Future of film. Still vs Motion

[MattPacini]

.... However it wont be that way for long. .....

This film vs. digital argument has been going on for a loooooong time, and all I keep hearing is how "any day now, digital is going to catch up".
The truth is, nobody knows IF or WHEN, and it's only the newbies who are falling for this recent onslaught of hype from the manufactures of the equipment.
Let's have this discussion AFTER digital has caught up, IF that ever happens.

I attended Soundmaster Audio/Video for engineering, and the first day, we had our "orientation" by the owner/instructor.
He started out by giving a sort of "state of the industry today", and had just gone to a tech trade show, and he told us that he had just seen HD demo'd, and was totally blown away.
He then stated it was a FACT that in five years every TV in America, if not the world, would be an HD set, and that film would cease to be the medium of motion pictures...

... this was in 1986...
That's EIGHT SIX, kids, not NINETY SIX.

I've been hearing this tired "film is dead because of digital" argument for almost 18 years.

I saw another post recently quoting two articles from 1956.
One was titled "Film is Dead", and the other one stated that in a few years, all footage would be shot with electric cameras.
This was right after video was developed, and even then, people were saying no more film would be shot "pretty soon".
I remember when Hi-8 came out, everyone was saying the same thing.
So all I have to say is...

"yawn"

Matt Pacini


P.S.
You're framing the "still camera - film vs digital" question as if there is no such thing as a large format film camera.
There is no digital still camera that can come anywhere near the capability of a large format camera.

[mattias]

There is no digital still camera that can come anywhere near the capability of a large format camera.

but there are large format digital cameras and they produce truly great images. as a matter of fact this was the area where digital first entered the professional realm. it used to take minutes to expose and then scan such large ccd's (or whatever they used) so it was only used in landscape photography and such, but this was ten years ago.

/matt

[FilmIs4Ever]

Speaking of cheap "electronic cameras," now that I know some shit about film and video and have a sharp eye for that kind of stuff, I've been watching some old Twilight Zone episodes from the late 1950's. I just realized that some of them were apparently shot on video. The quality is terrible, especially whenever there is a scene where a light is shone. The screen goes crazy with those little flecks across the screen. Granted there's something about those black and white video episodes that makes it look "scary" but that probably isn't a good thing for other types of telivision. Of course, all of you seem to keep forgetting that film is constantly advancing, especially in the area of color negative motion picture film.
[/quote]

[MovieStuff]

Of course, all of you seem to keep forgetting that film is constantly advancing, especially in the area of color negative motion picture film.

Yes but digital is cheaper and that will be the devil to deal with, regardless of how good film gets. Again, of all the factors that will decide the fate of film, quality will be the last on the list, if it's even considered at all. Not being negative, just looking at history and seeing how the masses embraced obviously inferior products because they were cheaper and readily available.

Roger

[FilmsUP]

Having done commercial still photography,
people and products, I understand that a lot of commercial photographers would embraces the digital realm.

First off speed is always a factor, secondly the fact you can deliver a file to an art director without any waiting. And they can approve the results on the spot. Thirdly most photographs for print require a very low contrast shooting solution. 2 stops or maybe three stop range. digital can certainly do that .... The high end large format camera working with a digital back and computer can work wonders.

But it does not stop the fact that there are shots you can not get with digital equipment. Long exposures come to mind. I'm not sure if the top end digital equipment will allow you to shoot multiple exposures on the same file. Or would you need a computer work around, like layers in Photoshop. But there are places where digital can not rival film, in films ability to be manipulated chemically.

Yesterday I was looking on line, at a products that would give you the feel of the sloppy Polaroid boards from a transfer print. In my op pinion it was a nice try but not even close. I have yet to see grain done on a computer to my satisfaction. Or the subtile color and gray scale offered by a fine dark room made print or large format transparency.

In one of the Digital Still magazines there is a large add running for Minolta, I think, or maybe Pentex ... pushing their Top end 35 digital SLR. The photo has that Hi Contrast color look that's in all the rage these days.... Very Nice! But it's not the only look, and this style screams todays digital imaging. If that's all you won't fine.

In the final annalist it will be the corporate world pushing us all in to digital filmmaking and still photography. Primarily for it's time and money savings. And the PR people and advertising departments keeping up the hype...for DIGITAL IMAGING. Trying to convene us it's as good or even better. But if your not visually "Tone Def" you know it's not even close. all they need to do is convene two generations and they're home free......then don't worry about R & D to further refine digital imaging into true quality obtainable by film.

[MovieStuff]

it does not stop the fact that there are shots you can not get with digital equipment.

