Future of film. Still vs Motion

[jean]

oh god, such a long post. Should go to bed.

[David M. Leugers]

Roger

I get your point about the "its good enough and its cheap" argument and I'm sure that is why many projects are now done on video instead of film. However, it is not always about the cheapest or the best. In 1986 I bought a Super Beta Stereo VCR that sold for half as much as a VHS Stereo VCR and delivered an image far superior, used smaller cassettes, and advanced and rewound at much higher speeds. Still the public swarmed over to the VHS side. Remember that at that time, VHS and BETA were running neck to neck for the market. Video stores carried films in both formats. WHY? Marketing. The VHS was constantly trumped up as the format to own in all the mags and other media. An inferior product at a higher price won out. The public is largely a bunch of foolish consumers and it shows today in the clamour for all things digital. When I go to see a movie I want to see and hear the best possible quality that money can buy. For me that is film. If digital video becomes a better viewing experience than possible with film, then I'll enjoy that. We are not there yet IMHO.

All this is so much mental jousting for us all. To me film is my hobby and I enjoy the technical aspects of it as much as the imagery obtained. Playing with cameras, editing equipment and especially projectors and handling reels of film has pleasures all its own. Plunking a tape or DVD into a machine is just not the same. All this doomsday talk about the death of film is very old. I am far more enthused and excited about the future of film now than I was twenty years ago when I couldn't see how film would survive another few years. I shoot film because it is the only medium that lasts. I know I will be able to project films I shot as a young man up until the day I die. No one can stop me. I have the equipment to do it now and will always because most of the equipment will outlive me. I say quit worrying about the video revolution and do what you enjoy doing. I predict that some very good films will be shot in 16mm and then S-8mm with a transfer to HD for a video master and print up to 35mm film for distribution to theatres. Film emulsions are getting that good.


David M. Leugers

[Angus]

I'm not sure where you were located but in the UK by 1986 Beta had pretty much curled up and died.

I think that would possibly be the last year that I saw any Beta machines in high street stores, and even then the store managers were trying to get rid of them at knockdown prices....why do you think yours was cheaper than a similar spec VHS?

IIRC even Sony gave up the ghost in 1988 and brought out their first VHS machine.

[Angus]

Huh? "take pics on film and nobody will see them because they want them online" ????

never heard of a scanner?

I repeat. I regularly attend events which require pics to be posted to the web...and often my useless film pics that nobody will ever see are first up.


Oh and BTW for getting people talking and enjoying photos....NOTHING beats a proper slide show on a large screen.

[jean]

Huh? "take pics on film and nobody will see them because they want them online" ????

never heard of a scanner?

That was my point, though. take a pic with your cellphone, send it over to your buddies, done. That sets the "new" expectation of how picture taking is and what has to be achieved. Yepp, take out your camera, process film, scan the negs, photoshop, and voilá the most perfect print can be made (or the smalles thumbnail sent to cellphones).

What I meant is that the importance of the prints, very high 10 years ago, is now relatively small. The importance of having the pic immediately and send it across the net is relatively high these days. The quality of the picture is secondary, belongs to the "nice to have" part of the deal. (has always been, to say the truth. remeber the pocket cameras, or these days disposable cameras).

That's why consumers buy digital today, and subsequently the film market will become smaller and smaller. Digital is "good enough", and this holds true even for Nokia 7650.

[Angus]

I think it depends very much on what you are doing. I've been asked for enlargements of the theatre pics I did a couple of weeks ago...so that the quality can be better seen.

[David M. Leugers]

I'm not sure where you were located but in the UK by 1986 Beta had pretty much curled up and died.

I think that would possibly be the last year that I saw any Beta machines in high street stores, and even then the store managers were trying to get rid of them at knockdown prices....why do you think yours was cheaper than a similar spec VHS?

