Is film archaic / about to die soon?

[David M. Leugers]

Boy, I screwed that last post up. 8)


David M. Leugers

[MovieStuff]

I think that the film shooters today are the ones that do so because they like the craft aspect of film making in addition to the outcome. It is a very satisfying and rewarding hobby for people like me. The idea that lots of people didn't shoot R-8mm film because of the hassles of it all and the learning curve (the main reason to introduce the Kodapack S-8mm cartridge) was proven true by the big hit S-8mm became and video to follow. Now we are back down to those who are able and willing, the real core of S-8mm, R-8mm and 16mm shooters.

Interesting point. Would it not be ironic that, 30 years from now, there would be less surviving super 8 from the 60s-70s and more regular 8mm and 16mm film that made it from the 30's-50's because of the type of people that shot it?

Hell, Mitch! Looks like we may have both been right!!!! 8O

Roger

[Afwasborstel]

Just throwing in my nickle..

Altough I didn't read the whole tread and maybe this has been said a hundred time..Film will be here for some years...Unless we can finally have a digital replacement for that gives us the same 'feel' that film has.

There is a reason why lot's of series and movies are still shot on film. Not the technical aspect of it due to the fact that there are more and more digital theatres around. Production wise it is same if u shoot on video or on film. Buth still they choose to shoot on film and why? There is just one reason for this...film has something that video doesn't have...it gives character to your material...And luckily enough there are lots of people in the business who are willing to pay just that more for there end product..

And as long those people are around...they will make film...

[Mitch Perkins]

Hell, Mitch! Looks like we may have both been right!!!! 8O

Roger

Me? Right? ~:?)

Looking back at the OP -

"Hello everyone,

I've been camera assisting on a Super 16 student shoot lately. A professional cinematographer (who's been supervising us) said that digital is the future, and that young people like us should be learning digital, and not film. That film was archaic and had no future.

Do you agree?
I feel rather depressed now..."

The future of film may depend in part on what happens in scenarios like the one above; with the advice of the supervising DP bordering on irresponsible, it's up to the student to have some facts lined up with which to politely question the DP. What basis is there to describe film today (still in wide use), as "archaic"? Etc.
Allowing the DP's assertion to stand un-challenged may have the effect of misleading everyone present.
So, if you want to shoot film, do a little research up front before class, and , as is always the case, don't believe everything the teacher says.

Mitch

[fritzcarraldo]

Well, i think that what is going to end is VIDEO, at least, as we know it, because, even with all the efforts trying to increase pixel information and to turn image registry into progressive, instead of interlaced, VIDEO is still too "unreal" our eyes see a grainy image, not a pixelated image, so it's a lot easier to conect with regular quality film images than to conect to excellent resolution digital images.

Even though, i think that HD brought a lot of advantages, digital image is very practical, but i guess that there is a lot to change in video,

I still think that the way to go is to make a hybrid technology between film and video, a kind of camera that can record on an electronic device with optical and chemical reactions to light,

But i'm no engineer, so, i can't start developing this techonoly myself, but i know many ideias, and have others too, that i find very interesting,

But, with all the progress, i guess that film is going to survive, as did other technologies like serigraphy, litography, and vynil in sound...

regards

[David M. Leugers]

I can only say again, that I hope film survives because I will not pay to see a large screen video at a theatre. I just went to a local theatre and saw the film "An American Haunting" starring Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek. While some of the low light scenes were pretty cool, a great deal of the film looked so freaking "flat" that I was annoyed. It was obvious to me that the "film" must have been originated on video. Sure enough, shot on HD... Just because an image is sharp doesn't mean it is beautiful. The lack of contrast range and color certainly ruins the perception of 3D that a good film image conveys. I guess you could say it lacks richness. My two cents.


David M. Leugers