Film is NOT Dead - Article at Salon.com

[calgodot]

A refreshing take on the whole "film is dead" hype:

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature ... ographers/

(You'll have to click through an ad to get a day pass to read Salon's premium content.)

A choice quote: "So because he'd been able to make a stiff, crummy-looking, overblown faux-epic on a new plaything, Lucas felt completely justified in foretelling the death of film."

[Daniel McKay]

Holy smokes, that Bush quote is hilarious!! Too bad it's also kinda tragic at the same time. Actually, same goes for the Lucas one too!
Personally I don't feel all that comfortable going to a Forth of July party this year. But I'm a New Yorker and I have always felt that we should be a seperate country anyway
Anyway, enough politics, I'm gonna go film something!

[marc]

I was told by a friend of mine who spoke to Speilberg personally that he claims to be old school in that he believes in the photochemical process right down to the editing bench.

[Arnie]

Thank you so much for posting this! Man, how true this article is. It still shocks me to see some people pushing so hard for something that's inferior. I was on a 16mm shoot 2 days ago, when a guy I knew from work was helping as a P.A., like me. He had gone through a course at a local college that was featured in the newspaper. The teachers were quoted as saying that students would learn everything they would need to know for a professional film shoot. Well, needless to say I was shocked when he had to ask what "checking the gate" meant. The program taught them on the new 24p Panasonic DV cameras, "Because all films will be shot this way in just a few years."
It really is an interesting thing- because usually characters and story are the things the audience cares most about; but technical things can get in the way of this. We're accustomed to watching movies on the big screen with film for so long- who knows what a romance would look like in digital. The article brings up great points. I don't think we're going to see every movie made digitally in 5 years (hell, people were saying that 3 or 4 years ago!)
I'm happy I'm shooting on film because I find it not only cooler looking, and more artistic-feeling- but because it's fun- and it encourages me to work hard to get good images.

[Angus]

Lucas has been going on about shooting on video instead of film for years.

I remember when he got his hands on an experimental 1000 line video camera back in the mid 80's and he said (paraphrasing) '1000 lines, that is about the same as 35mm film so video has now become as good as film".

Clearly he's a great film-maker but had no idea about the technology involved in video cameras.

It's at least 17 years ago that Lucas thought video would soon overtake film (I read it in Movie Maker magazine which expired in 1987) and he's still not been proved right.

[Splee]

That was a really interesting article. It confirms my suspicions that much of the imaging market is being driven by marketing hype rather than any particularly good products.

What personally irritates me is the chronic over-use of the word "digital" as a low-brow marketing tool. It seems that there are a lot of people out there who think "if it's digital, it must be good". That's as may be, but that doesn't mean non-digital is bad. Everyone hypes up the instant results that digital produces, and the supposed ease with which it can be edited/manipulated, but for that you need really expensive kit, and to be honest, it's a right pain in the arse.

Film is still way better than digital for many applications. Most digitally-produced images have a clinical, pixellised look to them, and I don't like it. I recently filmed my three year old son playing in a local park - he was running around some rose bushes with lovely red flowers on them. On digital kit, I would have got an accurate representation of him running around. On Super 8 K40, I got a lovely ethereal, dreamy sequence with great colours. Fantastic.

I also worry about the longevity of digital media, and the availability of equipment in future to play it on. The technology moves incredibly fast, and lots of early digital cameras are obsolete already. Because of the complexity of the equipment in them, in a few years time, lots of cameras will be impossible to use or repair because no-one will be able to fix the hardware or support the software.

Super 8 cameras and projectors, being almost entirely mechanical, are a piece of piss to keep in good working order, have very little in them to go wrong, and the film, kept carefully, will last almost forever.

Lee

[Angus]

One only has to look at older video formats to realise that the digital recording you make today will not be playable in 10 years time unless you take the trouble to dub *everything* into new formats.

Most electronic media, and especially digital media, have short lifetimes. VHS and the compact disc are the two main exceptions, but even VHS seems to be curling at the edges now.

Try finding a DVD player in 15 years time, it will be like attempting to locate a machine to play EIAJ video home movies made in the 70's, almost impossible.

Digital is a "buzz word" and has been since the mid 80's. Phillips and other audio manufacturers hyped CDs so much with the idea that "digital" equated to "perfect" that it has entered people's mind that anything digital must be better than the alternative.

Before "digital" the buzz word was "turbo" and we were invited to believe that our vacuum cleaners were turbo charged. People, in general, are like sheep and will follow the leader. It doesn't matter that super 8 looks much better than any availabe amateur (or even pro) video format.

[MovieStuff]

Film is still way better than digital for many applications. Most digitally-produced images have a clinical, pixellised look to them, and I don't like it.

Well, at the risk of seeming like a heretic, here goes: There are currently countless television dramas and commercials that shoot in digital 24P or 25P that we all assume to be film. While theatrical representation of 24P imagery is currently on shakey ground, television use of 24P is a natural fit, due to the larger volume of product that must be produced on a weekly basis. While I prefer true film and all its qualities, I've worked a few times on some local high end 24P projects that I would defy any of you to tell was not shot on super 16 or even 35 in some cases.

