The end of film for TV production?

[Keith Walters]

That is what most people here object to, not that film is on the way out but rather the reasons why it is on the way out (saving money rather than being better).

 

I don't know if it is even that so much that, as the ILLUSION that it will save money.

 

But we have been here before. All this works fine, right up until the point that account executives start to notice that the old shows seem to have better image quality than the current season. And then someone gets fired with a huge golden handshake (really a golden kick up the arse, but who's counting, right) and you're all back to square 1, but on less money than before for some reason.

 

(Yeah, I was going to join one of the Cynics' Unions , but I reckon they're all just in it for the money, not interested in my welfare at all...)

[Keith Walters]

As far as I know, there is no major cinema camera company on earth that is even working on new chemical film camera designs. They are only working on designing digital cameras. That tells you something right there.

All that tells me that there isn't really a lot you can do to improve existing "chemical" film cameras.

And 60 year old 35mm cameras work just fine (for MOS work anyway).

Digital cameras on the other hand....

[Paul Bruening]

What about what you see? Is your eye and brain refined and trained enough to differentiate the differences between film and DigAcq?

 

Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.

[Keith Walters]

Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.

Well actually, they're not. :rolleyes:

[Alex Lindblom]

When I grew up, for me film was something magic (still is) those 24 frames flickering by in the darkness.

 

The fantastic vistas of John Ford ,Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood (bit of western freak) it was images from these people and many more that drew me to film making. It was not images from NTSC soap operas or sitcoms, not that there is anything g wrong with any of those.

 

And I guess that the same is true for most people on these boards, the names and genres above will certainly change but the love for cinema is what brings us together here.

 

Now there is nothing wrong about being pro digital, it's cheaper, "it's faster", "it's easier", and if it's suits somebody's story needs there is no reason not to use it, and one day it will probably match film, it's getting pretty close already.

 

What I don't get is when the pro digital crowd turns into the "I hate film crowd". 100% of the films that made me wane go into film making was shot on celluloid 100%.

 

I guess that number or very close to it is true for most people here.

 

So my question is, what are you "I hate film crowd", guys doing on these boards if you hate film so much. I can not for the life of me figure it out, why do you want to be in the biz in the first place, when there seems to be no love for it anyway?

 

Film is passion not pixels.

 

Personally I think it's fantastic what RED have done. They have a great product, but even more important is that they have forced everybody else to raise there game, hello 7D on the low and and the new ARRI's on the high.

 

And I'll admit that I'll be the first to shot digital when the quality is the same as film, film in it self has no value, only the images it' produce.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Alex Lindblom

[Alessandro Machi]

Actually sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes film makers who insist on using real film try to achieve the video look. For example look at NFL films which is a company that uses real 16mm film. They shoot 16mm film at 120 frames per second because they are after that video look or at least some type of hybrid look that bridges the gap between film and video.

 

I don't know if that is why. Ever see those shots where the players go from the shady part of the stadium into direct sunlight? We could be talking 6-8 stops of lattitude, the film cameras probably can handle that better.

 

The other issue for film, it still is format agnostic, it can be transferred to any video system, even systems not yet invented. Many of the late night syndicated shows that are still popular were shot on film.

 

I always think of the difference between Cheers and Cosby. Cosby chose video, and I think they lost literally hundreds of millions of dollars because the Cosby show DOES NOT play as well in reruns because of that.

 

Another example is Seinfeld, which will probably last a long time in syndication because it was a great show shot on film.

 

If I was a producer and KNEW I had a great show, I would definitely shoot film versus video. However, because studios just don't know for sure if a show will be a hit or not, it may make sense to try the show out in digital video first.

 

What I would find interesting is to find a show that that appears to be strong enough and that is being shot on digital video, to then switch to film to see if that in any way improved the ratings or popularity of the show. I don't think anybody has ever tried???

[Alessandro Machi]

It's actually lower-end photographers who embraced Digital in order to cover up their lack of skill. With Digital they can cheaply take hundreds of pictures in order to get a few good ones. Film requires skill to use -- whether you be a photographer or cinematographer. Lower-end cinematographers will be the ones to eagerly embrace Digital. It will make them look more skilled than they are. However, they'll regret it in the long run as they suffer retrieval problems.