Angus I live in the USA and Beta was still readily available around where I live at that time. The Beta vs VHS war was stil going even though like I had said, every magazine, news media etc was extolling the virtues of buying VHS. Do you think that a SuperBeta machine is "similiar spec" to VHS? Hardly. Even the VHS HQ machines which came out later and are still for sale today do not match the image quality of a SuperBeta machine from 1986. My point was that there are marketing forces that tend to sway the market towards higher profit units regardless of what would be higher value to the consumer. I heard it from friends and family alike "Why did you buy Beta when everyone is buying VHS?" Like I was in danger of not being on the "winning" team like they were. Until they actually saw the output from my SuperBeta machine that is... I used it for many years until it wore out. Then I had no choice but to buy a VHS machine. I just hate to see the day I don't have a choice but to shoot and view digital video. We can all rush to be on the "winning" team, but we will all be the losers in the end.


David M. Leugers

[MattPacini]

This film vs. digital argument has been going on for a loooooong time, and all I keep hearing is how "any day now, digital is going to catch up".

But it already has, Matt.

Roger

Oh, I disagree.
Sure, it's being used in "some places" where film once was, but that doesn't mean it has caught up.
"Film" doesn't just mean "whatever medium is good enough for network TV", it also means "IMAX", for instance.

I'm obviously not saying digital is not being used at all.
But saying it's "caught up" with film, HAS to be followed by the very narrow qualifying example you used for that statement to be true, meaning... it's not really true.

You could use that same logic to say "video has caught up with film" 20+ years ago, when they started shooting the news and talk shows on video instead of film, right?
But obviously, it was far inferior.

Digital will only "catch up" with film, when it has the capability to completely replace it in all it's uses.


Matt Pacini

[MovieStuff]

I'm obviously not saying digital is not being used at all.
But saying it's "caught up" with film, HAS to be followed by the very narrow qualifying example you used for that statement to be true, meaning... it's not really true.

Of course it's true. If YOU can't tell what shows are shot on 24P and what shows are shot on film, then that's about as true as it can get. Whether or not digital has currently replaced ALL film is irrelevant in the context of this discussion since it's about the "future of film", not "the future that you'd like to see".

You could use that same logic to say "video has caught up with film" 20+ years ago, when they started shooting the news and talk shows on video instead of film, right?
But obviously, it was far inferior.

THAT'S the entire point, here. Video replaced film in that arena and has gained ground at a ferocious rate just in the last year or two, DESPITE your feelings of digital's shortcomings.

Digital will only "catch up" with film, when it has the capability to completely replace it in all it's uses.

Don't kid yourself. I can assure you that film will be replaced by digital LONG before it can perform, technically, at the same level as film. If fact, you just pointed out a perfect example from 20+ years ago and nothing's changed in how the industry operates. Again, this isn't about quality or level of superior performance. On the contrary, it's about replacing film with something that is "good enough" to get by. We've seen that throughout the broadcast and home media industry for years. Why would you think that the powers that be are going to suddenly turn 180 degrees and insist on maintaining a higher level of quality when, historically, they never have before? Digital has already "caught up" and it's just a matter of time before it saturates all markets, regardless of differences in performance levels.

More importantly, digital will only get better and better as money is pumped into the R&D from the proceeds that come from widespread usage. Hell, how do you think you're able to afford a non-linear edit system? Less than 10 years ago, it would have cost your left nut and the quality back then was nothing short of crap, mostly. Now virtually anyone can edit broadcast quality video yet most naysayers back then said that day would never come.

Digital "catching up" to film isn't about what YOU want. It's about what the industry will allow you to operate with.

[MattPacini]

Well, I guess we're having two different conversations here.
I assumed the "has caught up" was in the context of being as good of quality, and you're referring to it in the context of how much it's being used.
But given the fact that most TV is still shot on film, I'm correct on THAT base too!
har har!
Sorry Roger, what can I say?
I guess we're just going to disagree on the semantics here...

"catching up" might apply, but "caught up" means ALREADY THERE, which I think would mean, NO film being shot.

