Why film will stay the king...

[Peter Majtan]

If some of you have examples about the "superiority" of digital over film, don't hesitate ..

I'll bite...

1. Immediacy. Right after I press stop on my camera I can review and confirm that I have the shot I wanted. No need to wait for lab to develop, process and project the stock only to find out I need to reshoot (long after the set / situation / location has disappeared...).

2. Access. Both for young and experienced shooters. You can now afford on a reasonable budget to go out and learn / practice the craft when you are not working on a paid job. Every time I film something - I learn something new (good or bad) which makes me better cinematographer...

3. Affordability. Lots of great creative concepts and talent never got the chance / opportunity to shine back in the days of 35mm film. While the digital revolution brings a ton of crap - it also brings some gems that we would have otherwise never seen...

4. Portability. You can go to remote locations and all I need is my car, laptop and a HDD to store data - and I can be shooting indefinitely. How many cans can you really carry? And more importantly - how many will you expose before you need to get to the lab ASAP?

5. Postproduction. Related to both Access and Affordability above. All you need is a media reader and a laptop and you can create marvels...

These are just my top 5. There are many more - I will let other to chime in...

The King is dead! Long live the King!

:sifone: Peter

 

[Stacey Spears]

Speaking of which, I still have mine

And when I think of box sets, Abyss is the first one that comes to mind, which I see you have.

 

[Isaac Marchionna]

I'd lament the death of quality movie archival such as commentary, makings of, etc, but once DVDs started shipping without even a trailer for the movie they were selling, things were already in the toilet.

Abyss and T2 were amazing LDs, so was the directors cut of Aliens.

 

[Mike Smith]

You are posting a link to a YouTube clip.....I agree that it looks great....but in which way is that analog? I can understand if someone prefers analog film, analog workflow and analog projection, or film, process and print for stills.....but nowadays every piece of film is scanned, so even if one shoots film, the final product is pretty much always digital....the best scanners are only digital capture devices just like the sensor in a camera.....
And like someone here mentioned....this is not something that I would point out as a wonderful example of how good film can be....the tones are pretty crushed.....but again....it's YouTube!

Thank you Paul. I was about to remark on the absurd hilarity of this thread but you made all my points for me.

 

[Martin Stevens]

I thought the intent of this thread was to promote a web link. If I may be so bold.

 

[Mike Smith]

I thought the intent of this thread was to promote a web link. If I may be so bold.

Ha ha! Well if that was the intent, it didn't work, at least not with me. The OP's point was so ridiculous, it made me laugh, not click. He'd have been better off saying "look at this! Really cool clip!"

 

[Stacey Spears]

Abyss and T2 were amazing LDs, so was the directors cut of Aliens.

Basically anything James Cameron. His directors cuts were always worthwhile.

if some of you have examples about the "superiority" of digital over film, don't hesitate ..

In addition to what Peter listed, I would add, at least for more me:

1. Increased resolution.
2. Less noise.

I am sure for some that both of my examples are why they prefer film.

I do think that 15-perf Imax looks superior to what digital can capture today. The opening of the Dark Knight was breathtaking as was the Dubai scene from Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol when Tom Cruise was just hanging around. Both of these had me grabbing my seat during the Imax presentation at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle. Nothing I have seen shot digitally has had the same visual impact. I look forward to future Red cameras with larger sensors.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

As soon as film goes into a DI it's no longer film, it's a digital camera recording film. Anything film can do a 3D LUT + a sufficiently large color gammut can do exactly the same. There's nothing magic in film, it's just a really really beautiful LUT from reality -> RGB.

Everything these days at some point becomes RGB digital. Eventually we'll have a wide enough dynamic range that we won't need optical filtration either.

 

[David Battistella]

Again, i would be the most delighted man if such a quality could emanate from a camera as little as the epic body, imagine...
Red is an innovative company, they constantly look for improvements, and they "listen" .. If they could bring the magical of film (texture and color) in a Red body, it would be damn crazy....

For an interesting perspective on what quality is I recommend reading ZEN and the art of motorcycle maintenance. The book really dives into the question of how we describe quality and what it really is. It's probably the most subjective word used to describe something because it really can not be defined. Much like our love of film, it's just something we all know.

I think the best way to describe it is that it is actually, in a way, alive. It takes nothing more than organic materials to make and no electricity is used to create the image, just light and chemicals. So there is a mystery in that which produces a character and we still understand this alchemy is magical. Also you only see your image through ground glass until you can actually see you film projected with a simple light bulb.

