Is film archaic / about to die soon?

[MovieStuff]

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.

35mm on television? What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about two things here:

One is the topic of the thread regarding film as being archaic and, as an extension of that thought, whether film is "future proof" compared to digital. It doesn't matter whether what we see on television right now is all 35mm has to offer or even half. What's relevant is whether digital is the format of the future or film is. Film isn't.

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.

Is it? You assume that there will be a way to access film in the future because you assume there will be a demand for such technology. But your position ignores the reality that current trends indicate a total lack of interest in such technology by the very people that have the films you are referring to. Why should there be a sudden interest in hi-rez scanning of home movies in the future when there is zero interest in it now and people are throwing away their films by the droves?

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.

And movie projectors always will be? Do you really believe that? At least with digital, the average person can migrate with no information loss. Film also needs to be migrated right now with no information loss because all indications are that there will be no film projectors to run them in the future because no one is interested in using them now.

As I say, with 100+ years of filmed content, there will be playback technology for it well into the future.

Wishful thinking that ignores obvious market trends, Mitch. People could watch their home movies right now at full resolution on a cheap projector but, instead, will spend thousands of dollars to archive them permanently at a fraction of that resolution on video and then throw their films away. This IS the future for all those films shot in 1955 and people aren't using projectors now. What makes you think they will suddenly change their mind 30 years form now? And where will they get projectors if a lack of demand means they are no longer available? The idea of them keeping their films for future re-transfer assumes an interest in higher quality imagery than really doesn't exist for these people. You and I may be interested but the average person is not and the market illustrates that 100%. People went from super 8 to VHS in the blink of an eye for a reason and it wasn't because VHS was better. ;)

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.

I agree that IF the film survives for 50 years then it would be more likely to contain imagery than a 50 year old VHS tape. But we all know that VHS can be migrated to digital at the push of a button by any moron, thus the issue of surviving VHS decks in half a century is a strawman argument since easy migration negates the need for such decks by that time. That really is not the issue here. The issue is whether there will be any way to access all the information contained in a film frame in the future. But such technology is based on the demands of the public and, as I have illustrated more than a couple of times, they do not care about superior imagery or they would have never switched from film to video in the first place! The technology required to access the information in a film frame -be it a projector or a hi-rez scan service- simply will not exist in the future if there is no demand to support it. Market trends indicate a total apathy regarding such technology for most people.

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.

Then this is really where this discussion stops because, to me, losing information isn't an acceptable part of the "future proofing" equation.

But I will address this:

"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?

I wasn't commenting on the value of film shot at that time; only that they shot film because they really had no other choice. If they had video editing as we know it today, you can bet they would have used it, instead. Thus, to use "I Love Lucy" as an argument for why someone should shoot film now is inappropriate (not that you were making that argument). One might as well say that the average person should also shoot on a pin registered Mitchell as it would be about as relevant and useful to the average person shooting home movies or a low budget production. The information in film is superior but, unless you have a way to access all that information, I don't see it as being "future proof", since the world is headed down a digital, not analog, path.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

The bottom line: Film has a proven history of supporting new display formats. ......

Agreed. But we're really talking about the future use of film. Do you think that more film will be used in years to come than in the past and that the use of digital is in decline? And if film usage drops off in favor of digital, do you really see companies putting their R&D dollars into developing more and more film related technology? If one is going to talk about "future proofing" their efforts, shouldn't that be taken into consideration instead of looking at how film was used in the past?

Roger

[John_Pytlak]

The bottom line: Film has a proven history of supporting new display formats. ......

Agreed. But we're really talking about the future use of film. Do you think that more film will be used in years to come than in the past and that the use of digital is in decline? And if film usage drops off in favor of digital, do you really see companies putting their R&D dollars into developing more and more film related technology? If one is going to talk about "future proofing" their efforts, shouldn't that be taken into consideration instead of looking at how film was used in the past?

Roger

Today, and for the forseeable future, filmmakers have a CHOICE of shooting on film or digital video. If you shoot on a high quality standardized film format, it's very likely that the film will support future digital display formats, since the vast amounts of valuable film productions in archives will provide a continuing market for scanning technology. If you shoot using a video format, you certainly will have to migrate to new digital video formats as they come along. Yet even current recent video formats (e.g., Mini-DV) are already considered obsolete in supporting the higher resolution formats of the future. In fifty years, you may not be able to shoot film, but you certainly will be able to use the film you shoot today.

