I guess time will tell on this one. Like with revisiting masters and footage from now in say 50-60 years. Or 100 years. I say footage from now because no sort of long term, totally safe mastering format exists just yet. I would wager to say that in 50-60 years the specifics of digital/computer technology will be radically different, and the specifics of analog technologies will still be fundamentally the same. So, if given 2 masters to revisit in the future, which do you think you would try to work with first? I can imagine what hell it will be for people trying to revisit 4k masters from today... "I can't track down hardware that will run this codec...this doesn't have a SATA port so I need to find a box that has one of those...oh no the disk crashed." With analog formats, although it won't be easy by any stetch, I think that at any point it would probably be easier to track down and assemble the components to build a projector than say a video card with 4k output or what have you.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
NAB thoughts
- Thread starter Tonaci Tran
- Start date
I guess time will tell on this one. Like with revisiting masters and footage from now in say 50-60 years. Or 100 years. I say footage from now because no sort of long term, totally safe mastering format exists just yet. I would wager to say that in 50-60 years the specifics of digital/computer technology will be radically different, and the specifics of analog technologies will still be fundamentally the same. So, if given 2 masters to revisit in the future, which do you think you would try to work with first? I can imagine what hell it will be for people trying to revisit 4k masters from today... "I can't track down hardware that will run this codec...this doesn't have a SATA port so I need to find a box that has one of those...oh no the disk crashed." With analog formats, although it won't be easy by any stetch, I think that at any point it would probably be easier to track down and assemble the components to build a projector than say a video card with 4k output or what have you.
- Banned
- #42
Mardi_Gras
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Hollywood Reporter's piece on the short film.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003572364
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003572364
- Moderator
- #43
Jeff Kilgroe
Well-known member
Digital / data archives don't work this way. They are meant to evolve over time, not sit on a shelf indefinitely. And you can bet that in 50-60 years that analog technologies like 35mm film will become rather scarce. The revolution is here now and it's only a matter of time before 35mm production shifts from mainstream production to perpetuated art. And from there it will become nostalgic and then antique. Just because it has been with us for some time doesn't mean it will be here for just as long.
Coming from an IT background myself, I find the concepts of film archival to be outdated and inadequate. All the time we hear about film restoration and the work that must be done to locate decent film prints to work from so that digital / HD masters can be created for DVD production, etc.. Even with films that are less than 15 years old.
Whatever I create digitally now and for the rest of my life will be around at least that long... Barring catastrophic world events / nuclear war or that sort of thing. Hopefully my work will eventually be important enough that someone will maintain it long after my passing and not leave it to rot on some piece of holographic media somewhere. Same can be said for film... Where would most film works from the 50's be now if not kept in properly climate-controlled conditions or even accidentally ideal conditions? Same can be said for data storage formats... Right now, I agree that there's no truly perfect archival method for digital media. But there is no such thing for analog either and I would say that for long-term storage, digital will be vastly superior. Every time an archive is re-visited and re-consolidated to new storage media, the data requirements are more and more trivial. Every copy is a perfect 1:1 representation of the original. That can't be said for an analog medium. As for support of codecs and formats, that information is easy to propegate as well and maintain for future use. It's all about information and the flow of it. If the information stops flowing and is allowed to stagnate on an intermediate format (placing an LTO tape on a shelf for 40 years), that's a problem... But so is placing a 35mm film reel on a shelf too.
nobodySpecial
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Uggh. We really don't want to get into that here. Sysadmins have been going around and around on the question of data retention and migration for years. It's a problem for more than just video. The general consensus is "backup and migration". Backup data in case current tech fails, and have a systematic data migration plan for future technology. This includes getting rid of data that is no longer useful. For instance, you may want to keep your 4k RAW for the next 20 years, but do you really need that ProRes intermediate that you did for your HD deliverable? Probably not. It can be tossed after the contractually obligated time.
You also need to keep track of the formats of EVERYTHING you store long term. If RED were to go out of business in 10 years, you wouldn't want to come along in another 15 years and realize that you can no longer get to that file. You would need to "migrate" it to a new format when the old is no longer supported.
The great thing about digital versus analog is that, if done right (lossless formats), you can migrate digital data indefinitely with no generation loss. That 70 year old film will deteriorate, and every time you "migrate" it, you will lose data.
Perhaps we will reach a point were the rate of change in computing diminishes and data migrations are a once in a lifetime event. But for now, you can reasonably expect to migrate all your data at least a half dozen times in the next 50 years.
jonahlee
Member
I had been interested in the RED since it's first announcement, and my excitement had been building, but actually seeing the Peter Jackson footage, and the RAW footage of that shoot I am now a full fledged believer. I have never seen digital aquisition that so closely emulated the color and depth of field of film, except it looked better than film because there was no grain! I waited a full hour to see the RED, and it was completely worth it. I spent the rest of the show wandering around in a daze, with the lines "Film is dead, Long Live RED!!" repeating in my head over and over again.
Wow.
Wow.
Zakaree Sandberg
Well-known member
There is certainly no need for nostalgia to be grainy. It's probably more interesting if it's not.
put it like this...