 

 

I agree that digital still photography actually encourages the taking of many many many more pictures. One aspect of the digital hype is that it expands production opportunities, then uses that expansion to dis film by claiming nobody is shooting film anymore. If the pie gets bigger, of course that will make the amount of film being shot look smaller overall even if actual film shooting was stable.

 

I find it odd that once a "filmmaker" goes digital, they never shoot film again. What's up with that? Is the new format really that much more superior that one would never shoot film again? I find that mentality more maniacal than film purists that don't want to see film end.

 

So you shoot digital a few times in a row, is that really a reason to never shoot film again? I find that mindset nutty. Use them both.

Embrace the different philosophies they both bring to the table.

[Terry Mester]

Hello Alessandro, I'm delighted to see you're still on this Forum. I was wondering where you've been. ;)

 

Oh yeah, all those "low end" DPs like Lubezki, Mullen, Semler, Miranda, Beebe, Toll, Prieto...

Did those DPs choose to use Digital, or did the Producer choose Digital?

 

That said and done, if the Studios ever stupidly try to switch movie production to Digital, they will kill off the movie theater business since people can get the same picture quality at home on HDTV. I'm stunned by the quality of DTV.

Now, if there are some smart Studio Execs, what they will do is start shooting their most important productions on 65mm, and charge 50% more for the theater ticket for a 50 foot wide screen!

The Optical duplicating process can also be much improved which would make 35mm movies much higher quality than at present. Don't assume for one second that the quality of 35mm movies in theaters is as good as it can get -- it's not! There is a lot more quality that can be wrung out of 35mm Film! Additionally, they can switch to Super35mm for movies.

[Stephen Williams]

Oh yeah, all those "low end" DPs like Lubezki, Mullen, Semler, Miranda, Beebe, Toll, Prieto...

 

Tom,

 

If those DPs never shoot another frame of 35mm you would have a point, pretty sure most of them have not dropped film, just horses for courses.

 

BTW with the new camera from Arri looks like a winner.

 

Stephen

[Phil Rhodes]

he other issue for film, it still is format agnostic, it can be transferred to any video system, even systems not yet invented.

 

I avoid this thread like the plague, then I drop in and find this gem of a statement.

 

How on earth do you work that out? Any imaging medium has a given temporal, spatial and chromatic resolution which may or may not meet or exceed the characteristics of a future system, or interact with those characteristics in a harmful or beneficial way. This is true for both film and video.

 

P

[Thomas James]

I think I am going to have to question the whole concept of the Red Revolution. It is true that Jim Jannard is giving people quantum leaps in digital technology at a more affordable price however I do not think he is making obsolesence totally obsolete. First of all when the Epic is introduced movie studios may no longer accept the Red One. Of course Jim will give a full credit towards the purchase of an Epic but you will still be out tens of thousands of dollars. When high dynamic range cameras are introduced even the Epic will be obsolete and you will have to buy a new brain which will not be cheap. What this all requires is more lines of credit until these are exhausted.

 

Also the Red Revolution does not have any radical welfare pricing structure. There is no financing from Jim available in this credit starved economy and no welfare subsidies are given based on your ability to pay so only those individuals with the most access to capital and the deepest pockets will be able to keep up with this arms race. Also the camera depends on expensive glass lenses and there are no cheap high technology synthetic plastic lenses available that can rival the quality of the expensive glass.

[Tom Lowe]

When I grew up, for me film was something magic (still is) those 24 frames flickering by in the darkness.

 

The fantastic vistas of John Ford ,Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood (bit of western freak) it was images from these people and many more that drew me to film making. It was not images from NTSC soap operas or sitcoms, not that there is anything g wrong with any of those.

 

And I guess that the same is true for most people on these boards, the names and genres above will certainly change but the love for cinema is what brings us together here.

 

Now there is nothing wrong about being pro digital, it's cheaper, "it's faster", "it's easier", and if it's suits somebody's story needs there is no reason not to use it, and one day it will probably match film, it's getting pretty close already.

 

What I don't get is when the pro digital crowd turns into the "I hate film crowd". 100% of the films that made me wane go into film making was shot on celluloid 100%.

 

I guess that number or very close to it is true for most people here.

 

So my question is, what are you "I hate film crowd", guys doing on these boards if you hate film so much. I can not for the life of me figure it out, why do you want to be in the biz in the first place, when there seems to be no love for it anyway?