Predicting the future is best done by understanding the past.

[Mitch Perkins]

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.

35mm on television? What does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with the fact that film looks great with information loss anyway. Hi res or not, 100+ years of film content (8, 16, and 35mm), pretty much guarantees that the technology to access it will be around for a long, long time to come.

We're talking about two things here:

One is the topic of the thread regarding film as being archaic and, as an extension of that thought, whether film is "future proof" compared to digital. It doesn't matter whether what we see on television right now is all 35mm has to offer or even half. What's relevant is whether digital is the format of the future or film is. Film isn't.

Whatever the format of the future is, film is the format right now that offers the most possibilities for future access. We agreed on that already.

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.

Is it? You assume that there will be a way to access film in the future because you assume there will be a demand for such technology. But your position ignores the reality that current trends indicate a total lack of interest in such technology by the very people that have the films you are referring to. Why should there be a sudden interest in hi-rez scanning of home movies in the future when there is zero interest in it now and people are throwing away their films by the droves?

Future-proof does not mean hi res, it means liklihood of ability to access at all. How could there not be a demand for technology to access 100+ years of film content - it's going to take years and years to digitise it all even of we start right now. I'm not referring exclusively to consumers, either, because home movies are increasingly seen as historical documents of human history, so professionals want access to this content.
If X is future-proof, it's future-proof, whether people are throwing it away or not. You can throw away Hi8 footage too - does that mean the format can't be migrated?

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.

And movie projectors always will be? Do you really believe that? At least with digital, the average person can migrate with no information loss. Film also needs to be migrated right now with no information loss because all indications are that there will be no film projectors to run them in the future because no one is interested in using them now.

For about the fifth time, only the xfer houses need to own and maintain film projectors. The mechanism is so simple, the average tinkerer could build a film projector in the garage. Not so a VHS deck.
Film doesn't even need electricity to be projected, if it comes to that. Light from the sun could be gathered into a dark room, and the projector can be run by mice on a treadmill!
In the worst case scenario, one can actually hold the damn stuff up to the light if studying, say, clothing fashions of the 1960s!

As I say, with 100+ years of filmed content, there will be playback technology for it well into the future.

Wishful thinking that ignores obvious market trends, Mitch. People could watch their home movies right now at full resolution on a cheap projector but, instead, will spend thousands of dollars to archive them permanently at a fraction of that resolution on video and then throw their films away.

If people throw away their VHS tapes, does that mean the tapes can't be migrated? You can't future-proof against hoardes of angry ravaging monkees, or stupidity.
It is the responsibilty of the xfer house to inform the customer that throwing away the camera original is a mistake. It is in their own financial interest to do so. The DVDs rot, new technologies come out...keeping the master is common sense, which often needs a little help from someone who knows...

This IS the future for all those films shot in 1955 and people aren't using projectors now. What makes you think they will suddenly change their mind 30 years form now? And where will they get projectors if a lack of demand means they are no longer available?

Only the xfer houses need own/maintain film projectors. I can't imagine why you continue to think I'm talking about a revival of home projection, despite everything I've written. I don't ever plan to home project myself - it's totally beside the point. The point is that film is robust, long-lasting, and supported by *a hundred years* of hardware manufacture. I am absolutely certain that film projectors will be around in the quantities necessary for xfer houses long after there isn't a single working VHS deck to be found.

The idea of them keeping their films for future re-transfer assumes an interest in higher quality imagery than really doesn't exist for these people. You and I may be interested but the average person is not and the market illustrates that 100%. People went from super 8 to VHS in the blink of an eye for a reason and it wasn't because VHS was better. ;)

The idea of people keeping their films for future re-transfer assumes an interest in being able to watch them, period. It *does not* have to be hi res, just accessible.

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.

I agree that IF the film survives for 50 years then it would be more likely to contain imagery than a 50 year old VHS tape.

What more reason do you need to originate on film?

But we all know that VHS can be migrated to digital at the push of a button by any moron, thus the issue of surviving VHS decks in half a century is a strawman argument since easy migration negates the need for such decks by that time.

No, because if the stuff was not migrated before or by that time, it's lost forever. Stuff gets forgotten and rediscovered. If it's film, you got a chance, if it's VHS , you don't. Within this time sensitive parameter the argument is 100% on-point.

