Bill Pierce
Well-known
A number of movie folks have are working on a deal to guarantee the purchase of motion-picture film from Kodak. They are the only major producer since Fuji exited motion-picture film production. These movie makers are not old fuddy-duddies living in the past. They are major folks. And yet I am sure that all the qualities of film, right up to the grain, can be produced digitally, and that motion picture film's demise is inevitable. Remember, we're not only talking about the quality of the image, but other issues like cost and distribution. Check this out and let me know what you think.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/kodak-movie-film-at-deaths-door-gets-a-reprieve-1406674752
http://online.wsj.com/articles/kodak-movie-film-at-deaths-door-gets-a-reprieve-1406674752
Ranchu
Veteran
No, Bill, I'm sorry that's not true. Only wishful thinking.
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...e-0c25d1293bd8
oilman930
Established
I would have expected to see Steven Spielberg attached to this plan.
I hope this contract means 16mm and Super 8 film stocks stay in production.
I hope this contract means 16mm and Super 8 film stocks stay in production.
siracusa
Well-known
I find this a difficult question to get my head around. Partly because everything I think about film is bound up with my own personal memories, experiences and nostalgia, and partly because everything I think about film is also bound up with a wider cultural nostalgia related to the significance of film in a wider cultural context. I'm not for one minute suggesting the desire to keep film is based on nostalgia - I'm just saying that on a purely personal level, I myself find it hard to get beyond that nostalgia in my own individual thinking. And yes, if I am honest, this does influence my desire to see film kept alive.
But I would also love to see film survive for a whole range of other, perhaps more important, reasons that have been rehearsed many times before by people far more eloquent and knowledgeable than I am.
I think, though, that aside from whether or not the look of film can be reproduced digitally, and as we know there are people who would argue this both ways, keeping film alive maintains an extra degree of choice that I think is important in creative processes. It's good, and I think it's important, that those who want to work with different mediums and technologies have the opportunity to do so. If there is a way to keep film alive for those who want to work with film, I think it's only good. A world with more choices can never be a bad thing, particularly when it broadens the range of tools and media that can be used in creative processes. It would be a sad day if film was no longer available as a choice to be made by individuals about their own creative process.
It is here that the challenges are presented though, because keeping it alive is all about the economics of it and the huge challenges ahead though the news at least looks positive that there is hope, and that there are people with plans...
But I would also love to see film survive for a whole range of other, perhaps more important, reasons that have been rehearsed many times before by people far more eloquent and knowledgeable than I am.
I think, though, that aside from whether or not the look of film can be reproduced digitally, and as we know there are people who would argue this both ways, keeping film alive maintains an extra degree of choice that I think is important in creative processes. It's good, and I think it's important, that those who want to work with different mediums and technologies have the opportunity to do so. If there is a way to keep film alive for those who want to work with film, I think it's only good. A world with more choices can never be a bad thing, particularly when it broadens the range of tools and media that can be used in creative processes. It would be a sad day if film was no longer available as a choice to be made by individuals about their own creative process.
It is here that the challenges are presented though, because keeping it alive is all about the economics of it and the huge challenges ahead though the news at least looks positive that there is hope, and that there are people with plans...
telenous
Well-known
Film and digital do not look that similar. If they did, movie folk wouldn't bother saving film as a creative option.
Here's an example of a now obsolete film-based process that can be replicated only very crudely via digital:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBpIgetXN-g
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/568509152931702270/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor
and a recent effort to emulate the aesthetic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdugJkbOtDo
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/419538521507557615/
Lose film and you lose a creative option.
.
Here's an example of a now obsolete film-based process that can be replicated only very crudely via digital:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBpIgetXN-g
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/568509152931702270/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor
and a recent effort to emulate the aesthetic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdugJkbOtDo
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/419538521507557615/
Lose film and you lose a creative option.
