Roger, I know you're a wise old sage in many things media, but I really think you're making some grand assumptions here.
Every time, and I mean every time, I see "making of" TV shows (and read about it in American Cinematographer, for instance), or talk to people I personally know who are involved in TV production in L.A. ( a small handfull), or on VIRTUALLY ALL the TV shows that have shot in my area, (Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman off the top of my head), there's huge freakin' Panavision or Arri cameras on set, whether it's "freinds", or TV commecials, or music videos that my friends work on.
In fact, I just spent all this weekend on a Nike commercial here in Sacramento, where they shot all weekend (12 hours each day) on FOUR ARRI 35MM CAMERAS!!!!
ALL FOUR CAMERAS, put in every conceivable position in the Arco Arena, all freakin weekend, burning tons of film, for a 30 second spot!
Roger, you're talking about the cost factor making the decision, but you're forgetting about a couple crucial things here:
1. The cost of film & cameras is huge for guys like us, but when you're talking about the huge above the line costs on commercials & TV shows, film cost is almost totally irrelevant.
They pay more for catering or extras, and in this instance (the Nike commercial this weekend), we're talking about Mike Bibby & basketball players with multi-million dollar advertising contracts to be in this commercial.
Someone piping up in a production meeting saying "Oh, I know how we can save $50,000" is just gonna get a whole room of blank stares.
Who cares?
If they're spending $5 million on a Nike commercial, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to bother doing anything differently to save $50,000 on film stock.
2. Inertia. I mean, there has to be a compelling reason to do something differently, and given the fact that film has been used for over 100 years now, and there is a huge infrastructure (at least here in California) of support for it, that alone is reason enough to keep doing it for many, many people & production companies, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET SPENT ON FILM IS RELATIVELY MINISCULE compared to the other items in the budget.
Sorry Rog', I luv ya man, you're a great guy, and on damn near everything, you have knowledge just squirting out your pores, but on this one, I simply don't believe that most big budget, syndicated TV shows are not being shot on film.
Saying is not believing, seeing is believing...
You're gonna have to post some articles from magazines or something to convince me!
Matt Pacini
Future of film. Still vs Motion
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
MattPacini
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:43 pm
- Location: Northern California
- Contact:
As far as costs of shooting TV on film versus video go, I was told by somebody at the BBC not long ago that there really isn't much difference.
Here in the UK I would say most TV is shot on digital video, but that is fine because the majority of the world uses a compatible video system to us and also the majority of British TV output is not exported.
Most of the 'flagship' productions *are* shot on 16mm neg, partly because it just looks better and partly because it exports better.
It is my belief that most US programming intended for export is shot on 35mm film...it certainly looks that way when it is broadcast over here. When I lived in the states I did get the impression that most shows, apart from daytime crap were indeed shot on film but with the NTSC system it is a little more difficult to be sure.
Not having any contacts within the US television industry I cannot be sure.
Here in the UK I would say most TV is shot on digital video, but that is fine because the majority of the world uses a compatible video system to us and also the majority of British TV output is not exported.
Most of the 'flagship' productions *are* shot on 16mm neg, partly because it just looks better and partly because it exports better.
It is my belief that most US programming intended for export is shot on 35mm film...it certainly looks that way when it is broadcast over here. When I lived in the states I did get the impression that most shows, apart from daytime crap were indeed shot on film but with the NTSC system it is a little more difficult to be sure.
Not having any contacts within the US television industry I cannot be sure.
"while we were filming this segment"....yes that misuse annoys me!
I'm not sure film will necessarily get more expensive. Even with the small price increase, K40 super 8 is *in real terms* cheaper than 25 years ago when it was selling by the truckload.
Film will not disappear, though it's usage my dwindle in the West there will be less affluent parts of the world (where the majority of the population live) where film will remain the main photo medium for decades to come simply because the locals cannot afford the equipment to go digital. Remember here perhaps half of households already have a PC or Mac so the outlay isn't great.
I'm not sure film will necessarily get more expensive. Even with the small price increase, K40 super 8 is *in real terms* cheaper than 25 years ago when it was selling by the truckload.
