Is film archaic / about to die soon?

[John_Pytlak]

There are very few film "end users" left in the world, sadly. [\quote]

Most cinemas?

Yes, will only about 1000 Digital Cinema screens, and well over 100,000 theatre screens showing 35mm FILM prints, most movie-goers are still watching film images. The vast majority of feature film production and high-end television drama production is still shot on color negative film.

2005 was a record year for motion picture FILM production, and it's been a growing market for quite a few years before that.

[Mogzy]

Quite so. In Britain one need only look at the credits of a production to see how it has been recorded. If the credits mention "Film Editor", "Telecine", "Colourist" and the like, then it will have been shot on film. If it's video you will see "VT" or "Videotape Editor".

People don't know they're watching film now because of digital cleanup removing specks of dust, scratches etc and instead just believe that video quality has improved. A common misconception!

16mm and Super16, I am reliably informed, is used extensively for British television work including documentaries and dramas (those of you in the States, have a look at BBC America. If they show anything other than news, you are bound to see some film-originated programming. The BBC uses a heck of a lot of film from what I've seen.

Another uniquely British quirk: We don't have commercials on any of the 8 BBC channels, believe it or not, as it's publicly funded!

Is film dead or dying? BBC uses it extensively, Super 8 available in every town via the biggest photography chain (Jessops), it certainly isn't dead in Britain! It's alive and kicking video into touch!

NOTE FOR BRITS/ ANYONE ELSE WHO CAN PICK UP THE BBC: Watch "Top Gear" on a Sunday night and look out for the contrast- they use video in the studio and for "Reasonably priced car" but film for their features (with a wide variety of stocks and filters, no less!) It's easy to note the difference!

[MovieStuff]

If you think finding and maintaining an old Super-8 projector is hard, just try it with a 2-inch Quad or 1/2-inch helical scan reel-to-reel recorder.

Right. Plus, finding 8mm projectors is anything but hard, and since they're almost wholly mechanical, there's very little inside that can't be fabricated, sometimes in the comfort of your own home.
Most folks want to view the film in some sort of digital format, so it's not a matter of the consumer keeping an 8mm projector going, but rather of the people running the transfer facilities doing so. This greatly reduces the number of "projector mechanics" required.

But none of this really addresses the actual problem: You must have a projector to project a movie and the average person doesn't have the skill to keep one running nor the money to transfer their home movies to a hi-rez format that actually protects all the information in the frame. This isn't a "what if" situation about the future. This is the problem as it exists today. Right now. Today is the "future" of the films that were shot in 1955, which we transfer to video by the hundreds. None of these customers have the ability or mechanical skill to project them and, even if we transferred on a Rank, the quality isn't going to be the same as the original film projected. There's always a loss. So to say that film is "future proof" is really misleading because it assumes a level of sophistication for migrating the film original that isn't economically or technically attainable for the average person.

Now, film might be future proof for studios that see economic incentive to scan, restore and re-release an old movie but the average person must make some sort of decision now about how to archive their films for future display. If the proponents of film really hate digital as a form of acquisition, they certainly aren't going to like it any better as a storage medium, knowing that most of the vital information that creates the "film experience" is being left behind during transfer. But if there's no longer a projection method to view the films, then how well film stores over the long haul is academic. They might as well be moldy and black with age because they'll never see the light of day again short of watching them on (shudder) video.

And the term "future proof" is really kind of relative. Film is not bulletproof and immune to the ravages of time. Like tapes and DVDs, film must be stored properly, as well. The negs of even recent blockbusters like Star Wars (original episode one) did not store very well and were found to be in terrible shape when Lucas decided to do his revamp. Even now, you can see the degradation of the image quality in that episode compared to later episodes. I believe that the prints pulled from that original negative 20 years from now will pale in comparison to the digital copies that have been archived. How something like K40 or E64 will look in the future is not known but it is pretty certain that neither you or I will have the kind of $$$ that Lucas had for restoration. And, even if we do, is that really the "film experience" that we're trying to preserve?

I have great reverence for film but I think that most any medium is as future proof as film as long as you take care of it and store it properly. But, in many ways, I would say that film is the least future proof because it can not be migrated to later display mediums as easily by the common user operating with limited resources, regardless of what Hollywood can afford to do with an unlimited budget.

Roger

[flatwood]

......what you need to add on to your "digital" training...remember to white balance.

