Film vs Video...THE LOOK
 

Ahhh...an old and well worn topic....

yet, KODAK has an excellent write-up available at the following site:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/story/fact3.shtml

Clearly,
1)video will likely never look like film, no matter what speed a camera films at, until CCD sensors are built with random pixels.

2)KODAK sounds worried...;-)

I don't think they are worried about consumer video, at least not for a very long time. Some directors like George Lucas are beginning to shoot their movies with digital video instead of film, and that is what I believe is the basis of the argument. Film just can't be duplicated if you ask me, even though great strides have been made in the area of digital video. Just wait until consumer video cameras are just as powerful if not moreso than the one George is using to shoot Star Wars Episode II. Then the cinema industry might need to worry. But hopefully there will be a trick up their sleeve.

Very interesting and informative article, Bill.

Yes, to butcher Bill Shakespere, "Methinks they doth protest too much." Kodak has plenty to worry about these days on nearly every front of their business. The digital still imaging front is the big bogie on their radar screen. In terms of size the professional film business is barely notable in their anual reports.

Thanks for the article.

What you guys may not realize is that Kodak is getting into digital imaging in a big way. I'm not sure of the specifics, but they are assisting in the design of new DLP chips. DLP is what they are using for digital cinema, which the main goal is to replace film projection in todays movie theaters. I can bet that they will have something to do with image acquisition as well, meaning they'll help make the digital cameras better. But don't think that they will ever drop the film stuff. I think there will always be a market for film.

Indeed, KODAK was one of the first manufacturers to introduce the digital still camera. Nevertheless, in my 53 years, I've learned never to say never.....:0)

Indeed, Joe, I have read a bit about their participation with digital projection. But even under the most optimistic outcomes that work could only replace a tiny fraction of their film business losses in the coming 5-10 years. Kodak has lost nearly 1/2 of its market capitalization during the past year and is struggling to manage its shrinking presence in the imaging business. As you note, they will be selling film for a long time; it's still their leading business. But it won't support the Eastman Kodak of yore.

Maybe Kodak need to follow FujiFilms lead and start producing video tapes on a larger scale.

Video will not replace Film!!! George shot episode II on HDTV because effects can be done cheaper and easier and sometimes better with computers. HDTV looks great BUT it still is not film. Film has a softer more appealing look that is more realistic. Even when HDTV hits mainstream, the best programs/films will be shot on film (35mm). Film as an originating will not be replaced by video. HDTV has a long way to go.

film vs. video
 

Ide say that film has a less realistic look, more fantasy like portrating the story telling feel in cinema. HD, i think in terms of cost reduction can easily replace film. Yet the organical essance isnt nessesarily "exactly" like it, it eliminates time and cost which to some is a key factor in cinema.

Look at the movie "Saving Private Ryan", in most cases this movie couldnt be dupilcated without hte use of film due to its organic appearance of film.

Though less stylized movies like comedies or action thrillers can easily be done or dupilicated with the use of HD due the films un-unique appearance.

If you want something to look "real," shoot it in video. If you want something to look "better than real," shoot it with film.

I think that an HD camera shooting in 24p, with the P+S Technik adapter mounting a Panavision 35mm lens, can look so much like film as to replace it.

I think so, but it remains to be seen.

IMO epsodic TV will switch to 24P quickly ....digital projection will tape over in theaters but movies will still be shot on 35mm for awhile as 24p makes slowly replaces it.... in the future "art projects" will be shot on film... art houses will project FILM ( that will be their draw) ..

remember the BEST doesn't always win ... $$ rules the marketplace ! profits ! capitalism .

soon digital projection will be a advertising/selling point for you to go to certain theaters ( good/bad won't matter)

what ever happen to HD TV ??? where is it ?? 1% of TV's are 16x9 !!!!! no market there yet !

IMO george L is shooting on 24P for more reasons that it's going to save him a million ... he writes his own budgets. it wouldn't make any difference if the budget was 60million ( 24P) or 65million ( 35mm) he would be bankrolled ... in 1979 he spoke at my college and back then he wanted to be able to control distribution and the quality of the projection ( sound, focus, jitter) ..digital projection may bring that to be as security is put into digital code and at any time one can see how many times a day a "print" is projected ...

IMO we have to look at 24P as another medium(tool, brush stroke) true some will choose because fo $$ BUT if that is the difference between making your project and NOT making your project I welcome it ...

To donatello

<what ever happen to HD TV ??? where is it ?? 1% of TV's are 16x9 !!!!! no market there yet !>

Here's an extract from the LA Times dated April 17th..

"Discovery Communications Inc., owner of the Discovery Channel on cable TV, said it's starting a digital cable network that will offer 24-hour programming with high-definition picture quality. The new network, called Discovery HD Theater, will begin service on June17 on digital cable and satellite-TV systems"

Donatello's projections are a little frightening, but I think they are all in the realm of possibility. I can confirm that episodic TV is moving that way in a hurry. 50% of the pilots being produced this season are being shot on 24p, although many of them that get picked up will still be shot on film--this year.

Chris--I think the setup you described would be impressive. The serious issue that stands in the way of approximating the film look remains contrast ratio, specifically in highlights. If that can be brought towards a film spec, then things could get interesting.

For those of us who grew up with the beauty of film, there is certainly a resistance to the evolution to video. Unfortunately, as some people have pointed out, profit and accountants books are really the driving factor in the majority of American business. How many times have we seen the old quality workmanship replaced by easier, cheaper, faster to manufacture and to reach the market. I don't think Hollywood is exempted from these pressures. Fortunately, I think, the artistic value of film will be with us for quite a while, altho', it may be expressed exclusively by independent film houses, certainly not the huge conglomerate like United Artists. There is a whole digital generation growing up that doesn't have the reference to a beautiful film production that most of us "more mature"(read:old) types have. And so it goes.

I think Charles makes a very crucial point, however. The lower latitude of digitally acquired video media is a significant stumbling block to complete acceptance of digital media for movie production. The KODAK article also points out the depth of field differences that result from the frame size at the image plane. So, perhaps to really achieve "the look" CCD's will also have to be 35mm diagonal.

Until CCD(sensor) technology solves these particular problems, film will always be around for those producers that can afford it and for whom the beauty of film makes a difference. It will be interesting to see what happens to the manufacture of KODAK film as their profit margins get eaten up by digital media. The deciding factor may be the demise of film manufacturing. I hope this doesn't happen.

A couple of interesting curves to the 24 fps = film look debate.

1. With the 20% 35mm Soderburg shot for Full Frontal, the camera ran at 25fps to match the frame rate of the PAL XL1s's. I wonder what that will do to the 'look'.

2. In Australia, where I'm from originally, when something shot on video is transfered to film, that film is then projected at 25 fps. Joe, will that effect the look at all?

I'm interested to see the results of the film being shot at 25fps. I THINK it might add weight to Chris's theory that it takes more than frame rate to achieve a nice look.