Jump to content

Could Digital Kill Film?


Max Field

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

I refer you to my answer above.

I saw your answer, but as someone who spent 13 years or so in the IT industry here in Hollywood, dealing with this problem every day, I know quite a bit about it.

 

You can call it archaic technology, but it's THE ONLY technology we currently have that doesn't require energy to exist. Raid arrays need to be on 24/7 for them to be a viable solution. Between the power cost and most importantly "cooling" cost, they are far more expensive GB to GB then tape is. Plus and this is a huge issue, raid arrays take up a lot more space GB per GB then tape storage does. Even with modern 10tb 3.5" drives, the "box" they go in is pretty darn big, especially in data library.

 

I've even been part of a group that wanted to store digital data onto film. We figured we needed to get down to 15nm, but even the finest stock could only reproduce around 18nm and only around 25nm reliably. At 25nm, we were stuck with around 25GB on 1000ft of 35mm film, which is a non-viable solution. I actually came up with a very unique design, using a healical scan system like a VCR to record one's and zero's using a laser at a decent speed, but the project was defunded before we went any further. It seemed like a great solution, but the flexible optical disk seems to be better in my mind.

 

So how much does it cost to store (average archive size) 350TB worth of data onto LTO? Well, the current scheme is 6TB per tape, so that's roughly 60 tapes @ $100 per tape = $6k just for tapes. Then, you'll need a 100+ tape library, which aren't too bad. I've installed decent sized libraries for $50 - $70k + computer and software. However, those libraries only hold a few hundred tapes at most. So you're basically making an A and B set of backups at... wait $6k per... so $12,000 for an A and B set. Then you're unloading the library, putting the tapes into metal fire-proof boxes and sending them to cold storage. Then every year, you will retract one set of tapes, put them into your library again and duplicate them onto new media, with a new A and B set... at a cost of guess again.. $12,000. You'll then replace the the B set that wasn't pulled from storage before and do the same thing the next year and the next and the next. That is THE ONLY WAY to 100% insure there is no data loss ever, assuming you do all of this at your own facility with your own employees. So I don't quite undrstand why $20k a year seems to be "out of range", yes it's more money, but you don't have to pay any employees and you don't have to buy the hardware/software to do it yourself either. Companies like Iron Mountain do that work for you and yes they charge more, but it's worth it in the long run.

 

I guess another complaint could be "why 350TB". Ok... so yea it seems like a lot, but honestly there are a lot of elements that need to be backed up at full resolution. Post houses don't hold onto poop, they will make LTO backup's internally for you, but they delete your files off the servers pretty quick once the final version for video release has been finished. By the way, the studio's pay exorbinent amounts of money to post houses just to store their data during the post process. I've heard big labs like Technicolor and Deluxe charging hundreds of thousands in storage and migration fee's for big movies. Yes it's hearsay, but it's pretty common knowledge within the industry. Is it a ripoff? yes... but it's what people pay that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a double problem that bothers me here -

 

1. Appalling logic.

 

2. A lack of concentration on actually making good films. The film industry is increasingly restricted to shooting toy commercials; TV is producing some of the finest drama in human history. And people are obsessing with how to get slightly more pleasant tonality rather than asking the question of how grown-up films can be made again.

 

Where is the appalling logic here?

 

I'm 23 not obsessed with grown-up films because not watch them before 2010s. Objectively i'm defending movies-tv shows look more pleasant in old days. Some people can say ''i like more digital looking'' but i just can't stand that....

So you say new season of twin peaks better than the original, or new Blade Runner new Alien look more beautiful, has better cinematography than the originals, right?

 

About the tv show nowadays the quantity is increasing while the quality is decreasing.

Edited by fatih yıkar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

About the tv show nowadays the quantity is increasing while the quality is decreasing.

Umm... maybe "TV" as in what's over the airwaves.

 

However; HBO, Cinemax, Netflix and Amazon are making stellar content, far better than what's in the theaters.

