Is film archaic / about to die soon?

[hellesdonfilms]

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.

I think the mear fact that people are able to transfer 50 year old home movies says a lot.

What will your grandchildren do when presented with a box of your VHS tapes (or any formats since) after you've gone, when the last VHS machine was made 20-30yrs ago?

All you need to see the image on a film is light.

[MovieStuff]

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?

Actually, this discussion is totally in line with the topic; probably more so than people just offering opinions based on an obvious reverence of a particular medium. The issue is whether film will still be viable in the future and the answer is based on market demands.

1) If the audience that pays the bills doesn't care about quality, then they will accept crap scripts, crap actors and crap direction as long as they are "good enough".

2) That these same people chose crap VHS over super 8 when given the chance indicates that they also do not really care about image quality as long as it is "good enough".

3) That they transferred their 8mm films to crap VHS to view is just an extension of that apathy.

4) That they will gladly spend more money to again transfer thousands of feet of those same 8mm home movies to digital instead of spending $100 on a projector that would ensure a better viewing experience is a clear indication that convenience is more important than quality.

5) That few, if any, of these people have the means to keep a viable projector running at a time when it could not be any cheaper logically predicts that few viable projectors will be available in the future for viewing these same films, assuming they are not simply thrown out.

6) No projectors = no viewing of the original film and everything is thus brought down to the weakest viewing experience as dicated by today's transfer technology; not the transfer technology that might exist somewhere in the future.

So, is film archaic and about to die?

Well, the same basic question remains: When you consider the universal acceptance by paying audiences for minimal results in both the theater and home movie experience, does anyone really think that more film will be used in the years to come than years past and that the use of digital will decline?

While learning about film is obviously useful, it isn't necessary, and I think the trend toward all digital is pretty obvious.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

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.

I think the mear fact that people are able to transfer 50 year old home movies says a lot.

What will your grandchildren do when presented with a box of your VHS tapes (or any formats since) after you've gone, when the last VHS machine was made 20-30yrs ago?

All you need to see the image on a film is light.

But seeing an image by holding the film up to the light isn't quite what we're talking about (see my previous post regarding lack of projectors).

And because VHS tapes are so easily migrated to a digital format now without a loss of quality means that my grandchildren won't have to track down a VHS deck to watch them. But any 8mm films transferred to video now represents a significant loss of information, thus the idea of film being "future proof" is not really accurate unless you:

A) have tons of cash to do hi-rez scans now

or

B) just accept degradation of the image as a normal part of the migration process.

Again, it doesn't matter how superior the film image is and how well film stores if there is no way to view that image in the future without loss of information.

Roger

[hellesdonfilms]

I better tell the British Film Institute to dump all their celluliod then as it's better to keep it all on VHS.

And to the think the archive at my university has been telling people for years to never throw away their original films even after transfer!
''

[Mitch Perkins]

4) That they will gladly spend more money to again transfer thousands of feet of those same 8mm home movies to digital instead of spending $100 on a projector that would ensure a better viewing experience is a clear indication that convenience is more important than quality.

Transferring "again" - doesn't that specifically constitute future-proofing? That is, whatever new DV format pops up, if you got your film, you're good to go.
I disagree that projecting the film is necessarily a better viewing experience - you can add music to the transferred footage, and you don't need to thread the projector or splice the film, or subject it to continuing wear and tear. And as I say, if folks still have the film, even a transfer to standard def looks really great now, so the loss of image quality becomes less and less of an issue as digital imaging quality of film-originated footage progresses.

6) No projectors = no viewing of the original film and everything is thus brought down to the weakest viewing experience as dicated by today's transfer technology; not the transfer technology that might exist somewhere in the future.

Again, I think today's xfer technology represents a viewing experience that is anything but weak. As for the future, if you keep that film, you're future-proofed.

While learning about film is obviously useful, it isn't necessary, and I think the trend toward all digital is pretty obvious.

Roger

I'll buy that for a dollar! Agreed.

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

4) That they will gladly spend more money to again transfer thousands of feet of those same 8mm home movies to digital instead of spending $100 on a projector that would ensure a better viewing experience is a clear indication that convenience is more important than quality.

Transferring "again" - doesn't that specifically constitute future-proofing? That is, whatever new DV format pops up, if you got your film, you're good to go.

