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 :)

The death of film???

there will be probably more 1080p cameras sold in the next month than the red one will ever be delivered.
nobody understands the cameras implications as of yet.
we thought that the nikon F2020 would have 24@~20K.

red took the market. anything else is speculation.
 
Film will never die, it will just become obscure and incredibly expensive.

For still media, even in a market like Atlanta, the number of places that handle pro film stocks has dwindled to low single digits. More importantly, good pro labs have disappeared at the same rate. As digital capture has become the norm, the cost of film acquisition has quadrupled.

If you look at the still film market, R&D has been dead for quite a while. Nobody is holding out for new improved film stocks. The same is going to happen to motion stocks in the near future.

If you look at still media post, you'll find that there are no film looks that haven't been able to be duplicated in post, and there are digital looks that far surpass what film was ever able to render.

As people gain experience in grading raw capture, you're going to see footage that looks just like film, and not too long from now, looks that would have been impossible to achieve with film. More importantly, people are going to start to grow very accustomed to not having to worry about locking in a look at exposure time with a particular stock or process. This post exposure flexibility is what will drive people away from film.

Another factor that drove many still guys to digital was low light performance. Modern DSLRs capture cleaner footage at ISO 1600 now than we ever got from pro 400 speed stocks. Shooting at ISO 800 used to be big decision in terms of factoring in the cost of lost image quality, now you don't even think twice about it.

When you can half your lighting budget, eliminate processing and scanning costs, maintain the look of film, and have more flexibility in post than you ever could have imagined, film just doesn't seem to make sense anymore.
 
Film is a medium. An artistic medium. To suggest that film is dead is like saying that when photography was invented painting was dead. It's like suggesting that oil painting is dead because of watercolor. It makes no sense.

Many video artists are using VHS camera's to record installations. As much as I think VHS is dead, it is still being used as an artistic medium, as film will be for many years to come.

David



It has nothing to do with cost. Film is the cheapest thing about making a film.
 
Blanket

Blanket

kmikami said:
To answer the original question, I don't think that HD is dead. How many films are finished with a 2k DI? And 1080p delivery formats are just getting started. How many 4k projectors and monitors exist in the country at the moment?

Just as a thought experiment, if a camera came out tomorrow that was everything Red is but only shot 1080p and cost $2000, you can bet that there will be a million indie productions shot with it. Or if there were a new camera that only did 2k but far outperformed the Red in dynamic range I'm sure many productions would adopt that format.
Click to expand...

The mother of all blanket statements.
Got to be more specific! How do you define "HD"?

HD camcorders to shoot theatrical release, possibly are dead.
HD cameras to shoot low budget movies shorts and commercials maybe.
RED will shoot some docs but not all.
But most other uses which HD cameras are put to at the moment will continue to be shot with "HD" ie defined for the momnet as "non single chip cameras" which will continue to get better.


Mike Brennan




Mike Brennan
 
RED vs FILM...
Its like compare McDonalds with good european restaurant :biggrin:
 
Kokinos Fotographos said:
For me film isn't dead. It never will be. And I have yet to see a digital camera actually look like film. I don't think it will ever happen.
Click to expand...

Even Kodak thinks film will eventually go away! The unbelievable for me is how on earth we took so long to surpass a medium that started more than 100 years ago.

Digital acquisition will only get better. To the point that it will be an impossibility for film to keep up. The birth of RED only marks the point in time when film will start to fall behind.

The achievement in my opinion is not for digital to look like film. It is to look better than film.
 
Miltos Pilalitos said:
The unbelievable for me is how on earth we took so long to surpass a medium that started more than 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

Because the technology is inherently superior - digital is some respects a very limited way of recording and storing information. It just so happens to be a very convenient one. The real revolution will be whatever technology replaces digital (and I'm not just talking about cameras).

Also, it's worth remembering that film hasn't stood still. It may have started 100 years ago, but that means it's had 100 years of development. It's no wonder competing has proved difficult.
 
Stephen Webb said:
Because the technology is inherently superior - digital is some respects a very limited way of recording and storing information. It just so happens to be a very convenient one. The real revolution will be whatever technology replaces digital (and I'm not just talking about cameras).

Also, it's worth remembering that film hasn't stood still. It may have started 100 years ago, but that means it's had 100 years of development. It's no wonder competing has proved difficult.
Click to expand...

Of course "digital" doesn't imply a particular technology. Film is effectively digital in that it has grains which are either on or off.

M
 
Kokinos Fotographos said:
For me film isn't dead. It never will be. And I have yet to see a digital camera actually look like film. I don't think it will ever happen.
Click to expand...

Now that's just plain stupid speak. Unless you believe film operates in some super paranormal dimension beyond the mortal realm of time and space where physics and math rule digital *will* perfectly emulate film and it *will* surpass it.

If you could capture a 32bit perfectly linear HDR image of the world @ 16k and had sufficient processing power you could theoretically simulate the formation and exposure of billions of crystals.

There is this concept that floats around that digital *can't* do this or it *can't* do that. But it's rediculous. Digital *can* simulate anything that exists in the universe given enough processor power and clever programming.

Thanks to Moore's law some things are getting easier to brute force than ever before.

Filming is going to become 'capturing reality' before too long. Capture your scene. Load it into your MayAXSI WaveODO Brush 4.0. Choose your angle, lens, tweak the lighting a bit use a 'retro' 5217 stock. Retime the scene perhaps and output.

