Film or digital

[superadio]

Maybe this has been in this forum before. But what is most used for cinemas now? LIke the new James Bond, is that still film? I was reading interesting article in Super8Today about the amount of space required to make film into digital.

[bakanosaru]

I saw the making of Quantum of Solace on TV the other day and it looked like they were using Arricams (35mm film) so that film at least was shot on film, whether it is projected from film would depend on your cinema but I think digital projection is currently only in a small number of cinemas. Certainly hardly any in NZ.

[alex-rus]

If you look at IMDB you can see that almost all current movies are shot on film. Long live film!

[adamgarner]

I'll share some info I learned recently:

Firstly, adopting a film-less workflow is not going to happen overnight, or even within a few short years. There are SO many reasons for this, but I have a few to share.

One: The infrastructure for distributing films in a digital medium is a little like the digital music dilemma several years ago, in the sense that there is no real infrastructure to speak of and no real platform for distribution. Only some theaters are able to project digital images. There are hundreds of thousands of theaters, if not millions. To simply phase-out all the 35mm projectors won't happen quickly if at all. SO, we see a lot of films that were shot on digital and are transferred to film for distribution. This is probably because film projection is superior to digital projection in general, and film distribution is much easier than digital distribution currently. Also, the cost of installing digital projection equipment is astronomical, including the price of STORAGE of said movies. This is something that is still "bleeding" edge technology and we won't see an industry turn for some time.

Two: The Motion Picture Industry is just that... an Industry. Honestly, at the end of the day it comes down to price, standard, and ease of adoption. Mostly, price though. Someone who I know in the industry said that one of the challenges shooting digital is that the FILM workflow is "old hat..." and there are no mistakes. Everyone knows how to do it, and your technicians know how to run film cameras, your cinematographers know what the film will produce for results, how to get the look they want... etc etc. There are far FEWER people shooting digital, the technology changes too quickly as there is no real standard yet, so it's harder to find people who really KNOW what their doing. Most production companies wont risk this unknown since the price is probably about the same in the end.

Three: Most films incorporate digital cameras for VFX, and film for the rest. To me, this is probably how it will be for a very long time. The film camera is simply a higher precision instrument at this point. The technology is unsurpassed by digital acquisition. There is a place for digital cameras, and as film-makers we should know exactly where to use them.

I think that film-makers will have these two tools in our toolbox for years to come. Hex wrenches and monkey wrenches live side by side in our kit.

[Actor]

I'll share some info I learned recently:

Firstly, adopting a film-less workflow is not going to happen overnight, or even within a few short years.

Depends on what you mean by "a few short years." I think we'll be seeing a significant shift to digital projection in the next couple of decades.

There are SO many reasons for this, but I have a few to share.

One: The infrastructure for distributing films in a digital medium is a little like the digital music dilemma several years ago, in the sense that there is no real infrastructure to speak of and no real platform for distribution.

My prediction is that distribution will be via satellite or even online. Lucasfilm is already experimenting with it. The main requirement for this to be a viable means of theatrical distribution is encryption. Certainly no studio is going to want to transmit their first run movie over a satellite or online unless only the intended recipient can decode it.

Only some theaters are able to project digital images. There are hundreds of thousands of theaters, if not millions.

The biggest market for theatrical movies is the U.S. where I estimate there are about 100 major markets. Figure 100 screens per market and you get 10,000 projectors. Double that for 20,000 projectors nation wide. World wide I'd guess that there are between 100,000 and 1 million theatrical projectors.

To simply phase-out all the 35mm projectors won't happen quickly if at all. SO, we see a lot of films that were shot on digital and are transferred to film for distribution. This is probably because film projection is superior to digital projection in general, and film distribution is much easier than digital distribution currently. Also, the cost of installing digital projection equipment is astronomical, ...

The reason movies are mainly distributed on film is that is what the vast majority of exhibitors have. But projectors wear out and there comes a time when replacement is the only option because reliability is a must when showing movies to the public in exchange for their money. Ever have your movie going evening spoiled by projection problems. If it happens too often you pick another theatre. When the time comes for replacement exhibitors are going to take a good look at a digital replacement. Most are going to go digital if they can be convinced that (1)the same movies are available on digital, (2)it's more reliable and (3)it costs less. #1 is already here. Digital will ultimately win #2 because a film projector has to pull the film down, lock it, unlock it and repeat. This is not only hard on the film but on the projector. But with digital the only moving part is the spinning disk (smooth, no jerking) and the read head. Plus digital has the potential of motionless operation once technology advances to the point where you can get 4 hours of 1080p on your flash drive.