That really is not the issue here. The issue is whether there will be any way to access all the information contained in a film frame in the future. But such technology is based on the demands of the public and, as I have illustrated more than a couple of times, they do not care about superior imagery or they would have never switched from film to video in the first place!

She don't have to be superior, just accessible. The "proof" is not against loss of some data, it's against loss of all data. It's not proof for, or a guarantee of, the best case scenario, it's proof against the worst case scenario.

The technology required to access the information in a film frame -be it a projector or a hi-rez scan service- simply will not exist in the future if there is no demand to support it. Market trends indicate a total apathy regarding such technology for most people.

At what point in the future do you think the demand to migrate 100+years of content will disappear? I think never, ever, at all - there's too much of it, and stuff is found in barns, and will continue to be discovered in barns for as long as there are barns, attics, and folks rooting through 'em. Probably another hundred years easy.

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.

Then this is really where this discussion stops because, to me, losing information isn't an acceptable part of the "future proofing" equation.

That means that given the choice between

(a) being able to access your old footage with some information loss

and,

(b) refusing to view it because 100% of the data cannot be accessed,

you would choose (b). Not me, brother.

[snip]

I don't love Lucy, never did - too loud and frustratingly predictable.

Give the baby a kiss for me, will ya?

And make sure to get some footage of the baby on film, 'cause you never know what the future holds. ~:?)

[edit] Jesus! I mean technologically, not some creepy statement about your baby's health. Long live your beautiful baby!

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

Only the xfer houses need own/maintain film projectors.

But why would they bother if there is no demand for it?

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

Only the xfer houses need own/maintain film projectors.

But why would they bother if there is no demand for it?

Roger

"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. "

Again and again etc...plus all the home movies that haven't been xferred yet, plus the 100+ years of 16mm and 35mm footage...at what point do you think the demand is going to drop off?
Me? I say not for another hundred years.

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

Only the xfer houses need own/maintain film projectors.

But why would they bother if there is no demand for it?

Roger

"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. "

Clever use of my quote but doesn't really answer the question. People are transferring to digital now not because it offers a better image of their film but because they know projectors won't be available later and the digital version can be copied easily. So you've actually proven my point because they do all this in spite of the fact that the image quality is inferior. Thus the question remains: Why would transfer house maintain projectors ijn the future for old home movies when no one cares about the superior quailty they offer?

Again and again etc...plus all the home movies that haven't been xferred yet, plus the 100+ years of 16mm and 35mm footage...at what point do you think the demand is going to drop off?

Again and again is pretty optimistic, I'd say. And there is a fundamental difference between home movies and commercial films which I have already addressed. Anyway, I think it is pretty clear that the future isn't going to be film-based and that anything associated with film is going to be the exception and not the rule. As this relates to the initial question of this thread, it's obvious that consumers dictate market trends and consumers not only seem to be satisfied with digital but have embraced it, warts and all. Why they would suddenly develop an interest in analog film 10-20 years from is beyond me.

Roger

[audadvnc]

Why would transfer house maintain projectors ijn the future for old home movies when no one cares about the superior quailty they offer?
Roger

I don't know if we can anticipate what people will valuein the future. Perhaps the disregard we now hold for quality and historical integrity will be replaced by enthusiastic embrace of all things of the "classical" past. Consider that for a thousand years after the fall of Rome, monasteries and private libraries coveted relics of the past and did their utmost to preserve and pass those relics on to later generations. Who knows, even Walmart advertisements may be valued.

[Mitch Perkins]

But why would they bother if there is no demand for it?

Roger

"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. "

Clever use of my quote but doesn't really answer the question. People are transferring to digital now not because it offers a better image of their film but because they know projectors won't be available later and the digital version can be copied easily.

Do you tell your customers to keep their film originals, or don't you? Do you assure them that the DVDs won't rot, or de-laminate?
Have I repeatedly assured you I am not talking about superior image but simply acces to the image, period?

So you've actually proven my point because they do all this in spite of the fact that the image quality is inferior. Thus the question remains: Why would transfer house maintain projectors ijn the future for old home movies when no one cares about the superior quailty they offer?

