What is the future of film?
Do you have prints made from A & B rolls of your films?
What do you do about sound for your movies?
Do you think film will survive in the digital age?
Digital optical sound COULD be added to smaller formats than 35, but will it ever? Any engineering students out there interested in small format technology?
How long can film last at the present level of interest?
Just thinking out loud.
future of film
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
studiocarter
- Senior member
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:13 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
- Contact:
What is the future of film?
RE: Who knows? As long as filmakers and artists support film then companys like Kodak and Fuji will probably keep producing it.
What do you do about sound for your movies?
RE: Right now I only add voiceovers and edit digitally. In the future I'm going to use crystal synch and double system sound.
Do you think film will survive in the digital age?
RE: It could. Film is just a medium and digital tools allow filmakers to use film more efficently. People have been saying that painting is dead for the last century and that photography would replace it. Painting is alive and well and co-existing with photography. Now the argument is will digital photography replace film. To a certain extent it might but for some applications film is better suited.
Nick[/i][/code]
RE: Who knows? As long as filmakers and artists support film then companys like Kodak and Fuji will probably keep producing it.
What do you do about sound for your movies?
RE: Right now I only add voiceovers and edit digitally. In the future I'm going to use crystal synch and double system sound.
Do you think film will survive in the digital age?
RE: It could. Film is just a medium and digital tools allow filmakers to use film more efficently. People have been saying that painting is dead for the last century and that photography would replace it. Painting is alive and well and co-existing with photography. Now the argument is will digital photography replace film. To a certain extent it might but for some applications film is better suited.
Nick[/i][/code]
-
focusgroup
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:01 pm
- Contact:
I find it interesting that this issue surrounds photo and cinema at such an excessive degree. Here are my thoughts for what it is worth. I use all my s8 film, workprinter, analog camera etc. for a rather specialised purpose.
I create moving paintings with film and paint. I film a portion of the figure. Digitally transfer the image. Composite paint drips and other effects into the image and output to plasma screens that are surrounded by physical oil paintings. The paintings then appear to move etc. as the figure breathes and the paint drips from the actual painting into the plasma screen.
Why do I bring this up? Well I started using DV but needed better resolution and less compression. If DV gave me what was needed I surely wouldnt use film.
I also continue to use oil paint because of the luminosity and reworkability, but have also used acrylic for other work. Acrylic is a much newer technology, cheaper, far easier to use in most applications and - one of the biggies in many circumstances - It dries very quickly. Even newer are the water based oil paints that are suppose to combine the benefits of oil and acrylic.
The point? Choose the medium that fits the subject and forget about using the latest, fastest the most recent buzz. In 2, 20, or 200 years its all gonna be ancient technology anyhow. The final result is what is important in my estimation.
If I were a commercial printer I would never use oil or acylic, but digitized laser printing.
Of course my interest is artistic rather than commercial. For commercial use it seems you are bound to create most of that junk using the least expensive and quickest solution.
So excuse this response, but foggetaboutit and do some great stuff. Its a good thing the fresco and egg tempera painters didnt stop, wait and worry about the latest new thing - oil paint. From a perspective of plus or minus 800 years I'd say that some of that early stuff has held up pretty well dont you?
I create moving paintings with film and paint. I film a portion of the figure. Digitally transfer the image. Composite paint drips and other effects into the image and output to plasma screens that are surrounded by physical oil paintings. The paintings then appear to move etc. as the figure breathes and the paint drips from the actual painting into the plasma screen.
Why do I bring this up? Well I started using DV but needed better resolution and less compression. If DV gave me what was needed I surely wouldnt use film.
I also continue to use oil paint because of the luminosity and reworkability, but have also used acrylic for other work. Acrylic is a much newer technology, cheaper, far easier to use in most applications and - one of the biggies in many circumstances - It dries very quickly. Even newer are the water based oil paints that are suppose to combine the benefits of oil and acrylic.
The point? Choose the medium that fits the subject and forget about using the latest, fastest the most recent buzz. In 2, 20, or 200 years its all gonna be ancient technology anyhow. The final result is what is important in my estimation.
If I were a commercial printer I would never use oil or acylic, but digitized laser printing.
Of course my interest is artistic rather than commercial. For commercial use it seems you are bound to create most of that junk using the least expensive and quickest solution.
So excuse this response, but foggetaboutit and do some great stuff. Its a good thing the fresco and egg tempera painters didnt stop, wait and worry about the latest new thing - oil paint. From a perspective of plus or minus 800 years I'd say that some of that early stuff has held up pretty well dont you?