Grainy = your watching a film
4k = your in the film
It's getting to the point where this is going to be true. However, I think that both of these things still have their places in cinema.
All very good points.
Having read through my posts again, I think I have made myself look like sort of a closed minded jerk...definitely not my intention. I believe that "hybrid" will be the wave of the future. My real thoughts go something like this..
The process of making a film can be broken into a few basic stages..
Production
Editing/Finishing
Distribution
Archival
So far, I think that film wins in the production stage for the reason that it is a more mature technology. Microprocessors and the like have been used to capture images for only a few decades. Film has more or less been refined continuously over the course of a century. Red and similar projects are going to close this gap once and for all, but once it is closed I don't believe that one can ever be completely superior to another in terms of certain uses and intentions.
Editing and Finishing are kind of a no-brainer at this point. Everyone but Spielburg works this way...(exaggeration). It's very fast, powerful, robust and non-destructive. It has caught on for a reason I suppose. Like any tool, it is only as good as the person using it. Don't get me started on the "Avid Farts" phenomenon...it will annoy you to hear me babble about it.
Digital completely wins in terms of distribution. It's the ultimate distribution format that has ever existed in terms of fidelity and convenience. Sure it would be nice if everyone could have a projector in home to screen celluloid prints...it would also be nice to have a solid gold house and a rocket car. It's kind of unsettling to think of how much better future digital distribution will be than the pan and scan VHS that I'm sure a lot of us grew up with.
The archival stage is perhaps where the benefits of a hybrid mindset would come in handy. Actively maintaining a two prong archival system is probably the best way to absolutely ensure that work will survive. If you can take the time to migrate your data every few years, I'm sure it's not that much more of a hassle to...make sure your analog media is still...sitting on the (climate controlled, cool, dry) shelf where you left it. At least as an insurance policy. Also, over time, as scanning processes and optics get better, new digital masters could potentially be created from the analog master that could then be reproduced with greater clarity than was previously achieved. More/better information can actually be pulled off of analog formats over time. Bits are just bits, you get what you have, so it's best to make sure you are happy with what you capture as you are capturing it. This is why I am so glad Red is closing this gap.
I kind of just wrote this for myself to organize my thoughts, and so I don't look like a complete ass on this message board. You can ignore me if you want, haha. I have to say though, it's great to be communicating with so many well-expressed and completely engaged people. It's inspiring.
- Thread starter
- #49
Tonaci Tran
Well-known member
With digital, it just makes moviemaking more effortless. I can focus on creating good visual content. Having zero experience with film, I can't imagine shooting something without having the immediate ability to review what I just shot. Thats the thing I can't get my head around. I know veterans are so good that they can nail it all the time.. I am amazed you can do a shoot and not have any idea what it looks like until day(s) later after the film is transferred. I saw the earlier argument about how film disciplines you with being more meticulous with what you record..but I see this as more of a handicap..a severe one. Having the ability to shoot hours of footage.. I don't feel bottlenecked.. more filming=more chances to get the best take. more chances to get those moments that you wouldnt' otherwis ebecause you are too busy reloading your film. If I immediately see what I am shooting..and have instant playback on set, I can know right then and there if I got it right. Within minutes I can make that decision to reshoot. For these main reasons, for me..digital wins in the production category hands down.
It's absolutely a positive thing, but if you appreciate the benefits of film, it is a tradeoff that must be dealt with on a production by production basis. If the convenience of a complete digital workflow is more important to you than the (different but not necessarily better) qualities that film imparts on your work, then by all means, go for it. In a lot of ways, it seems that filmmaking is about choosing the correct compromises and tradeoffs to make on a situational basis. This type of compromise or tradeoff is going to be more difficult to deal with as time goes on.
- Thread starter
- #51
Tonaci Tran
Well-known member
To clarify, not only the convenience..but quality (4k looks DAMN good), speed (record to red-drive. work on footage immediately) and cost (subtract film transfer cost).
If more people are exposed to footage..like Peter Jackson's RED demo, it will change their perception that film (grain) is necessary for that cinematic psychological/feel/look.
I think your points are extremely valid, but at the same time..this applies to the present perspective that filmmakers have in a film vs viper/cinealta environment. Film vs RED is a different ballgame. Film doesn't have the firm upper hand with RED as it did with viper/cinealtas.
With more perspectives from film guys like David Mullen saying "I would describe the look as something like 5245 50D 35mm scanned at 4K -- sharp & clean." there will be a point when shooting film isn't worth the higher cost and slower workflow.
If more people are exposed to footage..like Peter Jackson's RED demo, it will change their perception that film (grain) is necessary for that cinematic psychological/feel/look.
I think your points are extremely valid, but at the same time..this applies to the present perspective that filmmakers have in a film vs viper/cinealta environment. Film vs RED is a different ballgame. Film doesn't have the firm upper hand with RED as it did with viper/cinealtas.
With more perspectives from film guys like David Mullen saying "I would describe the look as something like 5245 50D 35mm scanned at 4K -- sharp & clean." there will be a point when shooting film isn't worth the higher cost and slower workflow.