Film will not disappear, though it's usage my dwindle in the West there will be less affluent parts of the world (where the majority of the population live) where film will remain the main photo medium for decades to come simply because the locals cannot afford the equipment to go digital. Remember here perhaps half of households already have a PC or Mac so the outlay isn't great.
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Well, "Dr. Quinn" went out of production long before 24p became practical and widespread. "Friends" has been in production a long time, has a nice fat budget and started with a particular "look" that they don't want or need to change.MattPacini wrote: Every time, and I mean every time, I see "making of" TV shows (and read about it in American Cinematographer, for instance), or talk to people I personally know who are involved in TV production in L.A. ( a small handfull), or on VIRTUALLY ALL the TV shows that have shot in my area, (Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman off the top of my head), there's huge freakin' Panavision or Arri cameras on set, whether it's "freinds", or TV commecials, or music videos that my friends work on.
So what? As you pointed out, it's not the isolated usage of a given medium that indicates growth of a format. The issue is whether digital is a "here and now" viable replacement for film or whether it's a "no one knows when or if it will happen" scenario that you originally implied in your first response. The number of shows on television, as a group, are produced more on digital than of film, and that's a fact. You can say that soap operas and talk shows and news and don't count but, in fact, they do because it represents the end product that the paying audience demands and is willing to accept, REGARDLESS of what it looks like.MattPacini wrote: In fact, I just spent all this weekend on a Nike commercial here in Sacramento, where they shot all weekend (12 hours each day) on FOUR ARRI 35MM CAMERAS!!!!
Look at it this way: Let's say that EVERY show on television was shot on video and had the plain "video look" that we're all familiar with. Now, let's say that someone comes along and want's to do a movie that doesn't look like video. They want it to look like film. But they have a problem because film is now too expensive because no one is using it any more because the paying audience has grown accustomed to the video look. So their only solution is to shoot with something like 24P and simulate the "film look" to achieve their end goals. THAT'S why the number of digitally produced shows on television, which is where the real money is, dictates the direction of film usage because, just as in the consumer arena, the less film is used, the greater the production cost will be, forcing people that actually WANT a film look to use alternate methods to achieve that goal.
It's never irrelevant at that level of production. But the costs you note leave out the most important issue: TIME. Productions that shoot on digital can edit immediately, without having to wait for telecine. That saves a lot of money in terms of increased productivity and maintaining a schedule.MattPacini wrote: Roger, you're talking about the cost factor making the decision, but you're forgetting about a couple crucial things here:
1. The cost of film & cameras is huge for guys like us, but when you're talking about the huge above the line costs on commercials & TV shows, film cost is almost totally irrelevant.
The infrastructure you speak of has been slowly dissolving over the last 20 years as new equipment comes along and new players come to the arena. "Dallas" was shot, edited and printed on 35mm, as were most film based shows of that era. Now, 35mm shows are cut and finished digitally, with no printing at all. The titles on virtually all film based shows from the past, like "Mannix", "Dallas", "MASH", "King Fu" etc, were produced on optical printers. Now that work is done electronically in post. "The Wonder Years" was shot, edited and printed on 16mm. Look at the number of labs that don't even PRINT 16mm anymore except on special request, if even then. The reason? People are finishing on digital, even IF they shot on film. So the infrastructure you speak of really has little effect anymore. The fact that YOU can shoot and edit a broadcast master on your own computer only proves that. The widespreadl desire for productions to avoid the flim, processing and telecine process has already begun to overcome the "inertia" issue you speak of.MattPacini wrote:2. Inertia. I mean, there has to be a compelling reason to do something differently, and given the fact that film has been used for over 100 years now, and there is a huge infrastructure (at least here in California) of support for it, that alone is reason enough to keep doing it for many, many people & production companies, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET SPENT ON FILM IS RELATIVELY MINISCULE compared to the other items in the budget.
If you check out any of the CSI shows, they're all shot 24p. Now, I suppose there are some here that can take this opportunity (now that they know) and say,"Yeah, well that looks like crap." The thing is that CSI doesn't look like crap and any of us would give our left nut if our telecined super 8 or 16mm looked half as good. The bias against digital shouldn't blind us against the real advances that threaten the format we love.MattPacini wrote: Saying is not believing, seeing is believing...