One only has to look at older video formats to realise that the digital recording you make today will not be playable in 10 years time unless you take the trouble to dub *everything* into new formats.

Yes, but that's the benefit, isn't it? Since digital information can be copied endlessly, you can always take what ever you currently have and copy it over to the next generation of digital playback devices.

Again, I'm certainly not taking up the defense of digital but there are factors regarding film usage problems that are cummulative and do not outweigh the advantages in image quality, as far as the industry is concerned. The reason is that, like computers, the progress in digital imaging will advance exponentially over X number of years while the problems of producing and processing in film will ALSO accumulate over the same X number of years. One is a gain and the other is a loss, as judged by the industry.

I've used this analogy before but it IS accurate: Long before black and white video tape, they used to film off of black and white television monitors to record live shows for re-broadcast in the 50s. In fact, the quality of these "Kinescopes" advanced to the point of near perfection. I've got some tapes of Hallmark dramas recorded this way that are stunning with high detail, no blooming and no flicker. Then, in the early 60s, videotape was introduced and it, clearly, sucked as bad as anything could possibly suck. More to the point, it was NOTHING like a good Kinescope, in terms of picture quality. None the less, the industry embraced video tape because they knew it could get better but ONLY if they put their collective $upport behind the technology.

Now, video tape never got as good as shooting a performance originally on film but it DID get better than shooting off or a monitor with film. In fact, videotape is now at a point that you can not tell if a performance is live or if it is a videotape on playback. And, of course, videotape is practically free, compared to implementation of Kinescopes.

So, my point is that we often cite the apparent quality differences between film and digital as if that actually meant ANYthing to people in the industry that controls the direction of film usage. It doesn't. It only means something to people like us and others in the minority that keep standing our ground vigilantly but hopelessly. The use of digital has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with economics and speed because the driving force behind digital isn't really Lucas and his desire to make theatrical movies. The determining force behind the development and implementation of digital is television which, accumulatively, is far more powerful than a couple of Lucases put together.

Digital will win in the long run because, over time, increased usage will make it cheaper and those accumulative dollars behind it will drive the development of digital exponentially to get better in just a few short years. Film will lose in the long run because, over time, decreased usage will make it even more expensive than it is now and the accumulative capital losses will choke further development of newer and better stocks and processing.

Film, itself, may still be around just as one can still make a Kinescope if they really are interested. But the COST of shooting film may make many of us give it up, regardless of the difference in quality that we justifiably lament about here.

Roger

[calgodot]

There are currently countless television dramas and commercials that shoot in digital 24P or 25P that we all assume to be film.

You wouldn't happen to have a list of those would you? Commericals, I don't care about - they'd shoot commercials on dog shit if it would save money. TV dramas, though - I'd like to know which ones are using 24p.

I don't think anybody here is saying digital video will *never* overtake film in terms of quality. The Salon article certainly never states that. It's entire point is that DV-hypists shout "film is dead" while film still enjoys a rich life. (You did read the article, right Roger?)

[MovieStuff]

There are currently countless television dramas and commercials that shoot in digital 24P or 25P that we all assume to be film.

You wouldn't happen to have a list of those would you? Commericals, I don't care about - they'd shoot commercials on dog shit if it would save money. TV dramas, though - I'd like to know which ones are using 24p.

You mean you can't tell? ;)

I don't think anybody here is saying digital video will *never* overtake film in terms of quality. The Salon article certainly never states that. It's entire point is that DV-hypists shout "film is dead" while film still enjoys a rich life. (You did read the article, right Roger?)

Actually, I got the "day pass" thingy and read down through the first page where they interviewed Bailey, the cinematographer. But, for some reason, it would not let me go the page 2 or any of the other pages. It kept saying that the page requested was not found. But my above statements were sort of rhetorical in nature to the comments I see repeated on forums and not specifically related to the article. I wasn't really taking any issues with anyone nor looking to argue any specific point. I like film and would like to see it stay around forever. I was merely pointing out some of the determing forces that affect the proliferation of digital and the decline in film usage, whether any of us likes it or not.

But, you know, every time we edit on digital video instead of demanding a film print, we simply add to the coffers of the digital pimps pushing their product on the general public. Granted, this is very much the pot calling the kettle black, as I offer a transfer to digital service for film, but it also illustrates how we help the transition to digital in ways that we sometimes aren't aware of.

Roger

[marc]

