The death of film???

[Damien Molineaux]

RED vs FILM...
Its like compare McDonalds with good european restaurant :biggrin:

Uh ? What ?

What's McD and what's the european restaurant ?

Are you trying to diss Red or do you really not like film, or is it that you think McD is great ?

Film is not one thing, there are so many types of film and so many ways to work with it, if you haven't seen beautiful things on film, I'm sorry for you.

But maybe it's Red you're comparing to McD, what are you basing your judgement on. Red is a new tool. Let's wait and see what some people manage to make with it. I've seen horrible things on film and I'm sure we'll see horrible things shot on Red, doesn't mean it's not capable of making beautiful images.

Why am I even answering this silly comment...

 

[Desert Rune]

Film is analog. Analog has no place in our digital world.

It's only a matter of time before film is dead, like it is happening with photography and already with videotape.

 

[Joel Kaye]

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.

Shoot the same music video with a RED and the HVX put them both on TV and see if you can tell the difference.

Most music videos with a budget of $25K+ shoot 35mm for a really good reason.

I think renting a RED in a year from now will be pretty cheap. Music videos have been one day shoots typically. To me music videos are prime RED territory. Unless you're servicing the no budget market. With ANY budget the first thing I'd do is rent a RED.

 

[Joel Kaye]

As to the debate around film becoming dead. The SLR market shows the way. Yeah you can still buy film. Barely. Can you buy a 35mm film slr right now? Barely. Nikon stopped R&D on 35mm film cameras. It's turning into super 8mm. Functionally it's dead but not dead technically.

We haven't spoken at all about movie delivery though. Right now movies are delivered to theaters on FILM. So there are A LOT of films sales. In the past few years we've had a fair number of blockbusters shooting over a million feet of film. That's helped film sales a lot.

And then there's the military. The military uses film too... and I think quite a lot of it. Any time they are running very high speed tests. So film will remain.

I think there's another point at hand though. And that's when a DP is allowed to choose RED over film for a high end project in any of the major studios then film functionally ceases to matter. That's a significant watermark and we'll probably see it within a year.

But David Mullen is right - we're going to see old pros shooting digital and new college kids shooting film.

I personally think RED (or other 35mm DOF digital) will steal narrative TV show production from Film and other HD cameras over the next years. And I think it'll dominate low budget movies. I don't think it'll touch reality TV... but it might be used as the "Glam Cam". I'm unclear about nature docs - clearly some guys here who do that are very excited about RED.

I wonder what Mark Cuban is thinking right now...

 

[David Battistella]

Well technically thats not always true.

Craig. I agree. I was loosely paraphrasing a Robert Altman quote I once heard. When asked about his long takes and about all of the film he used his reply was, "the film is the cheapest thing about making a film". IN the context of a fully budgeted film inwhich all of the players are being paid, etc. the cost of film and filming is relatively (percentage wise) very, very cheap.

David

 

[M Most]

Film is analog. Analog has no place in our digital world.

Light is analog. CCD's are analog. CMOS is analog. Anything that lives in the real world - i.e., light - is analog by definition. Anything "digital" is a very approximate representation of that reality. All light capturing devices are analog, although what comes out of them can then be digitized to represent a lower resolution version - which is exactly what happens with CCD's, CMOS, and any other light measuring technology.

Besides, for archival purposes, analog representations - such as film negative - are self descriptive. Shine a light through it and you recapture what's on it. Anything digital must by necessity be accompanied by instructions as to how to reconstruct the information that's represented. This means a description of the file format, what's in that file, and how to reconstruct it - including any compression information. If you're looking for reasons why film is still the "standard" archival medium for every studio in existence, that's one of them.

 

[GlennChan]

Analog has no place in our digital world.

Digital signals are transmitted as... wait for it... analog electrical signals.

But regardless, you have to look at your needs and figure out which is the appropriate tool. For archival film definitely has many good properties (e.g. it has a proven history of lasting a long time). For acquisition film has less and less of a quality advantage over digital/video. Though it still has advantages like high speed.

For projection, film has some advantages and disadvantages compared to digital projection (see NATO's report).

