The death of film

[Sean Morris]

I hope not!

 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/livewire/the-de...6982069009.html

 

 

Cheers

Sean

[rik carter]

While the medium the story is being delivered on has been film for a century, the true test of a good, long lasting "film" is the story.

 

Every technological leap or change is met with fear, anger and disappointment. I still LOVE vinyl records, many do - but soon it will impossible to by a new album on vinyl. It's already damn near impossible. I wonder how many 16 year olds even notice?

 

Same with film. In 2030 will any 16 year old lament the lack of film running through a projector?

 

As long as writers are writing good stories and photographers are using light and framing to tell that story, the medium (film) won't be missed.

[Guest jeremy edge]

Of course it's dying.

Digital will replace it.

But digital has not equalled it yet.

 

We just need to make sure noone jumps the gun.

 

Digital projection or cameras are nowhere near replacing 35mm film...I may eat my words when I see the genesis in action in a finished movie but right now I think even 5 years is an unrealistic goal for digital to take over.I may be wrong but it just doesnt seem like its that close....

 

I think also people need to start thinking how they can advance imaging beyond films capabilties.I mean its like finding the cure for cancer tying to recreate the look of 35mm digitally.Dont we want to see an impovement in image qaulity shifting to digital? I mean if you dont get a better image is anything really moving foward? Arent things supposed to get better replacements?

 

As John Pytlak said "film is a moving target" .As film stocks get better and better it will become increasingly difficult to equal or top the quality of film and I think directors will always seek the best quality regardless.This isnt the 35mm slr consumer market...big hollywood studios wont switch to a digital camera because its easier or more convienent,or that you can see what you just shot instantly...DPs know how to shoot film and they have to have the best quality on screen and thats the bottom line.

 

When we talk about movies that are 75% green screen or more with tons of cgi...the ballgame changes a bit though.

[Landon D. Parks]

Film will die, its gonna happen. The question is when.... I doubt soon, but then again who would have thought from 1998 to 2005 we would see digital camera come so fare? From the early F900 to the D20 of late??? I dont think its unreasonable for film to die as a capture format in 10 years or less, I do however question when it will die as a projection format, just for the cost to the theaters to make the change... What about $200,000 per screen setup? In a typical 12 screen multiples thats 2.4 Million dollars per theater. Seeing as how most theaters only make 5% to 15% of the ticket prices, I dont see them making the switch unless Hollywoof forces them too, which would put a lot of the smaller, and even larger, cinemas out of buisness... It would a "Only the VERY strong would survive" thing.

 

Unless of course studios are willing to do a sort of "Rent it" system to the theaters, where the studio provides the projection equipment for a small monthly or yearly fee...

 

Just my $0.02

[Guest]

Well I see even our own Dominic Case was quoted in this article, even though he is wrong :D

 

All those who say digital will replace film simply don't know what they're talking about.

 

You know it's funny there's a new Tim Burton film that has just come out, The Corpse Bride, done in stop-motion. Yes you heard me right, stop-motion, that art form CGI was supposed to have killed off 10 years ago. For those of you not familiar with this art, stop motion uses puppets and models posed before the cameras, moved a tiny amount, and a frame of film shot of each tiny movement. Yes it's true that's how they do it.

 

Seems odd that people would still do stop motion, isn't every thing easier with a computer?

 

In fact stop motion shows are still alive and well, the BBC airs tons of them in kids programming time slots.

 

As the world now has a glut of CGI films, stop motion stands out for its unique beauty. Computers have still not been able to re-create the look and feel of stop motion. A CGI movie simply can not equal the look of how light naturally falls on a model.

 

My point is that stop motion was pronounced dead, replaced by CGI they said, and yet it's still going!! And people are handing over money to see it.

 

Maybe those Hollywood pricks can force theatre chains to get these crappy video projectors, that's fine. People can still shoot on film and then transfer back to tape for projection.

 

Those that buy HD cameras can watch the value of their investment sink like a stone as new technology gets introduced on an hourly basis.

 

R,

[Marc Alucard]

All those who say digital will replace film simply don't know what they're talking about.

 

 

 

R,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

http://www.editorsguild.com/newsletter/Jul...ug05_bride.html

 

Hello Richard,

I think you picked a bad example in Corpse Bride. I am pretty sure it is the first feature shot on digital SLR still cameras. Personally, I feel film will be around for a lot longer than some people think.

Cheers,

Marc

[Landon D. Parks]

Just what i was gonna say, about the Digital SLRs in Corps bride... No Film here, ha ha ha (Sorry Richard, my man)

[Marc Alucard]

Just what i was gonna say, about the Digital SLRs in Corps bride... No Film here, ha ha ha (Sorry Richard, my man)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

There still is the entire film out process, as well as all the distribution prints. Most people will view Corpse Bride in a theater projecting film. Until it's released on DVD.