I totally agree with you, about quality not always driving what happens, (VHS-vsBeta, and the death of the Amiga computer being a couple prime examples), but clearly, quality is not irrelevant.
And the "it's crap but it's cheap" equasion factors in much more heavily when you're talking about consumner products, but not professional products.
I mean, cheap telescopes are everywhere, and everyone can get 'em, but that doesn't mean hugely expensive "Hubble" type telescopes are going to cease to exist, because there is a need for the best possible telescopes, but the average Joe, not the case.

In professional use of any kind, top, top quality is always going to be imperative for a certain percentage of applications, and you can't apply consumner economics across board to everything the way you seem to be in this discussion.

Matt Pacini

[MovieStuff]

I assumed the "has caught up" was in the context of being as good of quality,

As far as the paying audience is concerned, it's identical.

and you're referring to it in the context of how much it's being used.
But given the fact that most TV is still shot on film, I'm correct on THAT base too!

Think again. Most shows on television are shot on video; either to look like video or to look like film. The number of shows of television that originate on film are in the minority.

In professional use of any kind, top, top quality is always going to be imperative for a certain percentage of applications, and you can't apply consumner economics across board to everything the way you seem to be in this discussion.

Sure you can because it's the lowest quality that the paying customer will accept that sets the standard for what the corporations can get away with. Look at audio, look at video, look at movies and television. Is there ANYthing there that sets a high standard for quality that is followed by the larger production community as a standard method of operation? THAT'S what sets the standard for acceptable quality; not what you or I wish for.

You previously wrote:

I'm obviously not saying digital is not being used at all. But saying it's "caught up" with film, HAS to be followed by the very narrow qualifying example you used for that statement to be true, meaning... it's not really true.

The same can be said of film:

I'm obviously not saying film will not be used at all. But saying it hasn't been replaced by digital, HAS to be followed by the very narrow qualifying example you used for that statement to be true, meaning... it's not really true. ;)

In other words, the "narrow qualifying example" isn't digital, as you suggest. Indeed, the "narrow qualifying example" is now film since most shows on television are produced on digital.

Roger

[MattPacini]

".... since most shows on television are produced on digital."

Roger

Well, the problem with these kinds of arguments that we're having, is that the parameters of debate are stated, and it's assumed that all other factors are equal, which is not the case.

Sure, lots of TV programming is digital, but as far as narrative storytelling goes, where the aesthetic is really crucial to the effect that the story is gotten across, then thats where more often than not, film is used.

Amazingly, this applies to sitcoms, and national ad campaign commercials, that are still mostly if not exclusively shot on 35mm film.

So adding all the talk shows, soap operas, local news, and infomercials together, to come up with a number that is "perhaps" greater than the total number of MOW's, feature films, and major brand name commercials airing on TV, is irrelevant, as far as judging whether or not there is an inherent and crucial importance in shooting your narrative feature on film for maximum impact of emotion, and certainly not very relevant in stating that digital has "caught up" with film.

In other words, in the real world, all things are not equal, and as long as the aesthetic is important to storytelling, film will be used, as it is now.

The fact that the local used car lot is hawking their wares, using a digitally shot commercial, is not exactly what we would all expect to be factored into the equasion of if digital has "caught up" with film, eh?

Matt Pacini

[MovieStuff]

Sure, lots of TV programming is digital,

Not lots; most.

but as far as narrative storytelling goes, where the aesthetic is really crucial to the effect that the story is gotten across, then thats where more often than not, film is used.

Nope. More often than not, the "look of film" is used on television but actual film does not rule the roost any more. Again, the number of shows, movies and commercials on television that are seamlessly using 24p to replace film production is staggering and easily tenfold what it was only a couple of years ago.

For those that want to know which shows are shot on digital 24P, let me ask this:

You tell me which shows are shot on FILM. After all, it should be easy to spot if film is so superior, right? ;)

The fact that the local used car lot is hawking their wares, using a digitally shot commercial, is not exactly what we would all expect to be factored into the equasion of if digital has "caught up" with film, eh?

