fixing the infrustructure.

[David Mawson]

Few things to note...

 

Making a film print in 2012 before film prints started to die was $1500 - $1800 USD. They also lasted what... arguably 30 - 50 years if stored properly. If that print was struck off the negative, it would probably retain nearly 4k (in digital terms) worth of data. Yes I understand prints get damaged, but a good projectionist can run a 35mm print for a run without damaging it to the point of being "throw out" quality when finished.

 

Do you how much it costs to store a feature length film @ 4k for 30 - 50 years? $7,000 per year.

 

Utterly wrong.

 

Firstly, that figure was from a 2007 study. Secondly, it was quoted as being 11 times higher than film. (I've never seen a $7000 a year figure - that sounds insane. How can you spend that much on storing that little data??? Literally HOW? Do you buy a diamond encrusted blueray disc?) But the cost of digital storage has halved every 18 months since then. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who buys hard drives. So the cost of archiving a 4K film NOW is lower - much lower - than storing a physical film. You put it a networked drive, it's copied to another couple of drives elsewhere in the world using a check sum to make sure there are no errors, the process repeats every few months - that's it. Unlike the physical film it can't be wiped out by a flood or a fire at a vault site.

 

...And the cost of storing that 4K film will continue to fall at something like that rate for the next decade or so at least. The long term cost of storing a 4K film is effectively zero per year.

 

I really do see a lot of wishful thinking here. Because really - people don't know hard drives are cheaper than 10 years ago? They've noticed google gives away GB of storage for free now? Please! 2007 was the stone age.

Edited October 16, 2017 by David Mawson

[Jon O'Brien]

Well, I don't see it as wishful thinking. Wishful thinking would be to imagine that all cinemas will go back to film projection. I mean, that's laughable, of course. I see it as down to earth, practical thinking. People want to see film projected in a night out at the flicks? That's doable. It's being done. Want more of that? It can be done. Want a new projector? Go to a place that has truly excellent manufacturing and design capability for an affordable price. That's doable. Will it happen? I don't know ... maybe ask Hollywood.