Very good point! I have Kodachrome slides my father took in the 1950's. They look as good today as the day they were processed. If your images were put onto digital media even 20 years ago, you probably couldn't find the device needed to read it today. Digital is great, but you better be prepared to transfer it every 5 to 10 years as technology changes. As for my Kodachrome slides? My 50 year old projector still works fine.focusgroup wrote:So excuse this response, but foggetaboutit and do some great stuff. Its a good thing the fresco and egg tempera painters didnt stop, wait and worry about the latest new thing - oil paint. From a perspective of plus or minus 800 years I'd say that some of that early stuff has held up pretty well dont you?
I think film will stay around for a long time!
Hi everyone!
Yeah, I think film will stay around for a very long time. I think this whole "jump to digital" thing has become a trend lately. Digital is nice because a director like George Lucas can easily just dump it into a computer and add every single C.G.I. object or scenery he wants very quickly. But film still looks cleaner. I work with a production company that does commercials and music "videos"- and we pretty much always shoot in film. Budgets have worked out so that digital hi-def video is just as much and sometimes more money than film! People say the cost will go down as time goes on- but I don't see how it can. Everytime there's an improvement- all of the equipment has to be replaced! Trying to buy everything that's "the latest and greatest" especially in this economy (U.S. at least) is not a very good idea. I've read a great deal about MaxiVision 48 which seems to have a ton of potential- I just wish Kodak would help MaxiVision out! This is what the transition should be to!
Arnie.
Yeah, I think film will stay around for a very long time. I think this whole "jump to digital" thing has become a trend lately. Digital is nice because a director like George Lucas can easily just dump it into a computer and add every single C.G.I. object or scenery he wants very quickly. But film still looks cleaner. I work with a production company that does commercials and music "videos"- and we pretty much always shoot in film. Budgets have worked out so that digital hi-def video is just as much and sometimes more money than film! People say the cost will go down as time goes on- but I don't see how it can. Everytime there's an improvement- all of the equipment has to be replaced! Trying to buy everything that's "the latest and greatest" especially in this economy (U.S. at least) is not a very good idea. I've read a great deal about MaxiVision 48 which seems to have a ton of potential- I just wish Kodak would help MaxiVision out! This is what the transition should be to!
Arnie.
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Okay, at the risk of being labled a heretic, let me start by saying that film has been gone for a long time. Which film am I talking about? All movie film. Motion pictures now are nothing like they were in the beginning; not even close. First they were a few frames on glass, then nitrate then acetate, then polyester (Kodak will be going polyester soon). Silent then with sound then with sound and color, etc. The technology has changed, the emulsions have changed, the archival qualities have even changed. Look at the early nitrate negative. No one says, "Yeah, my early nitrate 16mm home movies look just like they did the day they were shot!". Why? Because nitrate base was replace by something more permanent. Color went through about a half dozen different "standards" prior to single strip color negative. Even our beloved Kodachrome isn't anything like it used to be. Frankly, I think the early Kodachrome II was a much better emulsion than the current K40. Early color stocks were Type A until someone realized that bulbs would last much longer if they went from 3400K to 3200K. Then they went to daylight balanced stocks.
Think that film won't change again? It already is. How many people do you know that call video tape "film"? VHS cameras shoot "home movies". Even broadcast professionals say,"While we were filming this segment..." even though film hasn't been used for news in over 20 years.
So what's my point? Digital IS film as far as the future industry is concerned. They've already pirated the name and are using it as a substitute for the term "video". I love super 8 and I love motion picture film in general. But I would be willing to bet that in the future, all movies will be shot digitally. And you know what? They'll still be reviewed by "Film Critics" and they'll still be called "Movies" and the term "film" will be used by everyone.
How does this affect super 8 or people wanting to shoot "real film"?
It could make it pretty expensive. Economy dictates that what is rare is costly. The irony is that Kodak is on record as wishing that more people would shoot 16mm as Kodak's sales are dropping in the 16mm market (this info from a Kodak rep). Now, what choices do budding neophyte film makers on a budget have? Super 8mm or Video. And what does Kodak do to accomodate that problem? They drop some of the most useful emulsions they made, let a three year run of bad carts almost destroy the market and refuse to reintroduce sound film, which would make sound aquisition as easy as shooting video. So the first time film maker chooses video and, once he/she gets a taste of instant gratification they are hard pressed to go back to the idea of shooting ANY film, be it 16mm or 35mm.
