I PROMISE...

[Justin Hayward]

Video has been around for close to 50 years already and it hasn't taken over yet.

 

Trouble is, the advancement video has made in the past decade far surpasses any advancement from the 60's to 70's or 70's to 80's. If video (HD) advances the same in the next decade as it did in the past decade, I can't imagine what it will look like by... 2016. Ya hear what I'm scream'n?

[Guest]

Wow, getting a little testy aren't we Richard? Is that supposed to be a slam against my work? Geez...speaking of people one would never want to work with...

 

Evan

 

No, I wasn't slaming your work, I was just being considerate and giving you time to get back to it. The title is the title....I assume some musical artist came up with it.

[Andy_Alderslade]

In truth Evan, my little heart-fealt rant wasn't really directed at you but at the statement Robert Hughes's made: "...someone who is sloppy and negligent in written communication will probably display those poor attributes in other areas of his work life."

 

The problem with this is its essentially a legal form of descrimination based on ill understood fact. Unless writing skills are fundamentally vital for the job requirements, why should they be used as a method of dumping potential candidates?

 

Would it be acceptable if someone admited here that they refuse to to hire people bordering on the obese? In the same logic as in the statement above the presence of obesity could be used to suggest a candidate is lazy, takes poor care of themselves or has low ambition, when infact that the opposite can be true. Infact look at Alfred Hitchock when he was a young man, he was anything but lazy and unabitious, and subsequently flew up the ranks.

 

Again I reitirate that writing, spelling and grammar is basically a talent. Those who predominantly use the written-word orientated part of their brain are actually likely to be inferior in other areas such as problem solving, imagination etc. Even though I spend much time reading and writting, i'll never be able to eradicate my spelling problems, simply because my brain is using the opposite hemisphere.

 

Its also forgerting the fact that good written skills are usually quite low in the young, all the critisism on this forum about spelling and grammar is usually directed at the young. Writting is like any skill, its not just a standard, its a skill that like any other that takes years to master. Infact in school when you are expected to master writting to an acceptable standard you are also expected to master Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, French, Geography, Art, RE, History, Sport and other Physical activities, as well as coping with new found teen anxieties.

 

I hear so many people complain like Richard Boddington about how bad the written english of graduates are, well Univeristies have no intention of improving the english of the current youth but rather want to output students with genuinely fresh ideas - to summarise - the presentatioin is less important than the content. Let us also not forget that someone like Richard is likely to be ten years or so older than the candidate with a sloppy CV, and essentially thats another ten years of experience of writing and grammar.

 

Also, I'm not sure why you feel DPs, Gaffers, Grips, et. al, have 'poor' written skills. I'd imagine the average DP/Gaffer/Grip has at least a high school education if not post secondary. That's more than enough to be able to communicate (written and orally) on a completely acceptable level.

 

I certainly did not say they all do, infact I see some beautiful writting here, and some DPs actually go on to write books and biographies. However you can not deny that those based in the technical, mechanical and practical side of this industry are probably less proficent in written communication than those in other areas.

 

Plus you are assuming that everones experiences and reactions are the same, that a)that all learn spelling and grammar with the same ease B) that all highschool education is consistent in teaching spelling and grammar c) that all people react to mainstream education the same d) that somebodies influences in their homelife does not affect their learning ability e) that after we leave school what we do with our time has no affect on our spelling and grammar.

 

Anyway sorry to rant again but I wish people would accept peoples gifts and flaws for what they are, after all how many of the directors on this board feel insecure about the drawing ability demonstrated in their storyboards (Shouldn't they be able to draw perfectly, weren't they taught art at school!)

Edited August 30, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[Stephen Williams]

I love film, I worship film. And the minute someone develops a 2K or 4k sensor with 10 stops of latitude film will be gone in the blink of an eye. I hate that, but that's basically what happened in the sound world the instant storage got cheap.

 

Hal,

 

The Viper is close to that, and has been a product for 4 years.

 

Stephen

[Robert Hughes]

I cannot help finding this a pretty pathetic line of thought, I have dyslexia and am often corrected on spelling and grammar. My grammar is actually very decent but often I confuse spellings or mis-spell words to look like others, giving the impression that I have bad grammar or have difficulties putting a point across.

I respectfully disagree about your "pathetic line of thought" opinion, but I noticed that you have only a few, non-blatant spelling or grammatical errors in this post. Even though you suffer from a lifelong learning disorder, you care enough about the quality of your work to check for and correct mistakes. You are the kind of person who works harder to get the job done right and should be high on an employer's list of qualified candidates.

