RIP Film?

[Max Futterman]

Granted, the death of film has been reported pretty much every year for the last decade, and I've grown accustomed to laughing it off. But somehow, this feels like the first real nail in the proverbial coffin:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/r_i_p_the_movie_camera_1888_2011/singleton/

Now once Kodak and Fuji stop manufacturing celluloid...

[WhyOne]

Max, thanks for the article. An elegant statement of what we all know and feel. Much to my surprise, I'm on a show now that uses film!

Loved the homage to Brakhage, the original "experimental cinema" "filmmaker", yet the even the very next wave of "experimental filmmakers" - Frampton, Greene, Conrad, and Brakhage's protegee Sharits, etc. understood in the mid seventies that ones and zeros were going to replace celluloid. For me, it was all over when Kodak stopped making ECO...

Jay

[Michael Miramontes]

interesting read

[Marc Wielage]

I knew we were close to the end when they shut down the Hollywood Technicolor plant about 18 months ago. These are difficult times.

I still say that, if the economy hadn't gone down the crapper, this would've made a big difference in keeping film alive. I think the WGA strike, the SAG slowdown, and other economic factors all contributed to killing film for TV, and that trend quickly spread to features. I believe 2011 will be the first year that more theatrical motion pictures were shot digitally than were shot on film. I don't see this trend reversing.

Birns & Sawyer also announced this week they were getting rid of 100% of their film cameras, 16mm and 35mm, at an upcoming auction. I had heard about two years ago from an insider at a major West coast camera house that they had about 200 un-rented film camera packages, while 100% of their digital gear was booked for that weekend. Film gear is also very, very inexpensive to rent right now, but I think a lot of filmmakers under 30 feel it's too low-tech to consider, or they have the mistaken impression that film costs too much.

--Marc W.

[Mark LeBlanc]

Marc, another thing to consider about the under 30 crowd is the instant gratification that digital gives them. Why wait for processing when I can start editing today while listening to the latest J-Z album I just downloaded... Yea, I'll sync it all up later with Pluraleyes..

[Philip Perkins]

Max, thanks for the article. An elegant statement of what we all know and feel. Much to my surprise, I'm on a show now that uses film!

Loved the homage to Brakhage, the original "experimental cinema" "filmmaker", yet the even the very next wave of "experimental filmmakers" - Frampton, Greene, Conrad, and Brakhage's protegee Sharits, etc. understood in the mid seventies that ones and zeros were going to replace celluloid. For me, it was all over when Kodak stopped making ECO...

Jay

Jay, the original "experimental" filmmaker was Melies! (1895) Brakhage was certainly one of his heirs, though, and a hero to most filmmakers of my generation.

phil p

[Marc Wielage]

Yeah, there's also the "gee whiz" factor of digital. Right now, there's a lot of Red fans on RedUser.net crowing about Kodak's problems, and I taunted a few of them by wondering how few of them have ever actually used film.

The best thing I can say about film is that it's very forgiving when you screw up. You change exposure a couple of stops, film negative will hold up OK. In digital... not so much.

One can make comparisons to analog tape as well.

--Marc W.

[old school]

I think the WGA strike, the SAG slowdown, and other economic factors all contributed to killing film for TV, and that trend quickly spread to features. I believe 2011 will be the first year that more theatrical motion pictures were shot digitally than were shot on film. I don't see this trend reversing.

--Marc W.

I agree Marc. Everything went digital when the producers went AFTRA instead of SAG. It was going that way anyway, but that sped up the transition. Economics of the great recession plays into it as well. Unintended consequences of actions taken by people n groups with inflexible positions tend to make things worse, not better. Exhibit A, Prohibition. Check the chip. On a good chip, that's a wrap. Cheers to the new ways n new days.

CrewC

[John Blankenship]

...but I think a lot of filmmakers under 30 feel it's too low-tech to consider, or they have the mistaken impression that film costs too much.

While I totally agree with your point, an interesting side-note is that for many of the "new crop" of filmmakers, they're correct, film costs a lot more since they lack the benefit of discipline that shooting on celluloid imposes.  Too many of them take the easy-breezy approach and just roll until they think they have something they can use.

Along with the visual aesthetic, one of the best things about film is that it imposes limitations that require the filmmaker to actually think about what it is they're preparing to shoot.  The costs of unrestrained shooting are high enough that there is some necessity to learn the grammar of film and to plan just what it is that you want the shot to say.

However, when properly planned, a film shoot can land in the same budget range as shooting video.