Then again, there is a bit of mystery in this process of breaking down a new sensor like the dragon.

in recent weeks I have been completely blown away at how this sensor holds highlights and the rich tones it produces. There is a depth and three dimensionality to the image that feels a lot like a negative stock.

Film is not dead in my mind or in my memories. To declare it as such does not honor it's legacy or it's role in bringing us to where we are. Were it not for films cost and the care required, we'd hardly have a tradition of cinema and cinematography. It might be "dead" to some people but to me it's still alive in dragon because I want to bring that same care and attention to the image making because of the image it produces.

battistella

 

[Ryan De Franco]

Battistella thanks for the most inspiring post on any camera forum, ever.

Especially the bit on what film has done for the care and tradition in our work. It's that tradition that can seem lost in the trade for "access" and "immediacy." There is so much room at the table -- but the conversation can sometimes sound less polite these days.

On my end it is the intensity of movement -- next to my ear in the camera, buried in the grain in the cinema, and through the platters and pulleys and gears where I started as a projectionist -- random, consistent movement -- that will keep film in a high place for me. Light is random and consistent. Film's chemistry is random and consistent. I try to find the same joy in the randomness of a black shade, a hotel room color grade, or consistency in stop lights and waveforms, but it's more than nostalgia ... There is a human connection to film's chemical mechanical movement that we are learning to replace.

David's process with Dragon is about as inspiring as any I can imagine for myself.

Film is not dead in my mind or in my memories. To declare it as such does not honor it's legacy or it role in bringing us to where we are. Were it not for films cost and the care required, we'd hardly have a tradition of cinema and cinematography. It might be "dead" to some people but to me it's still alive in dragon because I want to bring that same care and attention to the image making because of the image it produces.

battistella

 

[Phil Holland]

David's post is spot on.

I am nostalgic about film, but there are many reasons that I'm after (and the industry is after) a digital film alternative/replacement.

There's a decent reason I'm going through all these tests and discussing "film relevance".

Dragon, at least to me, is the first camera to truly hit this mark in the multitude of ways that to me is necessary.

 

[Scott Pultz]

I think film will always hold a place in the hearts of many just like LPs and tubes do for audio.

On the stills side, I miss physical photo albums. Something I can hold and share with others. Digital photos sort of get lost overtime, in my opinion.

i even miss the days of laserdisc with the special box sets. From an A/V standpoint, DVD and Blu-ray are superior in every way.

I agree. That's why I make physical albums from digital images.

 

[Wil Wong]

You know what's the game changer? Students and schools.

Eventually if not already, schools and students won't be learning about the craft of film media (how to cut, process, handle etc). They are learning on DSLRs and Reds and Alexa's. Why? Cause what student/school has the funds to pay for film material (as prices goes up and availability isn't as it was).

More so, is only high budget productions will use film. Eventually there will be a generation of fresh directors and producers that have never used film nor do they want to be told by the previous generation how it's done and what to do. They will simply concentrate on storytelling and not have that romanticism of film. Why? Cause it wasn't in them to begin with.

Most record collectors love the concept of vinyl either by the memories of the past or the love of the material. If you don't get exposed to the notion (cause it isn't affordable or available), you probably won't develop it. I know folks that romanticize CD's (just as we switch from that to digital files).

Film isn't going away in the next 10 years (by studios simply cause old dogs like the medium) but the next Speilberg will want a DSLR style camera cause that's what they romanticize about. Small handheld that makes the modern films in the style that they learned and honed their skills with.

Think how many people use 'gear heads' instead of a good fluid head on a tripod. I'm sure not as many like the old days. Film will likely never fully disappear...till the last film manufacturer stops making film (which won't happen as long as demand is more then the cost to produce). I doubt however that it'll ever make a comeback. My opinion.

 

[Peter Majtan]

It's that tradition that can seem lost in the trade for "access" and "immediacy."