Sure, IF you still have your film and IF you can afford the latest and greatest transfer method. But no one is having their home movies scanned in hi-rez now, even though that is the latest and greatest way to archive their home movies. More telling is that they could watch their films directly off the roll at ultra resolution but simply choose not to and are satisfied with only video resolution (DV at that!). If that level of satisfaction equates to a lack of film projectors in the future due to a lack of demand, then I don't see the argument about the super archival characteristics of film = "futureproof". Yes, if you have the film you can technically do anything with it you want in the future but people aren't doing that now and have historically settled for less. I don't see the trend changing and, in the meantime, more and more projectors end up in the landfill.

Roger

[John_Pytlak]

Film is "future-proof" for productions having enough economic value to justify rescanning to a new display format. "I Love Lucy" is a classic case of where shooting on film enabled a long and profitable revenue stream -- episodes well over fifty years old have recently been scanned at 4k resolution for broadcast on HD television, and sale on HD DVD. Almost every feature film over the last 70 years has found a new market, selling billions of dollars worth of DVDs annually, and likely to sell additional HD DVDs to some of the same people that already own a standard definition DVD already.

The "home movie" and independent production market can benefit, much as it does today, from the technology (e.g., better/faster scanners) developed to support the transfer of larger formats to new display formats of the future.

[Mitch Perkins]

4) That they will gladly spend more money to again transfer thousands of feet of those same 8mm home movies to digital instead of spending $100 on a projector that would ensure a better viewing experience is a clear indication that convenience is more important than quality.

Transferring "again" - doesn't that specifically constitute future-proofing? That is, whatever new DV format pops up, if you got your film, you're good to go.

Sure, IF you still have your film

Well, it ain't future-proofed if it ain't there...there have always been people who wander into the woods to get eaten by bears, despite the warnings. This doesn't mean staying out of the woods won't lengthen your lifespan.

More telling is that they could watch their films directly off the roll at ultra resolution but simply choose not to and are satisfied with only video resolution (DV at that!).

But this is precisely what you and I are hawking! In my case, I really do think it looks fantastic, and I'm not even scanning individual frames. What gives?

If that level of satisfaction equates to a lack of film projectors in the future due to a lack of demand, then I don't see the argument about the super archival characteristics of film = "futureproof". Yes, if you have the film you can technically do anything with it you want in the future but people aren't doing that now and have historically settled for less. I don't see the trend changing and, in the meantime, more and more projectors end up in the landfill.

Roger

We only need as many projectors as there are transfer houses. Maybe four or five per facility, and the ones we have can easily be maintained, due to their largely mechanical nature. There must still be millions of 'em out there, or at least a few hundred-thou. Say they all evaporated in the next ten minutes...as long as you have the film, you can get it onto digital, via S8 gate on a rank, or simply re-fabricating the ultimately simple PDC/shutter mechanism, (not the consumer - but the tech interested in xferring the film).

I hope I'm not just mis-understanding you...

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

I hope I'm not just mis-understanding you...

Maybe I'm just not being clear as I could be, sorry (or maybe I'm beating a dead horse. Quite possibly).

One final stab at this:

When someone says film is "future proof" in contrast to something like VHS or DV or DVDs, etc, they always insist that you won't be able to find a player for VHS or DV or DVDs 20 years from now but that, for whatever reason known only to the gods of fate, you will always be able to get your hands on another B&H projector, circa 1958. I dunno why but I find that notion absurd. Hell, people don't watch their home movies on projectors now, and they are easier to find and cheaper than they have ever been, so I can not imagine that projectors will be available or even desired in the future. And the notion that VHS, DV or DVD players won't be available in the future is moot because all of those formats can be endlessly migrated to any future digital format without any visible loss of information compared to the very first transfer of 8mm film to DV, which is about all that the average consumer can afford. It may look nice but it IS a significant loss of information, compared to even a crap VHS transfer to DV.

To me "future proof" implies that you can always get out of a medium, later, all that you can get out of it now. Transferring VHS to digital lets you do that but transferring 8mm film to DV does not. IF you keep your film then, technically, you can get higher res scans but it isn't economically viable now and I don't see it getting any cheaper in the future. Why? Because if the majority of consumers doesn't care about quality imagery (as illustrated by the vaccum-inducing mass move to VHS), then the technology won't exist commonly enough in the future to make superior 8mm scans cheap and available for those that do want higher resolution from great, great grandpaw's home movies, assuming that they have not just thrown them out in a fit of apathy.