You're gonna have to post some articles from magazines or something to convince me!
So I have a better idea. Why not point out some shows that you are 100% sure are shot on film and I'll tell you if you're right or not. Again, if the difference is so easy to spot, then you shouldn't have any problems. ;)
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Contrary to popular belief, Panavision cameras are probably the cheapest camera packages to rent in 35mm. They're really re-tooled Mitchell cameras and heavy as hell, compared to Arri cameras. Panavision also rents only, which means that their investment in camera inventory was paid for a long, long time ago. Panavision will undercut other rental houses ruthlessly to get the business, which is why you see them so often.Angus wrote:Well, whatever the nice people with two huge Panavision trucks and a lighting truck who took over the art department at the school where I work were working on.....I'll bet it was on film. We've not been told what, except that it was for television.
But, on a related note, we used to have several 35mm camera rental houses in Houston (hardly the media mecca, I know) and all but one closed down and liquidated inventory because of the onslaught of digital. The rental house that's left also keeps a handful of the new Panasonic DVX100's and reports that they out rent the 35mm and 16mm packages 10-1 and that the number of film packages that used to be rented has now been replaced in number by rental of digital 24P cameras. They are currently looking into aquiring the new higher end 24P cams to handle the eventual take over of film packages.
-
MattPacini
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:43 pm
- Location: Northern California
- Contact:
Roger, again, I think you're making assumptions, based on your personal experience of the demand for your services ing from film to video.
For instance, CSI is shot on 35mm film.
I read an article in American Cinematographer about it recently, talking about their telecine techniques, etc., and if you do a search, you'll find many references to it being shot on 35mm
Here's one:
"...Filmed on Super 35mm film, CSI has a more cinematic feel than many television shows,..."
Here's the link:
http://www.mysterynet.com/tv/profiles/c ... stigation/
And:
"...CSI is filmed on 35mm..."
http://www.thewebsitez.com/csi/trivia_faq.html
I've heard that it is "finished" on 24P, which of course, is not the same thing, is it?!?!?!
Roger, you have to accept something, and I'm not in anyway trying to sound insulting or "California snobbish", but this is where most national syndicated TV content is produced, and most everywhere else (including Texas... sorry!) just damn near everything else being produced is for local content, as you must be aware.
Therefore it doesn't have the luxury of huge budgets, and therefore the switch to video is near 100%, understandably.
But our here in the land of fruits & nuts, the $$$$'s are still flying around for the most part, so film is being used heavily, maybe not as much as in the past, but certainly so much that saying "digital has caught up" is not realistic.
And your statement "Panavision cameras are the cheapest 35mm cameras to rent" is true, however they're still more expensive than a video rig, right?
So you're making my argument. They're more expensive than digital, yet they're STILL being used for TV!!!
Matt Pacini
For instance, CSI is shot on 35mm film.
I read an article in American Cinematographer about it recently, talking about their telecine techniques, etc., and if you do a search, you'll find many references to it being shot on 35mm
Here's one:
"...Filmed on Super 35mm film, CSI has a more cinematic feel than many television shows,..."
Here's the link:
http://www.mysterynet.com/tv/profiles/c ... stigation/
And:
"...CSI is filmed on 35mm..."
http://www.thewebsitez.com/csi/trivia_faq.html
I've heard that it is "finished" on 24P, which of course, is not the same thing, is it?!?!?!
Roger, you have to accept something, and I'm not in anyway trying to sound insulting or "California snobbish", but this is where most national syndicated TV content is produced, and most everywhere else (including Texas... sorry!) just damn near everything else being produced is for local content, as you must be aware.
Therefore it doesn't have the luxury of huge budgets, and therefore the switch to video is near 100%, understandably.
But our here in the land of fruits & nuts, the $$$$'s are still flying around for the most part, so film is being used heavily, maybe not as much as in the past, but certainly so much that saying "digital has caught up" is not realistic.
And your statement "Panavision cameras are the cheapest 35mm cameras to rent" is true, however they're still more expensive than a video rig, right?
