"Film is Finished"

[Glen Vandermolen]

Interesting read on the status of film in Hollywood.

Film is finished ? this could be its last Oscars - News - Films - The Independent

[Brian Drysdale]

I suspect film as an acquisition format will continue for a while, distribution is another matter. However, with losing the print runs, the number of labs will be seriously reduced. They're still shooting on film, so next year's Oscars stand a good chance of having a number of these films nominated.

[Chris Medico]

Long term archival will also remain on film until the issues of digital media lifespan greatly improves.

[Eric Stemen]

Lots of angry sounding people in the comments area of the article.

[Mark Koha]

And most of them are idiots. Go figure.

[Joachim Hoge]

I will be a sad day when film finally vanishes. One less option.
I haven't shoot on 35mm for over 7 years now and I own an Epic, but still...
Love the look of film, but for most of my projects, digital is way better

[Karl Eklund]

It's a really bad article, basically just an excerpt with quotes from the movie Side by Side.

I prefer film for its "magical quality", but it depends all on what project it is, if it needs that special feeling film gives or if it needs to be "digital".

I can also say that I more or less can't tell Alexa from film apart. EPIC and RED are easier to spot "or feel" mostly due to skin tones and highlights.

Film has film cadence to motion, it has the dynamic range, but also just how it handles stuff outside its DR, even when stuff goes overblown it will roll it out nicely (which is what I like about the Alexa, it also has a nice roll off).

When I shoot film I don't have to sit and grade it to give it a filmlook, it is baked in :)

But I have friends and collegues who says shooting film is useless and that nobody can tell, etc. to which I reply: why would Hollywood studios shoot film if it doesn't matter and is more expensive than digital?

I also think there might be something subliminal about film vs digital, that yes, people might not know (or care) what format it was shot but they might still feel more comfortable with film (or digital). I'm just saying there are hidden clues that we might not percieve but still affects us. I also think we are nurtured to like film over digital, film is "gold standard" and digital is "cheap TV", but the generation growing up now might prefer the "digital cadence", i.e. Hobbit 48 FPS.

Kids today (according to a study from some San Francisco place... can't remember exactly) prefer the sound of compressed mp3:s over higher dynamic range non-compressed sound, i.e. you like what you are used too.

The whole thing though is this that digital tries to mimic film, and not vice versa...

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Karl Eklund

But I have friends and collegues who says shooting film is useless and that nobody can tell, etc. to which I reply: why would Hollywood studios shoot film if it doesn't matter and is more expensive than digital?

I also think there might be something subliminal about film vs digital, that yes, people might not know (or care) what format it was shot but they might still feel more comfortable with film (or digital). I'm just saying there are hidden clues that we might not percieve but still affects us. I also think we are nurtured to like film over digital, film is "gold standard" and digital is "cheap TV", but the generation growing up now might prefer the "digital cadence", i.e. Hobbit 48 FPS.

The whole thing though is this that digital tries to mimic film, and not vice versa...

Hollywood, for fancying itself as being forward thinking and progressive, tends to stick to what works. As stated in the article, many directors will not use digital, and that's fine. There's also the union jobs, although there's still plenty of work being a camera assistant with a digital camera. Just no more magazine loaders. Some people simply won't change. But, as the article also states, most will. They'll have to - the money people will dictate what gets used, and digital is cheaper, for the most part.

I disagree on what the audience perceives regarding digital versus film. Don't forget the biggest money making film of all time - Avatar - was shot on 2/3" digital cameras, and the biggest hit from last year, the Avengers, was shot on an Alexa. The biggest box office James Bond film of all time was shot on an Alexa, as well. The digital format certainly didn't hurt these films. The audience doesn't notice, nor care. They just want good films, regardless of the medium. Content, as usual, is king.

I, for one, will not miss film at all.

[Karl Eklund]

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

Hollywood, for fancying itself as being forward thinking and progressive, tends to stick to what works. As stated in the article, many directors will not use digital, and that's fine. There's also the union jobs, although there's still plenty of work being a camera assistant with a digital camera. Just no more magazine loaders. Some people simply won't change. But, as the article also states, most will. They'll have to - the money people will dictate what gets used, and digital is cheaper, for the most part.