 

I mean some of it is even shot on film, but audiences will never know. All they care about is the story and frankly, on the small screen, it doesn't matter. A good cinematographer and decent display LUT can make digital look fine. I have ZERO complaints about digital for home viewing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

remember that video data generally does not compress well so you are generally using the NATIVE CAPACITY of a LTO tape, the hardware/software compression does not generally benefit you at all.

 

Depending on one's system and file structure and material used etc. the REAL WRITTEN CAPACITY with video material may be about 85 - 95% of the LTO tape's native capacity. For example, for LTO5 (which I'm mostly using at the moment) one can normally store about 1.4TB - 1.47TB of video per tape. calculating for about 1.4TB per tape is quite safe with the LTO5 if you know your system well.

 

LTO is cost effective for mid to long term storage because it needs less work and energy and maintenance than other systems. especially the work involved is quite expensive and that's why HDD storage is very bad solution for long term because it needs constant maintenance and data migration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume you are joking.

Why you just quote one sentence from a paragraph.You changing meaning.

 

I'm not joking nowadays good script,good actors,good director are just not enough make a movie good . That's why i give an example about twin peaks or new alien and blade runner..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a powerful insight into humanity's frailties, go along to a common, garden-variety painted media art show one day - the type that is open to anyone who wishes to enter their work of art. Walk around; have a good look at all the paintings hanging on the walls. You will see there before you the same dilemma we are discussing here: 'Look.'

 

Most or all of the works will be superficially very impressive technical and artistic creations. But .....

 

It's a matter of taste. A professional collector of art works will walk around and, if scouting for potential pieces to purchase for his or her commercial gallery, will probably not pick out any at all. It's because most people don't have a good eye for what's artistic. In a painting of a landscape, a lot of average, everyday painters and buyers will favour a 'look' that is not good art. The colour will usually be 'off' - in multiple ways. Landscapes will be rendered in a strange metallic way rather than warmly. Or there will be some other visual, conceptual flaw. This is after all the art of image ... and image alone. There will be an obvious tackiness or kitsch-ness to the work. This is a fact of the art world, but some people say it's snobbery (I'm not saying anyone is saying that here). It's not snobbery - it's just a fact that a lot of people don't have good taste in artistic imagery. Cinematographers must have this good taste however.

 

Now, to my taste, there's something very wrong with the imagery of a total digital production, though not in some (in my experience, very rare) cases. As time goes on, perhaps digital will improve in its 'warmth and magic' (to try and find a suitable term). Even if it does, I believe filmmakers will continue to buy and use film and that will of course keep it alive.

 

I think the industry really needs to take note of this point. There's something about the look of a total digital production that is just unappealing to a certain percentage of film fans. At what point does that affect sales? Do the top film execs even care?

 

It goes without saying that if the top film execs don't care, then it is a bad sign, ultimately. If it's just about sales, and nothing else, you will end up with a lot of money but that's about all.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why you just quote one sentence from a paragraph.You changing meaning.

 

I'm not joking nowadays good script,good actors,good director are just not enough make a movie good . That's why i give an example about twin peaks or new alien and blade runner..

So what does make a movie good? Shooting on film?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, perhaps it mostly comes back to directors and producers: this whole business of 'look' of a picture and whether to shoot on film or digital. When you think about it, cinematographers have to know about lighting, framing, colour composition and so on of the scene, camera moves, blocking, exposure, lens type and focal length, dof, perspective, colour balance in post (if they get a say in that), and so on. Directors have to know this too but perhaps at the end of the day it is directors who seem, publicly, to be coming out and commenting on this issue of 'look' on the cinema screen the most. I've also noticed that cinematographers sometimes admit that they don't go to the cinema much anymore, where as most of my comment is from the perspective of a chair in the cinema. Yes, cinematographers clearly do have an opinion on the film and digital 'look' but I get the feeling it's not of paramount importance to many. Or that, truly, they deep down prefer the look of digital these days. Which I find interesting, but there you go.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Everything old becomes new if you wait long enough, including tired old arguments apparently.