I'm happy to have proven your point wrt superior imagery, since I have repeatedly informed you that I am not talking about that, except to say that film survives information loss and still looks great.
The question remains, when do you think the demand for access to 100+ years of film content will be dropping off?

Again and again etc...plus all the home movies that haven't been xferred yet, plus the 100+ years of 16mm and 35mm footage...at what point do you think the demand is going to drop off?

Again and again is pretty optimistic, I'd say.

Would you have called me optimistic in 1952, if I said that film was not dead, and that it had at least another fifty solid years of use, if not more?

How about if I told you in, say, 1982, that Kodak would probably release Super 8 in negative emulsions?

Anyway, I think it is pretty clear that the future isn't going to be film-based and that anything associated with film is going to be the exception and not the rule.

Do you think it would be wise for xfer houses to be ready to service this "exception", or should they tell these filmolosers to go take a hike?

As this relates to the initial question of this thread, it's obvious that consumers dictate market trends and consumers not only seem to be satisfied with digital but have embraced it, warts and all.

One of the ways they have embraced digital is by having their home movies converted to it. Good thing they didn't throw them out after the initial xfer to VHS, no?
And will the DVDs outlast the film, and should they risk losing their images forever by counting on it? Or should they not keep the camera originals just in case?

Why they would suddenly develop an interest in analog film 10-20 years from is beyond me.

Roger

The interest lies in access to the content, not the format itself. Since they were lucky enough to have been forced to shoot film, the images will be safely preserved on the only universally recognized archival visual format to date. In other words, future-proofed.

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

Do you tell your customers to keep their film originals, or don't you?

I do but that is irrelevant.

Do you assure them that the DVDs won't rot, or de-laminate?

No but that is equally irrelevant.

Have I repeatedly assured you I am not talking about superior image but simply acces to the image, period?

Finally! You have it 100%, right on the money, dead on the nail, exacto-mundo, no-doubt-about-it, spot-on right!

All they care about is access to the film image in any way shape or form.

Therefore, if superior image quality isn't important, then there is really no other reason to keep projectors around in the future! And if there are no projectors around, then I don't see how one can call film "future proof" when all people have to do is pop in their circa 2006 telecine transfer that was migrated to digital 30 years before by you or me! ;)

At this point I have to tell you, I'm not asking in the hopes of receiving an answer, since you have snipped about a dozen of my questions un-answered.

Of course! I snipped questions that I felt were obviously tangent to the discussion. I did not avoid answering any relevant questions that would have changed the course of this thread. If you feel I did, then I apologize. I just didn't see the need to do a point-by-point response when much of what we were debating were differences in opinion that weren't germane to the topic at hand. I did not snip out of disrespect but, rather, to try and keep the discussion on point and to lessen the load of anyone unfortunate enough to still be reading what you and I post.

So you've actually proven my point because they do all this in spite of the fact that the image quality is inferior. Thus the question remains: Why would transfer house maintain projectors ijn the future for old home movies when no one cares about the superior quailty they offer?

I'm happy to have proven your point wrt superior imagery, since I have repeatedly informed you that I am not talking about that, except to say that film survives information loss and still looks great.

Yes! IF you have a way to view it. See, Mitch, this is what I'm talking about and why I don't answer every one of your questions. Honestly, it isn't out of disrespect. It's just that you make this statement that "film survives information loss and still looks great" as if it encompasses some greater, obvious answer that I'm avoiding but I'm not!

I'll say it: Film rocks! It looks great! It has boo-koos of information that digital will never have! If film survives 100 years, it will still have boo-koos of information on it!

I agree, get it? Film is better all the way around and has tons more information than digital.

But NONE of that addresses the very basic issue which is that information that is inaccessible is as good as no information at all.

Would you have called me optimistic in 1952, if I said that film was not dead, and that it had at least another fifty solid years of use, if not more?

Of course not because, at that time, no one could imagine a world without film. But this isn't 1952 and to ignore current developments in digital and obvious trends in how people choose to electronically watch their home movies from 1952 in obviously decreased resolution, just for the sake of convenience, and then make a statement that film is "future proof" because projectors will always be around is certainly more than optimistic, I'd say.

How about if I told you in, say, 1982, that Kodak would probably release Super 8 in negative emulsions? Optimistic?