I disagree on what the audience perceives regarding digital versus film. Don't forget the biggest money making film of all time - Avatar - was shot on 2/3" digital cameras, and the biggest hit from last year, the Avengers, was shot on an Alexa. The biggest box office James Bond film of all time was shot on an Alexa, as well. The digital format certainly didn't hurt these films. The audience doesn't notice, nor care. They just want good films, regardless of the medium. Content, as usual, is king.

I, for one, will not miss film at all.

I'm not saying film is better, just like I'm not saying oil is better than water paint. It's just that film has "associated qualities to it that digital doesn't", qualities that a lot of people think it is worth mimicking.

I also think that right camera, format, aspect ratio, etc. for the right project. Film is crap for 3D, therefore digital is doing all the 3D work (stereoscopic work). I did say that Alexa is the only camera so far I feel can beat me in a blind test...

Alexa isn't straight out of the box shooting film like pictures either, you need someone like Roger to wield it. He adds grain and defocus the image on some places, because it is too sharp. Which just proves my point that with digital the goal is still to make it look like "film".

I watched Legends of the Fall last night (again), and I just kept thinking that the cinematography is just so damn amazing and that no digital camera would give it that "look". Just like some lenses will flare more than others, and even though lens flares are a sign of bad optics, it is used for effect in lots of stuff...

It boils down to, when we watch documentaries we are fine with shitty picture quality, when we see movies taking place in the 70's they have a 70's grade, we simply have different expectations that needs to be met depending on what we are watching. Avatar got away with being a 2/3rds digital camera format because it fit the story/style and because it had a good cinematographer, it is a film where I think "film grain" wouldn't add anything to it. I think though most people would say: it was shot on a digital camera (not positive or negative connotation).

[Brian Drysdale]

"Not missing film" I think that's rather like saying I won't miss oils because there's acyclic.

Having watched Skyfall on Blu Ray over the weekend, I'd say in some aspects it does look different to film. Nothing wrong in that, but a creative choice is something to be fought for and the studios remove so many of the choices.

I don't think the unions are fighting over clapper loader jobs, most of these guys are capable of learning data wrangling and there are just as many camera jobs shooting digital as film. Hollywood hasn't been lagging, it's only recently that digital has begun to match film. They've bought independent features shot on video/digital formats for many years. The studios and distributors more interested in the names attached to it than what a film is shot on.

[Mark Koha]

The only movie I can think of off the top of my head where I had a big problem with digital was Apocalypto. I know technology has advanced a whole lot since then but there were a couple scenes where I can't describe it any other way than saying it looked like someone shot it in their backyard because it looked too real.

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

"Not missing film" I think that's rather like saying I won't miss oils because there's acyclic.

Having watched Skyfall on Blu Ray over the weekend, I'd say in some aspects it does look different to film. Nothing wrong in that, but a creative choice is something to be fought for and the studios remove so many of the choices.

I don't think the unions are fighting over clapper loader jobs, most of these guys are capable of learning data wrangling and there are just as many camera jobs shooting digital as film. Hollywood hasn't been lagging, it's only recently that digital has begun to match film. They've bought independent features shot on video/digital formats for many years. The studios and distributors more interested in the names attached to it than what a film is shot on.

When I say I won't miss film, I mean exactly what I said. If all movies were to be shot digitally starting tomorrow, that'd be fine with me. That goes with delivery - I won't watch a movie if it isn't digitally projected.

Studios foot the bills, so they can remove - or add - whatever choices they like. There's always the independent production route if one feels too constrained.

I agree, union jobs will adapt. Also agree, digital is finally catching up to film. It will surpass it, too, as far as color and dynamic range, if it hasn't already.
If you want the "look" of film, I'm sure there'll be an app for that.

[Nigel Barker]

This is the debate that stills photographers were having about 10 years ago. Nowadays you would have to be looking for a pretty retro look to even consider film & there is a whole new generation of photographers who haven't ever used film. There became a point when it was clear that digital was better than film whether for workflow, cost, resolution or whatever. That crossover point for stills photography was years ago but we haven't quite reached that point yet with moving images.

[Brian Drysdale]

There are photographers who use both digital and film. Most people only shoot digital, but a number of photographers have compelling reasons for going back to using film for some projects.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Karl Eklund

why would Hollywood studios shoot film if it doesn't matter and is more expensive than digital?

Simply because Hollywood is quite conservative when it comes to technical/engineering evolution. Today the only way to see a difference between film and digital depends solely on how well the footage is graded in post.

-- peer