Meh, what else are we gonna talk about?

 

Good Digital cameras that are too expensive to own and are gonna be worthless in 4 years?

 

How about new lenses that are so damn sharp, nobody wants to use them?

 

Honestly "modern" tech is just boring. Flat, out uninteresting and boring. We're fighting problems that shouldn't exist, all for the sake of "ease of use" and democratizing cinema, as we all scramble for the few "professional" jobs that remain.

 

Truthfully the only reason why digital tech exists is so manufacturers can sell more equipment.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First they said that the Canon XL1 was their messiah, then the Panasonic AGsomething or other, then the HVX-200 (Is that was it was?) then whatever...It's been going for a while, about 20 years almost.

 

I think Rick Schmidt started hawking digital in 1996 when it wasn't even a thing. It still all looks lifeless.

 

Ten years later SUPERMAN RETURNS looked like it came out of a bottle of acrylic gloss medium. GODZILLA FINAL WARS was the worst looking Godzilla movie ever, and I'm talking about a multi-million Yen movie in a franchise usually defined by men in rubber suits.

 

Go look at BMCUser or REDUser. This is what happens: People buy their RED or Blackmagic or DSLR and then...they sell them. At a major loss most of the time. They think making videos is going to turn them into filmmakers. They're delusional. The only people praising their work are people who hope that they too can get talked about when they make the next unwatchable pile of pixels that becomes popular for a page or two in a video forum.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been shooting 35mm for the past month on a project, still haven't loaded a mag or threaded the camera itself. Not that it wouldn't be fun to learn that, but it isn't necessary nor is it even a good use of my time on set. Not sure why my cinematography would be any better if I threaded the camera myself, any more than if I was the one to replace a burned-out globe in a lighting unit.

 

But everyone has different degrees of interest in the mechanics of filmmaking. I certainly know more than many working cinematographers about obsolete film formats and color film processes, and know more about Silent Era movies than many, but I can't say that my knowledge has a lot of practical application every day on a film set.

 

But I've never been an equipment owner nor do I have any mechanical skills, that's just not where my passion lies.

Hi David,

 

I do not mean to be flippant, but what do you mean you do not have any mechanical skills?

 

I ask because you speak are very well informed on the cinematography technicalities of equipment and set related topics. Is there a difference between being a technical cinematographer and Mechanical Cinematographer?

 

I find it really interesting if you could just highlight your specific duties on set that would be really enlightening to someone who has no idea?

 

Many thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I can't imagine THE THIRD MAN shot on VHS. Although, PXLvision might have worked there. Hmm..

Trey Parker and Matt Stone made the forerunner of South Park on VHS....

And Earth to all the posers, fantasists, wannabe's and assorted crackpots posting here: Until the advent of "proper" Digital Cinematography cameras, anybody who actually worked in this industry could easily tell the difference between film-originated and video originated footage, even on VHS!

Just the same as you could easily tell the difference between something shot on a 3-tube or 3-chip professional camera, and a Video-8 consumer toy.

It's the dynamic range that gives it away, nothing to do with resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi David,

 

I do not mean to be flippant, but what do you mean you do not have any mechanical skills?

 

I ask because you speak are very well informed on the cinematography technicalities of equipment and set related topics. Is there a difference between being a technical cinematographer and Mechanical Cinematographer?

 

I find it really interesting if you could just highlight your specific duties on set that would be really enlightening to someone who has no idea?

 

Many thanks

When you say "someone who has no idea" you've pretty much nailed the problem. The problem is that the real world of movie and TV production bears almost no resemblance to what the bulk of the population think it's like, and they don't believe you when you try to tell them.