I am not so backward to believe that some technologies will never improve but I have to say a few words in defense of film. First, though video technology improves, so does film technology. The Vision and Vision 2 stocks are proof of this. And it does not take many people dedicated to film to improve it's technology. Those who use film have nothing do with it's development short of effecting it's demand which may play a small part in it's R&D. It only takes a handfull of people ( scientists, film technologists or whatever you call them to raise the bar on film technology). Once it is there it's there and if people have exposure to it then it will sell itself. Secondly, with regards to what Roger said about people not being able to tell the difference in some cases between high quality DV and 16mm or 35mm is wrought with grey area. My opinion on that statement is as follows: Film shot properly with a competant crew is not beatable. However, what I have noticed is that film shot poorly sometimes reveals an ambiguous image. So when it comes to poorly shot film, it is sometimes hard to tell whether it is film or video based on it's poor quality. And there is a lot of sloppy cinematography out there. When it comes to those scenes where you just can't fake it and there is nothing to hide, film wins hands down im my opinion. I have seen a lot of work where video was spruced up to make it look like film but still fell short. This has been tried on a few soap operas on TV as well as some MTV dramas. The bottom line is that film will disapear someday but for what reasons and at what time is anybody's guess. The powers that be have their own agenda that may not have anything to do with asthetics as Roger pointed out in so many words. But those who know the asthetic superiority of film will be instrumental in prolonging it's life in one way or another. In terms of asthetic quality, video technology will probably surpass film one day but probably not as quickly as some would like to think

[MovieStuff]

It only takes a handfull of people ( scientists, film technologists or whatever you call them to raise the bar on film technology). Once it is there it's there and if people have exposure to it then it will sell itself.

But at what price? Again, I believe that film will be around for a long time but improvements don't come for free and, at some point, the makers of film will have to succumb to the bottom line and decide if the amount of money they make is worth the effort to provide the film. In that instance, regardless of any improvements in quality that make film superior to digital, the people that use digital the most will be the people that USED to use film the most and stopped because the cost reached an impractical level.

Secondly, with regards to what Roger said about people not being able to tell the difference in some cases between high quality DV and 16mm or 35mm is wrought with grey area. My opinion on that statement is as follows: Film shot properly with a competant crew is not beatable.

I agree but "unbeatable", in terms of quality, is not the issue at hand because the market has clearly shown that inferior products rise to the level of dominance if the inferior product is "good enough" to meet the needs of the larger industry, which is television. Shooting on 24P digital is a dream come true for television producers, regardless of what you or I think of it.

those who know the asthetic superiority of film will be instrumental in prolonging it's life in one way or another. In terms of asthetic quality, video technology will probably surpass film one day but probably not as quickly as some would like to think

It's already surpassed film, in terms of increased productivity and cutting production costs, and the asthetic quality of digital isn't as much of a grey area to the average viewer as it might be to people like you and me, who are in the minority. Television and cable generate mind-numbing profits despite the fact that most of the product would still be crap, even if they continued to shoot on film. Therefore, any ideals pertaining to "asthetics" are just fodder for discussions like this and have little or no connection to the values embraced by an industry that considers "Jerry Springer", "Jackass" and "Survivor" to be ratings trendsetters, despite the fact that they are blatantly shot on video with no pretentions of looking like film at all.

Many shows that originally were slated to be shot on regular interlaced video can now be shot on 24P within the same budget and attain a different production value which only increases the profits and, in turn, even more demand of 24P. Every show that switches from film to 24P is one more nail in the coffin for film because of the enormous amounts of money involved, compared to our humble needs. I would like to think that people like us would be able to generate enough revenue from continued film usage to offset the trend but I feel that the future is pretty well defined. Not being negative, just realistic.

Shoot film, men! Shoot for your lives!

Roger

[David M. Leugers]

I will only add two thoughts on all this about film vs digital video. I watched exactly one episode of a now cancelled show from last year starring Richard Dreyfuss as a teacher. At first I thought the look of the show was a choice made by the cinematographer even though I thought it lacked the image quality the show should have had. Then there was one scene where Richard Dreyfuss came out onto a porch at night to speak to his dad. The porch light was the practical source of key light. I was stunned. The actors foreheads disappeared into a shining glob of white, and the contrast of the scene was horrible. I told myself that it was obviously shot on video. I never watched it again, and I do not know if it was actually shot on video, but I'd bet my paycheck it was. Can anybody prove or disprove this?

My wife from time to time during the summer when she is off school, will watch a soap opera. Can anyone NOT tell those horrible looking shows are shot on video, no matter how much manipulation (and layers of diffusion) is applied to the image? The quick and cheap mentality of TV has gotten us all the "reality" shows to last us a millenium. No wonder the networks are losing so much ground. 8)

Shoot film

David M. Leugers

[Basstruc]

Sorry to say so David but If I were you, I would be more concerned by the fact that my wife watch soap opera than if it was shot on film or video.
matt

[tim]

Much of the comment on this topic has been from guys with a professional connection, but (according to the poll) about 2/3 of members are amateurs.

For the amateurs the choice between film and video is much more straightforward: mediocre convenience or high quality but slow.

This choice will remain until there is a radical change in the consumer gear used with video cameras. To achieve S8 quality, either video bandwidth will have to approach 25 MHz as against the current 6 MHz or real-time compression will have to be used, which will require a massive amount of computer power in the camera. Next, the player will have to cope with the revised format. Then the display devices (TV etc) will need to improve so that they are equivalent to a seamless video wall using four monitor-quality tubes - with the drive electronics to match.

What this means in essence is that consumer grade video is at a dead end. Either you are content with this and put up with the crummy results, or you go back to film, discipline yourself to plan shots properly, and learn to celebrate the arrival of each film from the processors. Then make a production out of screening it.

The results achived by professional video equipment are fine for mass TV which is hardly worth watching however it is produced!