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 is officially dead...

I really think this is on the low-resolution end of the spectrum only. 70mm film, IMAX and even s35 will probably be safe for sometime due to tonal range, resolution, and workflow/storage issues. In fact, if one of these companies would just invest in the technology to make it super inexpensive to digitize 35mm film straight to CinemaDNG format, they might get another five to ten years out of film. IMHO.

-shooter
 
There is now only room for one or two big players in the shrinking film market. Kodak and... Fuji? There just isn't enough film purchasing going on these days to keep all these old film manufactures going.

Film ain't dead quite yet, but it's days are numbered. Technology marches on. One day I'll be obsolete.
________
P50
 
Ethan Cooper said:
There is now only room for one or two big players in the shrinking film market. Kodak and... Fuji? There just isn't enough film purchasing going on these days to keep all these old film manufactures going.
Click to expand...

I think Kodak makes more money from print film and not from film negative. So digital cameras are probably not going to put a dent into Kodak's business; digital projection will.
 
Film should be around for sometime, even if it's not the capture medium. It's just a fact that it lasts and stores better than any digital format. Film is a much cheaper, safer, stabler means for archival.

10 years ago Kodak had been working on some technology to store data on film optically. I think they abandoned it but still hold the patents. Maybe they'll change their minds soon?
 
ayarbro said:
Film should be around for sometime, even if it's not the capture medium. It's just a fact that it lasts and stores better than any digital format. Film is a much cheaper, safer, stabler means for archival.
Click to expand...

that is a misconception many people have. analogue/mechanical concept for long time archival are inferior for almost *any* media.

- film cant be backed up perfectly as archival format.
and therefore also cant be duplicated in master quality for presentations.

- film *will* loose quality, slowly, but certainly.
digital archives require more attention but can be stored w/o any quality loss. stored digital, at 3 locations, copied every 5 years, no quality decrease at all will happen.

- film isnt cheaper. film is more expensive.
A terrabyte harddisk, storing roughly >7 hours of red footage costs less than 100€.

- No DI master, or red footage, or HDCAM etc cant be archived on film in *original* quality.
film has always inferior quality compared to the digital master.

film will stay, but in a niche.
 
someone should devise a way to store digital losslessly compressed content onto 35mm film for archiving, micro feche style, keep both mediums alive and manufactured, everyone a winner
 
nope , film will be still here but not in massproduction
 
Film Dead ???

Film Dead ???

What, are you kidding ? Has anyone here shot the new 5219 / 7219 500T ?
The stuff sees more than the eye. Recently I used 7219 with my Aaton XTR,
wanted to shoot wide open at a T2.2. I was lighting with 12 Footcandles!!!
An HD transfer was gorgeous. So shut up already.
I'm guessing a lot of people here that like to think film is dead are people that have not really shot much film. They complain about "work flow" and the lab.
I , for one, quite like waiting overnight to see my footage, never thought of it as being a hassle. Besides, if you know what you're doing with a light meter
and you know your stock, You've already seen your footage in a crisp clean ground glass viewfinder.

my 2 frames
 
Maybe there is going to be a digital version of the Polaroid camera with built-in inkjet printer. ;)
 
Every day I come to this forum I see some comment that we made on a still photo shoot years ago. Time was we always used a Polaroid to check lighting setup and such, not anymore. Looking back, wasn't that a goofy way to check for exposure? At the time it seemed like a no brainer. Is digital perfect? Not by a long shot. Will it replace film, eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top