Aint that the truth. I had it written on a piece of white board tape and stuck to my DXC-327. I forgot to do it too many times. Good advice.

[ccortez]

The digital boom has generated a lot of people shooting in digital that would otherwise be shooting nothing. And eventually (or already) the bandwagoneers are going to be looking for ways to be different from each other. Some will find S8 and 16mm as their escape.

Thanks, T-Scan. I think this is the best capsulation of current state I have read around here. There will always be a sub-population of shooters looking for something different (b/c different is cool, remember). And some sub-population of that sub-population will actually try the old school ways. And some sub-population of that will buy some cameras, maybe a lomo tank, and stick with film, regardless of and maybe in part b/c of its' impracticality in daily life and its' obscurity.

And every member of that last sub-sub-sub-population I mentioned... is here today on filmshooting.com. ;-) (OK, not really... but eventually.)

[reflex]

There are very few film "end users" left in the world, sadly.

Most cinemas?

I was talking about individuals who project their own films at home or in installations. ;)

The trouble with cinemas as a target market is that they will convert to digital -- it's all just a matter of when the technology hits the sweet spot from a price/quality standpoint.

And when the shift happens, it will be quick (much like the move from 16mm to video ENG in the 1980s).

[audadvnc]

... I mean, sure, the technology exists right now for old K40 shot in 1965 to be scanned at HD resolution to preserve every nuance and detail, thus preserving a total future viewing experience for an 8mm home movie. But who has that kind of money to blow on home movies?

I dunno, bet some enterpreneur will come up with a relatively inexpensive way to scan old films to video someday ...

[Mitch Perkins]

None of these customers have the ability or mechanical skill to project them and, even if we transferred on a Rank, the quality isn't going to be the same as the original film projected. There's always a loss.
Roger

Okay I see where you're coming from. I was operating under the assumption that a certain loss was a given, and that that was okay. These internet exchanges are *tricky*.
My point is that folks'll be able to take their film images to xfer houses for a long time to come, no matter to what new digilicious format said houses are streaming; it'll always be *from* a projector. 'Course, the same could be said of migrating dv originated stuff, too I guess.
I don't necessarily agree with your future-proof argument, but neither can I succinctly defend my position, so, while I have your ear, (I kinda thought you'd "shrouded" me), let me say I was alarmed to hear of your flood experience, saddened to hear of the loss of your irreplacables, but very glad to hear your baby was un-harmed. Whew!

Mitch

[audadvnc]

If you think finding and maintaining an old Super-8 projector is hard, just try it with a 2-inch Quad or 1/2-inch helical scan reel-to-reel recorder.

Now that is a potential money making scheme for some technically savvy, mechanically inclined guy - Paul Cotto, perhaps? - manufacturing new heads & parts for the old Ampex quad decks. Not a huge market, but think of the profit margin! And not impossible either; those decks were 1950's technology. I understand Universal just about wore out the entire remaining inventory of quad decks on the West Coast a few years back.

[MovieStuff]

None of these customers have the ability or mechanical skill to project them and, even if we transferred on a Rank, the quality isn't going to be the same as the original film projected. There's always a loss.
Roger

Okay I see where you're coming from. I was operating under the assumption that a certain loss was a given, and that that was okay.

Well, that's where digital wins out, in terms of "future proof", because every migrated copy will be virtually perfect, compared to the very best transfer the average person could afford off of the film original. Any shmoo can plug a firewire into a pair of digital recorders but your own experience tells you that film transfer is a fine art and not something done by the average joe, even to standard def video. And if we're talking about anything less than hi-rez archiving on HD, then one can't make the argument about the superior archival film image if there is no viable way, technically or financially, to view that superior image directly in the future.

Again, no projector means no viewing of the original film, even if it does have superior archiving characteristics. More to the point, there are more viable projectors around now via ebay than there will be 10 years from now and, yet, everyone is transferring their films to standard def video instead of buying a projector and watching the films directly. Considering how much better it would look and how much cheaper it would be, it's reasonable to ask why that would be? The answer is that the average consumer doesn't really care about the superior film image. How that translates into market trends for theatrical display isn't hard to imagine.

...let me say I was alarmed to hear of your flood experience, saddened to hear of the loss of your irreplacables, but very glad to hear your baby was un-harmed. Whew!

Yeah, it was pretty crazy. We were very fortunate that it happened in the summer. The water was cold enough as it was. I am positive that people would have died from exposure had it happened in the winter.

