Film here to stay

[anthony]

Here is an article i saw which is basically an introduction to digital filmaking but towards the end of the article, i think it pretty much sums up the film vs digital debate

Here is the link:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... m=storyrhs

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Anthony!

Interesting read but, respectfully, the title for this thread doesn't really reflect the conclusion of the article you cite. The final paragraphs of the article read:

Despite all the benefits of digital technology, the VCA’s McGill says it would be premature to pronounce celluloid dead. "The classic filmmaker will always prefer film stock to video and the digital domain because of its intense visual aesthetic," he says.

Grammenos compares digital video and film to powdered milk and real milk. "They’re both quite good but you know the difference, so you can’t really go back to powdered milk," he says.

"Film is film for the moment — it smells good and feels good and it’s the mystery that attracted all of us anyway."

"Film is film for the moment" isn't quite the same thing as saying that "film is here to stay". Also, while I agree that "the classic filmmaker will always prefer film stock to video", economics doesn't always allow us to use what we *prefer* but, rather, what is economically viable. Right now, film is still financially viable and available but that will change because:

A) More and more producers that don't care about quality will produce succesful products using digital and, since Hollywood and television is anything but original, then other producers will do the same

B) More and more people with less than discriminating tastes will pay to see these digital based productions and that will only accelerate factor "A" above

C) The exponential influence of factors "A" and "B" above will then cause prices of film to increase as it becomes a rare commondity due to less usage

D) Those that "will always prefer film stock to video" will still PREFER film stock but will find themselves using it less and less due to factor "C".

I love film but I would never state unilaterally that "film is here to stay". I think its life is shorter than any of us realize and that, once theatrical digital projection gets past its current birthing pains and becomes basically broadcast TV on steroids, the end of film as the primary production format will be swift and brutal.

As I have stated many times before, quality means absolutely nothing in this discussion because, even though digital isn't as good as film can be, digital is "good enough" to sell to a paying audience that simply doesn't care. It's THEIR money that will dictate the future of imagery, as well as the tools used to create it, and these kids with money to burn are too young to remember the splenders of Cinerama or Vistavision or 70mm.

MTV killed my inner child.

Roger

[nasq]

It's so sad. Shit sells

[calgodot]

Yah, its' sad that shit sells - even sadder that people who love FILM, including FILMmakers on forums like this one, go see crap like THE MATRIX (insert any blockbuster here, including that p.o.s. SPIDERMAN, X-MEN, etc.), refuse to say its crap ("It's just a fun movie!"), and thus add to the chorus of voices demanding mediocrity and accepting less, a call which Hollywood is all too willing to answer. (I know they were all shot on film. But not for much longer. Crap is crap, even on film. SPIDERMAN was no better than Lucas' recent digicinema masturbations.)

It's takes time, money, patience and talent to make a good movie - Hollywood has discovered that the public will eat whatever shit is fed to them, and then not even question that what is supposed to be cheesecake tastes like ass. I think they learned this lesson from the politicians.

/rant

(Of course, Roger speaks mainly of the US entertainment industry, which is a behemoth but may not be able to influence "European cinema," which is by and large less profit-obsessed and so more friendly to aesthetic concerns. Not much more, but a little.)

This is such a tired topic. Isn't it?

[Old Uncle Barry]

Well Moviestuff,lets turn this on its head for a moment:Your comments are all valid,and no doubt in the fullness of time,all you say will happen.Thats progress.
BUT as far as film is here to stay then it certainly is.Ever heard of film archives???
Thought so.
And America is throwing huge amounts of money at preserving the celluloid image and have done for donkeys years!
We too with our limited UK financial resources are trying to do the same.
You may well not be able to film with it,but what the world has filmed is certainly here to stay.I would go even further to suggest that (possibly from America) someone will develop even better storage conditions than what is currently available.However it may be screened is also open to debate but..............................
Film here to stay?
I'll say!!

[MovieStuff]

.Ever heard of film archives???
Thought so......And America is throwing huge amounts of money at preserving the celluloid image

And they're doing it using digital technology. Ironic, eh?

