Future of film. Still vs Motion

[enigma]

I too think that film is by far the best way to learn photograghy. Plus which ever is better... film is just plan FUN. Its that what its all about. after a day of shooting.. not sure how things will come out. Go to the photo lab/ dark room... It seem to me much more personal and you care more about each shot (your paying for each shot.) I have both a pentax film and a sony dsc f717 digital. I love both of them, but at the same time I use them for different things.
I do think That in time, digital will look just a good as film, as digital has not been around that long. Does this mean I will stop using film, or my nizo 801.... NO WAY!!!
So what ever format you go with, just have fun.

[MovieStuff]

color depth

if you leave this part out and i fully agree with you. the storage format and reproduction methods are probably way ahead of film, but until they improve the performance of the ccd itself by a million times or so your statement just isn't true.

I don't see why, unless one just wants to be anal about it. I mean, Eastman 100 ASA doesn't reproduce the same color as 400 ASA and Fuji looks different than Agfa which looks different than Kodak, etc. In short, rarely - and I do mean rarely - have I ever seen any film reproduced "as is" with the color unaltered beyond original recognition except in snap shots; hardly the benchmark for setting a color standard.

After reading your response I settled down, read a few mags and watched television. Without fail, the colors of all the shows, commercials and print ads were enhanced and processed and tweaked wayyyyy beyond what any raw negative or chrome would "normally" look like. If that much alteration is par for the course in today's media, be it theatrical, television or print, then you are really making a distinction without a difference when talking about the color depth of film compared to digital.

I tend to think of digital as another "emulsion" with its own look, just as Fuji looks different that Kodak and negative looks different than chrome. If all "film" looked exactly the same, THEN saying digital doesn't compete with film in terms of color would amount to something. But since no two emulsions or manufacture of film even remotely look the same, the distinction brought about through the use of digital is meaningless, especially if the end result is accepted by the viewing public as pleasing photography. I have YET to see someone go, "That photo's color would be so much more pleasing if it originated on film instead of digital." They no more do that than go, "That photo's color would be so much more pleasing if they used neg instead of chrome," or "Fuji instead of Eastman". It's the viewing public that sets the acceptance standards for photography, not technicians working on R&D in some remote Eastman lab. If the public accepts it as a photo, then it's a real photo, regardless of color depth or resolution, digital or film.

Roger

[mattias]

I mean, Eastman 100 ASA doesn't reproduce the same color as 400 ASA and Fuji looks different than Agfa which looks different than Kodak, etc.

so? they all capture more color than most ccd's. i totally see your point but as an argument against what i said it just doesn't make sense.

/matt

[kodachromearchive]

Hi all

I have had the good fortune to recently purchase a canon eos 1ds still camera. I also have a lifes worth of slide and negatives that I have been converting using my nikon ed IV (4000dpi) scanner.

I have come to the following conclusions.

In the still image side of image capture there is no question that digital meets and mostly exceeds the resolution, color etc. of film. The only area that film may hold a slight edge is in ultra large prints (in excess of 40x40"). Evidently this can also be overcome using software like genuine fractals but I havent used ti.

I hadnt expected such dramatic results because the scanner has a theoretical resolution of a 22+megapixel camera vs. the 11M eos 1d. As a result of the fantastic quality and speed of image development, I have sold all my still cameras 35mm and Rollei MF stuff.

I still shoot in S8 because the resolution and look is far superior to existing video formats but make no mistake, it wont always be that way. I guess what Im saying is this HD and non HD video sucks compared to film. NO question about it. HD is horrendous for panoramic etc and is flat etc. However it wont be that way for long. Once the technology of still cameras can be applied to motion in a cost effective, storage effective manner there will be no need to continue using film other than for special apps, hobby etc.

One final thing. Since the digital still camera behaves exactly like a film camera(including depth of field, color cast etc.) my technique has dramatically improved. Rather than waiting for the film to be developed, I just shoot and digitally develop. Look at the images, adjust and move on.

Wow. I was always so concious of the cost of film that it was intimidating to a certain extent. $5 per minute is always on my mind. With digital its bang bang bang. Youve already paid so get your moneys worth.

I would agree with your analysis that it is proabably time for the "pros" to make their move to digital. That said - why does it follow that this is a good move for a home user?

While I own a "semipro" digicam and use it frequently, I've found it's power thirst, boot up time and general fragility to be limiting. Accordingly, most of our imaging comes from small, high quality film cameras scattered among our automobiles. The film thrown off by these cameras (and even some diposables) gets processed at Walmart for $1.79/roll for later automtic scanning by a Nikon LS-4000. This system has worked so well - we are now trying to extend it to motion pictures through strategically placed Bolex 8mm cameras. Then there are the situations where only a film camera would practically survive backpacking, bikeing, etc. Film cameras come out of storage ready to go, and they shrug off heat and abuse.