So you're making my argument. They're more expensive than digital, yet they're STILL being used for TV!!!
Matt Pacini
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Not at all, Matt. Respectfully, I think that YOU'RE the one making assumptions if you think that digital isn't quickly taking over territory once dominated by film, simply because you like film and don't want to change. I'm just the messenger here.MattPacini wrote:Roger, again, I think you're making assumptions, based on your personal experience of the demand for your services ing from film to video.
Yes, after doing some rechecking, that apparently is correct. However, my initial information came from a colleague that worked on the show and he said that they had done tests with the HD 24P for aquisition and it looked good enough to use. I then read a follow up article said they were going to produce in 24P HD. Apparently, along the way, they decided otherwise as indicated by this article:MattPacini wrote: For instance, CSI is shot on 35mm film.
http://www.cableworld.com/ar/whos_making_hidef/
No, but I wouldn't be too quick to gloat, Matt. Obviously I didn't "make up" the 24P HD format out of thin air. It IS being used more and more, these days. I may have been off base about CSI, but I know there are other shows that use 24P (but you can bet I'll do a bit more research before listing one!) :oops:MattPacini wrote:I've heard that it is "finished" on 24P, which of course, is not the same thing, is it?!?!?!
MattPacini wrote:Roger, you have to accept something, and I'm not in anyway trying to sound insulting or "California snobbish", but this is where most national syndicated TV content is produced, and most everywhere else (including Texas... sorry!) just damn near everything else being produced is for local content, as you must be aware.
I guess Robert Rodriguez shooting successful back to back features on 24P out of Austin doesn't qualify as commercial product? There's quite a bit of production done in Texas and more and more is being done in digital everywhere.
MattPacini wrote: And your statement "Panavision cameras are the cheapest 35mm cameras to rent" is true, however they're still more expensive than a video rig, right?
So you're making my argument. They're more expensive than digital, yet they're STILL being used for TV!!!
I'm not sure I see your point, Matt. Are you admitting that digital is cheaper than shooting on film? Before you claimed that there was no cost savings by going digital. ;)
Roger
-
synthnut
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 10:04 pm
- Real name: Ben Marshall
- Location: Surrey
- Contact:
Hi folks, artistic or technical arguments asside (and I have views on those too, but I'll save you those for now!)
I just watched some standard 8mm of my dad as a kid. 50 year old film, looked as fresh as the day it was shot (strangely better quality than most of the footage sent in to those nasty "send us your embarrassing video" shows)...
Now. in another 50 years when I'm a great grandfather (purely hypothetical here) will there be anything left of those digital photo's I took in the year 2003? (also purely hypothetical of course)
Almost everyone I know has lost large quantities of digital images through hard-disk crashes, PC crashes, iffy cards etc. My work collegue regularly deletes swathes of images as "not being any good" !!! If we all deleted those embarrassing pictures of ourselves (aren't they all??) we wouldn't have anything left! So say I print them, yes, maybe if you have the flashiest printer you might get prints that last, but nobody prints digital pictures, well, just the odd one maybe.
Look back 50 years, and there is a wealth of imagery about our past, from the seemingly irelevant, to the momentus. Those "worthless" pictures that we so easily discard are tomorrows archive and they just wont exist. We are not going to be able to show our grandchildren how we looked, or the places we lived looked. You wont be able to play them that video, not just because you dont have a machine that will play it, but because digital data is so transient, one careless magnet, static shock, or heaven forbid, EMP blast and its gone. Yes it can be replicated endlesly, tediously for mass distribution, but when it comes down to it, why do you take a picture, or why do you film your kids playing?
Just thought I'd join in the fun!
Ben
Shoot the reel stuff!
I just watched some standard 8mm of my dad as a kid. 50 year old film, looked as fresh as the day it was shot (strangely better quality than most of the footage sent in to those nasty "send us your embarrassing video" shows)...