.
siracusa
Well-known
What I like to imagine I'd have said were I as eloquent as Telenous, but instead I blathered. This is the crux of the matter, surely: that it's not just a technical question (can digital technology emulate film) but fundamentally a wider artistic and creative question that is important.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I'm not not much on films, but those Technicolors were great. There is just some thing about reversal film that can't be beat. I think the big problem is special effects which seems to infect all new movies; I bet it is hard to do in none digital.
Scrambler
Well-known
Just different. The original Star Wars trilogy was entirely done on film. In some of the late pre-makeover prints you can see the way they literally cut and pasted some sequences. In good prints you can't.
Ranchu
Veteran
pluton
Well-known
In the soon to be immortal words of Wally Pfister, ASC, recently quoted in American Cinematographer magazine:
"Film didn't need to be replaced."
Oh, and as presently configured, digital cinema is more expensive.
Something about having to process 12 or more megapixel raw files running at 24 FPS for two hours.
The switchover to digital was engineered by Sony so that they could peddle their digital projectors(which sell well, but are dim and dull in picture quality) and their cameras(which, so far, have flopped in the professional feature-film world). Eliminating the cost of making thousands of release prints has been a selling point.
Digital has also been sold as better for security against theft(!!!).
It seems as though a pleasant film-like look should be possible for cinematography, based on the results you get at home with raw-shot digital stills and routine processing and inkjet printing.
The current vogue among directors for deliberately f**ked up-looking cinematography may be partly to blame for the icky look of recent digitally-shot movies.
"Film didn't need to be replaced."
Oh, and as presently configured, digital cinema is more expensive.
Something about having to process 12 or more megapixel raw files running at 24 FPS for two hours.
The switchover to digital was engineered by Sony so that they could peddle their digital projectors(which sell well, but are dim and dull in picture quality) and their cameras(which, so far, have flopped in the professional feature-film world). Eliminating the cost of making thousands of release prints has been a selling point.
Digital has also been sold as better for security against theft(!!!).
It seems as though a pleasant film-like look should be possible for cinematography, based on the results you get at home with raw-shot digital stills and routine processing and inkjet printing.
The current vogue among directors for deliberately f**ked up-looking cinematography may be partly to blame for the icky look of recent digitally-shot movies.
x-ray
Veteran
Technicolor was never a reversal with the exception of Kodachrome that was used for a very few cases where the actual Technicolor system couldn't be used such as hand held camera shots.
The Technicolor process was actually three B&W strips of film shot simultaneously in camera through RGB separation filters. The cameras were huge and had three magazines of a B&w film, beam splitters and separation filters. The processed B&W negs were used to produce color matrix that absorbed dyes that were transfered one at a time to a transparent receiver base. The receiver was what was projected. It's exactly like the dye transfer process for still image prints except the dye transfer process used a paper receiver.
Obviously this was a very expensive process and the cameras were huge and cumbersome. When mobility was needed Kodachrome was shot and separation negs made and then the matrix and the final release print.
Expenses were huge for technicolor. You had cameras that were 3 times more complex requiring three magazines of film, beam splitters, filters and three gates and precise registration for each set of frames. Also at 24 fps a 35 mm camera shoots 90 ft per minute so multiply the cost of film, processing and conforming the film by 3.
Later on technicolor became a lab processing Eastman color negative motion picture film like 2475 emulsion. It was nothing more than a film similar to kodacor with a Carbon rimjet backing. The color neg was printed on an inter positive stock and that was used to make release prints on a direct color print stock. It was nothing like the original technicolor 3 strip B&W / dye transfer process. It became just a name.
I did a lot of 16 & 35 mm motion picture work in the day for TV commercials and some theatrical release. In the 60's and 70's there was a transparency film used as original camera stock called ECO, don't remember the number but I do t think it was ever used in the theatrical film world. It was used some for commercials and industrial work in 16 mostly but had low contrast so release prints from it wouldn't gain contrast and was very low ASA and not a particularly great looking film. There were other transparency films but they were used mostly for news gathering and documentary work.
