The death of film???

[red1225]

Why anyone would want film to go away is beyond me. Why kill, destroy, or stop using a medium that video/digital formats have been trying to emulate for years??? Remeber...RED may look more like film than anything ever before...but its still not there.

I'll love and respect my RED for all it can do...but LONG LIVE FILM!

 

[vsv]

RED4K possible killed 16(s16)mm film...
But we have also 35/65/70mm :biggrin:

 

[donatello b]

"Kodak keep selling a higher volume of more motion picture film every year."

if you read Kodaks financial reports i do no think you'll find that in them ...
most news releases Kodak might state SALES $ are up since ( then they give a year ) say 1998 ... but if you look into the fine details -
( this is a example not actual figures) say in 1999 film cost $300 core today $600 core = so actual feet sold could be down 40% but sales $$ could be up 10% .... i haven't read a report since last winter - from what i recall film negative volume was down but i think release film feet was up slightly ...

or there could have been a year ( example - not actual sales -say 2002 ) where film sales dropped 75% and then in 2005 Kodak could state film sales are up 50% since 2002 .... it's a numbers game - you pick a year that make you look good ...

 

[Stephen Williams]

"Kodak keep selling a higher volume of more motion picture film every year."

if you read Kodaks financial reports i do no think you'll find that in them ...
most news releases Kodak might state SALES $ are up since ( then they give a year ) say 1998 ... but if you look into the fine details -
( this is a example not actual figures) say in 1999 film cost $300 core today $600 core = so actual feet sold could be down 40% but sales $$ could be up 10% .... i haven't read a report since last winter - from what i recall film negative volume was down but i think release film feet was up slightly ...

or there could have been a year ( example - not actual sales -say 2002 ) where film sales dropped 75% and then in 2005 Kodak could state film sales are up 50% since 2002 .... it's a numbers game - you pick a year that make you look good ...

Hi Donatello,

I am only talking about motion picture film. Sadly John Pytlak, my source of information recently passed away. However John posted that 2006 sales were higher than 2005, that in turn were higher than 2004.

Stephen

 

[donatello b]

"Who in their right mind would shoot on HD, when for the same price, they could shoot on a RED?"

it all depends on your current needs, workflow in place , and final delivery ...
XDcam is pretty easy to shoot and edit ...
or you simply like the "look" of a certain camera for a project ...

 

[Jiri Bakala]

Red is great!
Film is beautiful!
Broadcasters still air SD.
HD in its many flavours is here to stay for many years. Heck, it took the broadcast world well over a decade, if not more, to finally adopt HD. They are not going anywhere anytime soon...
So, our tool palette just got better. End of story.

 

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Like I said...properly maintained. Think massive hard drive storage system that is well maintained. Backed up by a data tape library that is refreshed every 10 years. Everything is verified periodically. Etc. etc.

But surely after a certain point it becomes more costly than archiving via film-out, which as Stephen said, you do once and it's good for 500 years?

 

[Jay Taylor]

Guys, stop with the film is dead crap!

Even though digital still cameras are everywhere, there's no problem in buying film for your old 35mm film cameras. Even though today's digital cameras will be dead in 3 years, and these film cameras will be running another 20 or more!

Even though digital audio is super convenient and easy to work with, most, if not all, studios still have a trusty 2" 24 track analog tape machine. You'd be surprised at how much those things are still in use!

We still have super8 cartridges even though video cameras are everywhere. You can still get a vinyl record pressed! There's so many examples like this!

Even if Red eventually matches 35mm film in every technical way, it's never going to look like film. It's just different! That will never change! A lot of people will never give up film. Jim has said himself that the Red is another option, not a replacement for film.

Please give this "film is dead" attitude up!


Jay

 

[Jiri Bakala]

Jay is dead on right.

Just to add another example; when TV first started, people were saying 'radio is dead' and our favourite 'film is dead' (at that time of course not as a medium but rather as movie-going). None of that happened.

So, viva cinema, viva film!

 

[Chris Parker]

By 'film is dead' I think we are referring to the gross loss of market share...not the extinction of celluloid itself. Of course you can buy 35mm film for stills cameras. BUT...how many people are shooting with it....WAY LESS than 10 years ago.