I think that if Kodak wants more people to shoot 16mm, then they need to introduce some decent SOUND stocks for super 8 production. Perhaps a super flat, fine grained E-6 based stock that is DESIGNED for transfer to video. Seeing as Kodak is destined to drop the Kodachrome process as some point, why not plan for the future instead of ignoring it?
Anyway, all signs point to film as we know it dying on the vine. Oh, it will still be around just as 8x10 glass plate photography is practiced by the patient few with money to burn. But nothing I've seen in Kodak's actions indicates they give plug nickel about the needs of the super 8 users out there.
So, Kodak? If you're reading this: Want more big motion pictures to be shot on film in the distant future? Then give tomorrow's film makers something REAL to work with in the super 8 format today! That's how every major director out there now got started. Kodak? Hello.. Hellooooooo? What's the point. Nobody listens.
Roger
Think that film won't change again? It already is. How many people do you know that call video tape "film"? VHS cameras shoot "home movies". Even broadcast professionals say,"While we were filming this segment..." even though film hasn't been used for news in over 20 years.
So what's my point? Digital IS film as far as the future industry is concerned. They've already pirated the name and are using it as a substitute for the term "video". I love super 8 and I love motion picture film in general. But I would be willing to bet that in the future, all movies will be shot digitally. And you know what? They'll still be reviewed by "Film Critics" and they'll still be called "Movies" and the term "film" will be used by everyone.
How does this affect super 8 or people wanting to shoot "real film"?
It could make it pretty expensive. Economy dictates that what is rare is costly. The irony is that Kodak is on record as wishing that more people would shoot 16mm as Kodak's sales are dropping in the 16mm market (this info from a Kodak rep). Now, what choices do budding neophyte film makers on a budget have? Super 8mm or Video. And what does Kodak do to accomodate that problem? They drop some of the most useful emulsions they made, let a three year run of bad carts almost destroy the market and refuse to reintroduce sound film, which would make sound aquisition as easy as shooting video. So the first time film maker chooses video and, once he/she gets a taste of instant gratification they are hard pressed to go back to the idea of shooting ANY film, be it 16mm or 35mm.
I think that if Kodak wants more people to shoot 16mm, then they need to introduce some decent SOUND stocks for super 8 production. Perhaps a super flat, fine grained E-6 based stock that is DESIGNED for transfer to video. Seeing as Kodak is destined to drop the Kodachrome process as some point, why not plan for the future instead of ignoring it?
Anyway, all signs point to film as we know it dying on the vine. Oh, it will still be around just as 8x10 glass plate photography is practiced by the patient few with money to burn. But nothing I've seen in Kodak's actions indicates they give plug nickel about the needs of the super 8 users out there.
So, Kodak? If you're reading this: Want more big motion pictures to be shot on film in the distant future? Then give tomorrow's film makers something REAL to work with in the super 8 format today! That's how every major director out there now got started. Kodak? Hello.. Hellooooooo? What's the point. Nobody listens.
Roger
-
studiocarter
- Senior member
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:13 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
- Contact:
this web site is essential to film
This web site, being about the best for small movie film, is essential for film to be kept afloat. However, it is not organized. Do we want film to last so we can use it? Yes. What are we gonna do about it?
There are a lot of us that visit to this site. Andreas would know how many. If we worked together on a goal of making film making last, I bet we could make it last longer than the way things are going now.
What have I done? I found my old notebooks in the deep dark closets under the eves. Notebooks about processing black and white movie film. G-3 Daylight Processor Arkay rewind tank. I thought I had Morse but it's Arkay, the tank is Moris anyway. Another thread here, sweet, got me going again. I have that smaller spin dryer, I have the rewind tank, I have the directions, and now, I also have the results of test strips deleloped a few years ago.
What could I do? Since I have a Uhler Cine Printer, I "could" make film prints of Regular 8mm or 16mm movie film. Tests have been done that proved it.
I think that is a cool idea. Anybody getting excited yet?
There was a Uhler Super 8mm Cine Printer sold a while back that makes Super 8mm film prints. I have some printed Super 8 film that I transferred for a customer. How do I know? It is projected emultion side in. That is a contact print. The film is beautiful, sharp full of detail, clear very nice. I can't tell it is a print. Why aren't Super 8mm movie film prints made anymore?
Why don't we "filmmakers" sell ... guess ... FILMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wouldn't that be diffenent?
