Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Film Vs Epic : Side by Side

Ha ha, guys I do speak for my self, and when I say "WE" it means my self and EVERY ONE that is or will be working with me in every single project!!

I say WE, because I try to avoid say6ing I DID "I" "I" "I" and say more "WE" "WE" "WE"... ;)

My opinion, is what it is, and in my world and that which I travel FILM IS DEAD, when was the last time any of you really tucked a HJARD look at productions around the world and at home in Hollywood???


Well I have, and FILM is far smaller and smaller in its numbers, some like it grainy, fine, I Don't!!


Do I learn form the Past, of course! But do I still go around with a Carriage and horses? Of course NOT!!


Oh, and if any of you has seen the numbers of FILM PRINTING facilities please let me know, because all I see is those closing down for good.

Film is for the Nostalgic, let them shoot it, its so retarded in its process giving current technologies that I have no clue why some are so die hard on Film, it beats me, really, it does, I know some of you do work in the industry and have probably known the process form Getting those rolls to set and then out to the labs and so on, but for those that don't trust me, you have no idea how ridiculous it looks that workflow compered to what I can do with EPIC... ;)
 
yeah . . . and books, paper and canvas are dead too. never liked the look of them. everything should totally be pixels now
 
Sulekh Suman said:
I watched a restored print of Kubrick & Alcott's Barry Lyndon last night at Arclight. 3 hours of pure cinematic bliss.
And this is all I could say. Film is dead, long live the Film.
Click to expand...

And proof that resolution isn't EVERYTHING, he shot a majority of the exteriors for Barry Lyndon on a 16mm Angenieux 12-240 that he had optically blown up to S35!!! He "wanted" it to look dreamy and soft, and "wanted" to use what at the time was the ONLY 20:1 zoom available to him.

God he was a genius. Upconverting the zoom was HIS IDEA too, he contacted Angenieux directly about it....

Anyway...sorry to hi-jack the thread...I just love this story...

Film is great. Digital has "democratized" story telling, but each tool has its own "look" and I think it's hard to declare any one particular medium as "the winner".
 
Nick Morrison said:
. . . Film is great. Digital has "democratized" story telling, but each tool has its own "look" and I think it's hard to declare any one particular medium as "the winner".
Click to expand...

Are you freakin joking!??!? Think how awesome the Dead Sea Scrolls would look if they were shot 5K@48fps like with HDR and some rad flare filters . . . instead of the ridiculous grandpa "papyrus" bullshit. Digital is the best for everything. Film totally sux dude!
 
for all those people who are coming up with witty comebacks to those saying film is dead... You guys do realize what site your posting on right? This isn't FilmUser.com... It's Red! Of course everyone is going to say Film is Dead!


because it is!!! haha
 
Among other things (like this certain mystical feel) WE are still missing about 5 stops of DR with digital.
(Please don't throw HDR at me!)

Am really curious to see if maths & physics will be beaten one day...

So far digital has still a hard time to outrule analog on all aspects.

A very happy to shoot with raw horsepower though!!!
So much better than anything else (affordable) that has been around since ten/twelve years!
 
This thread is starting to sound like a Kool Aid drinkers convention again. I will miss film very much and will shoot on it as much as I can before it leaves for good. It's funny, I shoot with a DSLR and a vintage 1970's Nikon Ftn and the images that the old camera produces still have a character that is hard to describe. The DSLR still feels too sterile for my liking. I need to use Alien Skin Exposure to get my DSLR pictures anywhere near the 35mm stuff. Film will die but while everyone else is celebrating, I will be mourning.
 
Josh Beadle said:
Are you freakin joking!??!? Think how awesome the Dead Sea Scrolls would look if they were shot 5K@48fps like with HDR and some rad flare filters . . . instead of the ridiculous grandpa "papyrus" bullshit. Digital is the best for everything. Film totally sux dude!
Click to expand...

Haha. Try telling Christopher Nolan that, and all the fans of IMAX. :)

But yeah...longterm...film has its work cut out for itself, I mean they're not even MAKING S35 film cameras anymore...if that isn't a sneak-peek into the future I don't know what is...
 
I love my Red and I will always be grateful to Jim Jannard for his ingenuity, his focus and the thrill he seems to get from his creativity.
Red Digital is a god send to film makers. It has given film-makers access to create.
However, film is a beautiful medium and is desirable to newcomers as well as to the nostalgic because of its inherent qualities.
Consider some other outstanding historical creations and their modern competition:
Leadlighted glass-the historical standard for glass mosaics-now competes alongside copper foiled glass mosaics, some don't know the difference-Although the leadlighting process is much more cumbersome and dangerous (than the copper folied process), -leadlight glass has a quality that copper foiled glass can only mimic.
Solid Timber now competes alongside very well crafted laminated timber. Once again, some don't know the difference. However, timber is desirable to many over the much easier to manage and maintain laminates.