Then there is the archive issue. While all of my family photos are now stored as 140MB TIFFS or 70MB PNG films, I am terrified at the fragileness of digital media. Accordingly, three sets of backups must be maintained (some lossy compressed) UNTIL I CAN AFFORD TO RECORD THEM TO KODACHROME. 35mm film recorders are still quite expensive.

Now it is unlikely that a "pro" would ever NEED to think about 100 year image survivability. Is that true of most home users? Indeed, I would argue that *THE* critical advantage of film is its archival qualities. After all, if you can't count on the image to survive - why capture it?

Kodak could do well with non professional imaging customers if they could only learn how to promote and position their products. Archival film is a premiere *capture* and *storage* tool. It really requires digital conversion for convenient use. Accordingly, I cannot understand why the major film manufacturers aren't hammering use with "archival quality" disposables including "free" digital conversion.

[Angus]

Due to the death of a fairly distant relative I recently inherited somebody else's lifetime's worth of slides and negatives...dating from the 50's on.

There are B&W negs which could go back considerably further, all perfectly preserved. I can make prints any time I like.

There are colour slides, on Pertuz film and Kodachrome. ALL the Kodachromes look like new, many are 40 years old and look like they were shot YESTERDAY apart from the obvious things like old cars and suchlike. Of the Perutz, some have faded to pink and others are still perfect...obviously it is childs play for me to copy the Perutz slides to modern K'chrome or colour neg to preserve what is left.

I also have my relative's camera collection, each and every camera still works and I can buy film for it to use today.

Think of digital cameras...not a single one of today's will be functioning in 50 years time, probably few will be in 10 years. You won't be able to hook them up to whatever computers we have then, nor will you be able to find media to store pictures on.

People talk of convenience and value for money...I see value for money in a modest Zeiss Ikon camera bought 50 years ago which gave somebody a lifetime of pleasure, gave a family priceless memories that can still be viewed with ease, and which can still be used to make top quality photographs.

At work we have just invested in a digital still camera. It is quite a good one, a nice Pentax 4megapixel model. One can adjust the exposure time and even turn off the flash. It has a fairly good optical lens. But it is flimsy, fragile, doesn't take pics as good as any halfway decent film camera.....and everybody I know who's got a digital camera has reported problems within four years.

Me....I own no camera younger than 10 years, and I am still able to get my pictures out onto the web as quick as the digital brigade......and usually much better, more natural looking pictures.

Digital certainly has it's place, I think it is a real advantage for such as newspaper and magazine reporters.....but I really have no use for it personally. The fact remains that you can buy any crappy 35mm box camera and get better tonal reproduction than the best pro digital cameras.

[David M. Leugers]

Point and shoot??? FYI usually I shoot fully manual. Hand held meter when possible. These cameras function exactly like a film camera. The only thing different is the image capturing device and a preview screen.

The same craft is needed to produce consistent good images.

??? Crap. My son who never learned about photography or ever used a film camera other than a disposable bought a digital camera and was taking good pictures with it within a half hour of getting it home. Sure you can play with it, but if you can visualize the simple basics like proper framing etc, NO TALENT REQUIRED. Lots of people have a good sense of when the lighting looks good for a picture and proper lighting, exposure, focus and framing aside from subject matter makes for good images. I think the "pros" are making a huge mistake going over to digital because soon they will not be able to differentiate their work from the average Joe Blow with his digital camera. Whenever you reduce the talent required to produce something, payment for that production will decrease. I may go the other route. I have always been a huge admirer of large format portraits. Maybe the price for antique 8x10 still cameras will fall down to my price range. Now if film will only survive so I can use it... 8)

David M. Leugers

[MovieStuff]

I mean, Eastman 100 ASA doesn't reproduce the same color as 400 ASA and Fuji looks different than Agfa which looks different than Kodak, etc.

so? they all capture more color than most ccd's. i totally see your point but as an argument against what i said it just doesn't make sense.

/matt

In relationship to this thread, I disagree. What you or I think gets left on the table when using digital means nothing regarding the future of film versus digital imaging. Technically what you say is true about film having greater color depth but that's also like saying one glass has more water than another when the person that's thirsty only needs a sip and there's plenty left over, regardless of which glass he chooses. In that sense, CCD technology has finally reached a point where it provides "enough" color depth to quench the thirst of the majority of users.