That is the disucussion. It is not a 'you won't be able to find an ARRI camera or a roll of film in 5 years' type of comment.

 

[Jay Taylor]

By 'film is dead' I think we are referring to the gross loss of market share...not the extinction of celluloid itself. Of course you can buy 35mm film for stills cameras. BUT...how many people are shooting with it....WAY LESS than 10 years ago.

That is the disucussion. It is not a 'you won't be able to find an ARRI camera or a roll of film in 5 years' type of comment.

I agree with that. Convenience always wins out. The market share will shrink. But even though you see it that way, I seriously get the feeling most people on this board think you won't be able to buy film in another few months! :tongue:

Crazy!


Jay

 

[Rob Powell]

The IMMEDIATE and very swift impact RED will have is that it will quickly cause the death of HD.

I mean, think about it. Who in their right mind would shoot on HD, when for the same price, they could shoot on a RED? If I were a film camera rental house, I wouldn't be too worried...yet. If I had all my money tied up in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of HD cameras, I would be VERY VERY concerned, unless I had the capital to invest heavily in RED, and be able to weather the financial storm that the necessary quick turnover from a mostly HD rental house to a 4K rental house will cost.

Let's not forget that most of the industry still operates in SD, not even HD. RED will certainly cause competitive pressures on the HD world, but we have a long way to go before even HD is even widely accepted. The big reason that RED will not kill HD anytime soon, is that the RED workflow is more consistent with a cinema workflow (larger budgets/more time) than a broadcast one. Try shooting an HD football game with 16 REDs. Much of broadcast is live or on a short workflow timeline. They cannot quickly adjust to footage that must be color graded and transcoded before editing. There are exceptions, of course, but HD has an upper hand in this arena and will hold on to it for the foreseeable future.

While industry entrenchment may be a factor, it is not the primary one. RED makes beautiful images, but workflow is going to be a more of an issue than image quality.

RA Post

 

[Bob Bermani]

I understand that the point of this thread was not to argue whether film is dead or not. However, had it been about that, I think the argument is essentially moot. Film will always be available in some form or another. For a long time into the future, there will be veteran cinematographers who refuse to switch to digital, no matter what the quality or cost to use is. Some seem so obstinate that they would rather die than switch to an entirely digital work flow.

The fact is CCD and CMOS sensor technology will only continue to advance in the coming years. Optical film media technology advances yearly as well, but it isn't capable of evolving as rapidly as semiconductors or the coming nano revolution. Eventually semiconductors will reach their technological limits, and optical sensors will be based on newer nano-scale devices. Specifications relating to contrast ratio, sensitivity, noise, resolution will only get better with time, MUCH better, as will the costs related to data storage and processing. The same cannot be said of film. Costs of using it are not going to decrease at the same rate more modern technologies are. Moreover, I believe that with enough creativity, given an image stream on the order of the quality and resolution of the RED’s, practically any visual result can be achieved in post. As it is right now, tools for processing a 4K workflow are not exactly cheap; substantial processing power is needed, but it’s only a matter of time before any desktop PC can chew-on a 4K video stream without flinching.

I think right now is an awesome time for Red to be releasing their flagship product. There’s a huge market, and it’s going to change the playing field. I think film as a medium for shooting moving images will never be “dead”. I do believe films market share will be hurt by what Red is offering, since so many of the pro’s are already buying into it.

 

[Craig Schober]

film death timeline

film death timeline

Film will always be available in some form or another. For a long time into the future, there will be veteran cinematographers who refuse to switch to digital, no matter what the quality or cost to use is. Some seem so obstinate that they would rather die than switch to an entirely digital work flow.

then it seems we can put a date on film's death. that is, when all the old school holdouts actually die and no one knows or can tell the difference between film and digital cinema. it's already happened in the still photography field so motion picture film would only naturally follow. the fact is that it could disappear tomorrow and audiences wouldn't know or care. so it will probably take another generation or so before it becomes more of an artifact than the dynamic medium it is today.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Ever notice how whenever the next great Digital Camera comes out it comes bundled with someone saying "Film is dead"?
They said this with the f900 and I don't think anyone on this forum would say the f900 is better quality then film (Unless maybe Robert Rodriguez has an account cause he said it.)