 

[kmikami]

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

No, saying that Red has killed HD is a blanket statement. Saying, as I did, that perhaps HD isn't quite dead yet is a pretty reasonable position to take. I'm not sure why you quoted me since you seem to be agreeing with what I said.

 

[kmikami]

Digital signals are transmitted as... wait for it... analog electrical signals.

I'm pretty sure they're transmitted as digital electrical signals. :wink:
I understand that you're trying to argue that the electrical signal itself is analog but that doesn't exactly make sense. The signal is carrying information in a digital format. The electricity itself is neither digital nor analog.

 

[oldphart]

Light is analog. CCD's are analog. CMOS is analog. Anything that lives in the real world - i.e., light - is analog by definition. Anything "digital" is a very approximate representation of that reality...

Not really. Analog is just an approximation to reality which happens to work when you deal with very large samples of the universe. Light comes as photons, and one of the biggest sources of noise in small-pixel detectors is the statistical distribution of the photons. There is no way to detect half a photon, because it does not exist.

The same goes for your CCD - it is conveniently treated as analog because the crude technology we have been using does not measure the exact number of electrons in each CCD bucket. The same applies to film - we started with a process where millions of photons had to give their energy to a lump of silver salts to turn it into a lump of silver crystals. Then came the developer, and it took a lot fewer photons to make the same amount of silver.

The perfect chemical film would have molecules which interact with one photon of a given frequency to give one stable dye molecule with the appropriate resonant frequency. I doubt that type of film will be developed, but if it was it would not have any grain structure above the molecular level.

The perfect electronic flat-image detector will have pixels the size of photons of the frequencies we will want to record, and it will give us one bitcount for each photon. We are probably years away from it, but it is not improbable that we will get there.

Just like there are people who chip away at blocks of granite to make sculptures, there will be people who make flat pictures with the whole range of methods we have developed up to today even after those perfected recording methods have been developed. Their customers will be collectors and museums, and some of the best will probably be famous even outside the cultural elite.

When I retire, it is not unlikely that I will make film from the raw ingredients to use in my historical cameras. It will be impractical, expensive, and time consuming, but fun - and it will be the right kind of film for 100 years old equipment. It will not keep film "alive" any more than my new latin dictionary is making latin a living language, though.

 

[Jason Murphy]

When I retire, it is not unlikely that I will make film from the raw ingredients to use in my historical cameras. It will be impractical, expensive, and time consuming, but fun - and it will be the right kind of film for 100 years old equipment.

That's excellent. Man after my own heart.

 

[number6]

Not really. Analog is just an approximation to reality which happens to work when you deal with very large samples of the universe. Light comes as photons, and one of the biggest sources of noise in small-pixel detectors is the statistical distribution of the photons. There is no way to detect half a photon, because it does not exist.

The same goes for your CCD - it is conveniently treated as analog because the crude technology we have been using does not measure the exact number of electrons in each CCD bucket. The same applies to film - we started with a process where millions of photons had to give their energy to a lump of silver salts to turn it into a lump of silver crystals. Then came the developer, and it took a lot fewer photons to make the same amount of silver.

The perfect chemical film would have molecules which interact with one photon of a given frequency to give one stable dye molecule with the appropriate resonant frequency. I doubt that type of film will be developed, but if it was it would not have any grain structure above the molecular level.

The perfect electronic flat-image detector will have pixels the size of photons of the frequencies we will want to record, and it will give us one bitcount for each photon. We are probably years away from it, but it is not improbable that we will get there.

Just like there are people who chip away at blocks of granite to make sculptures, there will be people who make flat pictures with the whole range of methods we have developed up to today even after those perfected recording methods have been developed. Their customers will be collectors and museums, and some of the best will probably be famous even outside the cultural elite.

When I retire, it is not unlikely that I will make film from the raw ingredients to use in my historical cameras. It will be impractical, expensive, and time consuming, but fun - and it will be the right kind of film for 100 years old equipment. It will not keep film "alive" any more than my new latin dictionary is making latin a living language, though.