...including the price of STORAGE of said movies. This is something that is still "bleeding" edge technology and we won't see an industry turn for some time.

Two: The Motion Picture Industry is just that... an Industry. Honestly, at the end of the day it comes down to price, standard, and ease of adoption. Mostly, price though. Someone who I know in the industry said that one of the challenges shooting digital is that the FILM workflow is "old hat..." and there are no mistakes. Everyone knows how to do it, and your technicians know how to run film cameras, your cinematographers know what the film will produce for results, how to get the look they want... etc etc. There are far FEWER people shooting digital,...

That is changing. As the older technical people retire and die off they are being replaced by people who cut their moviemaking teeth on camcorders instead of super8.

...the technology changes too quickly as there is no real standard yet, so it's harder to find people who really KNOW what their doing. Most production companies wont risk this unknown since the price is probably about the same in the end.

Three: Most films incorporate digital cameras for VFX, and film for the rest. To me, this is probably how it will be for a very long time. The film camera is simply a higher precision instrument at this point. The technology is unsurpassed by digital acquisition.

Film technology is 100+ years old and it's refinement has pretty much run its course. Digital is in its infancy and Moore's law is in full effect. Given enough time, 20 years is probably more than enough, the advantages of digital will outweigh film's. Even the much touted fact that film looks better than digital will fall by the wayside.

That's what my crystal ball shows. I'm not necessarily in favor of it but I'm a realist and I accept it.

[reflex]

Digital projection will become the norm as soon as it makes financial sense. Here in Canada, the multiplexes are slowly transitioning a small number of screens to digital in each location. This also allows them to run digital 3D movies which often cost slightly more than the standard versions. It's a practical approach - they're using digital on their largest screens to maximize income.

At some point, we have to acknowledge that our attachment to film is as much driven by emotion and personal history as it is by science. I have been able to tease some incredible results out of my digital equipment (and I know that several other dedicated filmmakers on this board own much the same gear). I'm somewhat terrified (and a bit excited) to imagine what digital imaging will be capable of in 5 or 10 years.

[superadio]

I was also thinking what happened to music when it became digital. The start of the copying industry. But still, you find new movies on the street vendors as DVD before the premiere night. So i guess that is here already.

[MovieStuff]

Digital acquisition is a non-issue. Regardless of what any of us think about the over all quality difference, it has been proven time and again that most modern audiences simply do not have a high enough standard anymore to demand a level of quality in their entertainment that demands film. They accept lackluster scripts, uninspired direction, canned music, push-button visual effects and Keanu Reeves. There has not been a single digitally shot theatrical movie that has failed at the box office because it was not shot on film. Not one. That's pretty sobering for film lovers like us. On the other hand, there have been plenty of movies shot on film that did not succeed despite the authentic "film look". ;)

Digital workflow is a non-issue because, essentially, it has been digital for decades. Most films are edited digitally, even if the negative is conformed traditionally. That's been going on since the days before non-linear video editing. Kubrick edited on tape for years. But the number of labs that can output digital to film print on a cost effective bases has only increased recently. As the number of labs that can provide that service increases, the cost will come down because it will be more commonplace and less of a specialty.

Digital projection's biggest obstacle is currently the standoff between the theater owners that have very robust, tried and true 35mm projection equipment that's been paid off for years and studios that want to cut distribution costs for their theatrical releases by using new digital technology. The standoff is concentric on who will pay for the installation of digital projection equipment. Traditionally, the theater owners have paid for any new projection equipment. However, this time around they are standing their ground and demanding that the studios pay for the equipment. Why? Because the theater owners know that the amount of money the studios will collectively save in distribution costs in just one or two releases will more than cover the cost to replace all the 35mm gear with digital projection gear in all the theaters. The truth is that theater owners are looking forward to digital projection because it means that they won't be locked into showing only product from the studios. Digital theaters can be a place to watch live boxing matches, special concert events, etc. In short, digital projection means theater owners have more power because they can actually afford to tell the studios "no" if they don't want to show a particular movie because they will eventually have access to a wider product line as a result of this new venue.

So the studios are facing two different issues: One is they will most likely have to shoulder the cost of the digital projection equipment if they want to save distribution costs and the other problem is they lose a huge amount leverage with the theater industry once that equipment is in place. In the meantime, the theater owners just bide their time, knowing that each year the studios put out more bombs with high film-based distribution costs, the closer they are to breaking away from being under the thumb of the distributors, where theaters often have to agree to a release package without even getting to see the film they are signing up for. Once the theater owners have alternative product, they can be more choosy about their deals with the studios. The studios are dreading it but, for the theater owners, this is a win-win situation that many in the theater industry feel is a long time coming.