So the term "future proof", to me, is kind of a misnomer. It assumes that there will be services commonly and economically available in the future to access all the data within the target medium when, in reality, the demand for such technology doesn't even exist today and the trend does not reflect an interest in better imagery to support such technology into the future. If people choose convenience over quality then the market will respond accordingly. What we then get out of home movie film in the future isn't the most that it has to offer but, rather, whatever the state of affordable technology will allow at that time. It's like inhereting a box full of bullets for a gun no longer in existence. There is little sense arguing about the quality of the bullets at that point.

I may be 100% off base but, anyway, that's my take on it.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

I hope I'm not just mis-understanding you...

Maybe I'm just not being clear as I could be, sorry (or maybe I'm beating a dead horse. Quite possibly).

One final stab at this:

When someone says film is "future proof" in contrast to something like VHS or DV or DVDs, etc, they always insist that you won't be able to find a player for VHS or DV or DVDs 20 years from now but that, for whatever reason known only to the gods of fate, you will always be able to get your hands on another B&H projector, circa 1958.

The reason is 100+ years of film content, in both the private/consumer domain and in the public/broadcast etc. domain. VHS etc generally stick around for a couple decades tops, and the lifespan of newer technology is getting shorter. Meanwhile, it's only the transfer people who need to own/maintain film projectors. Already it's difficult to get S-VHS dubbed, so you gotta really stay on top of the migration thing with electronic content. Not so with film; there's just too much of it around, so there'll always be a reason to maintain the xfer technology to view it.

Hell, people don't watch their home movies on projectors now, and they are easier to find and cheaper than they have ever been, so I can not imagine that projectors will be available or even desired in the future.

The consumer will not need a film projector.

And the notion that VHS, DV or DVD players won't be available in the future is moot because all of those formats can be endlessly migrated to any future digital format without any visible loss of information compared to the very first transfer of 8mm film to DV, which is about all that the average consumer can afford.

Unless you wait too long with the VHS (availability/ease of re-fabrication of decks). There's an expiration date on this stuff that film does not have (see above).

It may look nice but it IS a significant loss of information, compared to even a crap VHS transfer to DV.

The average 8mm xfer to MiniDV looks better than VHS originals anyway, information loss and all...

To me "future proof" implies that you can always get out of a medium, later, all that you can get out of it now. Transferring VHS to digital lets you do that but transferring 8mm film to DV does not. IF you keep your film then, technically, you can get higher res scans but it isn't economically viable now and I don't see it getting any cheaper in the future. Why? Because if the majority of consumers doesn't care about quality imagery (as illustrated by the vaccum-inducing mass move to VHS), then the technology won't exist commonly enough in the future to make superior 8mm scans cheap and available for those that do want higher resolution from great, great grandpaw's home movies, assuming that they have not just thrown them out in a fit of apathy.

What you have said above is that film will be future-proof, but transferring it to the highest res medium possible will perhaps not be economically feasible for the average consumer. Image capture has always involved cash expenditure, it's never been a poor woman's game.

Home movies, for consumer viewing, do not require the highest res possible. Home movies inherited by archivists will be ready for the highest res xfer possible, and any unit designed for 35mm xfer can be fitted with a Super 8 gate.

So the term "future proof", to me, is kind of a misnomer. It assumes that there will be services commonly and economically available in the future to access all the data within the target medium when, in reality, the demand for such technology doesn't even exist today and the trend does not reflect an interest in better imagery to support such technology into the future.

http://www.google.ca/search?client=fire ... gle+Search

"Future proofing is the act of trying to anticipate future developments and taking action to minimise possible negative consequences."

Regardless of what anyone does or does not do with their film, the film itself is ready for transfer to the highest res medium extant at any point in the future. So shooting on film anticipates future developments and takes action to minimise possible negative consequences.

If people choose convenience over quality then the market will respond accordingly.

Consumers don't get a referendum - they get a lot of hype, more false information, no education, and then no choice. Try calling Sony to fix your S-VHS deck.

What we then get out of home movie film in the future isn't the most that it has to offer but, rather, whatever the state of affordable technology will allow at that time. It's like inhereting a box full of bullets for a gun no longer in existence. There is little sense arguing about the quality of the bullets at that point.

There is a huge difference between the best gun, ("the most that it has to offer"), and no gun. So it's not like that at all.

I may be 100% off base but, anyway, that's my take on it.

Roger

I'm no expert either. Note I took a lot of time to think before responding; I don't like to argue, but I do disagree with much of what you're saying, and I think it's an issue worth considering. IOW, no hard feelings.