I cannot help feeling that those 'pedents' who criticise others on the finer points are actually taking revenge for their own insecurities of being average at most things and great at none.

Hey, I'm left handed, but I don't blame you for that <_<

 

I find it impossible to comprehend that this issue is ever brought up on cinematography forum when so many excellent DPs, Gaffers, ACs, Grips, etc, have poor written skills.

It's brought up because so many people do not have learning disorders, but are merely lazy, negligent, and uncaring; I'm not the first person on this or any other board to complain about the poor quality of work displayed by many younger folks entering the workplace.

 

Anyway I don't mean to rant or to offend by this, but as you can see I have personally suffered at this modern 'Pedent' culture we live in.

 

Surely its better to day something intelligent or wise or true badly than to say nothing perfectly.

It's an unfortunate quality of modern society. To misquote the Bard,

"Tis better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you're an idiot,

Than open your mouth and prove it."

[Robert Hughes]

...the advancement video has made in the past decade far surpasses any advancement from the 60's to 70's or 70's to 80's.

NTSC has been around since, what , 1951? Go to most homes in 2006, what are they watching? Probably still NTSC.

My guess is that film acquisition will not be crushed like LP records in the '80's, rather shuffle back to a healthy secondary role, much as rail freight serves as a feeder to truck traffic in a multimode transportation system. Each will have its place in the economic picture.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Robert Hughes

[Brad Grimmett]

Trouble is, the advancement video has made in the past decade far surpasses any advancement from the 60's to 70's or 70's to 80's. If video (HD) advances the same in the next decade as it did in the past decade, I can't imagine what it will look like by... 2016. Ya hear what I'm scream'n?

I do hear you, but the exact same thing can be said for film. Just because one format is getting better doesn't mean that other formats aren't improving as well.

[John Pytlak RIP]

You should choose the format that best supports your project TODAY, and assures it's marketablity well into the future. In many cases, that's still FILM, which has a proven track record of image quality and supporting ever evolving display formats.

 

It's kinda pointless to base your choice on digital cameras that haven't even been invented yet, or that have a workflow that few can handle. It's kinda risky to shoot a feature film using a format that barely supports today's typical 2K feature production workflow, much less a higher quality one in the future.

 

When Sony demonstrated their 4K SXRD Digital Projector, they chose clips of 1962's "The Music Man" and 1965's "The Sound of Music" to demonstrate image quality, tribute to well-shot film being "future proof".

[Hal Smith]

Hal,

The Viper is close to that, and has been a product for 4 years.

Stephen

Point taken - maybe the blink of a tortoise's eye? ;)

 

Ultimately it's all about capturing, storing, and recording photons. The photons themselves could care less about their captors.

 

I am still a film lover - don't get me wrong, it's just that I witnessed one aged technology get obsoleted much faster than anyone thought could happen. I provided my personal CD player to the radio station I was Chief Engineer of in 1984 so they could do an album play once a week from the pop CD's that were starting to be released. By 1987 I was working for a radio station that had no vinyl in house. Analog tape gear started disappearing about 2000 and the only tape gear at best left in most stations now is one reel-to-reel in case they get a dub in on reel tape.

[Evan Winter]

Hey John,

 

Thanks for posting. Wanted to ask a few questions, if you don't mind.

 

Does Kodak have an official or unofficial long term plan for image capture (i.e. - do they have a 10/25/50 year model for where the company will be and what directions they would like to go in) and most importantly does film play as large a role in these future business models as it does now?

 

Thank you for your time and if this information is at all sensitive in any way I understand that you won't be at liberty to answer.

 

Best,

 

Evan

[David Mullen ASC]

Kodak would never publically make some sort of guess as to whether film will still be used in the future, and besides, business plans for technology companies generally don't cover more than a decade out into the future. They've made many public statements as to their commitment to both film and digital technologies.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak would never publically make some sort of guess as to whether film will still be used in the future, and besides, business plans for technology companies generally don't cover more than a decade out into the future. They've made many public statements as to their commitment to both film and digital technologies.

 

Yes, Kodak does plan for the future. But time will tell, I won't.

 

I doubt that Kodak will build any more $200,000,000 film sensitizing machines, but Kodak certainly will develop new motion picture films to be sensitized on the state-of-the-art machines we already have. As mentioned before, 2005 was a record year for motion-picture film volumes, so reports of film's "death" are very premature, just as they were fifty years ago when Variety headlined "Film Is Dead" as Ampex introduced 2-inch videotape.

