Jump to content

Could Digital Kill Film?


Max Field

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

 

Again from the article that you linked but apparently only skimmed for points that confirmed your biases:

 

That works out to a relatively affordable $2.5 million per year for its current 50-PB holdings.

 

..Petabytes are not a problem. Not even now - and 5 years from now, that cost will be a fraction of what is now. The economics of storage will at some point force lazy film companies to update how they store data; they won't force them to go back to film and get hit by that billion dollar a year print cost. Because there is a huge difference between lazy and actually stupid.

 

Typically you don't archive prints; you archive intermediates; Don't confuse distribution with archival practices.

 

Film archiving costs are high up-front for the stock and labor, but relatively low downstream for climate control storage.

 

Digital archiving is relatively low up-front, but very high for ongoing storage and migration.

 

In the end, the costs are similar, but the physical, tangible assets are not.

 

In the archival world, when the studios go back to remaster a film (shot on film) for distribution by any means, they DON'T go back to the last scan, they go back to the best existing film element.

 

I have timed prints from the original camera negative of "The Great Train Robbery" (1903, Edison) from the camera original negative. It still runs happily through a printer and is largely intact, but has a bit of wear for it's 115 year tenure in the vaults.

 

See me in 115 years on any current title...

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

See me in 115 years on any current title...

 

How about 20 years! We've already lost countless early digital films due to archiving issues.

 

I wanna know when the studio's will pull the plug on the archiving of movies that they don't care about... 7 years? They'll always keep the big blockbusters archived, but what about this little indy movies that are so great. Thank god most of the great indy filmmakers stand by film and at minimum make a digital output onto film for archiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digital is a great tool but it's ephemeral in the end. Film is like a painting. It's real.

 

 

.. what does that mean.. they are just movies.. some really crap ones are, and have been.. shot on film and some master pieces are shot digitally..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There could be whole books written about what is real vs. not real. What exactly makes digital 'not real' and film 'real'? Is 'real' something you can hold in your hand? Yes, you can hold a painting - but you're not holding the paint itself - you are holding the canvas it was painted onto. Is that really any different than holding a DVD that a 'digital' movie is on? How so?

As you can see, philosophy is pretty deep.

It could be argued that the CCD/CMOS chip that captured the image is 'real', therefore digital is 'real'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Protecting film, this profound analog art form, is a race against the clock, and The Film Foundation has been winning this race since 1990, when Martin Scorsese, George Lucas and I started to realize that the films that we loved were physically disappearing before our very eyes. From the aspiring artists that we were as children to the filmmakers that we are today, we are an organization thats fully committed to the preservation of works that not only inspired us back then to make movies, but that continue to motivate us." ~ Steven Spielberg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[on film] My favorite and preferred step between imagination and image is a strip of photochemistry that can be held, twisted, folded, looked at with the naked eye, or projected on to a surface for others to see. It has a scent and it is imperfect. If you get too close to the moving image, it's like impressionist art. And if you stand back, it can be utterly photo-realistic. You can watch the grain, which I like to think of as the visible, erratic molecules of a new creative language. After all, this "stuff" of dreams is mankind's most original medium, and dates back to 1895. Today, its years are numbered, but I will remain loyal to this analogue art-form until the last lab closes. ~ Steven Spielberg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the Answer.

 

[on Kodak's new Super 8 camera and film in general] When I watch the news, I expect and want it to look like live television. However, I don't want that in my movies. I want our century-plus medium to keep its filmic look and I like seeing very fine, swimming grain up there on the screen. To me, it's just more alive and it imbues an image with mystery, so it's never literal. I love movies that aren't literally up in my face with images so clear there is nothing left to our imaginations. Had I shot it on a digital camera, the Omaha Beach landings in Saving Private Ryan (1998) would have crossed the line for those that found them almost unbearable. Paintings done on a computer and paintings done on canvas require an artist to make us feel something. To be the curser or the brush, that is the question and certainly both can produce remarkable results. But doesn't the same hold true for the cinematic arts? Digital or celluloid? Vive la difference! Shouldn't both be made available for an artist to choose? [2016] - Steven Spielberg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that nails it. Digital cinematography is literal. Film creates a world that is different to the literal. It takes us away from the usual - we see the world anew, like in a kind of dreamtime. It is like impressionist art, even without standing too close to the screen. Digital just 'is'. It's what is. Now that's deep. Remember, I'm articulating my view - you may see it differently. I'm trying to explain why real film is important to those who care about it. When I go to the cinema I don't want to see what I see from a newscameraman's digital camera. That's the world of reality. For fictional movies, I want film, or I want a film look at least. But I do like the fact that celluloid is holdable, and has an odour, and is imperfect, as Spielberg says. If you deny all this ..... there's something not quite right. If you can't see the appeal or value of real film then you lack some type of important insight as a visual artist, which is what you should be if you are creative makers of image. I can see the value of digital. I can see it's weaknesses. In a nutshell, it's not imperfect enough. That plus living light can't shine through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