 

Film is passion not pixels.

 

Personally I think it's fantastic what RED have done. They have a great product, but even more important is that they have forced everybody else to raise there game, hello 7D on the low and and the new ARRI's on the high.

 

And I'll admit that I'll be the first to shot digital when the quality is the same as film, film in it self has no value, only the images it' produce.

 

Who are these "I hate film people"? Are they on this thread? I personally love film, but I love this new digital technology more. It's more convenient to use. You say you love John Ford's vistas. Well, Ford shot his most legendary picture on Vista Vision. Can you afford to shoot Vista Vision film these days? 65mm features? No way. But Red and other companies are building Digital Vista Vision cameras right now (5D Mark II is Vista Vision!) that you will actually be able to afford to use and post produce. Have you seen the low-light performance of new DSLRs? It's absolutely stunning.

[Tom Lowe]

Did those DPs choose to use Digital, or did the Producer choose Digital?

 

I'm pretty sure that Malick and Lubezki had complete and TOTAL control over what cameras and formats they chose to use for "Tree of Life." They shot parts of "The New World" on 65mm. I think Mann, Gibson, and others also have complete control over format.

 

That said and done, if the Studios ever stupidly try to switch movie production to Digital, they will kill off the movie theater business since people can get the same picture quality at home on HDTV. I'm stunned by the quality of DTV.

 

Well the average measured resolution of feature films projected at multiplexes is well below 1080p (somewhere above 720p), so I'm not sure what you're talking about, unless you think scratches, grain, etc, are the big bonus. In terms of general image quality, most Blurays on a big HDTV already outshine multiplexes.

 

Now, if there are some smart Studio Execs, what they will do is start shooting their most important productions on 65mm, and charge 50% more for the theater ticket for a 50 foot wide screen!

 

"Samsara" will likely be the last major film ever shot on 65mm, sadly. But what will replace 65mm are large digital sensors shooting 6K+ resolution with ever-improving image quality. And 4K projection will be the new gold standard. It will probably be similar to seeing a good print projected at 65mm, if not cleaner.

[David Bradley]

Well the average measured resolution of feature films projected at multiplexes is well below 1080p (somewhere above 720p), so I'm not sure what you're talking about, unless you think scratches, grain, etc, are the big bonus. In terms of general image quality, most Blurays on a big HDTV already outshine multiplexes.

 

Where does this assertion come from? (not meant to be insulting but I'd genuinely like to see if there is any science behind the claim).

 

Dave

[K Borowski]

I personally love film, but I love this new digital technology more. It's more convenient to use.

[. . . whereas you wouldn't have bothered trying your hand at cinematography before because working with film would have been too difficult without a laptop and hard drives?]

 

As for working with 8-perf. or whatever, you act as if those media have gotten more expensive.

 

The opposite is true.

 

Color film, processing, and most importantly timing, used to be much more expensive than it is today. Don't have a book handy, but, adjusted for inflation, it was more than six times as much money as it is today for a 4-perf. movie.

 

If you knew anything about the industry, you would know that vistavision was/is still the optimal format for shooting plate photography. They make very compact cameras, just not very quiet-running.

 

The fact is that digital technology has been putting downward pressure on image quality, not film. 4K scans were available back in the '70s, but computing technology *still* isn't up to the task of dealing with it on a daily basis from a constant stream of movies, be they sourced from 35mm negative or HD sources.

[K Borowski]

Where does this assertion come from? (not meant to be insulting but I'd genuinely like to see if there is any science behind the claim).

 

Dave

 

Yeah, this is BS, unless of course you are talking about something that starts out as 2K DI and then gets copied a further two times.

 

4K DIs and optical prints look great when distributed on film.

 

If studios were to go to 1st or 2nd generation film-outs, probably still a far-cry less expensive than shooting on 65mm in the '50s, I bet they could probably get 3.2-4K on 35mm print stock.

 

 

Unfortunately, until the 2K DI is replaced by the 4K DI, I'd say that flat films almost certainly do look worse, at least in terms of spatial resolution than a 2K projector.

 

I won't comment on 1080i or 720p because that isn't a fair comparison; both of these consumer formats have very high leves of compression.

[Geovane Marquez]

Film is real and you can feel and touch it. Digital is nothing but nano-platonic dust.