Roger

[Roster]

The Wall Street Journal published this article last September. Luckily, I found it online

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1220835 ... lenews_wsj

[Actor]

The truth is that theater owners are looking forward to digital projection because it means that they won't be locked into showing only product from the studios. Digital theaters can be a place to watch live boxing matches, special concert events, etc.

Roger

What a concept. Imagine the only way you're going to be able to watch the Super Bowl live is to either pay to get into the stadium or go down to the mall and fork over $20 at the theater.

[MovieStuff]

The truth is that theater owners are looking forward to digital projection because it means that they won't be locked into showing only product from the studios. Digital theaters can be a place to watch live boxing matches, special concert events, etc.

Roger

What a concept. Imagine the only way you're going to be able to watch the Super Bowl live is to either pay to get into the stadium or go down to the mall and fork over $20 at the theater.

But imagine that it is not only a live event. It is a live event in 3D, with in-your-face action and better seats. I don't really give a rat's ass about sports but I might want to see my favorite band in live concert in 3D with perfect digital sound. There are a lot of fun things that could be done in that type of venue. Probably things we have even considered yet.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

I don't really give a rat's ass about sports but I might want to see my favorite band in live concert in 3D with perfect digital sound. There are a lot of fun things that could be done in that type of venue. Probably things we have even considered yet.

Roger

Nascar and porn...?

[Actor]

I don't really give a rat's ass about sports but I might want to see my favorite band in live concert in 3D with perfect digital sound. There are a lot of fun things that could be done in that type of venue. Probably things we have even considered yet.

Roger

Nascar and porn...?

The White House Easter Egg Roll.
The Oscar Awards.
The Indie 500 and the Kentucky Derby.
Broadway plays?

In a free market it should come down to a bidding war. Will the theater owners be willing and able to cough up enough dough to outbid network TV?

[Angus]

Digital acquisition is a non-issue. Regardless of what any of us think about the over all quality difference, it has been proven time and again that most modern audiences simply do not have a high enough standard anymore to demand a level of quality in their entertainment that demands film.

Roger

I'm not sure. Even my wife, who is not interested really in how films are made notices on a large enough screen the difference between digital and film projection and acquisition. Perhaps I've taught her something. She's become a fan of IMAX because of the phenomenal quality of the images.

[MovieStuff]

Digital acquisition is a non-issue. Regardless of what any of us think about the over all quality difference, it has been proven time and again that most modern audiences simply do not have a high enough standard anymore to demand a level of quality in their entertainment that demands film.

Roger

I'm not sure. Even my wife, who is not interested really in how films are made notices on a large enough screen the difference between digital and film projection and acquisition. Perhaps I've taught her something. She's become a fan of IMAX because of the phenomenal quality of the images.

Well, there had to some good reason that you married her! ;)

Just joking. It is one thing to see the difference and another to demand a difference. Anyone can taste the difference between McDonald's and a fine restaurant but that hasn't cut into McDonald's profits nor made them add filet mignon to the menu. And when you go out to the theater these days, you and your wife both know the probability is about 100% that the film you are about to see has some degree of digital media in it, but it didn't stop you from buying tickets. So while I agree that some people can appreciate the difference, it seems that digital is "good enough" to satisfy the masses, even when they do detect the difference.

Granted, we are also talking about the difference between digital production and digital projection but this past summer we installed an HD projection system here at the house and, I gotta tell ya, it is freakin' awesome. I looked at digital projectors, like, two years ago and they pretty much sucked fetid pond water. Just horrid. But the one we installed is unbelievably sharp and has a very natural "film projection" look to it, even in its default settings. You have to get about a foot from the screen to see any of the scan lines. And this is the cheapest projector they had, at about $2500 USD. With no disrespect to $2500, that is damned near free, in terms of quality/price ratio. A friend of mine owns the largest AV rental/installation company in Houston and I've seen some auditorium HD projection using really big HD projectors and it was nothing short of stunning. Could I tell the difference between that and 35mm projection? Sorta. Much depended on the material and the lighting conditions in the room. But the basic quality was there and it's only going to get better as time goes on.

The digital projection systems being considered for theaters are being built around the idea of replaceable imagers, so that as the imagers become higher resolution, they can be swapped out like changing slides in a projector. That is essential to making digital projection cost effective in the long run for theaters so they don't have to change out the entire piece of hardware as digital projection standards improve.

Roger