Roger

[audadvnc]

...let me say I was alarmed to hear of your flood experience, saddened to hear of the loss of your irreplacables, but very glad to hear your baby was un-harmed. Whew!

Yeah, it was pretty crazy. We were very fortunate that it happened in the summer. The water was cold enough as it was. I am positive that people would have died from exposure had it happened in the winter.

Roger

Hmm, this brings up film vrs video archival issues. I have retrieved, cleaned and transferred film footage that went through a flood. I've never recovered a videotape or hard disk from flood damage. Is that even possible?

[Mitch Perkins]

None of these customers have the ability or mechanical skill to project them and, even if we transferred on a Rank, the quality isn't going to be the same as the original film projected. There's always a loss.
Roger

Okay I see where you're coming from. I was operating under the assumption that a certain loss was a given, and that that was okay.

Well, that's where digital wins out, in terms of "future proof", because every migrated copy will be virtually perfect, compared to the very best transfer the average person could afford off of the film original.

Okay but barring the very *worst* transfer the average person could afford, the film-originated image *still* has that je ne sais quoi which even the highest-end pristine video capture so glaringly lacks.

I have never shown transferred Super 8 to a consumer video shooter who didn't see the difference - "Wow! Look at how beautiful that is!"
It's not that they can't see it; it's just they don't often get the opportunity to compare. They just forget.

... everyone is transferring their films to standard def video instead of buying a projector and watching the films directly. Considering how much better it would look and how much cheaper it would be, it's reasonable to ask why that would be? The answer is that the average consumer doesn't really care about the superior film image. How that translates into market trends for theatrical display isn't hard to imagine.

In the theater, folks don't have to jump up and splice the film if it breaks, (wouldn't that be funny?), or maintain the projector. At home, they would have to do just that.

As we both know, film transferred to even standard def looks just great, much better than first gen DV capture. Je ne sais quoi...

And let's not forget all the hype. It's a scientific fact that folks will disbelieve their own eyes/memories to avoid estrangement from "the group".

I disagree with your assessment of the average consumer's level of discernment, and the degree to which they care about the quality of what they're looking at, but how would we go about settling the question?

...let me say I was alarmed to hear of your flood experience, saddened to hear of the loss of your irreplacables, but very glad to hear your baby was un-harmed. Whew!

Yeah, it was pretty crazy. We were very fortunate that it happened in the summer. The water was cold enough as it was. I am positive that people would have died from exposure had it happened in the winter.

Roger

Thank goodness for small miracles, (and big ones), eh?

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

I disagree with your assessment of the average consumer's level of discernment, and the degree to which they care about the quality of what they're looking at, but how would we go about settling the question?

Well, I think that the proof is in the puddin'. People switched from super 8 to VHS by the droves, even though VHS had an obviously inferior picture. Many people then transferred their super 8 home movies to VHS using a horrid single tube camera and then threw their films away! People are still transferring their super 8 films to video instead of watching the original, even though used projectors are abundant and cheap. I agree with you that convenience is probably the main key but the point is that they are willing to give up picture quality for that convenience. In other words, if they do care about quality, they don't care enough to maintain the film original as the preferred viewing medium. And if they don't maintain a projector to watch the films in the future (assuming that they bother to keep the films) then it doesn't matter if the images on the film are perfect. No one will see them because it isn't convenient or, perhaps, even possible.

Roger

[Nigel]

I like vanilla ice cream...

I also like to beat a dead horse but this is one that seems dead enough to not waste the ammo on.

Good Luck

[Mitch Perkins]

I disagree with your assessment of the average consumer's level of discernment, and the degree to which they care about the quality of what they're looking at, but how would we go about settling the question?

Well, I think that the proof is in the puddin'. People switched from super 8 to VHS by the droves, even though VHS had an obviously inferior picture. Many people then transferred their super 8 home movies to VHS using a horrid single tube camera and then threw their films away!
Roger

Damn! I keep getting confused between the theater and the home theater. You're right, of course, but I was referring to the theater experience, wherein the convenience of buying a ticket and finding a seat isn't affected by capture medium. I still think people prefer the dancing light of the "real thing", but I could be sorely mistaken.

We're a little astray of the OP's question, though. So, do you think film students should eschew film study and focus exclusively on learning digital?

Or what? ~:?)

Mitch