After all, this "stuff" of dreams is mankind's most original medium, and dates back to 1895. ~ Steven Spielberg

 

Wrong, it dates back to 1887 as the invention of Hannibal Goodwin, celluloïd film, 1888 as first used in a chronophotographic camera by Louis Augustin Le Prince in Leeds, England, 1893 as conceived with a perforation by William Kennedy Laurie Dickson that got later standardised, and 1894 as first projected by Jean LeRoy in Manhattan, New York City. The Lumière screenings of December 1895 were only the first in Europe.

 

Not to forget Georges Emile Joseph Démény with his beater movement in 1893, Charles Moisson with his perforating mechanism for the Lumière family in 1894, the Dickson-Casler-Marvin perforating mechanism for the AMC also in 1894, and Eugène Augustin Lauste’s invention of the film loop for Major Latham in 1895. William Green designed flickerless projection for John Prestwich in 1896 after earlier unfruitful attempts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I see that as one of the real benefits of digital. We can use digital for hours, and it's relatively low cost to use. Use it for nearly everything. Keep film for special projects that are worth the extra cost. For instance, let's say I make lots of music videos. I can use digital for that. Then maybe I decide to make a short 12 minute fictional narrative to enter into a film festival. I might use 16mm for that and scan it and edit it digitally. Discerning audiences really appreciate film.

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

I've had my first demerit point on cinematography.com. I've made it to the big time. Get used to the fact that people think differently to you. If you can't handle that you are really weak. Difference is life. It's good.

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

I've had my first demerit point on cinematography.com. I've made it to the big time. Get used to the fact that people think differently to you. If you can't handle that you are really weak. Difference is life. It's good.

 

Damn commie pinko film lovers ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well my wife, who is normally very pro film, came out of a 35mm screening of her favourite movie, 'Selena', and said it looked like grainy dog poop.

 

So i guess film is dead now that it looks like grainy dog poop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just saw a very old print of Ozu's Early Summer (black & white) - full of scratches and flaws and it was beautifully ALIVE. The characters were so alive I felt I was in the room with them. I felt nothing like that in Avatar even as multi colored 3d bugs flew out at me. I left the theater again praying we don't lose film. Someone noted that film is like a painting because it exists in the physical realm...it is like a painting in other ways too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt that too, when I went to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm recently. There were some flaws such as a bit of picture wobble, but a wonderful sense of presence. It was very satisfying to go and see that shown in film. I left in a slight state of wonder, trying to figure out the charm of it.

 

It was like when Kenneth Clark in his Civilization series, episode 1, visits Iona in Scotland and can't articulate what is special about it. He simply asks the viewer, "What is it? Is it the light?" All an artist can do is ponder ... and be thankful.

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

Well I just saw a very old print of Ozu's Early Summer (black & white) - full of scratches and flaws and it was beautifully ALIVE. The characters were so alive I felt I was in the room with them. I felt nothing like that in Avatar even as multi colored 3d bugs flew out at me. I left the theater again praying we don't lose film. Someone noted that film is like a painting because it exists in the physical realm...it is like a painting in other ways too.

 

Its think its more to do with the subject matter ..Ozu,s films were about real people..incidentally a mandate by the US occupation.. and Avatar is sci fi escapism .. as is most Hollywood fare ..economic depression .. 30,s Shirley Temple.. now Comic book movies ..doesn't matter what its shot on.. film or digital should never be the reason for a film being good or bad..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never claimed that Early Summer was great simply because it was shot on film. However, I'm sure Ozu would be a proponent of keeping film around. My point was that a "flawed" celluloid experience can feel more alive than a digital one using 3d to heighten its impact. Celluloid is alive perhaps because of its imperfections...much like life itself. People are saying something similar about vinyl as it's making a come back. Certainly, I have seen digital films that are beautiful and digital can be sublime - Life of Pi comes to mind - but humanity will be losing something precious if it loses celluloid as a medium.

Edited by Raissa Contreras
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...