Guns don't shoot people - people shoot people. Don't blame the tools...
Many of us who started decades ago with analog film have embraced and adopted digital as the way forward...
Panasonic with its Varicam was the first sign of things to come - but it was RED that singlehandedly (with perhaps a touch of Panasonic's DNA - but that's another story...) took on this challenge and against all odds have delivered in its 3rd generation product the first viable alternative to film.
Yes - film is dead - which ever way you look at it. And I am not saying that with disrespect. It is the reality of today. How many labs are still in business? How many will be in business by 2020?
We all can see what is happening with Kodak and where is it (inevitably) heading. Do you think Kodak is investing into continues motion picture film stock development aside of archival stocks?
And Fuji has stopped making motion picture film altogether...
Traditional 35mm film has all but died in the mainstream film production. It is now only used as an "artistic" choice by those who can bare the excessive costs and logistics.
There will always be someone shooting on film for as long as someone makes the stock - just like they will forever be classic car enthusiasts for as long as people will maintain and take care of the few remaining ones...

But blaming the lack of "craft" on digital vs analog is also an insult to those young people in our industry who are busting their chops to learn and master it. And there are many...
Yes - one of the side effects is that people have a choice to ignore the traditional craft and with the "access" and "immediacy" they chose to do so. But that is not digital's fault...

When we say film is dead - we don't mean it with disrespect. Many of us here grew up with film. We are simply stating the obvious and the reality of today...
But please dispense with the "character" and "texture" argument. There is plenty of "character" and "texture" in some of the digital masterpieces shot today by those who "evolved" to learn and master the new digital medium. Some of them are here on this forum...

:sifone: Peter

 

[Marc Wielage]

My grandpa was a air plane mechanic in the war. He saw jet engines come out and he said "they're just a fad, they'll never be as good a propeller". All new technology takes a while to get up to be the standard, but I assume some day in the future, film won't be used again, except in extreme circumstances, much like propeller airplanes today.

The differences are: jet planes weren't trying to be as good as propeller-driven aircraft. The great thing about film is: if you screw up, chances are you'll still have a usable image on the negative. Film cameras require very little power, no software updates, and they don't crash. There's no debayering, and you have over 4K worth of resolution in it with very wide color range and a huge dynamic range. All digital cameras continue to aspire to being as good as film. They get closer every day, but I'm not sure if they're quite there yet.

Having said that, I think digital makes far more sense for certain kinds of projects. For example, I can't imagine shooting a documentary or a TV show in film anymore. Huge budget scripted material, like a blockbuster feature, sure. But it's getting harder and harder to shoot anything in film, because the options for negative stock and processing have become so limited. I think great-looking projects can still be shot on either digital or film (or even a combination of the two), and the final image quality is largely due to the work of the cinematographer.

I do find it's sad that the majority of people I talk to who pooh-pooh film in favor of digital have never actually shot film on a project.

Do you think Kodak is investing into continues motion picture film stock development aside of archival stocks? And Fuji has stopped making motion picture film altogether...

Actually, both Kodak and Fuji are continuing development work in archival film stocks to help preserve classic films for future generations. That's the only film that Fuji continues to make. They realize that because of film's longevity, it can still last far beyond any current digital drive, backup, or other medium... so far.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Speaking of which, I still have mine

Nice

 

[David Battistella]

You know what I like.

HD died before film did.

Thanks Jim



battistella

 

[Peter Majtan]

HD died before film did.

Thanks Jim

AMEN to that!

:cheers2: Peter

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Frankly, I don't care. It is of no influence to me if film is dead or alive. I love film. And I respect anyone who chooseses to shoot film. And I love digital. Because of the options it has opened to me personally.

If anyone wants and have the option to shoot film, so what the f***, frankly?
It doesn't change my reality much either way.
But if it does to them, that is only good!

I have a hard time understanding the need to "win" this battle. When/if a good format dies, it's mostly a loss to the range of expressions.
From my POV, I still can see good reasons to shoot super-8 and even VHS for cinematic release. So I guess I have no issues with 35mm or 65mm film...

Technically I have a hard time seeing digital ever replacing the analogue characteristics of unpredictability film has. Digital is predictability.
In my world, that is not only good. But there are analogue ways to introduce some of that variation in image, even in digital settings. I like those.

And then we can quarrel about image quality to death. Which in fact allways will be mostly a subjective thing related to the scene/film we have captured.

Let film live
And the same with digital...

My 2c.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

David's post is spot on.

I am nostalgic about film, but there are many reasons that I'm after (and the industry is after) a digital film alternative/replacement.

There's a decent reason I'm going through all these tests and discussing "film relevance".

Dragon, at least to me, is the first camera to truly hit this mark in the multitude of ways that to me is necessary.

All this makes production-sense.