Mitch

[gianni1]

I just rescued another 8mm man, give me a gold pin or badge! Yesterday I walked over to a neighbours house and loaned him a Sankyo 1000 projector and screen. He's got a box full of 8mm reels, about twenty 3 minute spools, and ten 200 footers of his family home movies. He had edited himself over twenty - thirty years ago. He hasn't touched a projector since then, but will spend the next few days using it. His hobby is making scale model wooden 18th century sailing ships.

Gianni

[tlatosmd]

While learning about film is obviously useful, it isn't necessary, and I think the trend toward all digital is pretty obvious.

As for quality and convenience, I like John's hybrid approach: "Get the best of both worlds!" Quality from chemical film, convenience from telecine/DI.

DPs (is it them?) and other such people knowing about production value will probably remain aware that people might sense a higher production value in film rather than in what is mainstream video today even though the audience has no idea what it's about and what it is they're looking at. That's the reason why quite a lot of TV movies are still shot on S16.

But any 8mm films transferred to video now represents a significant loss of information, thus the idea of film being "future proof" is not really accurate unless you:
A) have tons of cash to do hi-rez scans now
or
B) just accept degradation of the image as a normal part of the migration process.

Still, those telecines I can get for 50 cents up to 5 Euros/Dollars per footage minute nonetheless look a ton better than video-originated stuff, especially SD.

We only need as many projectors as there are transfer houses.

I'd like to disagree. That sounds scaringly too much like off-the-wall to me. In my mind, a telecining unit is more sophisticated than that by projecting directly onto a chip or scanning individual frames with a laser or spot.

When someone says film is "future proof" in contrast to something like VHS or DV or DVDs, etc, they always insist that you won't be able to find a player for VHS or DV or DVDs 20 years from now

Whether you'll have a VCR in 20 years from now will be pretty irrelevant if your VHS tapes are just as old.

Anyway Roger, at times it's hard to tell whether you're against film (because after decades of progress and co-existence it doesn't seem to be 'present-proof' atm so it won't be 'future-proof' either) or against video, or against both.

[MovieStuff]

I respectfully snipped the rest of your post only because it is apparent that the issue here is defining what "future proof" really means and how it applies to consumer vs commercial film making.

Regardless of what anyone does or does not do with their film, the film itself is ready for transfer to the highest res medium extant at any point in the future. So shooting on film anticipates future developments and takes action to minimise possible negative consequences.

But assumes that access to all the information will even be technically or economically possible. Again, if you take something shot on DV and migrate it to the next digital medium, there is no appreciable loss and it can be easily done by the average consumer right now so migration is more likely to happen. But that trick doesn't work for film unless you spend big bucks on hi-rez scans, which are outside the reach of the average person. Thus migration of all the film data is less likely to happen, even if the technology exists.

Knowing that, let's look at the definition of "future proof" you posted:

"Future proofing is the act of trying to anticipate future developments and taking action to minimise possible negative consequences."

Okay, today is the "future" for all those films shot in 1955. Were they "future proofing" when they were shot? Are they able to get everything out of them now that they were able to access back in 1955? Sure, if they use a projector to watch them. But anything less represents significant data loss and the trend isn't to project but to transfer to an inferior video medium for viewing. Since demand dicates how the market responds, it seems unlikely that the market will maintain projectors that aren't needed nor provide economical hi-rez scans for films when image quality obviously isn't the main concern for these customers.

Ah, but the information is there if they wanted to access it, right? Well, if the techology does not exist to access 100% of the information because there is no demand for that technology, or the lack of demand makes access to all the data too expensive, then the data is locked in a medium that can not be accessed. Thus, permanent and sigificant data loss for anything shot on film is a very real liklihood.

Here's a good example: 9.5mm is a film format too. Try finding projectors or places to commonly transfer it, even at standard def, much less hi-rez. Possible? Sure! But scarce compared to something like 16mm, which was a viable alternate choice at the time. If people that shot 9.5mm long ago knew that they'd have such trouble compared to 16mm, do you think they would have shot 9.5mm in the first place? Were they "future proofing" by choosing 9.5mm over 16mm? Seems unlikely now that the future is here.

So the problem with the term "future proofing" is that you can't predict nor depend on what the future will bring. In that sense, neither can I so I could be very wrong about all of this. All you can do is look at current trends and see where they are headed and that direction is away from direct projection at full resolution and very much toward archiving on video at limited resolution.

"I Love Lucy" is often used inappropriately to demonstrate "future proofing". They shot on film for several reasons: One is that they were forced to produce the show themselves and there was no infrastructure outside the corporate TV studios for private video production. Also, they wanted the ability to edit, which was not possible on video at the time since video was a live medium. And, since video was a live medium, that did not fit well with Desi's busy nightclub schedule. That the show was syndicated more easily later because it was shot on film was a happy surprise and not something that was planned.

