The death of film

[Dominic Case]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure what I said here to make Richard say I'm wrong. I said the demise of film is inevitable: but I also said that the economic arguments about digital cinema haven't been resolved yet, although digital projection did give independent filmmakers wider access to audiences. The subtle :huh: distinction between DCI standards and showing a DVD on a data projector were beyond the reporter's grasp, and probably the readers' as well.

 

I don't have any doubt that digital technology will eventually replace film in mainstream cinema. That's not to say that film will die completely. Super 8 hasn't died completely. (But go to a camera store and ask how much the super 8 business is worth to them compared with DV, miniDV and the rest).

 

And it's also not to say that I am in favour of digital replacing film. Film will go on for a very long time, but we'll see more and more production shot and screened digitally. It IS happening now.

 

And it's also not to say that "digital will replace film" is the same thing as saying "digital is better than film". It's DIFFERENT. Better in some respects, worse in others.

 

I also talked to the reporter about digital production (which is different from digital projection, but she doesn't really distinguish them), and about my concerns that digital cinema had worrying implications for archivists.

 

But you can't hope to get all that quoted in mainstream press articles. :(

[Guest]

Well what you say right here, is why I say you're wrong...

 

"I said the demise of film is inevitable:"

 

I don't think that's true, people will be shooting film 200 years from now.

 

Provided of course there is a world to live on 200 years from now. If there isn't then the shooting format will no longer matter and this discussion is moot :D

 

R,

[Dominic Case]

I don't think that's true, people will be shooting film 200 years from now.

Well that's definite enough.

 

I think you are possibly right, to the extent that people today use sundials to tell the time, or travel by steam train to get to places.

 

More seriously, people will (I hope) be able to project film, and the cinema experience (and its artefacts i.e. the film prints) will survive.

 

I don't think that's what the article was about. The writer was clearly thinking in the context of what will most people be watching in 5-10 years' time, and how will it be shot and projected.

[Dimitrios Koukas]

I hope not!

 

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

Cheers

Sean

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

"I do miss the warmth and lustre of film," Fairfax sports photographer Tim Clayton says.

 

Who is this guy? And why not going on film when he misses it so much?

I believe that the big money productions are duying not film!

Everything now goes for the post and CG.

When anyone can have an AVID Xpress or final cut in his office to play with, and when people believe that sony HDcamcorders for home movies are the best solution for their projects, I can see the reason why.

Hehe

Dimitrios Koukas

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> then why has it lasted so long

 

Because for a very long time there was no even vaguely comparable alternative. Now there are several very comparable alternatives, at least technologically.

 

As I commented after seeing the 2k/4k side by side demos on the Sony stand at IBC, once we have 4K capture and projection the technical arguments diminish to the level of academia; it would be perverse in the extreme to suggest that 4K capture-post-projection is inferior to 35 in any way that matters.

 

Phil

[Guest]

Ok here's a question then.

 

Of the new Fall shows being produced by the four major networks in the USA, how many of them are being shot in HD vs 35mm? Also what about HBO? They finance their own product, are they using HD or 35mm?

 

Do any of our LA members have any data on this?

 

Thanks

R,

[Guest JP Creatives]

Oye,

 

This is such a pointless topic. The same people that argue about it are the people that decide its future. Personally, I shot video my entire life until entering college where I finally realized why film is the BEST FORMAT FOR ME. This is why as my life goes on so will my purchase and demand for film. So as long as there are a good number of people like me out there, film will never dissappear.

 

But I can appreciate HD being used on projects. Especially where it fits, like in Collateral, or other video formats on small indie films. It does have certain advantages. And in the past five or so years it has really started going crazy.

 

Film monopolized the moving/still picture industry when it was the only option to capture these images way back in the day. Well, a new technology was been born and it is improving just about every minute. It will find its fans as film has, but to say it will obliterate film is to say there will be no demand for it.

 

They will co-exist more and more. I for one will always shoot film until I die. Then I will shoot it in heaven I hope. And I am sure there are guys saying the same thing about video.

 

I could sit here and argue why I prefer film, but that doesn't matter. Just that there are two opposing sides means they still and will co-exist. Just look at history, it's like religion.