Agreed but, respectfully, you are making a distinction that won't really affect the future of film because, historically, commercial photographers simply learn to work within the limited pallet offered by X medium. If there are things that digital won't do, then the photographer will just do what he or she CAN do with digital. They aren't going to turn down a commision, miss a deadline, lose money or go hungry just to prove a hollow point by taking a "film or nothing" stand. The days of "Life Magazine" are long gone and people see imagery as disposable and temporary. It's sad, I know, but true.

Long exposures come to mind.

Strangely enough, (and I don't know how they do it) long exposures seem to be no problem with digital. I have a Dimage7 Minolta digital camera and it can do up to about 8 second time exposure and it works REALLLY good. My only complaint is that the stupid camera doesn't focus manual for beans. Instead of moving the lens elements, they move the CCD, which makes it impossible to zoom in, focus, and then pull back. Since it doesn't have an optical viewfinder, the electronic finder is all you have to judge fine focus and it just doesn't cut it. But long exposures seem to work fine.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

This film vs. digital argument has been going on for a loooooong time, and all I keep hearing is how "any day now, digital is going to catch up".

But it already has, Matt. There are quite a few shows on television that use HD 24P and they pass the smell test for the viewing audience with flying colors. In fact, I would dare say that even a trained eye would have a hard time spotting the shows and commercials that originate on digital, just as I am dead certain that you couldn't tell a photo that originated on digital from a photo that came from film if you saw it in an ad.

The truth is, nobody knows IF or WHEN, and it's only the newbies who are falling for this recent onslaught of hype from the manufactures of the equipment.

I beg to disagree. I'm hardly a "newbie" and I've worked on quite a number of 24P projects that I guarantee you would think was super 16 telecined to video. I'm sold on it as a viable medium to produce film-like images that satisfy any audience. Digital isn't something that's an IF or WHEN scenario. Digital is here, right now, and is being accepted by those that count: The paying audience. I'm quite certain it would fool even you (and probably already has). ;)

Roger

[marc]

Does it look as good as Kodachrome?

[MovieStuff]

Does it look as good as Kodachrome?

Nope. But then again, what OTHER film stocks do? ;)

[marc]

BINGO!

[woods01]

B&W died as a consumer medium decades ago and Ilford still
manages to be around. If Kodak can except a smaller profit margine
they could prosper selling colour movie and stills film to a high end
market.

Perhaps what we could see as the line of difference between HD and
35mm declines we could see the professionals who desire to shoot
film move to 70mm & IMAX.

[marc]

That leaves us little guys out in the cold and we are the ones most negatively effected by it.

[Scotness]

Hey it's all in this thread too:

http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts ... php?t=2731


Scot

[FilmsUP]

Roger,

Your points valad, but back when doing still photography in the 1980's
Product photography I woud sometimes make an image with three seperate exposures over the course of time. The main Exposure, could consist of several pops of the strobe to build light levels to F-64. Followed by re setting the lights and power (with the lens closed and house lights on) again several pops of the flash, to build up background levels. Followed by burning in the LEDS, @ F-16 at 15 seconds, with all the lights off.

Can the new top of the digital still systems do this or do you uses a photoshop workaround with layers and seperate files?

[jean]

well, i'm very sure film is able to do a lot of things that by nature may be impossible for digital. I was surprised to find out that the simplest of all motion effects, variation of the fps, is nearly impossible with video. I read the manual carefully, and then asked in the forum - but of course, giving it a thought, vieo just works differently..

..but the important thing is, as soon as something is accepted as a standard, it's shortcomings become irrelevant, and it's features mandatory. No slomo, no timelapse? Who would need that anyway? And, digital IS the accepted standard by now. It's features now are mandatory the shortcomings are accepted.

Just a short story on this. Once I was the first evangelist of digital photography, in the late 90s. Few people had PCs powerful enough to view images, even fewer had internet, let alone broadband. Everyone took pics on film.

So, what happened? The shortcomings were apparent to everyone, all laughed at me fumbling with pc, connectivity, battery life.. the features were neglected, cause they all wanted to see prints. Sharing via the net was science fiction.

And today? take pics with a film camera, and no one will ever see the photos, because they all expect them online, and enjoy on pc. And no one complains about connectivity or other shortcomings - it is normal, the way it is and has to be.

Soon you'll take pics with a film camera, and people will start to notice weird things, like having to change film, and complain that you can't send the pic to their cellphones.

And, last not least, the quality of current breed of top DSLR is really breathtaking. So quality debates have become really academic by now, regardless of how much one might summon the magic of tri-x and a pre-asph 'cron.

Finally.. who cares anyway? I give *** about what everybody else does. Do what you like, and be happy.