Digital film has its own unique quality, it is less cumbersome in its workflow and is cheaper to use, but at best, can still only mimic film. Some movie goers, don't know the difference. Those that do-will continue to seek it out for specific projects.
Film no longer has a monopoly on the market but it is far from dead.
Joe
 
Andrew Rieger said:
This thread is starting to sound like a Kool Aid drinkers convention again. I will miss film very much and will shoot on it as much as I can before it leaves for good. It's funny, I shoot with a DSLR and a vintage 1970's Nikon Ftn and the images that the old camera produces still have a character that is hard to describe. The DSLR still feels too sterile for my liking. I need to use Alien Skin Exposure to get my DSLR pictures anywhere near the 35mm stuff. Film will die but while everyone else is celebrating, I will be mourning.
Click to expand...

Aesthetically I share your tears but when it come to getting an independent film into production, they are tears of digital joy.

Personally I see them as two different aesthetics. Competition can be fun, comparison can be useful, but both mediums are still genuine stars in their own right.
Digital maybe still be just a new, hot, cocky son of a bitch, but his talent is prodigious, and he works for a lot less than the other guy and he's improving all the time. In ten years, it's conceivable he could actually be twice as good. He's gotten ten times better than he was ten years previously. But The "older guy" Everytime he performs there's definitely magic there, but it would seem he's peaked and again he's harder to work with.

That said, I still find the idea that the "look of film" is what's dead or killing it a hard point of view to swallow, I don;t think that's the case at all, (For now - though I appreciate peopel have different tastes as does ketch and also is thinking towards the future) For NOW, it's obviously workflow, flexibility, cost, development etc, unless you are talking in relation to a studio sized budget where the cost advantages etc are proportionally not so advantageous. But the fact that the point of view of "film is dead" even exists at all, let alone has any merit, shows just how very far we've come.

Moving forward, Film is not dead, I think she's just slowly and gracefully retiring :)) Maybe even carving out a new niche for herself.
 
If film dies i will mourn forever
At least until the red dragon sensor is unleashed
 
I have no special connection to film. The toxic, heavy, tempermental mistress can die a horrible death without me shedding a tear. What I would miss is the film aesthetic. But as long as digital cameras improve to the point where their color science matches film and grain emulation continues to advance I don't care. I can get a pixel for pixel perfect match to a film scan with a good enough digital camera and none of the mess.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I have no special connection to film. The toxic, heavy, tempermental mistress can die a horrible death without me shedding a tear. What I would miss is the film aesthetic. But as long as digital cameras improve to the point where their color science matches film and grain emulation continues to advance I don't care. I can get a pixel for pixel perfect match to a film scan with a good enough digital camera and none of the mess.
Click to expand...

Well! we all wish for the same.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I have no special connection to film. The toxic, heavy, tempermental mistress can die a horrible death without me shedding a tear. What I would miss is the film aesthetic. But as long as digital cameras improve to the point where their color science matches film and grain emulation continues to advance I don't care. I can get a pixel for pixel perfect match to a film scan with a good enough digital camera and none of the mess.
Click to expand...

Its not quite that simple man....

The chemicals are the magic. They are different everytime... Humidity, ambient temprature, processing time, processing temperature, age of the stock, how long you wait to develop.... all of this adds to (or subtracts from the quality depending on how you look at it).

Our generation seems to be running toward this digital being with arms wide open, because it LETS us make movies... I was lucky enough to shoot film twice before the world went digital. I watched my dailies at DuArt in NYC, to this day i've been chasing that dragon on digital.... trying to get something... anything that looks as good as a 1 light inter-positive daily. Still havent seen it.... Dragon perhaps....
 
Timur Civan said:
The chemicals are the magic. They are different everytime... Humidity, ambient temprature, processing time, processing temperature, age of the stock, how long you wait to develop.... all of this adds to (or subtracts from the quality depending on how you look at it).
Click to expand...
All those things are true. The other aesthetic I kind of miss is that people used to really tense up once film was rolling on-set, because film was expensive, it took time to load the magazines, it cost a lot of money to develop, plus they had to make dailies... and for all those reasons, every frame was important.

With digital, people kind of roll indiscriminately and don't really care... because the cards and/or drives don't really cost anything, not the way film did. As a result, far more footage is being shot, and I think not as much time, care, and attention is being paid to every moment of every take.

I miss this in a way, but I also accept that it's the way things are. There were (and are) always directors who don't care a whit about how much footage they shoot, and some legendary filmmakers who shot millions of feet of film on their projects without caring about the expense. (I'm reminded of Charlie's Angels 2, which I believe shot over 2 million feet of footage -- roughly 400 hours of material. And there are some recent action films that doubled that.)

Interesting editorial on TheWrap.com:

Why Is the Film Industry So Invested in Destroying Film?

I personally think that ship has already sailed, but I think it happened more because of the economy, not for artistic or technical considerations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top