 

JP

[Michael Most]

Ok here's a question then.

 

Of the new Fall shows being produced by the four major networks in the USA, how many of them are being shot in HD vs 35mm? Also what about HBO?  They finance their own product, are they using HD or 35mm?

 

Do any of our LA members have any data on this?

 

(probably about the 50th time I've posted something like this...)

 

If you're talking about sitcoms, there are very few film sitcoms left. Will and Grace, 2 and a Half Men, Joey, King of Queens, and That 70's Show are the only ones that come to mind. All other sitcoms, as well as reality shows and news shows are on video, the reality shows and news shows often on standard def video.

 

In the world of dramas, there are a few HD shot dramas this season. Just Legal on the WB, Sex Lies and Secrets on UPN, and Night Stalker on ABC come to mind. Those are the only ones I can think of at the moment, all other dramas are on film, mostly 35mm, some 16mm. HBO does not do any shows that I can think of on HD video, all of their scripted programming is on film, almost exclusively 35mm. Showtime, on the other hand, shoots primarily HD video for their original programming. Their shows Huff, Weeds, The L Word, and others are all shot on HD video.

[Guest]

Thanks.

 

And yes I was excluding sit coms, especially those shot before an audience, obviously those shows have been video for a long time. And I wasn't thinking about the reality shows either.

 

My main question was regarding the "big" dramas, of which the vast majority are film.

 

I was curious to know mainly about the new shows that ramped up from scratch, it would seem that these shows would have the greatest opportunity to use HD since they are just starting out and can decide to go either way.

 

It would appear that most of the new "big" shows have gone down the film route.

 

The question then is why? If HD is as good and cheap as people say it is? Not too mention the benefits of having instant playback and not having to worry about things like scratches etc etc.

 

R,

[Stephen Williams]

The question then is why? If HD is as good and cheap as people say it is? Not too mention the benefits of having instant playback and not having to worry about things like scratches etc etc.

 

R,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Richard,

 

We both know the answer!

 

Stephen

[Keith Mottram]

I've just eaten a large red candle...

[Guest]

"We both know the answer!"

 

Then I guess we are part of a small but elite group. :D

 

I'd actually like to hear from a producer of one of the new shows why they chose film over HD. They must have considered HD and seen test shots.

 

I don't buy the idea that many have presented that HD will eventually replace film once the quality "gets there." It seems that the quality is there right now, so why not shoot HD right now?

 

What is the hold up? All of the new shows should be shooting HD right now, this season.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, obviously Richard it's not universally accepted that HD and 35mm are equivalent for TV production, which is why most shows with a budget still shoot 35mm, and others would rather shoot Super-16 than HD. But there are a lot of cable channel shows shot on HD, like on Sci-Fi Channel or Showtime, etc.

 

Some major commercials have used HD (like the recent David Fincher commercials shot by Claudio Miranda) while most shoot 35mm.

 

It's clear to many people that 35mm is superior, however image quality is only one of many issues used to determine shooting format. Look at how many TV shows shoot on older emulsions and zoom lenses, older primes, etc., plus 3-perf or Super-16, trying to save time & money. So every show tries to walk some fine line in terms of cutting costs while maintaining some quality. For some producers, HD makes sense while others would prefer not to change.

 

Your logic is somewhat specious or circular. What's wrong with a producer saying that they will change to digital when the quality gets better -- and not currently believing that the quality of digital is there yet? Obviously you must agree with those producers, unless you're one of those people who refuse to believe that digital will ever get better, despite all the evidence to the contrary, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

These arguments get a bit silly. Just look at the state of the industry to get an idea of current technology trends. Obviously digital is encrouching on film year by year. And obviously film is still the dominant player in TV and theatrical production. So what does that tell you? If one can strip oneself of any bias or advocacy, what can one conclude? Digital is on the ascendency, that's clear. Film usage is on the decline, but in some arenas, it's a very slow decline. The logical conclusion is both will be a part of production for a long time, but we will see an increase in the use of digital at film's expense. Anyone who believes that we have achieved some status quo where digital's usage will be frozen at current levels is not being realistic. Anyone who proclaims film is dead, though, is being highly premature.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Well... from a teenagers point of view (i.e. a future DP who is going to be making films in the future) I'm for digital.