Great post, OP. You took something complex and made it resonate with those of us who oversimplify.

 

[Mike Smith]

Not really. Analog is just an approximation to reality which happens to work when you deal with very large samples of the universe. Light comes as photons, and one of the biggest sources of noise in small-pixel detectors is the statistical distribution of the photons. There is no way to detect half a photon, because it does not exist.

The same goes for your CCD - it is conveniently treated as analog because the crude technology we have been using does not measure the exact number of electrons in each CCD bucket. The same applies to film - we started with a process where millions of photons had to give their energy to a lump of silver salts to turn it into a lump of silver crystals. Then came the developer, and it took a lot fewer photons to make the same amount of silver.

The perfect chemical film would have molecules which interact with one photon of a given frequency to give one stable dye molecule with the appropriate resonant frequency. I doubt that type of film will be developed, but if it was it would not have any grain structure above the molecular level.

The perfect electronic flat-image detector will have pixels the size of photons of the frequencies we will want to record, and it will give us one bitcount for each photon. We are probably years away from it, but it is not improbable that we will get there.

Just like there are people who chip away at blocks of granite to make sculptures, there will be people who make flat pictures with the whole range of methods we have developed up to today even after those perfected recording methods have been developed. Their customers will be collectors and museums, and some of the best will probably be famous even outside the cultural elite.

When I retire, it is not unlikely that I will make film from the raw ingredients to use in my historical cameras. It will be impractical, expensive, and time consuming, but fun - and it will be the right kind of film for 100 years old equipment. It will not keep film "alive" any more than my new latin dictionary is making latin a living language, though.

Actually, you cannot say quantum particles such as photons and electrons make this a digital world. Don't forget that little thing called wave-particle duality where a photon or electron exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior. And in any case, you're taking the analog/digital argument to irrelevant extremes. You will never be able to record anything at quantum levels. From Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the mere act of trying to observe a photon or electron - let alone manipulate it - will affect it. So you will never be able to record data at the quantum level. It's an impossibility of physics. For some gory details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

The terms analog and digital used here refer to how data is represented. In the analog world, for example film, as mmost says, the data is recorded directly as a series of images. Digital data on the other hand has to be represented in an abstract kind of way. It doesn't really matter how. For example, you could represent a number as how many kinks you put in a piece of string provided those that need to recover this info know that's what they mean. Representing a movie digitally this way is possible but of course ridiculously time consuming and impractical. But you could do it. You can represent data as levels of magnetism on magnetic tape. But you cannot represent it this way at the quantum level. You can only do so at a magnetic domain level where a large and unknowable number of magnetised atoms are involved. You can record an analog signal this way, or, using a known method of representation, you can record digital this way too. The method of recording either is the same; varying the magnetisation of magnetic domains on the tape.

 

[Desert Rune]

Vmax, funny you bring this up. I'm listening to The Universe in a Single Atom audiobook right now, which talks about quantum physics as it relates to human consciousness.

 

[mezmo]

Hi Guys,
Trying to understand the *film is dead*, *Video is dead* thing.
Although it helps the Red marketing compaign no end I think
a lot of this is based on fear. Fear of not being accepted with my
bright new shiny RED one, fear of losing work for my film/HDvideo
gear. Don't panick. There's enough work on the planet for all people
and all cameras cause EVERY JOB IS DIFFERENT.
Keep that in mind and happy shooting all.
Mezmo

 

[Mike Smith]

There is no doubt in my mind that you're right. There will be an increasing need for visual media in coming years. There will be plenty of room for all formats. There will be some folks that won't be caught dead using anything but film to make movies etc.. But the RED camera will be accepted by those artists who couldn't care less how the movie is captured. RED's future is very much assured merely by what it offers. But film has some very important advantages. It has a wide latitude and it is self-archiving. (To some degree at least. It may need to be converted to that 500 year RGB monochrome thing that Steven Williams mentioned way back inpost #4 for more permanent archiving.) Digital data still has to be represented in some form of media. If that media deteriorates, it is no more permanent than analog data in the same media (magnetic tape for example). The person/company that solves this problem will do very well indeed!