 

One thing is certain, FILM you shoot today WILL be used in the future. I don't think Desilu Productions ever envisioned in 1953 that "I Love Lucy" would have it's 35mm nitrate negatives being shown on HD television from 2K or even 4K scans, as John Lowry has done:

 

On August 18, 2002, John D. Lowry of Lowry Digital Images, Inc., posted

the following on the Cinematography Mailing List (cml-hdtv):

 

 

QUOTE

"I have had the privilege of 2K scanning and processing images from the "I Love Lucy" series in recent weeks. The film we worked with, shot in 1953,

has a quality level which can only be exceeded today by the use of the

newer color films. (In fact we recommended that these programs should be scanned at 4K to capture, for the long term future, everything on these aging 50

year old films.)

 

The very best television image capture systems in 1953 used black and

white 525 lines or 625 lines and kinescope recordings. Video tape did not come

along for another three years. Had these wonderful programs been shot with

the latest electronic equipment at that time the results would have been

effectively lost forever. How do you feel "The Honeymooners" kinescopes look today?

 

Film created via HD 24P 1920 X 1080 capture, presents reasonable images on

the theatre screen (Eg: Spy Kids 2). The audience probably does not notice

the difference between film and HD capture since the pre-emphasis of the

low requency information appears to carry the resolution at an acceptable

level. Lots of close-ups work very well. (Close-ups look good almost regardless

of resolution since we already have too much information about the face. The

details of the pores in the skin are just not necessary.) The subtle

details in long shots are a tougher issue for HD and are often lost due to the

bandwidth constraints of the present system.

 

In my opinion both HD and film have a place in the capture of motion pictures

today from an economics perspective. But, if you are interested in the

long term value of a special motion picture property to be shot today, history

suggests that film has significant advantages.

 

John D. Lowry

Lowry Digital Images, Inc.

Burbank, CA"

 

One has only to look at the thousands of titles available on DVD to see how film shot decades ago still finds a profitable market today, using the latest display technology. Those same films will continue to find a market, as displays evolve to 4K and beyond.

 

Again, when you look at your options of what to shoot with TODAY, film is still often the best choice. For today, and for the future.

[Sam Wells]

I'm amazed that anyone is going to get into a passionate argument about how movies will be made 50 years from now.

 

As I've said before, if I could predict the future in technology with a high degree of success, I wouldn't be posting on cinematography.com right now, I'd be trading stocks online..

 

...from my yacht...

 

..off the Greek islands..

 

"yes dear, another mimosa with brunch, the Dom Perignon is fine...."

 

-Sam

[Andy_Alderslade]

As mentioned before, 2005 was a record year for motion-picture film volumes, so reports of film's "death" are very premature, just as they were fifty years ago when Variety headlined "Film Is Dead" as Ampex introduced 2-inch videotape.

 

A few years ago I was working part-time at a cinema when it was venue for a Doctor Who convention, the big draw for the many fans was a recently found un-aired episode from the early 60s.

 

As I understand Doctor Who has always been shot on video (still is), but this episode like all had been archived on 16mm film. The lost episode was only recovered when they found the 16mm negative archive copy lying on the top of skip in London.

 

From what I saw of it, despite the fact that it hadn't been properly stored it still retained an excellent amount of quality.

[Guest]

As I've said before, if I could predict the future in technology with a high degree of success, I wouldn't be posting on cinematography.com right now, I'd be trading stocks online..

 

...from my yacht...

 

..off the Greek islands..

 

"yes dear, another mimosa with brunch, the Dom Perignon is fine...."

 

-Sam

 

Well Jim Jannard is a billionaire and he's still posting here. The people on this forum who have shelled out for Red are making him even richer.

[David Sweetman]

As mentioned before, 2005 was a record year for motion-picture film volumes, so reports of film's "death" are very premature, just as they were fifty years ago when Variety headlined "Film Is Dead" as Ampex introduced 2-inch videotape.

 

Yet EK shares struggled significantly during 2005 and haven't been this low since 1980...though perhaps that's from the law of diminishing returns? Looks like it might be ready for a rally though, after roughly 6 years of decline...

 

(don't get me wrong, I love kodak! Though I am angry they're cancelling consumer still film.)

 

BTW, it's ridiculous this thread is 8 pages long.

Edited August 31, 2006 by David Sweetman

[John Pytlak RIP]

Yet EK shares struggled significantly during 2005 and haven't been this low since 1980...though perhaps that's from the law of diminishing returns? Looks like it might be ready for a rally though, after roughly 6 years of decline...

 

(don't get me wrong, I love kodak! Though I am angry they're cancelling consumer still film.)