 

Of course I'm not saying digital is as good as 35mm film yet, but it will be someday.

 

Personally I'd happily shoot a feature length film HD over 35mm, even now. I'm not saying the quality is "good enough", I'm saying it's great.

 

I think the younger generation WILL have different views on this anyway, considering we have been brought up with all this stuff.

 

I mean, just compare MiniDV with 8mm. Besides all the quality differences, just look at how easy and cheap making a MiniDV film is. I could sit here, write a basic script, call up some of my acting friends, go out, shoot a movie, sit up till 12 at night editing it, and have it ready for tomorrow. THAT simple.

 

With 8mm, you first need to spend a bit of cash on some rolls of film, once you've actually shot the movie, you need to have the film developed, then you need to sit there for ages cutting it all, then cement the bits back together, and then play it back through an 8mm projector (which virtually no one owns)

 

I mean.. George Lucas used HD. GEORGE LUCAS. Creator of the biggest film ever? If it's good enough for him then it's certainly good enough for me, AND anyone here.

[Dimitrios Koukas]

I think the younger generation WILL have different views on this anyway, considering we have been brought up with all this stuff.

 

I mean, just compare MiniDV with 8mm. Besides all the quality differences, just look at how easy and cheap making a MiniDV film is. I could sit here, write a basic script, call up some of my acting friends, go out, shoot a movie, sit up till 12 at night editing it, and have it ready for tomorrow. THAT simple.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Daniel ,

Think of the younger generation that will do the one man show in the end, like u said u write down the script, u shoot it then u edit it and then you have it ready for tommorow, and then???

 

Dimitrios Koukas

[Guest]

"With 8mm, you first need to spend a bit of cash on some rolls of film, once you've actually shot the movie, you need to have the film developed, then you need to sit there for ages cutting it all, then cement the bits back together, and then play it back through an 8mm projector (which virtually no one owns)"

 

This is the ADVANTAGE of film over video, it disciplines the user. Mini DV you just shoot until the cows come home, cost is never an issue. When I'm doing stock work I spend much more time and effort setting up the 35mm shots than the video stuff. I have to.

 

Any way to each his own I guess. I'd still much rather make a short film with four 400' loads of 35mm than an endless supply of tape.

 

R,

[Michael Most]

I don't buy the idea that many have presented that HD will eventually replace film once the quality "gets there."  It seems that the quality is there right now, so why not shoot HD right now?

 

 

Because as David Mullen has already said, image quality is but one of a number of considerations when shooting a television series, especially one produced by a major studio. Production efficiency, overall cost, and archival integrity are at least as important as pure image quality, and as David also stated, it is not universally acknowledged that 35mm and current HD systems are even close to being equivalent in terms of image quality.

 

Production efficiency is probably the single main determining factor in the choice of acquisition format for a television series, and the fact is that film production is usually more efficient when creative lighting is involved, or when you are on locations with some uncontrollable light sources - like the sun. With its wider latitude, you do not have to protect highlights nearly as much with film as with HD video, so things like bright skies and windows can be shot "as is" and still retain some detail and image integrity. And when it comes to archival integrity, it is generally acknowledged that film is currently the superior element for this purpose.

 

Overall cost is a stickier issue, but it is generally felt that although it is less costly to shoot on HD video, the savings is not as significant as its proponents would like to believe, and that the additional time spent cleaning up lighting issues eats up some of that savings pretty quickly. Not to mention other issues, such as the physical size of the cameras (when fully equipped for film style shooting) being quite a bit more cumbersome than their film equivalents.

[Jonathan Spear]

This isn't really going anywhere. Nowadays, if everyone worked with one and only one format, the film and television industry would be pretty monotonous and boring wouldn't it?. What's wrong with just using whatever fits the director/producer's/DP vision best?

 

In music, this would be like arguing about how classical music is 'dead' and replaced with whatever the hell it is we're listening to these days.

 

IT'S ALL GOOD ;)

Edited September 25, 2005 by TSM

[Michael Most]

Well... from a teenagers point of view.......