Not at all since I was instrumental in talking Phil at Pro8mm into loading negative film into super 8 carts and stop pitching reversal as a "professional" super 8 medium. Kodak then followed Pro8mm's lead after the fact. The only thing that surprised me was that Kodak took so long to do it. ;)

Anyway, I think it is pretty clear that the future isn't going to be film-based and that anything associated with film is going to be the exception and not the rule.

Do you think it would be wise for xfer houses to be ready to service this "exception", or should they tell these filmolosers to go take a hike?

You've got it backwards. Remember, people didn't start shooting digital because Kodak stopped making film! Thus it will be the consumer that tells the lab to go take a hike, just as people buying digital cameras have effectively told Kodak to go take a hike.

As this relates to the initial question of this thread, it's obvious that consumers dictate market trends and consumers not only seem to be satisfied with digital but have embraced it, warts and all.

One of the ways they have embraced digital is by having their home movies converted to it. Good thing they didn't throw them out after the initial xfer to VHS, no?

Oh, I agree. But many did and still do after transfer to digital. We're not talking about what you or I would do with our films but what the public seems to be doing and what effect that market trend has on how "future proof" film really is compared to digital.

And will the DVDs outlast the film, and should they risk losing their images forever by counting on it? Or should they not keep the camera originals just in case?

Whether the DVD or film will outlast each other is, again, irrelevant. What matters is what people do with their films and their digital movies. If migrating them is easy, then they will. If it is hard, then they are less likely to. It's just that simple.

Why they would suddenly develop an interest in analog film 10-20 years from is beyond me.

The interest lies in access to the content, not the format itself. Since they were lucky enough to have been forced to shoot film, the images will be safely preserved on the only universally recognized archival visual format to date.

You are, again, 100% right on. Film is the most universally recognized archival visual format around..... to date. But we're talking about the future, not "to date".

In other words, future-proofed.

I presume that getting only 1 of 3 bags from the airport is acceptable to you? Would you consider seeing only the picture and no sound at the theater reasonable? How about a mystery novel with the very last page missing?

No? Then how can you consider having access to only partial information from your film an acceptable definition of "future proof"? I don't.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

Do you tell your customers to keep their film originals, or don't you?

I do but that is irrelevant.

Do you assure them that the DVDs won't rot, or de-laminate?

No but that is equally irrelevant.

Since you're telling them to keep the film originals in case of a need for retransfer, how can it be irrelevant?

Have I repeatedly assured you I am not talking about superior image but simply acces to the image, period?

Finally! You have it 100%, right on the money, dead on the nail, exacto-mundo, no-doubt-about-it, spot-on right!

All they care about is access to the film image in any way shape or form.

Therefore, if superior image quality isn't important, then there is really no other reason to keep projectors around in the future!

Except, with no projectors, and Ranks etc. being too expensive, how are you going to retransfer, if the need arises?

And if there are no projectors around, then I don't see how one can call film "future proof" when all people have to do is pop in their circa 2006 telecine transfer that was migrated to digital 30 years before by you or me! ;)

The projectors aren't going away, because, as you tell your clients, the DVDs are subject to possible deterioration. When that happens, and if the client hasn't methodically migrated to new digital formats, you're going to need the projector.
Why do you tell the client to keep the films otherwise?

http://www.moviestuff.tv/testimonials.html

"Snowden Becker - Academy Film Archive DV8 Sniper-Pro

As an archive, preservation is our foremost goal; in fact, preservation concerns have often prevented us in the past from providing access to the home movies and amateur films that enrich our collection. By transferring these materials in-house with the Snipers, we can eliminate the possibility of off-site mishaps during transport, drastically reduce our outside telecine costs, and keep the film originals safely in the vaults--all while providing an unprecedented level of access to the content of the films themselves. It's well-nigh miraculous, I tell you. Image quality is everything we'd hoped for, and the Sniper units themselves are mercifully easy to use, even for those who aren't terribly familiar with small-gauge film projectors and equipment. We'll certainly be recommending the setup to anyone who asks."

..."and keep the film originals safely in the vaults". Why keep the film if you're going to throw out the WP/projector?

[snip]

... information that is inaccessible is as good as no information at all.

How you gonna access it with no projectors?

As this relates to the initial question of this thread, it's obvious that consumers dictate market trends and consumers not only seem to be satisfied with digital but have embraced it, warts and all.