 

BTW, it's ridiculous this thread is 8 pages long.

 

Well, here is a link to first-hand information:

 

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?...;idhbx=investor

 

Digital imaging now represents over half of Kodak's revenue.

 

Kodak still sells lots of consumer still film, but has to be more selective in which products and formats to offer:

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona....14.5&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...14.11&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...14.17&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...14.19&lc=en

[Daniel Smith]

I watched analog audio technology get creamed by digital in about ten years flat. In 1986 I seriously considered buying a Lucasfilm Sound Droid for a new audio production studio I was building and was considered a raving lunatic by management for even considering a digital sound creation system. So we bought $250,000 worth of multi-track this, big sound board that, this effect, that effect, everyone got a new 'fect.

 

All of which can be replaced by a PC running a prosumer sound program now.

 

I love film, I worship film. And the minute someone develops a 2K or 4k sensor with 10 stops of latitude film will be gone in the blink of an eye. I hate that, but that's basically what happened in the sound world the instant storage got cheap.

 

But sometimes fate can be kind, I just bid a contract for a large recording studio, the reason they came to me was they're analog freaks and they went looking for an engineer with a lot of gray hair. :)

I don't think digital is better than analogue, yet. It's just hammered everything on the amateur market.

 

For instance I work in a photography shop, we barely get anyone in for film anymore. Everyone's in either buying a digital camera or getting their pictures printed via the digital photo kiosks. (Or most of the time, just in giving me attitude.)

 

BUT, we barely get any professionals in. I'm sure they are still out there with their Hasselblads shooting medium format and sending the films away to pro labs. (Let's face it, if you are a professional, and you're shopping in Jessops, then you must be either 1. not actually a professional or 2. desperate.)

 

To me, film is still the better format.

 

Even in audio. I'm not trying to oppose what you have said Hal (you probably know a lot more than myself), but I'd rather record my tracks on 2" metal position tape than the best of digital. The best studios in the world all still use 2" metal position tape. There's a certain level of frequency saturation on them. Which, may sound bad but it's not atall. Digital seems to pick up everything going, which sometimes, isn't what you want.

 

It's the same with how people think digital images look too sharp when compared to film.

 

However, I'm sure my combination of a sound card that can record at 96KHz 24bit, Behringer mixer and Adobe Auditon 2.0 craps all over an audio cassette. Both quality and flexibility wise.

 

But, I'm talking about the amateur end of the market here.

 

Very few people know that vinyl are better quality than CD. Vinyl are said to be the equivalent of 96KHz, 24bit. Whereas CD runs at 44.1KHz 16bit. (I own both vinyl and CD, funnily enough I still prefer CD despite the facts)

 

So, conclusion:

 

Digital - Better for the amateur end of the market.

Analogue - Better for the pro.

[Robert Hughes]

Dr. Ashley - Who?

 

Daniel Ashley-Smith! One of the prodigal sons returns! Who's next - Trevor M- without the mask, perhaps?

[Daniel Smith]

Dr. Ashley - Who?

 

Daniel Ashley-Smith! One of the prodigal sons returns! Who's next - Trevor M- without the mask, perhaps?

Yeh I got booted off for not using my full name. Which I was rather miffed about.. but at the end of the day, it's the rules. Just hoped that I'd have been given some kind of a chance since as I've been writing here for about 3 years. (I couldn't actually change the name)

 

Anyway.

 

For anyone here into sound, I've made an example of the different sounds produced from digital and analogue.

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bas/digiana.mp3

 

1. Blink 182 - Down. This was recorded using the best of digital technology.

2. Muse - Starlight. This was recorded using the best of analogue.

3. Guns & Roses - Knockin' on Heavens Door. This was made using the best of analogue equipment during 1991.

 

The 1st track is fantastic quality and is well made, but it sounds a bit too cold and clinical for my liking.

 

The 2nd hits the spot. It's well made and has a nice warm sound to it. Something I could listen to all day. (And I do.. not that one song though)

 

The 3rd is to illustrate that analogue is great because it doesn't become outdated very quickly. The quality is, fairly similar to that of the 2nd. The problem with digital is that in a few years time my equipment will have dropped in price by about half.

 

But the biggest mistake I've found that people make is that they blame all the quality issues on the recording unit. Whereas most of the time it's down to the microphones, and microphone placement.

 

It's the same with how a lot of film students think they need a Sony F900 to shoot their film with. (Did they ever think about moving a few lights around?)

 

But, as you can see, digital is almost there. If I was to setup a studio now, I'd go digital.

