Interesting read on the status of film in Hollywood.

Film is finished ? this could be its last Oscars - News - Films - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/film-is-finished--this-could-be-its-last-oscars-8508257.html)

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.

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

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

And most of them are idiots. Go figure.

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

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...

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.

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).

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

Take the "union jobs" part out of the equation, folks. The IA has much bigger fish to fry than the nuances of staffing requirements, such as maintaining our health plans (and has been slowly eroding the mandatory staffing as a concession towards that, even before digital took over). Everyone in the business has gotten used to digital workflow, or gotten out.

Me, I haven't shot a frame of film for three years and at this point, it will be a surprise if I do again. As long as I can keep getting Alexas on my jobs, I'm satisfied.

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

Well, my point was kind of lost since it more refers to studios and franchises that have been using digital but are going "back" to film, The Amazing Spiderman 2 is being shot using film, alexa and epic, when the first one was solely epic.... Films like Slumdog and Avatar have also shown studios that digital is OK for both "artsier" and blockbuster movies, so for at least four years now you shouldn't be getting weird looks if you suggest "digital".

In photography, I've been shooting B&W on a 6x6 Bronica S2A lately. I use my 5D2 as my "light meter", so I often see the same shot on film and digital. I develop the film at home and scan it for the convenience of digital (processing, sharing, archiving), but I enlarge it in analog when I want a large print.

I think film for stills offers three advantages in this order: 1) a potential retro look (with fast, grainy film), 2) the "art" and the value of rarity when making single, unique prints with manual dodging and burning, and 3) the way that film handles tones and dynamic range.

Regarding the retro look, this is film's strongest advantage - when it's desired. Could you imagine Eraserhead being shot on anything but film? The Artist was digital (and successful) but I couldn't help but feel that it was a bit contrived. With my medium format shots, non-experts simply believe that the images are retro. You want retro? This is how to deliver it honestly.

The "unique art" thing doesn't really apply to moving pictures. We don't print singletons with burning and dodging. We scan and do digital effects. We can make as many digital replicas as we want.

The tones and dynamic range, even when not shooting fast and noisy for a retro look, are still in play, but the gap is narrow. I shot the same "looking down" waterfall shot with the 6x6 (400 T-MAX) and 5D2 and even with the scan, there's something richer about the film image. I can mess with the tone curve on the digital picture and get very close, but there's simply more power in the film copy. But is the extra time and cost worth it? Unless you're making a large analog print, probably not.

So, would I shoot a moving picture on film today? No. Not unless I was going for a true retro look with fast, grainy film. But for the general tone or for art's sake? No. It's too costly for too small a margin.

And for stills, I'll only shoot medium format or larger on black and white. For 35mm, it's digital all the way.

Apropos of no comment in particular; as much as I love it too, it is easy to over estimate the desire for a 'retro look' outside filmmakers themselves who have a breadth of aesthetic influences and goals.

Beyond that there's pretty strong desire for a 'crisp clean' image it seems to me. It's the look that sells televisions and impresses your friends in the living room. It's the one that people try to get on TV forums (and that has techs explaining the complexities of electromagnetic radiation over help lines). It's the thing that Bluray remasters increasingly try to achieve (to varying degrees), with De-noising and increased saturation from the original film.
They backed off on that sort of thing a little since film purists want the original for their collectors editions. But I wouldn't bank on it going away any time soon.

The audience being generally visually unsophisticated and tolerant of a variety of image qualities is one thing. The gloss that appeals to the also unsophisticated but higher end consumer seems to be a fairly potent driver of a lot of things in taste and tech.

The Artist was digital (and successful) but I couldn't help but feel that it was a bit contrived.

"The Artist" was shot on film (Kodak Vision3 500T 5219) with a digital post.

Re: The Artist, my mistake! I was told differently, but I apparently repeated bad info. (I mentioned it only because I thought it would be really odd to shoot such a film on digital.)

Re: The retro look, I don't think this would be for general use. But if "Not So Young Frankenstein" were to be produced, I'd definitely want it to be shot on B&W film. In fact, there are a number of indoor still shots I've taken with high speed B&W that totally remind me of old horror films. :)

The get a Oscar award the film should be interesting to see and the role of each character are portray well.

