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 Camera Department

chuckt said:
Venerable 35 mm film cameras have been successfully used in all terrain, and in all weather in jungle, in desert, in beaches, in dust storms, with or without electricity or battery charger or computers, with little or no maintenance.
That is the most widely used camera even in the poorest countries and dirtiest locations.
Contrary to popular belief, movie production is cheaper and simpler with film.
Over 5000 Theatrically released movies are made with it every year.
If I am stranded on an island, I would rather have a film camera and some film.
Give it some credit, fellas.
Click to expand...

Well in that case, I must of been in the company of some real prodigies if they were able to kaput that camera so easily.

I love film cameras too and now that they're coming down in price, I'm planning on buying one to put in my office. I have a couple of 16mm cameras that are great. I shot some of my short films with them. I love the smell of a freshly opened can of film.
 
Pana-tech said:
...I feel it's easier to get dirt inside an electronic camera. They have to be vented for cooling, granted, there are filters, but they are only so effective. The fans draw air into the camera... If the CF slot is not sealed, there's another entry point. I've removed more internal dirt from digital cine cameras than I have sealed film bodies.
Click to expand...

Think Red's internals are separated from the cooling, so are pretty well sealed - the main point of entry would be the lens mount.

Agree the current CF slot is unprotected which is a shame.
 
Pana-tech said:
Does not matter if it's $2 or 200million. I've been on all size budget sets, and have seen lots of things. Even on a $200 million film, with a camera dept of 9 staff, 20,000 feet of film shot a day, things can still get over looked.
Every set of circumstances are different.

I feel it's easier to get dirt inside an electronic camera. They have to be vented for cooling, granted, there are filters, but they are only so effective. The fans draw air into the camera... If the CF slot is not sealed, there's another entry point. I've removed more internal dirt from digital cine cameras than I have sealed film bodies.
Click to expand...

Too true. I have just finished working on a film (sorry, movie shot on video) and the intake vents on the camera kept getting clogged with crap just from the atmos in the studio. The worst you would get with a film camera is that you might have to give the outside of the body a clean off. The bits that matter (ie everywhere film goes) are sealed and easily cleaned. On the cameras we were using all that dust, etc was getting sucked into the depths of the camera. We had numerous other problems that you wouldn't have with a film camera, however not nearly as many reloads :-)
 
ericyoung said:
Think Red's internals are separated from the cooling, so are pretty well sealed - the main point of entry would be the lens mount.

Agree the current CF slot is unprotected which is a shame.
Click to expand...

If the internals are separated from the cooling system, and sealed, (Which they are not) it would not be a very effective cooling system. About the ONLY sealed item would be the Sensor and it's immediate cover glass. I'm not referring to the OLPF. Unless, the OLPF is actually part of the sensor as it is in other applications. You have to have airflow over the CPU's and processor PCBA's Look at your RED as a heat generator. You want the heat to be set free in the world, not stuck inside the camera.

The lens mount area is isolated from the sensor area by the OLPF. Beyond that filter, it's a secure area. Take a look at the bottom of each side, rows of vents to suck air in. Granted, they have some filtration , but they will pass some fine dust.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
Well in that case, I must of been in the company of some real prodigies if they were able to kaput that camera so easily.

I love film cameras too and now that they're coming down in price, I'm planning on buying one to put in my office. I have a couple of 16mm cameras that are great. I shot some of my short films with them. I love the smell of a freshly opened can of film.
Click to expand...

I recently found and developed film that was shot over 40 years ago and presumed lost. You know what, I got the whole film in pretty good condition. Most of the digital stuff I shot in the last 15 years are lost one way or another: mostly hard drive problems or program glitches, viruses, or whatever. They are gone, kaput, vanished into thin air. Most of my film stuff is still around after 40 plus years. I can still scan them in 4K or 8K density and I can get perfect stills from each frame. Perfect film look and dof and what ever.

Many young and inexperienced professionals jump up and down after seeing a RED Camera, hug it, sleep holding it, etc. They shoot in 4K, process in 2K, copy to Disk and display a few stills on the RED user and they are in heaven. I would like to see what they really accomplish with this miracle box in the next 40 years. Would they find a hard disk, presumed lost, after 40 years and recover all the images intact?

Kodak is in financial trouble and the company may go under soon. The only profitable item in their lineup is 35 mm film stock. If there is enough demand, Kodak may continue to make film stock even after 2013. I am not certain about Fuji.

ARRI never made many cameras. They usually sell to rental companies. Single ARRI 535 camera can be used for making thousands of films. Film professionals do not buy these cameras. They only rent it when they have a serious movie to make. 99.99% of cinematographers are film camera users.

Video cameras are bought by amateurs and after the initial enthusiasm die out, become paper weight. Sony and Panasonic have sold tens of thousands of cameras. How many theatrical releases have come out of them?

It looks like, ARRI is in financial troubles and may soon go down too. Unless ARRI change their rental only ways and start selling D20 cameras to amateurs, ARRI will go down. As they say, past performance is no guarantee of future success.

BTW, people do not use Film because of smell of a freshly opened can of film. They use it because it is simple, easy to use, cheaper than digital in the long run, self archiving, practically indestructible, and simply perfect.
 
chuckt said:
Would they find a hard disk, presumed lost, after 40 years and recover all the images intact?
Click to expand...

This post is useless without pictures, chuckt.

BUT - one of the challenges/commitments of digital acquisition is ensuring your media is future proof and being prepared to update your storage methods as old ones become obsolete. This is why people are talking about LTO3 tape as an archival medium. The LTO standard includes strict rules about backwards compatibility with tapes made on previous generations of gear.