That's what'll replace digital sensors. Raytracing combined with image analysis and reality capture.

Beowulf is going to be the first film to club handedly muck around in the the pantry exploring this, but it'll some day make filming completely obsolete
 
Martin said:
Of course "digital" doesn't imply a particular technology. Film is effectively digital in that it has grains which are either on or off.
Click to expand...

Or somewhere inbetween :sarcasm:

Miltos Pilalitos said:
Alien technology? :biggrin:
Click to expand...

It'll happen (not the alien bit, the replacement-for-digital bit). Nowt lasts forever.
 
I don't quite get the "You could shoot on HD for the same price as the RED" line of thinking. How do you figure? I guess it depends what you consider HD. I consider the HVX-200 HD, because it is HD, and I consider the XH-A1 and those kinds of HDV cameras to be HD, because they are also HD. And they don't cost a fraction of what the RED and its related accessories cost. I mean there's no comparison.

I'm a HUGE Red fan, heck, my business now has three on order and we'll have four by early next week. But it's not cheap equipment. It's inexpensive compared to the Sony F950 or something, sure, but compared to stuff like the HVX-200 or whatever, no, it's not cheap. It's still quite expensive.

Obviously the quality is better, but for us, it makes more sense to film low budget music videos on high level prosumer camera because if it's only going to be shown online or on TV anyway, we can get a nice enough look without risking our extremely expensive RED packages to get that. Better to rent them out on the side if the clients aren't willing to pay the extra price for better picture quality they might not notice too much if they're mainly playing their music video on YouTube, which is a likelihood for low budget clients. We're saving our REDs for personal projects, rentals, and high budget clients. Oh you want a music video for $7,000? Sure, we can do that, no problem. You get the XH-A1. You have $15,000? We'll film with the RED, sweet.

But for us film isn't dead, it just was a total non-issue. Film to me isn't dead or alive, it's just not an option I care about whatsoever. It's like 8-track players or vinyl. I'm aware that they exist, and I have seen pictures of them, and am also aware they were the only ways you could hear recorded music for some time, but beyond that I've never owned either and have no interest in them. They belong in museums. Film is exactly the same thing. It worked beautifully for long, no need to diss it, you can obviously (duh) get incredible images from 35mm film, it's been the standard by which all other mediums must be judged for decades upon decades. But it's not "alive" for us because we have no interest in using it, no experience shooting with film, and don't care for any of the hassles that go along with the process, whether that's during production or post-production. So thank you, film, for giving me so many great movies of the past. You will be fondly remembered. But the future belongs to ultra high def. like the RED One.
 
Stephen Webb said:
Or somewhere inbetween :sarcasm:
Click to expand...

No. The individual particles of silver halide are either on or off. The size of the particle determines how much light is required to make them developable.

M

:innocent:
 
Martin said:
No. The individual particles of silver halide are either on or off. The size of the particle determines how much light is required to make them developable.
Click to expand...

But in colour film the silver halide is washed out, and the coupler dye that is left behind is neither "on" nor "off", it comes in shades :usd:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokinos Fotographos
"For me film isn't dead. It never will be. And I have yet to see a digital camera actually look like film. I don't think it will ever happen."

im.thatoneguy said:
Now that's just plain stupid speak. Unless you believe film operates in some super paranormal dimension beyond the mortal realm of time and space where physics and math rule digital *will* perfectly emulate film and it *will* surpass it.

If you could capture a 32bit perfectly linear HDR image of the world @ 16k and had sufficient processing power you could theoretically simulate the formation and exposure of billions of crystals.

There is this concept that floats around that digital *can't* do this or it *can't* do that. But it's rediculous. Digital *can* simulate anything that exists in the universe given enough processor power and clever programming.

Thanks to Moore's law some things are getting easier to brute force than ever before.

Filming is going to become 'capturing reality' before too long. Capture your scene. Load it into your MayAXSI WaveODO Brush 4.0. Choose your angle, lens, tweak the lighting a bit use a 'retro' 5217 stock. Retime the scene perhaps and output.

That's what'll replace digital sensors. Raytracing combined with image analysis and reality capture.

Beowulf is going to be the first film to club handedly muck around in the the pantry exploring this, but it'll some day make filming completely obsolete
Click to expand...

Why do people have to insult each other ? I'm that one guy, read what your answering to again.

"For ME film is not dead." He's expressing his opinion, and come to think about it, all the movie theaters in my town are showing films on film, so...

"It never will be." Again it's his opinion. I tend to think one should never say "never". Now it depends what you call dead. It is true today, film is considered the best archival medium for motion pictures. They are transfered to three B&W prints, one for each color. In that sense, film will still be around for quite some time.

"I have yet to see a digital camera actually look like film." You can't discuss what he's seen ot not.

"I don't think it will ever happen." Again, his opinion, clearly stated. He doesn't think so. I certainly think we're not there yet, I also don't think you can get film to look like Red. They're different beasts. Film has a look, which we may be one day capable of emulating, but it will be hard due to the organic nature of film. We'll probably manage it someday, but then again, is that the goal ?

I must say, these discussions about film being dead really tire me. Red is a new tool. It is a very high quality tool and it's different than film. Some will still prefer film, some Red, and the smart ones will like each one for it's particularities, maybe with a preference.

Long live film, long live Red. The more (tools) the better.

Cheers,
Damien

PS I think I already prefer Red, even if I haven't shot with one yet, because of the quality and it's ease and price of use, yet I still love film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top