People shot film long ago not because they were thinking in terms of "future proofing" but simply because that's really the only choice they had and, even within that choice, there were dead-ends, such as 9.5mm and a myriad of other film formats like 24mm, etc. Still, film represents a powerful broadband analog recording medium that can be used economically by the commercial film industry because they work on a profit basis and have the infrastructure to get all the data out of their film original. Thus, film probably is more "future proof" for Hollywood at this time. But people have other choices now that are more easily migrated without data loss, compared to film. Because of this, I would say that, for the average consumer, digital is more "future proof" than anything shot on film.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

I respectfully snipped the rest of your post only because it is apparent that the issue here is defining what "future proof" really means and how it applies to consumer vs commercial film making.

Regardless of what anyone does or does not do with their film, the film itself is ready for transfer to the highest res medium extant at any point in the future. So shooting on film anticipates future developments and takes action to minimise possible negative consequences.

But assumes that access to all the information will even be technically or economically possible.

"Minimise possible negative consequences", not eliminate them. Even all the good 35mm stuff on TV is not showing *all* the information captured on the film. The point is it doesn't have to, because capturing on film looks better anyway, even with information loss. So, respectfully, I think the assumption is yours.

Again, if you take something shot on DV and migrate it to the next digital medium, there is no appreciable loss and it can be easily done by the average consumer right now so migration is more likely to happen.

The point is it *has* to be done *right now*; if you wait too long, the playback technology will not be there. As I say, with 100+ years of filmed content, there will be playback technology for it well into the future.
This speaks to finding stuff that's been lost in a barn for fifty years - if it's on film, you have a good chance of rescuing it. If it's on tape, it'll probably be baffed even if you could play it back.

But that trick doesn't work for film unless you spend big bucks on hi-rez scans, which are outside the reach of the average person. Thus migration of all the film data is less likely to happen, even if the technology exists.

Again, because film has so much information, you can afford to lose a fair amount of it, while still harvesting an image superior to first gen tape.

Knowing that, let's look at the definition of "future proof" you posted:

"Future proofing is the act of trying to anticipate future developments and taking action to minimise possible negative consequences."

Okay, today is the "future" for all those films shot in 1955. Were they "future proofing" when they were shot? Are they able to get everything out of them now that they were able to access back in 1955? Sure, if they use a projector to watch them. But anything less represents significant data loss and the trend isn't to project but to transfer to an inferior video medium for viewing. Since demand dicates how the market responds, it seems unlikely that the market will maintain projectors that aren't needed nor provide economical hi-rez scans for films when image quality obviously isn't the main concern for these customers.

Again, "minimise", not eliminate, negative consequences.
Again, the consumer does not need to project the film; something is better than nothing. In this case, something, say, a WP xfer, looks *really great*, so even with information loss, the consumer has a beautiful record of the family history on film. If they wait too long with, say, S-VHS, chances are they will end up with nothing.
This *just happened* the other day - a friend of my dad's wants to make DVDs of his S-VHS home tapies. His deck is broken, I couldn't fix it, Sony is *not supporting* him, "we don't service that anymore", and so he's hangin' in the wind. If he had shot S8, we would have been finished the transfer as I write this.

Ah, but the information is there if they wanted to access it, right? Well, if the techology does not exist to access 100% of the information because there is no demand for that technology, or the lack of demand makes access to all the data too expensive, then the data is locked in a medium that can not be accessed. Thus, permanent and sigificant data loss for anything shot on film is a very real liklihood.

You can't control everthing. You can *minimise* negative consequences by shooting film.
Above, you jump from the inability to access *100% of the data*, to the data being locked in a medium that *cannot* be accessed. Not the same thing.
Also, "too expensive" is relative, and does in no way affect the fact that film contains enough data to look better than meticulously migrated DV content, even *with* significant data loss.

Here's a good example: 9.5mm is a film format too. Try finding projectors or places to commonly transfer it, even at standard def, much less hi-rez. Possible? Sure! But scarce compared to something like 16mm, which was a viable alternate choice at the time. If people that shot 9.5mm long ago knew that they'd have such trouble compared to 16mm, do you think they would have shot 9.5mm in the first place? Were they "future proofing" by choosing 9.5mm over 16mm? Seems unlikely now that the future is here.