One of the ways they have embraced digital is by having their home movies converted to it. Good thing they didn't throw them out after the initial xfer to VHS, no?

Oh, I agree. But many did and still do after transfer to digital. We're not talking about what you or I would do with our films but what the public seems to be doing and what effect that market trend has on how "future proof" film really is compared to digital.

Film as a medium is future proof even if I eat mine with a nice cream sauce - mine's gone [burp], but the nature of the medium itself is not affected. If the film has the most data on it, you're keeping it for the day when either

(a) you need to xfer it again cuz your DVDs rotted,

or,

(b) come a time you can extract all that data without undue outlay of cash.

And will the DVDs outlast the film, and should they risk losing their images forever by counting on it? Or should they not keep the camera originals just in case?

Whether the DVD or film will outlast each other is, again, irrelevant. What matters is what people do with their films and their digital movies. If migrating them is easy, then they will. If it is hard, then they are less likely to. It's just that simple.

How do the actions of a group of technologically remiss people magically affect the fundamental nature of the storage medium?

Why they would suddenly develop an interest in analog film 10-20 years from is beyond me.

The interest lies in access to the content, not the format itself. Since they were lucky enough to have been forced to shoot film, the images will be safely preserved on the only universally recognized archival visual format to date.

You are, again, 100% right on. Film is the most universally recognized archival visual format around..... to date. But we're talking about the future, not "to date".

If film is the most universally recognized archival visual format around to date, then that is what you need to capture/store your images on today for the future. Dude, that's what future-proof *means*.

In other words, future-proofed.

I presume that getting only 1 of 3 bags from the airport is acceptable to you? Would you consider seeing only the picture and no sound at the theater reasonable? How about a mystery novel with the very last page missing?

Well, all I can tell you about that is that I fe

[Patrick]

"Well, all I can tell you about that is that I fe"

??

[Angus]

The history of electronic formats tells us that they die very quickly, and a decade or two on it can be nigh on impossible to access your material.

Try finding somewhere to play back the 70's EIAJ video format...
It was pretty much the first successful home, amateur and semi-pro video format. There were once tens of thousands around in homes, schools and businesses...the format was successful and existed for about 10 years...but try finding anything now! Even the blank tape hasn't been manufactured since the very early 80's.

Now its not a partucularly high tech format, reels of 1/2 inch tape travelling at 9 inches per second round a helical drum with one video head. Its a skip-field format so only 25 fields per second in PAL countries.....maybe some really good tinkerer could construct a machine to play the tapes but it is pushing the boundaries of amateur electronics.

While I'd have a go at building an audio tape player from scratch, I'd leave video well alone...even analogue video. As for digital, you can forget it.

However, since film projection is essentially optical and mechanical there's little to stop some mechanically minded bod from constructing a projector from scratch. Merely looking at the frames gives you all the information you need to know what you need to build....imagine looking at a faceless piece of videotape or the files on some solid state storage device and working out how to retrieve the information!!

[MovieStuff]

Since you're telling them to keep the film originals in case of a need for retransfer, how can it be irrelevant?

Except, with no projectors, and Ranks etc. being too expensive, how are you going to retransfer, if the need arises?

I tell them to keep their films in case something happens to the digital tape I give them during the editing process and simpy because I think it is a crime to throw away family heirlooms. I don't tell them to keep their films because of any belief that there will be projectors or services to access them 20-30 years from now.

The projectors aren't going away, because, as you tell your clients, the DVDs are subject to possible deterioration.

The projectors are already going away, which is why you and I have a thriving telecine business now. The trend is for projectors to go away entirely because people feel they are not necessary to the viewing experience for their old home movies and they are willing to accept the limitations of digital as their display medium.

When that happens, and if the client hasn't methodically migrated to new digital formats, you're going to need the projector.
Why do you tell the client to keep the films otherwise?

See my previous answer.

http://www.moviestuff.tv/testimonials.html

"Snowden Becker - Academy Film Archive DV8 Sniper-Pro

As an archive, preservation is our foremost goal; in fact, preservation concerns have often prevented us in the past from providing access to the home movies and amateur films that enrich our collection. By transferring these materials in-house with the Snipers, we can eliminate the possibility of off-site mishaps during transport, drastically reduce our outside telecine costs, and keep the film originals safely in the vaults--all while providing an unprecedented level of access to the content of the films themselves. It's well-nigh miraculous, I tell you. Image quality is everything we'd hoped for, and the Sniper units themselves are mercifully easy to use, even for those who aren't terribly familiar with small-gauge film projectors and equipment. We'll certainly be recommending the setup to anyone who asks."