[Landon D. Parks]

There still is the entire film out process, as well as all the distribution prints.  Most people will view  Corpse Bride in a theater projecting film.  Until it's released on DVD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I know that... I was reffering to the capture process...

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Those that buy HD cameras can watch the value of their investment sink like a stone as new technology gets introduced on an hourly basis.

Actually that's a very good point... I could use a 35mm camera for 20 years, as long as it didn't break, all I would have to do to keep up technology is replace the stocks for newer ones.

 

With digital cameras, you have to keep on replacing them with newer ones to keep up. Who knows, maybe in the future they?ll introduce non-fixed CCD's.... so you can replace them with newer ones.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak's latest high-end consumer digital camera:

 

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

 

One of many:

 

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

 

It's a place called Kodak:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/gallery/index_flash.html

 

Yet, this year looks like it will be one of the best years ever for motion-picture FILM sales. B)

[Guest]

"Hello Richard,

I think you picked a bad example in Corpse Bride. I am pretty sure it is the first feature shot on digital SLR still cameras. Personally, I feel film will be around for a lot longer than some people think. Cheers, Marc "

 

I should have been clearer.

 

My point about Corpse Bride and this thread was that they used stop motion not CGI, even though people pronounced the death of stop motion when CGI came along.

 

In the same way, those that say digital will replace film all together are also wrong. CGI didn't kill stop motion, and digital won't kill film.

 

Another example along these same lines...people thought that TV would kill off the theatres when it became a medium affordable for the masses in the 1950s. Why go to a movie when you can stay at home watch TV? People said.

 

Well 50 years on and the movie houses are still there, and we not only have TV but DVD players to go along with them.

 

My point is that digital technology will continue to take it's place along side film, it will never replace it completely.

 

Additionally, the article made some very valid points about how people shoot more and don't take the same level of care setting up shots when using video tape because it's so cheap. Digital may very well lead to the creation of poorer quality work, not better.

 

R,

[Marc Alucard]

Hi Richard,

I am a big fan of stop motion animation. The original construction paper cut-out animation in South Park has a look that never could be matched using CGI. Three dimensional stop motion uses all the same photographic (photo-chemical or digital), and lighting techniques that are used in full size live action film making.

 

Bill Pope's work on Team America World Police was a great example of using all the trick's in the bag to make a "puppet movie". Corpse Bride will be a landmark in animation that will raise the bar on what can be done in stop motion.

 

Unfortunately CGI is often used to create countless clones, trolls, elves, and soldiers that never look right IMHO. Sin City was the first "flick" that used CGI to create a believable comic book world that in no way looked real, but achieved the look of Frank Miller's graphic novels.

 

Technology offers film makers new tools all the time. The artists that utilize these tools are the irreplaceable element.

 

Early television pushed filmmaking into the wide screen era. Now HDTV is following film into the wide screen era. I feel that film has a unique look that will endure for a long time.

Cheers,

Marc

[Landon D. Parks]

It must have been hell to name, store, archive and timeline 24 Digital SLR clips per second on Corpes bride... Thing with shootin Stopmotion Animation on film is that all the frames are there, just like regulare film, in a nice neat row... On a digital SLR, they are stored on a card, and then must be pulled off and realigned, named and somehow (I wonder what kind of program they used?) put 24 frames into a timeline to get the effect...

 

May not be as hard as I picture it, but it seems pretty harsh to me. Am I missing something in the process?

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

On a digital SLR, they are stored on a card, and then must be pulled off and realigned, named and somehow

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Generally on digital cameras the pictures are given file names like "DSC0023", "DSC0024" e.t.c. e.t.c.

 

Design a basic Microsoft access database and you'll be fine.

 

And as for digital taking over film.. well.. in a way I hope it does. I mean, it will be so much cheaper, flexible, easier and faster.

 

Something tells me a lot of people are just being sentimental about 35mm... Not actually thinking realistically.

Edited September 22, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Marc Alucard]

Answers

 

Read the article, all the answers are there.

[Stephen Williams]

Something tells me a lot of people are just being sentimental about 35mm... Not actually thinking realistically.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

The simple fact is film looks that little bit better than the best of digital!

The advance in Video cameras over the last 30 years have pushed Kodak and Fuji to produce better film stocks. Better film stocks have pushed the manufacturers of digital cameras. Competition is important.

 

Stephen

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

The simple fact is film looks that little bit better than the best of digital!

The "look" you refer to is purely opinionated, ok technically film is better, but just wait...