Now. in another 50 years when I'm a great grandfather (purely hypothetical here) will there be anything left of those digital photo's I took in the year 2003? (also purely hypothetical of course)
Almost everyone I know has lost large quantities of digital images through hard-disk crashes, PC crashes, iffy cards etc. My work collegue regularly deletes swathes of images as "not being any good" !!! If we all deleted those embarrassing pictures of ourselves (aren't they all??) we wouldn't have anything left! So say I print them, yes, maybe if you have the flashiest printer you might get prints that last, but nobody prints digital pictures, well, just the odd one maybe.
Look back 50 years, and there is a wealth of imagery about our past, from the seemingly irelevant, to the momentus. Those "worthless" pictures that we so easily discard are tomorrows archive and they just wont exist. We are not going to be able to show our grandchildren how we looked, or the places we lived looked. You wont be able to play them that video, not just because you dont have a machine that will play it, but because digital data is so transient, one careless magnet, static shock, or heaven forbid, EMP blast and its gone. Yes it can be replicated endlesly, tediously for mass distribution, but when it comes down to it, why do you take a picture, or why do you film your kids playing?
Just thought I'd join in the fun!
Ben
Shoot the reel stuff!
-
MattPacini
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:43 pm
- Location: Northern California
- Contact:
synthnut, I agree with you, that's one of the huge issues that's almost never discussed about digital, either still or motion, is that it's almost totally throwaway technology, but "what's better, film or digital" is not really what Roger & I are arguing about.
Hell, Roger has shot many times over how much film I've shot, so I know he loves the stuff.
But to follow your near-subject change, that is a problem.
With film, all you're gonna ever need is a lens and a light.
The biggest problem with digital still cameras, is that they need software running on current home computers to use effectively, and it's changing all the time.
I'n 10 years from now, your digital camera interface & software that runs on any windows or mac platform, is going to be about as relevant as if you had something that interfaces with a commodore 64 right now.
Hell, Roger has shot many times over how much film I've shot, so I know he loves the stuff.
But to follow your near-subject change, that is a problem.
With film, all you're gonna ever need is a lens and a light.
The biggest problem with digital still cameras, is that they need software running on current home computers to use effectively, and it's changing all the time.
I'n 10 years from now, your digital camera interface & software that runs on any windows or mac platform, is going to be about as relevant as if you had something that interfaces with a commodore 64 right now.
Technologies at IBC
Company featuring demonstrations focusing on film and post-production technology
Page 1 of 1
AMSTERDAM (Sep. 12, 2003) -- Kodak is presenting a forward-thinking vision for the future of film here at the annual International Broadcasting Convention (IBC). The company is exhibiting an array of film and hybrid technologies designed to put more compelling images on TV and movie screens.
“Our customers are telling us they want more creative latitude for telling compelling stories with the dreamlike quality of film,” says Robert Mayson, general manager and vice president of image capture for Kodak’s Entertainment Imaging division. “We are displaying an array of current and next generation film and hybrid technologies that respond to their suggestions.”
Kodak is returning to the IBC Conference exhibit floor after an absence of several years, and is featuring demonstrations focusing on film and post-production technology.
“We believe it is important for participants at this conference to see the amazing progress we have made in advancing the synergy of film and telecine technologies,” says Janet Anderson, marketing director for Kodak in Europe, Middle East and Africa. “We welcome the opportunity to open a dialogue and exchange ideas with our customers at this conference. Our goal is to drive the evolution of technology to suit their needs.”
The Kodak exhibit features a new generation of color negative film, which leverages high-tech advances in image science and emulsion building technology. Kodak VISION2 film 5218/7218 is a 500-speed, low grain stock designed for efficient telecine transfer. It is the first member of a new family of films.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When you couple this advance in technology with the progress we are making in our ability to convert film to digital format for postproduction and display, it opens up a new world of possibilities,” Mayson says. “You can tell more visually compelling stories with confidence that the audience will experience them the way they are intended to be seen today and in the future.”
Part of this demonstration will include a test produced by NFL FILMS, which compares Super 16 film and video images. The controlled test includes side-by-side comparisons that run the gamut of production situations captured with three film cameras and several high-definition video, NTSC and PAL cameras. Sony and Panasonic were also consulted to optimize the video cameras to their full capacity for image acquisition. The test scenarios include several real-life situations, including drama, documentary and sporting events. It will be displayed on HD monitors from a D-5 tape.