 

-- "It is hope and dreams which we create that make us great"

[Tom Lowe]

Where does this assertion come from? (not meant to be insulting but I'd genuinely like to see if there is any science behind the claim).

 

Dave

 

It was a careful study conducted by some German imaging company, I think, where they basically went around to various multiplexes and measured real, visible resolution. Because of poor printing, cheap projection lenses, bad focus, etc, the resolution was measured somewhere between 720p and 1080p. And this makes sense. If you go to a theater and pay strict attention to "resolution" and detail, it does seem to be about in this ballpark. In other words, if you see movie at the theater, and then watch the Bluray or a 1080p trailer on your 1080p system at home, the 1080p is (generally) a little sharper, with more detail and resolution. I was paying strict attention to this when I saw "Wall E." The Apple 1080p trailer was far better, IQ wise, than what I saw at the multiplex.

[David Bradley]

It was a careful study conducted by some German imaging company, I think, where they basically went around to various multiplexes and measured real, visible resolution. Because of poor printing, cheap projection lenses, bad focus, etc, the resolution was measured somewhere between 720p and 1080p. And this makes sense. If you go to a theater and pay strict attention to "resolution" and detail, it does seem to be about in this ballpark. In other words, if you see movie at the theater, and then watch the Bluray or a 1080p trailer on your 1080p system at home, the 1080p is (generally) a little sharper, with more detail and resolution. I was paying strict attention to this when I saw "Wall E." The Apple 1080p trailer was far better, IQ wise, than what I saw at the multiplex.

 

Again, not wanting to challenge your opinion as you are well entitled to it but I think that your claim is fairly unsubstantiated (scientifically) unless you can provide a link or reference.

 

http://www.arri.de/fileadmin/media/arri.co...ogyBrochure.pdf is one of the only reputable papers I have read on the subject and whilst the author did not take variables such as poor focus into account there is no suggestion that that a film prints perceived resolution can dip as low as 1280x720 from either a 2k or 4k scan. In fact the author suggests that the majority of the audience in the theatre are capable of perceiving as much as 4Ks worth of resolution. Taking variables such as soft focus, poor printing etc into account it is conceivable that the perceived resolution would fall to around 1920x1080 on a 2K print but it would be hard to imagine the same of a 4K film out. Trying to compare the look of a film print to a highly compressed digital copy projected on an LCD TV is kind of a useless endeavour. Blow that image up on to a standard 20m wide silver screen and then tell me how it looks! ;)

 

Anyway, we sound like a bunch of photography nuts banging on about the benefits of increased resolution (megapixel war!). The fact remains that digital and film are two different formats. For the moment, I think film still looks better , but digital definitely has it benefits and may well suit a project aesthetically. Blanket statements which dismiss the merits of either format aren't conducive to intelligent debate.

[Tom Lowe]

David, sorry, I don't have the link handy. It's been posted here and at Reduser many times. To me, it's just institutional knowledge. I'm sure someone will come along with the link, or I can spend some time googling it for you if not.

[K Borowski]

So it is a study comparing HDTV at its theoretical best to film projection at its practical worst, correct?

 

I'm sure in real life that HDTVs are *always* viewed under the best possible conditions, with no ambient light, and, of course, are properly calibrated. . .

[Thomas James]

Yes I think Blu-Ray is better than 35mm film projection. This however will become a mute issue because all theatres will convert to 2K or 4K digital projection.

[Alex Lindblom]

There you go again Tom, defending red when you don't need to, for it's price it's fantastic.

 

And if you prefer digital that's great for you. I sincerely wish, I would feel the same way you do.

 

Personally I am not a fan of VistaVision since I don't like the cropping needed to get it to any usable form of widescreen. Now give me full frame with 1.5 anamorphic aah Technirama.

 

This is the same reason I don't like imax too square for me, I am a cinemascope junkie.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Alex Lindblom

[John Sprung]

All this works fine, right up until the point that account executives start to notice that the old shows seem to have better image quality than the current season.

 

.... Which should be a few centuries after hell freezes over.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Longest running, one, forget the name got cancelled today here in the U.S. It'd been on the air for 73 years.

 

That would be since 1936 -- are you counting seasons done on radio? BTW, are you really 88 years old?

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.