Beyond that there's pretty strong desire for a 'crisp clean' image it seems to me. It's the look that sells televisions and impresses your friends in the living room. It's the one that people try to get on TV forums (and that has techs explaining the complexities of electromagnetic radiation over help lines). It's the thing that Bluray remasters increasingly try to achieve (to varying degrees), with De-noising and increased saturation from the original film.
They backed off on that sort of thing a little since film purists want the original for their collectors editions. But I wouldn't bank on it going away any time soon.

The audience being generally visually unsophisticated and tolerant of a variety of image qualities is one thing. The gloss that appeals to the also unsophisticated but higher end consumer seems to be a fairly potent driver of a lot of things in taste and tech.

I was going to bring up something along these lines; I’m not a pro like most of you guys here – just a hobbyist with an enthusiasm for digital bringing ‘filmmaking’ to the hands of the common man sort of thing. I went up to the Tallgrass Film Festival to see Side by Side specifically last year, etc.

What has given me a new perspective on film vs. digital was a recent burglary that got my 40” lcd and in the process of pouring over the forums I was steered toward a Panny ST50 plasma and picked up on the nuance of the blacks plasma can reproduce. Not that I haven’t seen the comparisons, but I became far more acutely aware of the quality of plasma vs. lcd – not just the blacks but the overall warmth, etc.

I see a number of the ‘reference’ discs for plasma are shot on film. There are a number that are digital as well, but I recently ordered a few off the list and only afterward noticed they were Christopher Nolan ‘films’ – Inception and The Dark Knight Rises (I’m not the worlds biggest film nerd or I probably would have realized this beforehand obviously).

Anyway, looks as though plasmas days may be numbered. Backlit local dimming, etc. or OLED may pick up some of that slack, but the ‘masses’ are definitely probably not seeing any difference at home at least. I know it has been eye opening for me. I LOVE my new plasma btw! It is freakin gorgeous!

Congratulations on your ST 50. I got the same after extensive research (and I'm a pro) and only the VT 50 can beat it IMHO, but for a price.
It's a pleasure to watch well mastered blu ray on this thing.
You certainly notice the difference from films shot digitally and analog.
I still prefere film to digital when it comes to drama, but my own work is a lot of extreme action sports as well as TVCs and docu work. For me personally my EPIC fits the bill perfectly.

Jason, just keep the curtains closed and the plasma will look great. But on a bright day, you'll want an LCD. LCDs can maintain calibrated color temps at much higher brightness levels than PDPs (hundreds of nits, rather than tens.)

I watched a couple of recent movies at my son's home on his new 120HZ LED widescreen TV's. They looked terrible, like fake movies, just plain video like.

My son said when he first got the TV, he wanted to return it because of the way the movies looked, but eventually he got used to it, and doesn't "notice it anymore." He and his wife accept the way the movies look.

So every videographer is trying to get away from the video look, spending mega thousands to do so, but after all the effort, in the end people end up watching productions on a TV that makes them look NOT FILM LIKE.

Wierd.

Google on ‘Soap Opera Effect’ – I seem to catch a lot of these new sets have default settings that produce this that you need to dial out. That might be what you were seeing. I had one of the new Samsung 46” 6100 series lcd sets for a few days and it didn’t look ‘bad.’ Especially after I dialed in some generic calibration settings I found on the internet. It was very bright and more vibrant I guess you might say.

The Panny plasma ST50 is rich – the colors are just amazing!… I have some generic calibration settings and ran the Disney WOW disc on it and dialed it in a little more custom for my room and I love it!

How To Remove the “Soap Opera Effect” From Your HDTV | HackCollege (http://www.hackcollege.com/blog/2012/12/14/how-to-remove-the-soap-opera-effect-from-your-hdtv.html)

I watched a couple of recent movies at my son's home on his new 120HZ LED widescreen TV's. They looked terrible, like fake movies, just plain video like.


Jason, agreed. Turn off the motion interpolation.

Consider these steps for a filmic look from your TV:
1) Turn off interpolation.
2) Turn noise reduction to the minimum acceptable level. (A bit of NR can help reduce codec noise. Too much and people look plastic.)
3) Reduce contrast to ensure no white clipping.
4) Adjust brightness to eliminate black crush - then go back to step 3 until the two controls are balanced.