Why don't WE have FILM SHOWINGS? Not video transfer showings.
Uh, I'm going at it again. Anyway, I think it would be neat to A&B roll edit and have a movie film print to project and one to keep in the can for specials. I can make them. With a little encouragement it just may happen. Only black and white mind you. But negative and positive, not reversal.
I bet you, and you, and yes, even YOU could set up similar labs. Better ones.
This is my last gasp. You may purchase aaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllll my stuff. Yet, I may just keep it all, I may make the darkroom, and start putting out prints of R8 films. There isn't room for anymore stuff here. I can't do everything. Only one thing. Pushing filmmaking animation Regular 8mm 16mmsoundon film, and so on has gotta stop. Stuff has got to go. I may have to go. Soon. There may not be time or space anymore for me to make a lab. 2 years in England looms on the horizon. What will I do there?
Film? Not by myself I won't.
Oh, well, I think I'll organize all those film strips of High Contrast and Plus-X movie films processed and the notebooks full of expirments.
THen, I'll think on this some more.
There are a lot of us that visit to this site. Andreas would know how many. If we worked together on a goal of making film making last, I bet we could make it last longer than the way things are going now.
What have I done? I found my old notebooks in the deep dark closets under the eves. Notebooks about processing black and white movie film. G-3 Daylight Processor Arkay rewind tank. I thought I had Morse but it's Arkay, the tank is Moris anyway. Another thread here, sweet, got me going again. I have that smaller spin dryer, I have the rewind tank, I have the directions, and now, I also have the results of test strips deleloped a few years ago.
What could I do? Since I have a Uhler Cine Printer, I "could" make film prints of Regular 8mm or 16mm movie film. Tests have been done that proved it.
I think that is a cool idea. Anybody getting excited yet?
There was a Uhler Super 8mm Cine Printer sold a while back that makes Super 8mm film prints. I have some printed Super 8 film that I transferred for a customer. How do I know? It is projected emultion side in. That is a contact print. The film is beautiful, sharp full of detail, clear very nice. I can't tell it is a print. Why aren't Super 8mm movie film prints made anymore?
Why don't we "filmmakers" sell ... guess ... FILMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wouldn't that be diffenent?
Why don't WE have FILM SHOWINGS? Not video transfer showings.
Uh, I'm going at it again. Anyway, I think it would be neat to A&B roll edit and have a movie film print to project and one to keep in the can for specials. I can make them. With a little encouragement it just may happen. Only black and white mind you. But negative and positive, not reversal.
I bet you, and you, and yes, even YOU could set up similar labs. Better ones.
This is my last gasp. You may purchase aaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllll my stuff. Yet, I may just keep it all, I may make the darkroom, and start putting out prints of R8 films. There isn't room for anymore stuff here. I can't do everything. Only one thing. Pushing filmmaking animation Regular 8mm 16mmsoundon film, and so on has gotta stop. Stuff has got to go. I may have to go. Soon. There may not be time or space anymore for me to make a lab. 2 years in England looms on the horizon. What will I do there?
Film? Not by myself I won't.
Oh, well, I think I'll organize all those film strips of High Contrast and Plus-X movie films processed and the notebooks full of expirments.
THen, I'll think on this some more.
-
S8 Booster
- Posts: 5857
- Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
- Real name: Super Octa Booster
- Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..
- Contact:
Money
It´s all about MONEY!
As long as anyone/Kodak? can make some profit on us, they will supply film until the costs kills it (us).
Saw some info posted a while ago, from the widescreen Centre in UK if my softdisk stands me by, that Kodaks sales of S8 film tripled in the 2 past years despite jitters, no sound and all.
So what effect may that have on the S8/Small gauge future?
Said is before and saying it again:
S8 and 8mm (maybe 16mm then?) may be the only FILM format to survive (at least), I hope.
(I belive that in some or another way film will survive and that Kodak as the "Inventor" will have comittment to supply film as long as any one else does.
With a reference to vacum tubes for amplfiers (like new manufactured guitar amps) and electronices, the tubes are still beeing manufactured in both Russia and China. I´d be surprised if film will not be continued in some way or another out there at least, even colour?. Maybe I end up with a 35mm Gnorsk cam shooting B&W?)
Film die?, "not in our time" as Chamberlain said in ´38 or ´39 after he signed a peace treaty with Hitler.)
R
As long as anyone/Kodak? can make some profit on us, they will supply film until the costs kills it (us).