"Scarce" is a good deal better than non-existent. Shooters of 9.5mm film simply minimised negative consequnces to a lesser degree than shooters of 16mm, and yet, still they are *able* to rescue their images, which is better than losing them altogether.
"Future-proofing" simply does not mean, "making it easy as pie and real cheap to rescue images". It means it's *possible*.

So the problem with the term "future proofing" is that you can't predict nor depend on what the future will bring. In that sense, neither can I so I could be very wrong about all of this. All you can do is look at current trends and see where they are headed and that direction is away from direct projection at full resolution and very much toward archiving on video at limited resolution.

Which looks absolutely fabulous and will be *possible* well into the future, since only the various transfer houses need maintain film projectors. The ones with Ranks and such will be able to access more than enough data from the film, if not 100% in the case of the tiny S8 frame.

"I Love Lucy" is often used inappropriately to demonstrate "future proofing". They shot on film for several reasons: One is that they were forced to produce the show themselves and there was no infrastructure outside the corporate TV studios for private video production. Also, they wanted the ability to edit, which was not possible on video at the time since video was a live medium. And, since video was a live medium, that did not fit well with Desi's busy nightclub schedule. That the show was syndicated more easily later because it was shot on film was a happy surprise and not something that was planned.

How does the fact that it was not planned affect the fact that, having been shot on film, it was therefore future proofed?

People shot film long ago not because they were thinking in terms of "future proofing" but simply because that's really the only choice they had and, even within that choice, there were dead-ends, such as 9.5mm and a myriad of other film formats like 24mm, etc.

Again, their reasons are irrelevant to the fact that the medium they were forced to use will be accessible far into the future, whether it's expensive or not.
If it's still possible to access data recrded on 9.5mm, then it's not a dead end, just a tricky road.

Still, film represents a powerful broadband analog recording medium that can be used economically by the commercial film industry because they work on a profit basis and have the infrastructure to get all the data out of their film original. Thus, film probably is more "future proof" for Hollywood at this time.

"At this time" is whole point - a film student, if they want to originate on a medium that represents the most future proof technology at this time, will be well advised to learn about, and shoot on, film.

But people have other choices now that are more easily migrated without data loss, compared to film. Because of this, I would say that, for the average consumer, digital is more "future proof" than anything shot on film.

Roger

Sure, as long as they keep on top of the every shift in technology, and migrate to each new format as it arrives, which is about as likely a scenario as them going out and replacing their S8 projector.
What's more likely is that they'll allow their DV originated stuff to languish in the basement until the decks are no longer being manufactured, and the manufacturer, tells them, "we don't service that anymore", at which point they're future-screwed.

Mitch

[John_Pytlak]

The bottom line: Film has a proven history of supporting new display formats. "Casablanca" and "Gone With the Wind" have sold millions of DVDs, even though DVDs were not even imagined when they were shot. "I Dream of Jeannie", "Bonanza", "I Love Lucy", "Hogans Heroes", "Star Trek", and thousands of other filmed television shows profitably live on, and even find their way onto the HD Net satellite, decades after they were shot on film. If you have 16mm or 8mm film dating back to the 1930's, you can (for a price) have it scanned to the latest digital video format. But save the original film, as you will get an even better video transfer in ten years.

If a filmed show was transferred to the the best video format a few decades ago, that video format is now obsolete. But the film is not, and can be transferred again to the latest video format. Ken Burns' "Civil War" provides a case history of how properly stored film outlives the quality of its original video transfer:

http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/film/remaster.html

Ken Burns and I decided to remaster The Civil War for several reasons. First of all when we completed the film in 1989, we were operating under a very tight schedule and budget. As the main editor on the film, I always wanted to go back and improve the overall quality of the film.

The other reason for remastering the film at this time is that the technology to color correct, print and transfer a film to video for broadcast has vastly improved, especially in the realm of digital computer technology. Viewers of our recent productions such as JAZZ and Mark Twain have written to us remarking on the visual beauty of those films, which is due to new technology we now use. Also, since Baseball we have been mixing our sound in stereo for PBS broadcasts.

When PBS decided to broadcast The Civil War on its 12th anniversary as well as re-release it for home video purchase in new VHS and DVD versions, Ken and I thought this would be the perfect time to make the film look the way we had always intended and to remix the soundtrack in both a two-track stereo version for broadcast and VHS and a 5.1 Surround Sound version for the DVD release.

If Ken Burns and Paul Barnes had decided to archive the show on video back in 1989 and discard the film original, the quality achievable with a new transfer from the original film would not have been possible.