Also, for LCD TVs, reduce your backlight to the minimum comfortable level. This depends on ambient lighting conditions. Some automatic brightness control advanced settings allow you to set limits for dark and bright viewing conditions. Optimize this and you can set and forget.

By dimming the backlight under dark room conditions, you can get closer to theater brightness levels. And, you'll save energy and lower your electric bills. :)

Hopefully, this post will close this side discussion. We should really be talking about whether or not "Film is Finished", rather than whether TVs display film properly. :)

Maybe Jon's above post should be a sticky ;^)

-- peer

Thanks, I will see the results the next time I visit my son.

This is not really a side discussion.

It illustrates that film is finished because people are getting accustomed to the even movies made with film look like video on their TV's. Why should production companies invest in film when in the future no one will care?

For that matter though; I’ve been picking up bits and pieces and I’m really not sure on just what is the format if that is the correct terminology for theater projection? I’ve seen topics of discussion on Blu-ray being limited to 4:2:0? (I’m not any kid of expert on all these color science/space specs) So, what are the specs of what gets projected in your local theater? I could probably Google this, but since it is being discussed.

How much of the playing field is leveled at the final theater projection for that matter? I’m just curious why it seems that I’m only really now taking notice of the warmth of film vs. digital on my $1k plasma at home vs. a presumably astronomically priced projection system in the theaters. Is it purely the factor of it being a more controlled environment at home that I perceive or is there some factor of the theaters digital projection systems not reproducing the nuances?

Finding this: Digital Cinema Initiatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives#Image_and_audio_capability_overview)

Digital cinema - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema#Criticism_and_concerns)

Ok, so, I was ballpark on the concerns translating to the projection systems as well – despite an obviously decidedly higher spec of the actual material than your home Blu-ray discs.

Sorry, I answered my own question there, but maybe this is relevant to discussion – if the final quality isn’t going to be ‘seen’ in your theater then what’s the point? I rather enjoy it on my plasma at home, but it seems like I’m in the minority unless OLED takes over and is superior maybe? Just rambling

Regarding color space, we don't see color resolution as finely as we see luma resolution, so 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 are generally acceptable for end distribution. By the time you get close enough to the screen to see the lack of color resolution, you are a bit too close for the available luma resolution.

Of course, there are test patterns, such as the intersection between green and magenta color bars, where lack of chroma resolution is noticeable, but with real-life scenes, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 generally hold up. It's really in acquisition where we want 4:4:4.

It's similar for bit depth. 8-bits is generally enough for end distribution. But hopefully, it was shot with more bit depth and properly dithered. Otherwise, you'll see contour lines on smooth surfaces, like balloons.

Then there's color gamut. In the theater, we get DCI, which has a much wider gamut than Rec. 709.

And then there's coding. Consumers get about 20 Mbps if they are lucky. Digital cinema doesn't skimp on the bits.

So, for natural scenes (not test patterns) with good dithering, non-extreme colors, and little motion, consumer video can look fantastic. Push it too hard and it can break, while digital cinema isn't breaking a sweat. But then again, look at the prices of TVs, BD players, and Discs. Compare that to the cost of building a proper theater and buying DCI films on large hard drives.

FWIW, Ultra HD is defined by BT.2020. It will provide 10 or 12 bits of depth and a color space wider than DCI. And the new HEVC codec is more efficient than MPEG 2 or 4. UHD isn't just about more resolution...

But coming back to the original point... will it be shot on film? And for me (who shoots medium format B&W here and there), I would only shoot film for the vintage look.

This thread seems like the perfect opportunity to plug a Kickstarter campaign I'm supporting for a lovely film about the last roll of Kodachrome ever developed - please support and share if you can: DWAYNE'S PHOTO (launching at SXSW) by Sarah George — Kickstarter (http://kck.st/Zv0kDz)

Six Hollywood Studios Now Have Agreements with Kodak | Studio Daily (http://www.studiodaily.com/2013/06/six-hollywood-studios-now-have-agreements-with-kodak/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=six-hollywood-studios-now-have-agreements-with-kodak)