Corrado Silveri
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,340
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Age
- 59
- Location
- Genoa, Italy
- Website
- www.e-motion.tv
There are many software utilities that can ADD grain in case you missed it.
I think about a quality work done (Furnace, just to name one).
Think about at the massive 3D production in the last 5 years... Anyone notice the lack of grain? Nope, because the grain was there.
So, what is the REAL problem?
I think about a quality work done (Furnace, just to name one).
Think about at the massive 3D production in the last 5 years... Anyone notice the lack of grain? Nope, because the grain was there.
So, what is the REAL problem?
If you want your work to reflect the attributes of a certain medium, and you are able to shoot on it, why not just shoot on it? Trying to add coloration after the fact is risky business. Just listen to some music recorded in the 80s...they used synths, recorded live sounds in completely dead environments and added fake ambiance with digital reverb. In the name of ease and convenience, all of the signals that they recorded were either synthetic or distorted in unrealistic ways. As a result of this, the music has aged poorly and it very strongly reflects the poor choices of the engineers that captured it. This is how I feel about fake grain and this sort of manipulation. I don't want to make something today and then watch it in a few years and say "Wish I shot that on film," or "I can't stand the look of that Pre-2009 fake analog noise!"
There is an adage from the film Wet Hot American Summer that I think sums this up nicely..."If you're gonna smear mud on your ass, smear mud on your ass...just don't lie about it."
Corrado Silveri
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,340
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Age
- 59
- Location
- Genoa, Italy
- Website
- www.e-motion.tv
I'm completely agree with you.
I will not add grain to a REDONE's footage.
I'm just pointing the fact that is actually "possible", with realistics and credible results.
Just that.
- Thread starter
- #55
Tonaci Tran
Well-known member
I haven't had a chance to see grindhouse..but in an earlier post quoting Robert Rodriguez "I told Quentin we could make a digital movie and have it look exactly like a film from the era."
Poorly executed film grain is one thing.. effective execution is another.
I think there will be a paradigm shift.. I agree that there will always be those like Speilberg who will stick with film until the end..and there will be situations where directors want film because of it's look...but.. in the next few years..feature films shot on film will become the minority and not the majority it is today. Not everyone shoots film because it's film. They shoot it because there hasn't been a viable alternative....until now.
It seems like we are "getting there" with digital, and I'm quite excited about the Peter Jackson footage. I think one of the big mistakes that the major film/analog apologists often make is to completely refuse to acknowledge that digital will come of age eventually (if it hasn't already). I still think that digital and film will always have their individual places, even if film one day shrinks to account for less than 1% of motion picture production. I still believe that no matter what, the manufacture of film should continue for (in order of importance) archival purposes, production and the undeniable nostalgia factor.
Maybe once I see the PJ footage I'll say once and for all, "That's it, we've arrived." Still, I will not see this arrival as a reason to outright ditch a well-refined and documented format that has dutifully served us for years. It will take more than that to completely push me over the edge about the usefulness of film, and the problem of archival formats is both difficult and extremely important. It must be standardized, refined, simplified and repeatedly verified. As of now, even if I've shot something that has been 100% digital, I'm still not ready to put all of my trust in one place in terms of preservation.
- Thread starter
- #57
Tonaci Tran
Well-known member
In terms of long life archiving.. film degrades.. digital doesn't. As for viable digital archiving alternatives.. there have been quite a few discussed here that provide 20-30 years life. LTO has been mentioned. I spoke with Deanan at NAB and he told me that he made like 5 backup copies onto five different drives. 500gb drives cost around 150 dollars nowadays. With 5 harddrive backups..and add on hd-dvd and blu ray when prices come down..and burn several copies of each.. I'd say your data will be pretty safe.. the chances of all of your hardrives failing at once would be pretty slim.
Jared VanLeuven
Over 4k served
True enough, El. I'll be avoiding grain-in-post, as a cleaner image makes for a much more efficient compressed file.
Saw "Crossing The Line" 3 times (yes, I was a RED tent junkie), and each time I was more blown away. I got caught up in the story the first time, totally forgot about looking objectively at the screen, it was that good! The absolute frosting on the cake was the latitude in the exposure. My goodness me.
This covers preservation of the data very well, but it does not cover the ability of future hardware to read that data properly without having to actively and repeatedly migrate to new formats as they arrive.
- Thread starter
- #60
Tonaci Tran
Well-known member
excellent point....i guess I'm just more optimistic about the lifespan of redcode raw. For example.. 4-5 years from now.. I'd imagine that thousands and thousands of footage will be stored in 4k red code raaw format. Just as I assume that Final Cut Pro will support red code for years and years to come, you are also assuming that future hardware will not be able to read Red Code and that it will eventually become obsolete to the point where we will need to migrate it. To me, it would be improbable that this much footage will be unreadable any time soon..and if and when that does happen..I also think that there will always be somebody somewhere who will write software to read Red Code raw due to demand... don't you see that red code will live forever?!!