So the question isn't "when will CCDs finally achieve the same color depth as film" but, rather, "is there really any practical NEED to match the color depth of film" when it is commercially obvious that less will suffice?

Again, this is not my opinion that less is okay but that what we see in ads and on television and in the theaters clearly illustrates that virutually no one uses the raw, unaltered film image with the total range of color it offers. Instead, the image is bastardized and modulated and tweaked so much that it might as well have come from a CCD pick up. There is hardly any way to tell the difference any more. CCDs have gotten better and the treatment of the raw film image has gotten worse. It is inevitable that they are now meeting in the middle somewhere and the general public simply doesn't know the difference or doesn't care.

More color depth in film? Okay. But why bother when the public only wants a sip?

Roger

PS: I know, I know. This response is, like, six months late. Didn't see your original post.

[Joe Gioielli]

This has been a really great thread, lots of good info on all sides of the issue.

I don't do much in still photography, so I will keep out of that!
javascript:emoticon('')

As for the world of moving images I have a Sony VX2000 that takes great digital movies. Is it the equal of 35mm? Of course not. Do they look good? Sure. Digital has come a long way since the VHS handycam. MiniDV and DVcam are great formats. Way better than VHS.

I also started shooting Regular 8mm and I love it. The difference between these two formats, image quality wise, IMHO is subjective. 3 CCD mini DV cams make great pictures. I can't say if it is the equal to 16mm as I have no first hand experience with 16. 35mm beats it hands down.

By using the Reg 8mm camera, I learned how to better use the Sony. I take better video now that I have an understanding of film (Still much to learn about both formats!) so I am happy to serve both masters. BUT, the grim reality is, if it hadn't been for DV, I'd still be sitting behind a desk answering phones for a living. Six minutes of raw footage on 8mm is around 20 bucks. An hour of DV is about 5 dollars. Digital will let you get your foot in the door, get some trigger time in, and won't kill your bank account.

The future, without question, will be digital. Most 35mm films get transfered to video for the editing process anyway. For now, they transfer them right back to film for release. Someday they won't. They will be shot, edited, and distributed on digital. The very large stumbling block is camera technology but that is only a matter of time. The first company that comes up with a DV cam that equals 35mm will make a fortune. It will happen.

For now, we can enjoy the best of both worlds. We also get to see the birth of a new technology. These are very exciting days to be behind a camera.

[mattias]

In that sense, CCD technology has finally reached a point where it provides "enough" color depth to quench the thirst of the majority of users.

but roger, you *know* that i fully agree with you. this is exactly the point i've been making every time this thread has come up before. in this case however the issue at stake was whether film was "better" or not, not whether video was good enough.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

the issue at stake was whether film was "better" or not, not whether video was good enough.

/matt

Ah! But what constitutes "better" and WHO decides that? You? Me? Nah. It's the power of the masses that (unfortunately) decide "better" is irrevelant since "good enough" is cheaper.

When focusgroup wrote that digital still cams have "color depth equal to film cameras", I never took that to be a literal technical statement any more than your statement suggesting that CCDs would have to improve a "million times" to equal film. Instead, I saw his statement as a user's impression that he was able to achieve in digital now all that he was able to achieve before when using film. Therefore, his "reality" is that digital is just as good as film because it satisfied his needs.

However, my observation about how the current commercial print and film industry rarely, if ever, maximizes the original potential of the raw negative was in response to your statement that CCDs would have to improve drastically before equaling film. Again, technically that may be true but, in reality, a meaningless truth because it doesn't affect the user's ability to tell the story or meet the deadline or satisfy the audience's need to "see film". In that sense, I would say that CCD's DO equal film where it matters today.

My point is that better color depth is a technical truth that only people who really, really care can relate to. Not being unduely argumentative; just making a distinction that "truth" and "perception" are often mutually exclusive. Is something an inch or only 63/64ths of an inch? You might say it's shy of really being an inch, which is true. I say it's closer to an inch than not. Either way, to the average person, it's an inch. We agree but our perspectives are slightly different, I think.

Roger

[LastQuark]

The first company that comes up with a DV cam that equals 35mm will make a fortune.

Looks like this is beginning to happen in the form of Thomson Viper.

In the last few months, Thomson has received several key orders for the Viper FilmStream camera, including those from HD Digit One in Bologna, Italy; FX Productions, in Hong Kong; Polygone, in Brussels, Belgium in partnership with Image Indigo, Paris, France; and Plus 8 Video in Burbank, Calif. in the United States.

http://www.scri.com/ibc2003_gvg10.html

The Viper FilmStream Camera differs from other forms of electronic and digital image acquisition in that it captures every bit of information a scene has to offer in a non-destructive, transparent, and reproducible way-with no traditional video processing.

http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/news/ ... e_nab.html
http://www.cinematography.com/index.asp?newsID=15

[fritzcarraldo]

Of course digital or other video variants will overcome film.