Another side-note:  I just wrapped on a celluloid shoot two days ago.

[Wyatt Tuzo]

One can make comparisons to analog tape as well.

--Marc W.

I've always felt this way as well. There are just some inaccuracies that are pleasing to our senses. Film grain could be argued to equate to tape hiss, color saturation- tape saturation (or, compression), gamma curve-EQ curve.

Digital, by nature, doesn't impart these unpredictable (and often, if only subliminally) pleasing artifacts.

We are fortunate in music that RMG has started manufacture of analog tape again. It's quite good... but expensive (at $300/reel of 2"). There is a nearly irreplaceable musicality to the compression characteristics of tape. ...and don't get me started on on the harmonic distortion brought on by machine biasing and tape formulations.

Of coarse digital video and audio, film, and tape all have their places.. but to my senses, there is such thing as "too much information"

I could talk about this all day!

[Olle Sjostrom]

Analog rocks. In Sweden, and I'm guessing the whole world, vinyl records sales have actually gone up (something like 200%)! I'm hoping this means that eventually we'll see tape and film going back up as well.

[studiomprd]

" we'll see tape and film going back up as well. "

Well, tape is still alive, and preferred for some situations, but mostly in digital formats.

Yes, vinyl records (and turntables) are having a niche revival...

Film...??

" Dear Friends & Colleagues: It is with mixed feelings that we will be exiting the 16 & 35mm film camera business after 57 years. Nevertheless, our success with RED Mysterium X, ARRI Alexa, CANON 5D/7D, SONY F-3 and Panasonic AF-100 cameras as well as our lighting and sales operations keeps business as exciting as ever. Production has been robust this year and we are thankful in this time of US recession, our business is booming!

Thank you.

Warm regards,

William Meurer

Owner/ Cinematographer 323-466-8211 ext. 105 BMeurer@birnsandsawyer.com "

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118044669.html?cmpid=NLC|InsideProduction

Edited October 18, 2011 by studiomprd

[Ramsay]

Real time Digital HDR recording will be possible in the next year. Another nail.

[studiomprd]

" "Motion Pictures are no longer being captured on film in sufficient numbers to warrant keeping any film cameras... "While cinematographers appreciate the superior recording of images with film, the difference has become so small that the economics of the industry have finally placed the last nail in the coffin of film origination," "

http://www.variety.c...nsideProduction

[Marc Wielage]

Exhibit A, Prohibition. Check the chip. On a good chip, that's a wrap.

I just heard "check the chip" for the first time on my last shoot! That got a chuckle out of me -- though I miss "check the gate."

Along with the visual aesthetic, one of the best things about film is that it imposes limitations that require the filmmaker to actually think about what it is they're preparing to shoot. The costs of unrestrained shooting are high enough that there is some necessity to learn the grammar of film and to plan just what it is that you want the shot to say.

Those are very wise words. I wish young filmmakers understood that -- that in the old days, every shot had to count.

Working in post over the last 25 years, I've seen shooting ratios skyrocket. With digital, editorial crews are typically getting in at least 6-8 hours of printed footage per shoot day. That almost never happened in the film days -- a couple of hours was pretty typical, except for huge, multicamera projects. With digital, they just roll and roll and roll and roll, whether it's good, bad, usable, or unusable. It makes you crazy.

Long, extended takes are very hard on the boom op, too. And I've heard from a few actors that they're more stressed-out, because they don't get the same number of breaks they used to get during film mag changes, battery changes, and so on. (Of course, now they get an extra break when the camera crashes, but that's only occasionally.)

Real time Digital HDR recording will be possible in the next year. Another nail.

High Dynamic Range cameras won't eliminate the need for good lighting and good exposure. I've told beginning DPs before: "remember, it's about placing shadows -- not about how many lights you use or what technology is capturing the image." And while re-lighting every shot in post can be done, it's far cheaper and more efficient to get it right the first time.

This is as silly as believing, "hey, if we record 32-bit audio, we won't have to adjust levels! We can just do it all in post!" Yikes...

--Marc W.

[Olle Sjostrom]

It's weirdas well, working on celluloid productions, everyone just seems a bit more... Professional? Everyone just acts up... Sort of. I think it has to do with everyone thinking film is so easy now anyone can do it. "it looks so good in the camera"

Shooting digital in Sweden where we already know nothing on working with film, is horrible. Just for the sake of being able to shoot a whole super wide master shot (we never or extremely seldom ever use more than one camera on fiction) in one long 11 minute take, and then roll five takes of that, and "develop" it and use two seconds of it in the final cut... That's just... I could charge less so that those productions could shoot on film instead.