I mean.. George Lucas used HD. GEORGE LUCAS. Creator of the biggest film ever? If it's good enough for him then it's certainly good enough for me, AND anyone here.

 

That's kind of like saying that George Bush - the President of the United States - says we should occupy Iraq til the end of time and replace Social Security with some kind of personal savings accounts, so if it's good enough for the President of the United States, it's good enough for everyone else in the country.

 

I hope teenagers today aren't really thinking that way. Everyone, including George Lucas and George Bush has an agenda, with considerations based on personal interests and needs, as well as a point of view. Their needs and interests aren't necessarily those of you, me, or anyone else. What works for them doesn't necessarily work for everyone else. One needs to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions, based on their own agenda and needs.

[Dimitrios Koukas]

This isn't really going anywhere. Nowadays, if everyone worked with one and only one format, the film and television industry would be pretty monotonous and boring wouldn't it?. What's wrong with just using whatever fits the director/producer's/DP vision best?

 

In music, this would be like arguing about how classical music is 'dead' and replaced with whatever the hell it is we're listening to these days.

 

IT'S ALL GOOD  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have to agree with you, it is the artist not the media that makes Art.

It's like we are saying that if DaVinci had different brushes would be nothing.

And yes it's all good, but qualitywise that we were talkin, I would go with film.#

And actually if I could change it I would probably make it 50fps both shooting and projection.

Dimitrios Koukas

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Daniel ,

Think of the younger generation that will do the one man show in the end, like u said u write down the script, u shoot it then u edit it and then you have it ready for tommorow, and then???

 

Dimitrios Koukas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and then you do what you like with it. My point is, what takes less than a day with MiniDV, takes atleast a week with film, aswell as more money.

 

This is the ADVANTAGE of film over video, it disciplines the user.

Comes at a hell of a cost...

 

I'd still much rather make a short film with four 400' loads of 35mm than an endless supply of tape.

Easy to say, when you can afford it in the first place.

 

That's kind of like saying that George Bush - the President of the United States - says we should occupy Iraq til the end of time and replace Social Security with some kind of personal savings accounts, so if it's good enough for the President of the United States, it's good enough for everyone else in the country.

Yes but they both know what they're doing. (You think George Lucas would use HD if it wasn't any good? You think George Bush would come up with that if he didn't know what he was doing?)

[Dimitrios Koukas]

and then you do what you like with it. My point is, what takes less than a day with MiniDV, takes atleast a week with film, aswell as more money.

Comes at a hell of a cost...

Easy to say, when you can afford it in the first place.

Yes but they both know what they're doing. (You think George Lucas would use HD if it wasn't any good? You think George Bush would come up with that if he didn't know what he was doing?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have the feelling that u have taken it too personal here.

If you don't need our opinion there is no problem.

Dimitrios Koukas

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I have the feelling that u take it really personal here.

If you don't need our opinions there is no problem.

Dimitrios Koukas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No not at all. It's just a debate. (Seriously though, use a spell checker)

[Guest]

Daniel,

 

I don't think English is Dimitrios first language, cut him some slack.

 

As for the cost of four rolls of 35mm film, it's really not that expensive with the number of companies selling short ends and re-canned stock. I can buy a 400' re-can for .30 a foot vs $1.00 foot new from Kodak (CDN $$ prices.) That cuts the cost by 2/3 and you get the exact same stuff. Shoot with a Konvas 2M or Arri 2c, either of which you can buy for cheap, and away you go.

 

Yes still more expensive than Mini DV that is for sure.

 

At all of the film festivals I've attended the quality of the work takes a serious drop when Mini DV is the shooting medium. The lighting is much worse, the writing poor, acting poor, camera work poor. (It's not just poor students that use Mini DV either, people if all stripes use it, and people of all stripes use film.)

 

In general the Mini DV people just don't put the care and craftsmanship in to their work the way the film shooters do. That's what I'm talking about when I say film disciplines people.

 

R,

[Brad Grimmett]

And yes I was excluding sit coms, especially those shot before an audience, obviously those shows have been video for a long time.

R,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not true. Before HD most sitcoms were shooting 35mm.