You seem to know a surprising amount about the financial situations of very closely held companies. Like many people here (at least those who haven't figured out the ignore function) I'm curious about your background.

PS. Film smells good.
 
Stop being so afraid Chuck... Things change, it's a fact of life.

Yes, film probably has a longer lifespan than magnetic media in many cases, but that's certainly not always true. Leave it in adverse conditions and you'll have nothing great after 10 years.

I still have a hard drive I purchased in the mid-90's, I plugged it in a few 1months ago and it fired up no problem. All the data I cared to look at was there, and it's been stored in a cardboard box of crap for the last 10 years or so.

Yeah, I agree that the digital age is somewhat sad in that respect - it's unlikely that my grandkids will find a box of my old photos in the attic one day, but it's certainly possible to keep data for an extended period if you put a little effort and thought in to it.
 
chuckt said:
Kodak is in financial trouble and the company may go under soon. The only profitable item in their lineup is 35 mm film stock. If there is enough demand, Kodak may continue to make film stock even after 2013. I am not certain about Fuji.
Click to expand...

Kodak's problems stem from short-sighted management more interested in the next quarter than the next quarter century. You should write them a thank you note. It was their inaction and lack of vision that tilted the game in Red's favor. You don't like digital cameras? Blame Kodak, not Jim Jannard.
 
chuckt said:
BTW, people do not use Film because of smell of a freshly opened can of film. They use it because it is simple, easy to use, cheaper than digital in the long run, self archiving, practically indestructible, and simply perfect.
Click to expand...

I almost agree wholeheartedly with your statement, but you forgot film is wasteful, destructive to the environment, expensive, and needlessly inefficient and overly reliant on 19th century business models.

There are cheaper, more efficient ways to string images together at 24 fps as our Red User Sisters and Brothers are demonstrating with their footage. Pissing contest over, I win.
 
chuckt said:
IMost of the digital stuff I shot in the last 15 years are lost one way or another: mostly hard drive problems or program glitches, viruses, or whatever. They are gone, kaput, vanished into thin air. Most of my film stuff is still around after 40 plus years.
Click to expand...

That's funny, because I still have the very first thing I edited on an NLE back in 1995 or so.

As for my other digital files, I have writing, animations, 3D renders, project files, computer programs, dating back from pre 1990 or so.

I was 10 years old back then but it looks like I still had better data retention practices than you.

Good grief man, how hard is it to just buy larger hard drives and move your old stuff across?

Storage is going to continue to get cheaper and better throughout our lifetimes.

The main reason digital files get lost more easily than film cans is that people don't treat it properly - eg don't make redundant backups, and / or stupidly delete stuff. Fix that and you fix the problem.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
I have Music CDs that are over 20 years old. DVDs going on 12.
I can rip either one and extract something to edit. I don't have to rely on someone else maintaining a film archive for me.

This is all about proper backup discipline. Hopefully BluRay data disks will be affordable and reliable enough you can pick them up 40 years from now and extract information. I won't be surprised if new affordable long term optical storage technologies come out within 10 years that far surpase BluRay.

Didn't the original Star Wars master decompose so badly they had to resucue it by transferring to another film stock?
 
Zeke, I'm not an archivist, but I would say that each type of "archiving" is imperfect.
Are you referring to store-bought CDs and DVDs? They are pressed from a matrix. The 1s and 0s are actual holes in the aluminum layer. They will last a looooong time, unless they develop the dreaded "rot"...
"Burned" optical media is actually just exposed organic dyes on the otherwise "blank" disc and are subject to frequent failure. So tread carefully here.
Bruce,
I think you have hit the nail on the head. You can successfully archive digital data, but it's more labor-intensive than analog media. What if you fired up the older, smaller drive that you were copying from and it was dead? What if THAT BIT of media just happened to be the one that your archivist (or you) forgot to duplicate originally? There are data errors and all sorts of physical issues with magnetic media. It just means copying and duplicating more frequently and checking carefully.
Film, paper, and other "analog" media can be left alone because small changes and slight degradation can be corrected easily. With digital, once it's damaged, it's gone.
Don't know about the "Star Wars" camera negative, but there are loads of film elements over the years that have either been stored improperly or have basic material issues that make a disaster. Anyone remember nitrate film, or ester shrinkage? Vinegar Syndrome? Anyone remember the dreaded CRI process where Kodak said "it's as good as your original negative" but then it faded after 5 years?
In the world of recorded music, there is a ton of 2" tracking tape and 1/2" master tape that has been "glued" together over time by the tape backing decomposing. The engineers bake the tape in food dehydrators to revive them (I think there is a similar problem with 2" "quad" video tape)
But with much of the analog stuff, at least they can get at the "data". There are early 1980s ADAT masters that are just GONE, unplayable, unrecoverable.
I read an article somewhere (AC?) about a cache of paper film reels under the basement stairs at the National Archives. It seems as though the early copyright laws regarding motion pictures followed the precedent of printed still film, so producers would run off a "copyright" version on paper rolls. Now, 100+ years later, after the nitrate films have been lost forever, someone has discovered hundreds of early motion pictures under the stairs at the Archives. Apparently they reproduce pretty well too! So the unlikely candidate for long-term storage (paper) trumped the supposed "archive" copy (film)
None of us will really live long enough to win this argument, but I would bet sometimes analog will prevail, and sometimes digital will prevail, and only the Redusers of the future will know...
Cheers,
Harry
 
I made the mistake of listening to an old hand Professional photographer about mid 90's, using the same kinds of arguments to produce a point to why DSLR's will never take over the professional arena. I mean you'd expect old hands to be wise and you listen to them without question. Well i learnt that lesson once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top