In the HD world, I like the XDCam EX workflow. It will have an optical disk drive available to archive recordings I think for under $1500. These disks have a shelf life of 50 years. That's at least reasonable. As a RED reservation holder myself, I hope that a similar system becomes available for RED or any other camera system. I think the XDCam drive only works with the XDCam system. I don't like the idea that my data has to permanently exist only on spinning hard drives even in a RAID system.

 

[number6]

Actually, you cannot say quantum particles such as photons and electrons make this a digital world. Don't forget that little thing called wave-particle duality where a photon or electron exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior. And in any case, you're taking the analog/digital argument to irrelevant extremes. You will never be able to record anything at quantum levels. From Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the mere act of trying to observe a photon or electron - let alone manipulate it - will affect it. So you will never be able to record data at the quantum level. It's an impossibility of physics. For some gory details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

The terms analog and digital used here refer to how data is represented. In the analog world, for example film, as mmost says, the data is recorded directly as a series of images. Digital data on the other hand has to be represented in an abstract kind of way. It doesn't really matter how. For example, you could represent a number as how many kinks you put in a piece of string provided those that need to recover this info know that's what they mean. Representing a movie digitally this way is possible but of course ridiculously time consuming and impractical. But you could do it. You can represent data as levels of magnetism on magnetic tape. But you cannot represent it this way at the quantum level. You can only do so at a magnetic domain level where a large and unknowable number of magnetised atoms are involved. You can record an analog signal this way, or, using a known method of representation, you can record digital this way too. The method of recording either is the same; varying the magnetisation of magnetic domains on the tape.

ummmm, ditto what I said about OP's post. But if either of you guys bring up neutrinos or quarks, I'm outta here!

 

[Greg Voevodsky]

Hi,

Film works and is proven. Many people don't like digital. Digital will increase in popularity but I personally believe film will be used for many years to come. I dissagree strongly that film is dead, infact I hate the expression. I do agree however that a very strong contender for motion picture capture is available via Red's camera and as another high end option for film makers this is a very good thing.

Paul

PAUL - where were you when the film SLR died. In less than 5 years, still photography is now all 95% digital.... and so in 5 years so will Hollywood both in production and projection. The projection deal is about done.

Also, Avid killed Moviola and flatbeads in about the same time forcing a lot of editors into early retirement! I'd say RED is the Hinderberg for film... in 2-3 years.... film Kodac and Fuji could be gone... in terms of any market much like the still market.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Film to me isn't dead or alive, it's just not an option I care about whatsoever.

I couldn't agree more. I'm 24. Practically all of the media I consume comes through a computer. Practically all of my creative and/or professional output is computer-based in some way. I've taken probably tens of thousands of photos in my life -- and 99% of them have been digital. I'm extremely comfortable in the digital world. It's where I spend a substantial amount of my life.

I don't "hate film" -- it's just not something that's really on the radar for me. Even with unlimited money, I'd pick Red over shooting film. It's something that belongs to the world I live in. Film simply isn't. I don't think I'm alone, in my age group. This is ultimately what will marginalize film -- a new generation of filmmakers who've grown up in a digital world.

 

[David Battistella]

I couldn't agree more. I'm 24. Practically all of the media I consume comes through a computer. Practically all of my creative and/or professional output is computer-based in some way. I've taken probably tens of thousands of photos in my life -- and 99% of them have been digital. I'm extremely comfortable in the digital world. It's where I spend a substantial amount of my life.

I don't "hate film" -- it's just not something that's really on the radar for me. Even with unlimited money, I'd pick Red over shooting film. It's something that belongs to the world I live in. Film simply isn't. I don't think I'm alone, in my age group. This is ultimately what will marginalize film -- a new generation of filmmakers who've grown up in a digital world.

Chris,

Your post is so nicely wriiten. It is precisly the matter of factness that this whole arguement needs. It makes perfect sense. The digital world is really the world that matters.

For anyone who works with film, there will be nostalgia, but your post rings very true. As beautiful as film is, it will not matter to the future of film making.

david