 

[Steve Gibby]

Let's not forget that most of the industry still operates in SD, not even HD. RED will certainly cause competitive pressures on the HD world, but we have a long way to go before even HD is even widely accepted. The big reason that RED will not kill HD anytime soon, is that the RED workflow is more consistent with a cinema workflow (larger budgets/more time) than a broadcast one. Try shooting an HD football game with 16 REDs. Much of broadcast is live or on a short workflow timeline. They cannot quickly adjust to footage that must be color graded and transcoded before editing. There are exceptions, of course, but HD has an upper hand in this arena and will hold on to it for the foreseeable future.

While industry entrenchment may be a factor, it is not the primary one. RED makes beautiful images, but workflow is going to be a more of an issue than image quality.

RA Post

The example you give is hardlined EFP. With it's ability to genlock, 12 volt auxiliary power bus, RS232, dual link HD-SDI, B4 HD lens usage capability, RED One can be readily adapted to a hardlined EFP scenario, though there are some workarounds needed in the field and post.

Non-hardlined EFP programs are far and away the huge majority of network television programs produced worldwide, and that is the type of program that RED One can be adapted to the easiest. The cameras don't have to be genlocked together, or there is just one camera, plus the program gets edited in post, thus the time to grade color, and incorporate footage and LUT's into an NLE.

RED One will be especially in demand for non-hardlined EFP cinematic shooting of creative montages, in-bumps, out-bumps, and promos for nework television programs.

My post on page 2 of this thread touched on this, and my Sticky on the top of the EFP/ENG for RED forum on RED User has a lot of info on using RED One in non-hardlined and hardlined EFP production environments.

You specifically mentioned an HD football game. I've directed/shot extensive non-hardlined EFP coverage of NFL games, from a specials at the Super Bowl, to the Pro Bowl, to entire seasons of hardlined coverage. Trust me, NFL Films and others in the football world are looking hard at RED One.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I guess the whole point of my original post has been lost.

Yeah - did anyone read it? HD vs. RED.

I think it's fair to say HD and Film acquisition for narrative movies under $1 million are going to be effectively dead in favor of RED or similar within a few years.

I wouldn't want to be making my low budget horror movie on anything other than RED right now because you have know that's what you're going to be up against when you hand it to a distributor a year from now. Do you want to look like video or look like a movie? It's too risky to not shoot RED. Kinda like big movies reason it's too risky to shoot RED over film.

 

[Brandon Freeman]

Regarding RED killing HD, I don't think so. I think what it will do (and this is what I'm praying for) is force the market to lower the costs on HD substantially.

I know for independent no budget films (those that I don't have funding for), I'll use my Canon XH-A1 with a Letus35 or Brevis and spend the rest of any dough I have on the important stuff -- lighting, actors and sets.

The biggest value the RED has for me is 35mm DOF at a large resolution. But HD ain't that terrible, either.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, yeah, RED will tank the $40k+ HD systems and force them to lower their prices. But guys like the XH-A1, I think they'll be around for a while.

EDIT:
Unless, of course, RED comes out with a prosumer version for the price of a new XDCAM EX. THEN we'll be talking the end of all HD.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Even the 40k+ systems I don't think are in danger. The people whom have actually used an f23 all say it's an amazing camera.
I don't know how much is PR and how much isn't I haven't seen any real footage off that thing beyond a youtube video which didn't mean a whole lot to me.
I downloaded the brochure and the manual as well.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I know for independent no budget films (those that I don't have funding for), I'll use my Canon XH-A1 with a Letus35 or Brevis and spend the rest of any dough I have on the important stuff -- lighting, actors and sets.

The big problem with that idea is you really don't have a movie that can be projected well in comparison to originating on RED. So you take part of your sales potential away. It's just not that much more money to shoot RED - well in a year from now it won't be when you can easily rent one.

I think distributors understand that - or will - when evaluating product. A great story trumps everything else. But if that's great then why wouldn't you want in on RED.

Small cameras will remain better for most Docs.