[super8man]

Saw a neat show on discovery about the changing wave of digital TV - get this...and this is a real thinker...currently, all signals, digital and analog, caryy too much information. Sooo, think of a typical scene, why not make technology just transmit the information that changes....meaning, in time, digital TV will only broadcast CHANGING bits of information and not the static ones...of course, the GIANT gray area is: at what level is something said to be unchanging. In essence, lightning strikes would no longer be transmitted on digital tv unless they were purposely introduced artificially, since they would be too short in duration for the scan of the scene to detect a change...hence, the TV would just show the same scene...

OK, enough of mind blowing "is it real or memorex" stuff. Back to film! And yes, I do wonder what happens between the time the shutter is closed and the next opening.

Cheers,
m

PS - It was narrated by Candice Bergen, it was a good and fair portayal f TV.

[Old Uncle Barry]

MoviStuff

Ironic indeed! C'est la Vie!

[David M. Leugers]

Roger I can't argue your logic and common sense about this. It will probably happen, but that doesn't mean I or anyone else on this forum has to help it along. 8)

What I am hoping for is the continuing improvements in filmstock will make it viable to shoot film for a long time to come, even if once the film is run through the camera, everything after that will be digital. I have said it before about digital projection = once theatres go that way, there will be NO reason for me to plunk down $10 a ticket to see it. I will be able to enjoy the same experience viewing films on a home theatre. Home theatre keeps getting better and better...

I read a very interesting article a few weeks ago on a Cinematography website (it may have been American Cinematographer) that confirmed that only !2% of current prime time television was being shot on video. When you consider all the "reality" prime time shows shot on video, this leaves the majority of quality shows being shot on film. Many are switching to S-16mm for the ease of production and cost savings. With the new film stocks, 16mm looks fabulous on TV. I bet it can be attained that S-8mm originated material (especially if shot in a widescreen mode to produce 16:9) will make for broadcast quality.

All said and done, I will keep shooting and enjoying the film experience as long as I can. I'm not going to worry about Hollywood and the idiots ruining it. Like Cal said, crap is crap no matter how you wrap it up.

David M. Leugers

[skyy38]

Advancements in technology doesn't have to mean the death of traditionalism.
Sure we have all sorts of funky toys nowadays to help us out,but,be it visual or audio,the name of the game is still *acquisition*.It may have gotten somewhat easier in the last decade or so,but the fact is,you still have to know how to use it.
I've always liked to think that I use technology to reinforce my personal sense of traditionalism-ie *I* use the technology,the technology doesn't *use* me.Whether I'm shooting D8 or Super 8,that is still me being "filtered" through the whole process.And lets face it,technology,through a steady evolution,has allowed most of us to accomplish now,what would've been only fantasies 2 decades ago.
And the technology will still continue to progress,while(hopefully) still remembering the lessons of the past,because they are still viable,they are the ideas that shaped us.

And you know what DLP means to me?It means going to film revivals and NOT having to plunk down $10 to see a crappy vault copy of a classic film.

Ever again....

[jobes]

shit is shit if you use film or digital it is still just a vehicle to tell a story
too many people are getting caught up in this debate over film is better than digital in all honesty nobody cares if george lucas's toy advert was shot on s8 would it have made a difference to opinions on if it stank?
there was an earlier post a couple of days ago about globe trekker
do you watch because it rocks or because they use s8 to film cutaways?
we need to stop making shit and spend less time moaning about what we shoot on. 28 days later is a good example who cares if they used xl1s's
i didnt even know that when i went the cinema to see it! a friend told me about half way through and it made no difference to what i thought of the movie
dont loose sight as to why you want to shoot something over choosing a media on which to record just get your stories out!!!!!!

[S8 Booster]

MoviStuff

Ironic indeed! C'est la Vie!

And Super8/8mm would probaly been long gone now if there wasen´t for Digitally Powered sites like this one.

R

[tod8]

dont loose sight as to why you want to shoot something over choosing a media on which to record just get your stories out!!!!!!

What makes you think everyone who shoots on film just wants to tell stories? I'm not interested in telling stories at all. I'm interested in capturing beautiful, shimmering, intriguing images of the world that will LAST. That's why I use film.



Tod

[super8man]

I too use film as the ONLY means to capture images...not so much stories, just thought proviking images...Good point there!

Cheers,
Michael

[jobes]

i suppose i was just thinking from a professional point of view i didnt mean to go off on one so much sorry
if people use a format for art or just as a hobby its as much significant as using it for a narrative purpose,i just got a little tired of reading posts with a narrow minded outlook to digital media i didnt join the i hate digital cameras forum.