“Over the course of four production days, 30-plus professionals put both capture mediums to the test,” says Steve Andrich, vice president of cinematography at NFL FILMS. “Our goal was to design a comprehensive test of the two mediums - film and electronic capture - that was fair, objective and scientifically accurate. We shot in real-world situations, on time and budget constraints. We feel this demo presents a truthful comparison that allows the viewer, artist or technician to reach their own conclusions about the superiority of film over HD and other acquisition formats.”
Kodak demonstrations will show new products and technologies in development for television production and post production, including:
· The new KODAK Telecine Calibration System 1002-V (TCS), which leverages innovative digital technology to more efficiently and consistently retain the wide dynamic range of film, including rich shadows and highlight details recorded on the negative. The new system is designed to provide a dependable, repeatable way for cinematographers and colorists to communicate and ensure that nuances on the negative are retained during telecine transfer, says Maryann Mendel, product manager for Kodak’s Entertainment Imaging division.
· A prototype of a compact, high-speed film recorder designed to record high-quality film at much faster rates. Key components supplied by Kodak include a full frame advance film mechanism, a simpler LED-based illumination system and an area array image modulator. Marty Oehlbeck, senior program manager, says the high-speed film recording technology will make it more efficient to create films from a digital intermediate.
· A first look at the next generation of film scanners. Kodak designs and manufactures the Optical Imaging Assembly, an integral component of the new GRASS VALLEY Spirit 4K film scanner from Thomson Broadcast & Media Solutions. The new film scanner is expected to be available by the end of the year.
· A prototype of a “look management” system of integrated tools that will enable cinematographers to pre-visualize, communicate and manage the creation of looks in the hybrid motion picture process. The new system will combine digital and film technologies to extend creativity, enhance communications, facilitate control, and save money throughout the hybrid motion picture imaging chain.
· Innovations in 16 mm image enhancement: A prototype system using Kodak Color Science algorithms to satisfy the best expectations for future television display systems will be exhibited.
“We believe that current and future advances in emulsion and hybrid technologies will broaden the image quality gap between film and digital image capture,” says Anderson, “but seeing is believing. If you are at IBC, stop by our booth and see for yourself.”
Source: Kodak Entertainment Imaging Division
Company featuring demonstrations focusing on film and post-production technology
Page 1 of 1
AMSTERDAM (Sep. 12, 2003) -- Kodak is presenting a forward-thinking vision for the future of film here at the annual International Broadcasting Convention (IBC). The company is exhibiting an array of film and hybrid technologies designed to put more compelling images on TV and movie screens.
“Our customers are telling us they want more creative latitude for telling compelling stories with the dreamlike quality of film,” says Robert Mayson, general manager and vice president of image capture for Kodak’s Entertainment Imaging division. “We are displaying an array of current and next generation film and hybrid technologies that respond to their suggestions.”
Kodak is returning to the IBC Conference exhibit floor after an absence of several years, and is featuring demonstrations focusing on film and post-production technology.
“We believe it is important for participants at this conference to see the amazing progress we have made in advancing the synergy of film and telecine technologies,” says Janet Anderson, marketing director for Kodak in Europe, Middle East and Africa. “We welcome the opportunity to open a dialogue and exchange ideas with our customers at this conference. Our goal is to drive the evolution of technology to suit their needs.”
The Kodak exhibit features a new generation of color negative film, which leverages high-tech advances in image science and emulsion building technology. Kodak VISION2 film 5218/7218 is a 500-speed, low grain stock designed for efficient telecine transfer. It is the first member of a new family of films.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When you couple this advance in technology with the progress we are making in our ability to convert film to digital format for postproduction and display, it opens up a new world of possibilities,” Mayson says. “You can tell more visually compelling stories with confidence that the audience will experience them the way they are intended to be seen today and in the future.”
Part of this demonstration will include a test produced by NFL FILMS, which compares Super 16 film and video images. The controlled test includes side-by-side comparisons that run the gamut of production situations captured with three film cameras and several high-definition video, NTSC and PAL cameras. Sony and Panasonic were also consulted to optimize the video cameras to their full capacity for image acquisition. The test scenarios include several real-life situations, including drama, documentary and sporting events. It will be displayed on HD monitors from a D-5 tape.