Good point about the actors as well. Because there's no real technical and economical problem rolling 1000 takes they just have to keep their smile on. Macabre

[Ramsay]

I agree that HDR won't eleminate the need for good DP"s. It will however give amazing flexibility to the images they create. Something that is not possible with film.

[Olle Sjostrom]

I agree that HDR won't eleminate the need for good DP"s. It will however give amazing flexibility to the images they create. Something that is not possible with film.

Isn't HDR just a way for digital to get closer to film and film's capabilities?

[Ramsay]

HDR surpasses the dynamic range of film.

[johnpaul215]

Analog rocks. In Sweden, and I'm guessing the whole world, vinyl records sales have actually gone up (something like 200%)! I'm hoping this means that eventually we'll see tape and film going back up as well.

I don't know how accurate it is, but I read an article somewhere that while record sales are increasing, people are not actually listening to the records regularly. They use the included download card and pop the MP3s on their iPod and move along. If that's true, it would seem the vinyl revival may just be a trend. As a big fan of vinyl, and somebody that ran a vinyl indie record label, I hope vinyl keeps going strong. Those increased sales can only help the market stay alive in terms of record players etc.

[johnpaul215]

There are obviously a lot of cases where digital is far more practical than film. There are some cheap things you can do with digital that you can not with film, and in this race to the bottom, that wins. Heck, there are (reality) TV shows where the cards are dumped to a drive, dropped off at a loft and somebody starts editing the show on their iMac. That's crazy cheap compared to the workflow of shooting a TV show on 35mm. The reality is that if the ratings are still there, why would production care? Are people proud of making something beautiful, or proud of the profit margins of the product? Does the audience even care? You figure most of the younger viewers probably watch far more digitally shot TV than film shot. I don't know what the ratio is of current TV content, but considering cable TV, it's got to be a landslide for digital. I think that is a good predictor of the future.

I would hope film lives on for well made movies, but who knows if that is enough to keep it around (and affordable).

[Marc Wielage]

I agree that HDR won't eleminate the need for good DP"s. It will however give amazing flexibility to the images they create. Something that is not possible with film.

Speaking as a guy who worked in film finishing for 30 years, my opinion is that digital still cannot capture the sharpness, exposure range, or texture of film. It gets closer every day, but it's not there yet. The only two things digital can offer are 1) it's faster [no developing required], and 2) it's cheaper. But I think film looks better, it lasts longer, the color is more accurate, the equipment is simpler to maintain, it makes less noise, and it's far more reliable.

Even Sony, in their demos and discussions of their upcoming 4K F65 digital camera (which has an 8K processor, depending on how you measure it), says "our new camera approaches the quality of motion picture film."

But I think it's a moot point. In the current economy, it doesn't make sense to shoot film for the vast majority of TV projects and shorts, or any film under (say) $10M. When I was at Technicolor, the sales weasels (excuse me, execs) had a chart that showed that shooting on film basically added about $20,000 a day for an average show. This isn't a huge amount of money, certainly far less than many actors and producers make, but it is a consideration. That's easily a million bucks+ for a two-month shoot -- more if they're shooting multiple cameras and tons of footage. (A Kodak exec told me that Charlie's Angels 2 shot over 2,000,000 feet of film, which I think was a record.)

Digital can still look very, very good. So much depends on the skill and artistry of the DP and his crew. It's really all about the lighting.

And yet: the best-looking shot on TV at the moment is probably Boardwalk Empire -- all shot 100% on 35mm film. And the highest-rated basic cable show is The Walking Dead -- shot 100% on 16mm film. Film still lives (even if the zombies don't).

--Marc W.

[studiomprd]

" Charlie's Angels 2 shot over 2,000,000 feet of film, which I think was a record. "

what a waste!

(that movie)

Edited October 21, 2011 by studiomprd

[Marc Wielage]

" Charlie's Angels 2 shot over 2,000,000 feet of film, which I think was a record. "

what a waste!

Not for Kodak! The VP of sales told me their standard deal was, they would present the camera crew with a case of champagne every time they shoot 1,000,000 feet of Kodak 35mm negative. (There was a ton of slow motion on that show, and that's where lots and lots of film got burned.)

Sadly, I think those days are gone...

--Marc W.

[studiomprd]

Otto Nemenz Int. in Hollywood is auctioning off a lot of their old film camera equipment this Summer. Both 35mm and 16mm cameras, accessories related parts..