I hate to see motion picture film go away as much as I'd hate to see still film go away. Sadly almost everything is digitally projected now and much of the depth and feeling of film is lost in the projection.
I will say that I'm very impressed with the new Arriflex digital equipment. The depth and brilliance is amazing. Color is spectacular and the sharpness and quality is approaching IMAX in quality.
I can't blame the studios as film stock, processing and release prints are over the top in cost. Costs will go down for production and production options will increase. It will be possible to shoot under conditions never possible before.
Ronald M
Veteran
problem is theaters are going to digital projectors.
then there is availability of chemicals.
It is doubly bad because technology would blown down to still film.
then there is availability of chemicals.
It is doubly bad because technology would blown down to still film.
willie_901
Veteran
Around 2010 I did a bit of research before deciding to abandon film.
At that time the chemicals required for for color processing were used in large amounts for other industrial processes. This meant chemical availability was not an issue, nor would it be anytime in the future.
Has this changed?
At that time the chemicals required for for color processing were used in large amounts for other industrial processes. This meant chemical availability was not an issue, nor would it be anytime in the future.
Has this changed?
kshapero
South Florida Man
I love film but I have fooled a lot of people with DXO Film Pak.
zuiko85
Veteran
What about long term storage of film vs digital files? Wouldn't digital have to be copied every 5 years or so to the latest storage system? Would the programs to read all those little 1's and 0's have to be migrated to ever newer computer hardware to read the files? I know film, even in good climate controlled storage will eventually become unusable but isn't that time frame several decades or even longer?
icebear
Veteran
If movie film or still photography doesn't really matter, the discussion is basically the same and it comes down to sentimental connection to a carrier medium vs the latest progress in technology.
This is like sticking to leather based parchment/vellum vs cellulose based paper.
In a movie for me it's the story and the way it is shot and told. I do not really care, if there is any visible grain. Grainy pictures can of course enhance the "historic" effect when the scene which the story is telling is way back in time i.e. pre WWII. Other than that I don't care too much.
As for available choices artistically (for the film director) or just personal preference (for the consumer) :
There is a big difference. How many of the consumers do care at all if they have indeed one choice less?
Go into any US supermarket and you will be overwhelmed by choices. An existing choice does indeed need a commercial viability to survive. Other than dying, there is only the enthusiast niche in that it might be kept alive (e.g. Polaroid).
This is like sticking to leather based parchment/vellum vs cellulose based paper.
In a movie for me it's the story and the way it is shot and told. I do not really care, if there is any visible grain. Grainy pictures can of course enhance the "historic" effect when the scene which the story is telling is way back in time i.e. pre WWII. Other than that I don't care too much.
As for available choices artistically (for the film director) or just personal preference (for the consumer) :
There is a big difference. How many of the consumers do care at all if they have indeed one choice less?
Go into any US supermarket and you will be overwhelmed by choices. An existing choice does indeed need a commercial viability to survive. Other than dying, there is only the enthusiast niche in that it might be kept alive (e.g. Polaroid).
zauhar
Veteran
It is my understanding (taken from an article I saw somewhere, plus a Kodak promo) that theatrical digital releases are archived to film, precisely because of this.
When was the last time you were able to get a file off a 3.5" floppy?
Yeah, how about a 5.25" floppy?
Yeah, how about an 8" floppy from your old PDP-11? ;-)
Randy
farlymac
PF McFarland
Believe it or not, the US missile defense system still uses 8" floppies. Because the technology has passed them by, they feel the system is un-hackable. Until a mole turns up in a bunker somewhere in Wyoming.
My thoughts on the whole movie film vs digital is I'm glad that someone is throwing a bone to Kodak. Without a proven revenue stream, even the good hearted folks from the British pension fund would eventually give up, and pull the plug on the whole works.
PF