Saw some info posted a while ago, from the widescreen Centre in UK if my softdisk stands me by, that Kodaks sales of S8 film tripled in the 2 past years despite jitters, no sound and all.
So what effect may that have on the S8/Small gauge future?
Said is before and saying it again:
S8 and 8mm (maybe 16mm then?) may be the only FILM format to survive (at least), I hope.
(I belive that in some or another way film will survive and that Kodak as the "Inventor" will have comittment to supply film as long as any one else does.
With a reference to vacum tubes for amplfiers (like new manufactured guitar amps) and electronices, the tubes are still beeing manufactured in both Russia and China. I´d be surprised if film will not be continued in some way or another out there at least, even colour?. Maybe I end up with a 35mm Gnorsk cam shooting B&W?)
Film die?, "not in our time" as Chamberlain said in ´38 or ´39 after he signed a peace treaty with Hitler.)
R
Last edited by S8 Booster on Sat Nov 02, 2002 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
-
Old Uncle Barry
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 11:23 am
- Location: Midlands,UK
- Contact:
Film making with film, at least for amateurs, is a retro activity. Retro activities tend to be hobby based and so long as there is a market someone will supply. The motorcycle industry knows this, Harleys are retro, the car industry is learning, we can even get the dodge Cruiser in the UK - so who will be first with a 'retro' cam-corder using 'film' and a clockwork motor.
But 'retro' does not mean old fashioned so who will be first?
Fuji style cartridge
clockwork camera
Place used cartridge in home processor - hand wound
Add chemicals
Process
Place in projector (hand wound?) - connected to computer - a film movie
A day dream - well, someone is making pin-hole cameras, so why not a hand cranked cine camera? the technology is pretty basicand it could be the coolest gadget on the block.
where will this day dreaming stop? :oops:
But 'retro' does not mean old fashioned so who will be first?
Fuji style cartridge
clockwork camera
Place used cartridge in home processor - hand wound
Add chemicals
Process
Place in projector (hand wound?) - connected to computer - a film movie
A day dream - well, someone is making pin-hole cameras, so why not a hand cranked cine camera? the technology is pretty basicand it could be the coolest gadget on the block.
where will this day dreaming stop? :oops:
New web site and this is cine page http://www.picsntech.co.uk/cine.html
-
studiocarter
- Senior member
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:13 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
- Contact:
now add sound
Now pop a laser in there and have sound on film. Optical digital sound on R8 film prints. Wooooooooo.
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: now add sound
the soundtrack area (of super-8, i don't know about r8) is approximately 0.5x100 mm large per second. the resolving power of the stock is 100 lines/mm (bits/mm in this context). this means that the maximum possible bit rate, for an optically perfect system with no error correction is 100x0.5x100x100=500000 = 0.5mbit/s. realistically wou would only be able to use one tenth of that or so, which would be around 50 kbit/s. could work, but it wouldn't be the best quality ever. maybe using a few tricks could increase it some, and using the area between the sprocket holes could double it, but you'll never be able to squeeze more than a few hundred kbit/s onto super-8 film...regular8mm wrote:Now pop a laser in there and have sound on film. Optical digital sound on R8 film prints. Wooooooooo.
/matt
-
S8 Booster
- Posts: 5857
- Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
- Real name: Super Octa Booster
- Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..
- Contact:
DIGICODE?
From a different post but:
Do not know?
Personally I´d preffer the mag striped film back KODAK!!
R
It appears that the Dolby Digital is stored in "batches" between the proforation holes on 35mm film. In theory this could a possible way to store HQ compressed digi sound on the S8 film, not between the holes it self by printing encoded (compressed) low size data packages on the film stripe that were to be decoded at playback.Check:
http://biz.howstuffworks.com/movie-soun ... rintable=1
http://146.245.155.204/Cinema/wDTS.htm
I think I read at Kodak´s web that they discontinued the mag striped film production for big formats at the same time tey ended the S8 mag film production.
Do not know?
Personally I´d preffer the mag striped film back KODAK!!
R
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
-
Old Uncle Barry
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 11:23 am
- Location: Midlands,UK
- Contact:
-
studiocarter
- Senior member
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:13 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
- Contact:
sound
So, it seems that the best we can hope for is to use a video camera, MD or DAT and sync that to the frames. Each frame could have a pulse on a stereo track like out the sync socket and somehow sync. Or could each frame become numbered with timecode with a laser? Would that work better for sound sync to a recorder?