 

And it's the same with films. I'd still go digital. Even if I preffer film. Because it IS the future. What's the point in learning how to use something that's going to be outdated in the near future?

 

Why not master future technology in advance, that way when it comes to digital becoming the standard, you will have been using digital for years and will know how to work it well.

 

(P.S you will probably need a fairly good sound card and speaker system to hear the difference between those tracks.)

Edited September 1, 2006 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[David Mullen ASC]

Film will still be used professionally for at least a decade if not two or three, so if you're planning on being a cinematographer, you have to learn how to shoot film unless for some reason you think it will be decades before you enter the professional world -- or if you plan on actively avoiding film jobs that come along. Of course, you have to learn digital issues as well, but film technology is part of the professional world and will be after many of you have graduated film school, so you're not going to be much of a cinematographer if you avoid learning about the technology still used to make most films.

[Guest]

Film will still be used professionally for at least a decade if not two or three, so if you're planning on being a cinematographer, you have to learn how to shoot film unless for some reason you think it will be decades before you enter the professional world -- or if you plan on actively avoiding film jobs that come along. Of course, you have to learn digital issues as well, but film technology is part of the professional world and will be after many of you have graduated film school, so you're not going to be much of a cinematographer if you avoid learning about the technology still used to make most films.

 

Thanks, I have a copy of this hanging in my office.

 

R,

[Daniel Smith]

Film will still be used professionally for at least a decade if not two or three, so if you're planning on being a cinematographer, you have to learn how to shoot film unless for some reason you think it will be decades before you enter the professional world -- or if you plan on actively avoiding film jobs that come along. Of course, you have to learn digital issues as well, but film technology is part of the professional world and will be after many of you have graduated film school, so you're not going to be much of a cinematographer if you avoid learning about the technology still used to make most films.

True enough.

 

I've always thought it's good to learn on film first anyway. Unless you have prosumer digital gear, altering things like shutter speed and aperture is slightly harder.

 

Plus obtaining shallow depth of field is hard enough with amateur equipment anyway. I wish they would make all digital cameras with full frame sensors. With 35mm I've found that you can perfectly balance how much depth of field you want. With the digital cameras I deal with, you're pretty much stuck with a huge depth of field. Unless you use a super fast lens (which would cost about £1000, for an SLR) or unless you zoomed all the way in. But then you get a very compressed perspective, which may not be what you want. (And it's a sod in smaller locations)

 

I've spoken to quite a few student film makers. They can all tell you the difference in pixels between all these different cameras. But when it comes to the bare basics, aperture, shutter speed, filters, they're lost.

 

That's why if anyone has just started getting into film, I always say buy an old 35mm SLR. Teaches all the theory and sets you up for shooting in digital if need be.

 

P.S. I don't claim to be a professional myself, I'm still a student, and always will be. I just hold a lot of interest in the making of films and other creative areas. So I'm not trying to sound like I know it all when I talk about giving advice to other amateurs like myself. Just, some amateurs are more amateur than others.

Edited September 1, 2006 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Guest]

True enough.

 

I've always thought it's good to learn on film first anyway. Unless you have prosumer digital gear, altering things like shutter speed and aperture is slightly harder.

 

Plus obtaining shallow depth of field is hard enough with amateur equipment anyway. I wish they would make all digital cameras with full frame sensors. With 35mm I've found that you can perfectly balance how much depth of field you want. With the digital cameras I deal with, you're pretty much stuck with a huge depth of field. Unless you use a super fast lens (which would cost about £1000, for an SLR) or unless you zoomed all the way in. But then you get a very compressed perspective, which may not be what you want. (And it's a sod in smaller locations)

 

I've spoken to quite a few student film makers. They can all tell you the difference in pixels between all these different cameras. But when it comes to the bare basics, aperture, shutter speed, filters, they're lost.

 

That's why if anyone has just started getting into film, I always say buy an old 35mm SLR. Teaches all the theory and sets you up for shooting in digital if need be.

 

P.S. I don't claim to be a professional myself, I'm still a student, and always will be. I just hold a lot of interest in the making of films and other creative areas. So I'm not trying to sound like I know it all when I talk about giving advice to other amateurs like myself. Just, some amateurs are more amateur than others.

 

 

So essentially you killed the old DAS, and you've assumed his body form?

 

Since when did you become a proponent of film :D

 

R,

[Daniel Smith]

So essentially you killed the old DAS, and you've assumed his body form?

 

Since when did you become a proponent of film :D

 

R,

As far as I can remember, I've always preffered film. I've just always preffered the flexibility of digital. Which is why I shoot film but then transfer it to digital for grading.