..."and keep the film originals safely in the vaults".

Why keep the film if you're going to throw out the WP/projector?

The films that Snowden is referring to are home movies from stars in Hollywood, not uncle joe's or aunt martha's home movies. The films are in their vaults for safe keeping so that people making documentaries now can have access to them, not because the Academy sees themselves retransferring them 20-30 years from now. In fact, after a while, all the films will be returned to their original owners.

... information that is inaccessible is as good as no information at all.

How you gonna access it with no projectors?

Exactly.

Film as a medium is future proof even if I eat mine with a nice cream sauce - mine's gone [burp], but the nature of the medium itself is not affected. If the film has the most data on it, you're keeping it for the day when either

(a) you need to xfer it again cuz your DVDs rotted,

or,

(b) come a time you can extract all that data without undue outlay of cash.

Both of which assume there will be methods for viewing or extraction of the information. Both assumptions ignore current market trends that say film and related technology is on the way out. It will not happen tomorrow, which is why I tell my clients to keep their films, but all indications are that is the future we are talking about.

How do the actions of a group of technologically remiss people magically affect the fundamental nature of the storage medium?

Because there will come a day when the technology is no longer available or is so rare that it is cost prohibitive to access that information. As such, film is no longer as "future proof" as digital since digital can be migrated so easily with no information loss.

If film is the most universally recognized archival visual format around to date, then that is what you need to capture/store your images on today for the future. Dude, that's what future-proof *means*.

Do you really think that the average person will be able to access their film information in the future more easily than digital information? Sorry, but the future is digital, not analog film. "Future proof" has to take into account what technology will be available in the future you are planning for. Remember, a lot of people thought that the future was Betamax, too. ;)

Well, all I can tell you about that is that I feel

I share your passion but not your logic.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

Since you're telling them to keep the film originals in case of a need for retransfer, how can it be irrelevant?

Except, with no projectors, and Ranks etc. being too expensive, how are you going to retransfer, if the need arises?

I tell them to keep their films in case something happens to the digital tape I give them during the editing process and simpy because I think it is a crime to throw away family heirlooms. I don't tell them to keep their films because of any belief that there will be projectors or services to access them 20-30 years from now.

Well, now I just think you're silly. A great guy with a rockin' product, but silly. Buncha stacked cans on the living room coffee table...nice!

The projectors aren't going away, because, as you tell your clients, the DVDs are subject to possible deterioration.

The projectors are already going away, which is why you and I have a thriving telecine business now. The trend is for projectors to go away entirely because people feel they are not necessary to the viewing experience for their old home movies and they are willing to accept the limitations of digital as their display medium.

If I could speak Rogerese, I would.

Alas, I can only repeat one final time in english - the consumer will never again need to own/maintain a film projector; there will enough of them extant for the transfer facilities to re-transfer the film until the end of time.

I just finished reading an article in Harpers Magazine about galoots. These are folks who go around collecting hand tools from the early 20th century - farm estate auctions and such. Some folks actually still use the tools.
No matter how few and far between, there will *always* be people eager to keep alive such a wonderfully ingenious, culturally pervasive invention as motion picture film. While they're at it, they'll no doubt be more than happy to throw it onto whatever digital or holographic medium rules their technological day.

How do the actions of a group of technologically remiss people magically affect the fundamental nature of the storage medium?

Because there will come a day when the technology is no longer available or is so rare that it is cost prohibitive to access that information. As such, film is no longer as "future proof" as digital since digital can be migrated so easily with no information loss.

No longer *as* future-proof? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

You miss my point, which is that gas is flammable, whether I choose to burn it or not.

Meanwhile, your putting of future proof in quotes denotes a personal definition. Private language makes public discourse confusing at best. Hence the convoluted nature of this exchange; I'm sticking with the definition posted herein of future proof, which refers not at all to how easy it's going to be, only that it will be possible to, extract data from the storage medium called film.

You are cordially invited to post the last word on this topic here, though we both know that in the bigger picture, that privilige is reserved for time itself. We'll see...

Mitch