You see that when stars of films or TV series with cult followings make the mistake of agreeing to attend fan conventions. Some fans simply cannot believe that the stars of those shows don't actually have an encyclopedic memory of every episode of every season, and in many cases don't even remember the storylines!

I remember seeing one actor (I don't know who he was; it was just something I flicked to on TV) being dumbfounded when a fan asked him to reveal what happened between him and his main protagonist, after the end of the last episode of the final series of the show.

He eventually said something to the effect of: "Well ... somebody said 'Cut!' and 'That's a wrap!'. And then [His protagonist] and I went off and had a couple of beers, and then we went home.

"It's a script man; if the writer didn't write any more, then nothing else happened..."

I came to Sammies/Panavision as a video technician, to handle their short-lived Betacam fleet in the late 80s. OK, I eventually got to work on vastly more expensive film cameras, and any time I wanted to, I could have borrowed some top-of-the-line kit and scrounged some just-expired film stock from Kodak and shot something, and also got the film processed and scanned with a bit of horse trading, but I just wasn't interested. I also knew how to load the magazines and fit them to the camera for film tests, but it was easier to let one of the desperadoes downstairs do it!

I did do some moonlighting of TV commercials, but that was all video, and purely to make some extra money.

I remember the first time I attended a production meeting, and I felt completely like a fish out of water with all the creative and marketing people jabbering away in their weird industry jargon. But then they needed some video equipment set up, and suddenly I was the expert and they all didn't have a clue.

That's pretty much how it is on a film set: Most of the people there sort of understand what everybody else does, but they really only feel comfortable with their own job.

The other thing that used to surprise people was that most of us aren't "movie tragics"! Most of the time I have no idea what people are talking about when they go on about this director, or that cinematographer. I generally only watch movies for enjoyment, not to make a personal statement.

As a general rule, you'll find that people who waffle on with that sort of crap are never going to amount to anything in the real world. :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Cinephiles rarely work in film industry, and if they do, they may have very hard time adapting to the not-what-they-thought-it-would-be working environment.

 

it is much easier and funnier to watch a movie at home and complain about every image, especially without knowing the context eg. why the creative and technical decisions were actually made

and why they led the movie to look like that.

 

actually the reasoning behind the decisions could then make lot of sense and that's what the cinephiles would be worried about: to understand that the persons behind the movie

were actually top professionals doing their best with the available resources and chose the best equipment and techniques they could to help the movie become better.

 

Because the cinephiles would not want to know that even THEY could not have made the movie better were they been on set instead of those other guys.

 

better scripts would help most movies though, especially the hollywood ones where the script is usually very weak even if the rest of the production is top notch

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what does make a movie good? Shooting on film?

No i don't think shooting on film just solve all the problems but it's a good start.. I saw many movies shot on film doesn't reflect film elements . I'm not expert i don't know why is this but most probably reason is D.I..

 

My biggest problem with digital cameras,they capture image and output like same as the human eye sees,with fake colors and wrong skin tones. That's why so many people called ''Film is magical'' because ıt's just creates a new perspective of that no human can see world that way. It's so magical to see world with new eyes.

It's like (renaissance painting) no human can see the world like this way, that's why you feeling good when you saw something.

post-69480-0-86578800-1508251099_thumb.jpg

 

Recently i watch (the crow 1994) it hasn't got good script so many holes in story dialogue,directing, acting was okay but cinematography really outstanding, ıt's create a great atmosphere and fixing the movie lacks.post-69480-0-75550900-1508250936_thumb.jpg

 

In 70s,80s,90s even a small budget, independent movies can surprise you with look,cinematography etc.. Nowadays big budget,best dp,best director collaborate but results is just not even close the 20- 30 years ago movies.

I know technology develops, movie tastes change but why we have to see things like which we already had much better in 40-20 years ago..

Worst thing is i got no hope, everything is getting worse for me about the cinematography ... :unsure:

Edited by fatih yıkar
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...