“Over the course of four production days, 30-plus professionals put both capture mediums to the test,” says Steve Andrich, vice president of cinematography at NFL FILMS. “Our goal was to design a comprehensive test of the two mediums - film and electronic capture - that was fair, objective and scientifically accurate. We shot in real-world situations, on time and budget constraints. We feel this demo presents a truthful comparison that allows the viewer, artist or technician to reach their own conclusions about the superiority of film over HD and other acquisition formats.”
Kodak demonstrations will show new products and technologies in development for television production and post production, including:
· The new KODAK Telecine Calibration System 1002-V (TCS), which leverages innovative digital technology to more efficiently and consistently retain the wide dynamic range of film, including rich shadows and highlight details recorded on the negative. The new system is designed to provide a dependable, repeatable way for cinematographers and colorists to communicate and ensure that nuances on the negative are retained during telecine transfer, says Maryann Mendel, product manager for Kodak’s Entertainment Imaging division.
· A prototype of a compact, high-speed film recorder designed to record high-quality film at much faster rates. Key components supplied by Kodak include a full frame advance film mechanism, a simpler LED-based illumination system and an area array image modulator. Marty Oehlbeck, senior program manager, says the high-speed film recording technology will make it more efficient to create films from a digital intermediate.
· A first look at the next generation of film scanners. Kodak designs and manufactures the Optical Imaging Assembly, an integral component of the new GRASS VALLEY Spirit 4K film scanner from Thomson Broadcast & Media Solutions. The new film scanner is expected to be available by the end of the year.
· A prototype of a “look management” system of integrated tools that will enable cinematographers to pre-visualize, communicate and manage the creation of looks in the hybrid motion picture process. The new system will combine digital and film technologies to extend creativity, enhance communications, facilitate control, and save money throughout the hybrid motion picture imaging chain.
· Innovations in 16 mm image enhancement: A prototype system using Kodak Color Science algorithms to satisfy the best expectations for future television display systems will be exhibited.
“We believe that current and future advances in emulsion and hybrid technologies will broaden the image quality gap between film and digital image capture,” says Anderson, “but seeing is believing. If you are at IBC, stop by our booth and see for yourself.”
Source: Kodak Entertainment Imaging Division
[contaxg.com] Will film survive?
Meryl Arbing contaxg@contaxg.com
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:19:22 -0500
Previous message: [contaxg.com] Will film survive?
Next message: [contaxg.com] WAY OT: Photoshop 7
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there is little doubt that film will not only survive but thrive.
Digital now comprises only 3% of the photography market and will take
several years before it reaches double digit market share.
The problems associated with the myth of the digital juggernaut were
enumerated at the recent PMA by Ben Reitzes, Wall Street Analyst for UBS
Warburg Equity Research during a keynote speech on February 26, 2002 at the
PMA.
The text of his presentation can be found at:
http://www.pmai.org/presentations/reitz ... tation.htm The
relevant sections start at Slide 19.
Meryl
-----Original Message-----
From: contaxg-admin@contaxg.com [mailto:contaxg-admin@contaxg.com]On
Behalf Of Rdh7846@cs.com
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:57 AM
To: contaxg@contaxg.com
Subject: [contaxg.com] Will film survive?
Latest developments in digital camera technology suggest that photographic
film could become an endangered species:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/te ... 842673.stm
_______________________________________________
contaxg mailing list
contaxg@contaxg.com
Change your settings here:
http://contaxg.com/mailman/listinfo/contaxg
Check out our website at http://contaxg.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous message: [contaxg.com] Will film survive?
Next message: [contaxg.com] WAY OT: Photoshop 7
Messages sorted
Meryl Arbing contaxg@contaxg.com
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:19:22 -0500
Previous message: [contaxg.com] Will film survive?
Next message: [contaxg.com] WAY OT: Photoshop 7
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there is little doubt that film will not only survive but thrive.
Digital now comprises only 3% of the photography market and will take
several years before it reaches double digit market share.