Edited September 22, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Stephen Williams]

The "look" you refer to is purely opinionated, ok technically film is better, but just wait...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

Greater contrast range and more colour depth to my old eyes look better! I have been waiting for more than 25 years.

IMHO advances in film possibly exceed the advances in video technology. The large tube cameras the BBC used 25 years ago inside the house shooting 'To The Manor Born' look so much better than the outside shots on 16mm! Video went so wrong when 2/3" tubes followed by ccd's . Cheaper yes better well 'good enough'

 

Just my 0.02p

 

Stephen

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Greater contrast range and more colour depth

That's, technically speaking. Personally, I've seen lot's of HD work and it looks absolutely amazing... better than any film I've seen. (It was live video work done at a live concert)

 

A lot of film looks kinda soft to me...

 

I'll admit, digital isn't as good quality as 35mm film yet, but it already has HUGE advantages.. and over time will look better as well.

 

(And hey! wouldn't you know it... we've got ourselves a film v. digital board! again! :lol: )

Edited September 22, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Landon D. Parks]

FILMs the man, if it cant do it no one can, ru raa raa, ru raa raa, Film, Film its so sweet, it beats digital off its feet. ru raa ru raa, horayyyyyy

 

You like my lil rhyming song? cute huh?

 

In reality though: Im torn between film and digital. I think, for right now anyway, I dont wanna see either one die... They both have there place.

Edited September 22, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Annie Wengenroth]

Before I start ranting like a lunatic I will simply say one phrase, and one phrase only: Apples and oranges.

 

Then I have to add that if film is the apples, I really like them apples. :P

 

But my point is that 1. they each have their purpose and 2. this discussion is completely futile and I get very tired of it. If film is so substandard all of a sudden, then why has it lasted so long? Purely hypothetical, I don't even need an answer, I'm JUST SAYING. It really makes me sad when we get all these new students who come waltzing into equipment checkout chattering excitedly about our HD cameras..which is fine...but inevitably there is some kind of fallacy in there about "I hear it's better than film" , I guess because a lot of times when you're a student, better=cheaper and faster? You can't wait a few days to get your footage back from Savannah Cinema Post? Not knowing what your image will look like until it's processed is just too torturous for you? (Yes I've heard this and let me just say I had to leave the room) What gives?!

 

Man, we could wait forever for a Better Technology [than film]. Try me! It will NEVER be the same thing, because it never was in the first place!

 

I think the only way any technology could ever completely replace another (emphasis on "completely") would be if the replacable technology had some kind of irreparable problem that the new technology could fix without issues. And even then, there will always be people holding out.

 

I am not trying to be a killjoy but I really dislike discussions like this; people just go around in circles saying the same things and clearly no one is ever going to convince anyone else of anything. I also find myself getting up in arms whenever anybody implies that film will be replaced. If they ever go that far, well then they might as well replace my brain with a goddamn chip, too.

 

:clings to the Panaflex: YOU VIDEOGRAPHERS CAN TAKE IT ALl...BUT I'M GOIN DOWN WITH THE SHIP GUYS!! :lol:

[Guest Chainsaw]

What she said.

 

 

It is so unbelievably puerile when the people who are the least qualified to answer about a subject are always the first to voice their "opinion" and are never the slightest bit open to other alternatives or ideas or even the blatant truth. From where I'm standing people need to wake up and realize that HD has not even replaced BetaSP. There are different mediums for different shooting situations for different destinations for different ideologies with different attributes.

 

The "article" in question was so obviously constructed from an end viewpoint onward. The rhetoric spouted in said article was only there to enforce the biased opinion of an uninformed journalist. All of these so-called experts who quote film's demise act as if they read it in a quatrain from Nostrodamus. Get over it already.

 

Instead of spouting half-truths and uninformed opinions just go shoot something.

[Landon D. Parks]

Yeah, true talent is not determind by the camera you use, its how good the artist using the camera is... If the Artist sucks, than an IMAX camera wont do him any more good than a Canon XL1s... IF HOWEVER, the artist is a good one, he can make that canon XL1s footage look as close to film as could be expected...

 

In the end what counts your ability to make art, not what you paint it on... Some prefer Canvas, some prefer sketch paper, and some prefer watercolors, other prefer Oil paints... Just because one guys likes Watercolor and Canvas over the Next guy who likes Sketch Paper and Oil Paint does not make either "Better" than the other... End the end its your ability to PAINT THE PICTURE that counts... If you cant paint a picture, than it dont matter what you use, because it will still suck. Bottom Line.

 

Keep shooting friends!

Edited September 23, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Guest david west]

How they did it.....