It's obvious, well, if a war wont catch us before.

But film will always have its place.

I believe that with the development of video and digital photography, the cinema and photography made with film will separate from these new technologies.

What i want to say is that film was invented to be projected in a screen, or printed in paper or slides.

Digital always intended to occupy other areas, like the internet and other multimedia subjects, lic cds, dvds, made to wotk in monitors, or tvs, rarely on projection equipment.

By the way, video projectors are a disgrace.

Digital techonology demands a bigger individuality, anyone can produce an intire project alone with a computer and a video camera.

In cinema that is almost impossible, because it demands a team work.

We can't argue about film and digital considering them two alternative ways for the same end.

No, digital has other capabilities, and other objectives in it.

We must start to think digital other way.

Altought we can always learn with all different technologies and areas.

In my films i often arrange the scenes lookin at everything like a painting, i get some ideas seeing paintings from various painters, specially the impressionists.

I get from theatre some technics i need in cinema as well.

In time digital techonoly will create it's space, we can't keep considering it in opposition to cinema or film photography.

For example, i've haven't seen a masterpiece come out from the internet, but i'm willing to experience that soon.

For now, i only see internet as a functional mean.

In time all these new technologies will find their place, we will help them.

For now, we can film and photograph with film or with digital.

We can still paint, make theatre, dance, make music, hear vynils or cds.

Everything has it's own space.

We can also burn it all and go for a long walk.

[mattias]

Ah! But what constitutes "better"

in this case i believe it was color depth and resolution we were talking about (i don't have time to review the whole thread), both which are measurable properties. ;-)

/matt

[Angus]

Sadly Roger is probably right. The statement that "digital is now as good as film" is complete bollocks but digital is probably good enough for most people who do not actually take photographs....they take snaps.

Joe Public isn't a good photographer. Joe Public hears about digital cameras, how they're taking the world by storm. Joe Public decides to ditch his Olympus Trip or whatever and finds that the digital camera has loads of gizmos and thingumajigs, that it has a huge digital zoom like his camcorder. Bugger the fact that you can't actually resolve any detail at full range, never mind the quality - feel the width!

Joe Public finds that his new digital camera takes pictures that are good enough for him, because he never took particularly good photos in the first place. He finds that where, in the past, a shot of his wife into the light came out with her face too dark he can now lighten it on his computer.

Most people are not interested in the art or technique of photography....though they do often realise that somebody who is interested can achieve much better results.

Case in point, I was recently engaged to photograph a stage show for a theatre company. They'd also got a digital bloke to do it. We both sat right at the back of the theatre, and were told under no circumstances to use a flash because we were photographing the actual production with a paying audience and so on.

I used 1600 ASA print film and, for the most part, a Sigma 35-200 f4-5.6 lens on my trusted Praktica BX20s body.

The digital bloke turned off his camera's automatic flash and hoped for the best.

From me they got 45 excellent prints, from long shots to close-ups...all properly exposed, not shaken and with the lighting effects (the lighting manager was particularly proud of this production) reproduced faithfully on the film.

From the digital bloke......well afaik none of his were good enough to show.

People often ask me just how I can achieve such results....and the answer is simple, I have some idea of what I am doing, I use full manual control of the camera, and I use film rather than digital.

I am official photographer at a night club. They give me a digital camera and I use my own...the digicam provides a few snaps to go on their website quickly while the prints go online the next day...the real film prints always turn out better.

But I am rambling!

Point is, for serious applications film almost always beats digital. I don't know of a digital camera that can focus less than an inch from the lens....my dad needs that for his work...but most people are just taking snaps of the family, the dog or whatever...and for that digital is probably good enough.

After all, people thought VHS-C was preferable to super 8 20 years ago.....

[mattias]

Most people are not interested in the art or technique of photography.

to me still photography is 33% composition, 33% subject, 33% timing and maybe 1% "looks", even if we're talking most areas of professional photography. the 1% has always been important since it's the part that you can easily change and improve through technology, but in the end the artistic quality of most pictures isn't very affected by it. so i agree that as long as the "quality" is "good enough" people will choose digital. amateurs and photo journalists have already switched, and the fashion and advertising people will soon, but their demands are a little higher so it will probably take another couple of years. it will happen though, even if film continues to improve. it's not about better, it's about good enough.

/matt