The problems associated with the myth of the digital juggernaut were
enumerated at the recent PMA by Ben Reitzes, Wall Street Analyst for UBS
Warburg Equity Research during a keynote speech on February 26, 2002 at the
PMA.
The text of his presentation can be found at:
http://www.pmai.org/presentations/reitz ... tation.htm The
relevant sections start at Slide 19.
Meryl
-----Original Message-----
From: contaxg-admin@contaxg.com [mailto:contaxg-admin@contaxg.com]On
Behalf Of Rdh7846@cs.com
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:57 AM
To: contaxg@contaxg.com
Subject: [contaxg.com] Will film survive?
Latest developments in digital camera technology suggest that photographic
film could become an endangered species:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/te ... 842673.stm
_______________________________________________
contaxg mailing list
contaxg@contaxg.com
Change your settings here:
http://contaxg.com/mailman/listinfo/contaxg
Check out our website at http://contaxg.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous message: [contaxg.com] Will film survive?
Next message: [contaxg.com] WAY OT: Photoshop 7
Messages sorted
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Sure, assuming that you HAVE film to work with.MattPacini wrote: With film, all you're gonna ever need is a lens and a light.
THAT'S the point I'm trying to make here. To keep saying that film will always out-perform video is like saying that Betamax will always be better that VHS; true but irrelevant. Diminishing usage of film may very well make it too expensive to work with LONG before digital ever performs, technically, at the same level.
-
David M. Leugers
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 12:42 am
- Contact:
Whatever happens will happen. Little we can do about the high end professionals at work. Roger, little doubt HD will overtake film in many venues. Easier is all people need to hear to jump on that bandwagon. I doubt that any show sees as much as a 10% reduction in total cost per episode by shooting HD instead of film, but that doesn't seem to matter. I love the look of CSI and it would not have surprised me so much if it had been shot on HD because of all the effects used in post. I do think that it is just another example how there is something about film that is just that much nicer to the eye. Contrast range maybe? CSI looks so damn good and sharp with explosive colors, it would be neat to see an episode projected on the big screen!
I think Kodak has taken into consideration comments made by Roger. They seem to be making some unheard of moves here lately in emulsions. Who would have ever dreamed they would have come out with improved B+W reversal stocks? That speaks directly to us small gauge users. Don't forget Vision2 500 ASA right around the corner. Now if we can get the ultimate in a color reversal stock...
I was projecting some 16mm color films made in the late 1960's and early 1970's which were obviously shot on Ektachrome Commercial (slow daylight stock). I mean to tell you the prints today still look beautiful. I imagine a much improved version of this type of stock so that we can make either digital or film prints from. I would be in seventh heaven.
David M. Leugers
I think Kodak has taken into consideration comments made by Roger. They seem to be making some unheard of moves here lately in emulsions. Who would have ever dreamed they would have come out with improved B+W reversal stocks? That speaks directly to us small gauge users. Don't forget Vision2 500 ASA right around the corner. Now if we can get the ultimate in a color reversal stock...
I was projecting some 16mm color films made in the late 1960's and early 1970's which were obviously shot on Ektachrome Commercial (slow daylight stock). I mean to tell you the prints today still look beautiful. I imagine a much improved version of this type of stock so that we can make either digital or film prints from. I would be in seventh heaven.
David M. Leugers
Hmm, I'm not really sure what this thread is about. Proving that film looks better than video, and it's foolish to use video - and that's why film will stay forever? I agree with roger here, it really does not matter to keep on proving why and when film is superior. This produces a certain bitterness, or frustration - which is not good if you want to be creative and shoot film. And worst is, for a neutral audience lurking whe sound like a defensive, whining, crowd of neglected scholars. Pretty much like the OS/2 zealots, or Apple Newton users, if anone remembers these days.
Imagine if 5 years from now, there would be no film available anymore. That's 5 years of creativity, fun, shooting, and sharing. And then, well, everything moves on, anyway.
Imagine if 5 years from now, there would be no film available anymore. That's 5 years of creativity, fun, shooting, and sharing. And then, well, everything moves on, anyway.
have fun!