Well, expect it or not, it is. See, once was a time when Hollywood theatricals set the standard by which television hoped to aspire, on everything from movies to car commercials. Now television is where the big money is, not Hollywood, because television offers faster return on investment with a lower audience satisfaction level required. With the push toward HD (regardless of what WE think of it), television is setting a low bar that is too tempting for Hollywood to ignore with the result of a "common ground" in resolution that will find its way more and more into theatrical productions.

You and I may think that Lucas's effort on the digital Star Wars reeks but most people watching it could have cared less and it made butt loads of money. Likewise with the last two Spy Kids movies and there are more digital productions coming down the pike even as we speak. Just as MTV set a different editing style that has infected the look of virtually all popular movies (for better or for worse), the look of HD 24p is accepted as yet another emulsion by audiences that don't even know what the "emulsion" means and often ALREADY use the term "film" and "video" interchangably.

So, when you talk about local car commercials, consider this: They used to be shot on film and they looked like film, then they were shot on video and looked like video. Now any low budget producer can produce a local car commercial on digital 24P and make it look like film again. The same with television movies and other shows. "Catching up" with film isn't confined to matching pixel counts and resolution. It's about acceptance within an industry that isn't looking for the best that can be achieved but, rather, the best it can afford.

Still, the quality gets better all the time. I defy anyone to tell the difference in a print ad produced from a digital still as opposed to one originated from film.

[marc]

But Kodachrome still holds it's ground with respect to discerning the difference.

[MovieStuff]

But Kodachrome still holds it's ground with respect to discerning the difference.

Does it? Kodachrome used to be THE emulsion for print ad work. Now, most ads are shot digitally and that "Kodachrome Look" is easy to achieve, just as the funky metallic "Bleach bypass" look and the "Ektachrome Look" can be created in the computer for peanuts.

I agree that, for my personal taste, nothing beats the look of Kodachrome projected, especially in a slide projector. But my point is one that I've tried to make before:

We love Kodachrome because we KNOW about it and it's still affordable. The problem is that OUR tastes are not the deciding factor in what we are allowed to work with. Whether or not digital ever performs at the same level, technically, is moot. It already passes the smell test for the average viewer and those marks are good enough to encourage more and more producers to go, "Well, the resolution isn't as good but, you know, it sure is cheap and the audience doesn't seem to care."

When the market becomes saturated with digital, film will become more and more expensive (just like any other rare commodity) and digital, boosted by more common usage, will get even cheaper. As much as we love film, it will be economics that dicatate what the industry agrees is "best" and quality will simply be relative to the needs of the project at hand and what the audience will accept.

Consider this: Once was a time when television was horrible and movies were state of the art: Cinerama, 70mm, etc. Now we see huge leaps in video technology such as HD, 24P, etc while theatrical movies have taken steps backwards with films now shot on digital, smaller screens in 24 screen theaters, etc. Where are all the 70mm houses that were so prevelant during the 70s?

When I say that digital has "caught up" with film, one must remember that there isn't just "one film" look. There are many, many faces of film from Ektachrome to Kodachrome to Fujichrome to Eastmand neg and Fuji neg and others. Even within the same product line, there are different emulsions that give vastly different looks. To say that digital is different from film is really a distinction that makes little consequence since no two FILM emulsions look the same, either. I don't hear anyone saying,"Vision stock hasn't caught up with Kodachrome". Why would it or should it? Does digital naturally look like Kodachrome? No but, then again, who in the commercial world would want those characteristics forced on them? Does digital look like Eastman negative? No, but then again, neither does Fuji negative and neither does Ektachrome.

Digital is as digital does. It isn't going away and it will only get better. More to the point, the industry isn't going to wait until it's perfect to start using it as replacement for film. They already are. You and I may stand our ground and say we won't but we're the minority, I'm afraid.

Is digital as good as film? I guess it depends on who you ask. Most people don't even know the functional difference between film and video tape. How many times do I hear a news reporter say, "While we were filming this segment....."