Do you think Kodak will ever lower the price of film

[ccortez]

Its physics, for pete's sake. The chemical imaging of film and the pixellated imaging of electronic imaging are not the same thing. They do not work the same way. The resulting recorded images are of a fundamentally different NATURE. Thus the eye/body/mind of the human organism does not process the information the same way.

This is speculation, the part that follows "thus" I mean. Show me the research. I have heard smart people theorize about such things, but never have I heard it claimed as outright fact or seen it proven.

Question: you think if digital got everything that you can see with your eyes EXACTLY the same as film - motion characteristics, color, depth, density, latitutde, etc, etc - digital would still be deficient in delivering an experience to the viewer?

But I do agree with you, and the many others who have stated similar sentiments--all digital imaging has to be is "good enough" to satisfy the indiscrimate hoards who have neither the desire nor training to tell the difference. It will come down to economic viability, as you said, and I have no doubt that digital technologies will be able to comptete in this regard.

I could show you projected images in a theater that you could not identify as digital. Does that make you one of the "indiscriminate hoards"? (BTW, I think you mean "undiscriminating", and a "hoard" is a stash of money.)

[carlweston]

there working on it right now....

Yeah, they're working on time travel too.

Tim

They’re making no progress on time travel…but they are making impressive strides in making digital cinema..Its REAL :lol:

[ccortez]

They’re making no progress on time travel…

I hope this isn't true. It's one of my oldest and favorite fantasies, and not just for the "win the lottery" aspects. ;)

[npcoombs]

What most people seem to be missing is that the most revolutionary aspect of digital filmmaking is the way it completely removes constraints on set. With an unlimited rolling time improvisation and the study and extraction of moments from 'real time' life are more possible.

That way, a scene can roll at its natural pace. A two hour cafe conversation can roll for two hours and the couple of minutes that would usually be scripted in a film production can be extracted from 2 hours of footage in a digital production. Having said that, this possibility of digital film is rarely used and mostly its business as usual on set, which is why so much money is being invested in creating a 'film look'.

Basically, my point is that this technology is not being driven by the genuine ingenuity, nor is the cost of film a serious issue for budgeted productions (not even documentaries I have discovered when everyone happily nodded 16mm for a 60 min doc) it is being driven by big business because replacing technology is how the engine of capitalism survives.

Right now Kodak has it sewn up (with Fuji) but with digital enter every electronics manufacturer you can imagine. Jobs are created, R&D departments are put to work.

This is all sold on a kind of democratization platitude, which blurs the line between professional and amateur production. Is this necessarily positive though? I believe a certain 'aristocratic' pecking order enforced by the costs and superiority of the gauges of film is what encourages the great artists and directors to make greater and greater strives, it gets people into the cinema.

Once this technology is standardized then it can only encourage of withering of film as a great and noble art-form. We will be flooded with vacuous navel gazing. Witness the end of film, witness the end of filmmaking.

[carlweston]

What most people seem to be missing is that the most revolutionary aspect of digital filmmaking is the way it completely removes constraints on set. With an unlimited rolling time improvisation and the study and extraction of moments from 'real time' life are more possible.

That way, a scene can roll at its natural pace. A two hour cafe conversation can roll for two hours and the couple of minutes that would usually be scripted in a film production can be extracted from 2 hours of footage in a digital production. Having said that, this possibility of digital film is rarely used and mostly its business as usual on set, which is why so much money is being invested in creating a 'film look'.

Basically, my point is that this technology is not being driven by the genuine ingenuity, nor is the cost of film a serious issue for budgeted productions (not even documentaries I have discovered when everyone happily nodded 16mm for a 60 min doc) it is being driven by big business because replacing technology is how the engine of capitalism survives.

Right now Kodak has it sewn up (with Fuji) but with digital enter every electronics manufacturer you can imagine. Jobs are created, R&D departments are put to work.

This is all sold on a kind of democratization platitude, which blurs the line between professional and amateur production. Is this necessarily positive though? I believe a certain 'aristocratic' pecking order enforced by the costs and superiority of the gauges of film is what encourages the great artists and directors to make greater and greater strives, it gets people into the cinema.

Once this technology is standardized then it can only encourage of withering of film as a great and noble art-form. We will be flooded with vacuous navel gazing. Witness the end of film, witness the end of filmmaking.

Oh my god the sky is falling...Digital Cinema is the end of storing telling... :?

[npcoombs]

Oh my god the sky is falling...Digital Cinema is the end of storing telling... :?

We'll see. But it certainly is no wild conjecture that cinema as an art form could demise.

That has nothing to do story telling -everyone has a story to tell - my mum, the local MP - and Im sure we will be hearing and seeing a lot more of these stories in the years to come.

[MovieStuff]

I believe a certain 'aristocratic' pecking order enforced by the costs and superiority of the gauges of film is what encourages the great artists and directors to make greater and greater strives, it gets people into the cinema.

Once this technology is standardized then it can only encourage of withering of film as a great and noble art-form.

I would agree except for one important flaw in the reasoning: Most Hollywood movies suck, despite the fact they are being shot on film. One doesn't have to shoot endless run-on digital takes to create a bad movie. Bad movies have been part of the noble art form known as film for decades.

To me, any sort of "film look" that is convincing and inexpensive allows independent directors with more modest budgets to compete on a more level playing field. This is not to say that I don't prefer the look of geniune film but, frankly, I would rather see a really interesting production shot with film-look than yet another gazillion dollar bomb shot on film. Just because film requires restraint doesn't guarantee a better product and just because digital can be abused doesn't make doing so mandatory.

Roger

[npcoombs]

I believe a certain 'aristocratic' pecking order enforced by the costs and superiority of the gauges of film is what encourages the great artists and directors to make greater and greater strives, it gets people into the cinema.

Once this technology is standardized then it can only encourage of withering of film as a great and noble art-form.

I would agree except for one important flaw in the reasoning: Most Hollywood movies suck, despite the fact they are being shot on film. One doesn't have to shoot endless run-on digital takes to create a bad movie. Bad movies have been part of the noble art form known as film for decades.

To me, any sort of "film look" that is convincing and inexpensive allows independent directors with more modest budgets to compete on a more level playing field. This is not to say that I don't prefer the look of geniune film but, frankly, I would rather see a really interesting production shot with film-look than yet another gazillion dollar bomb shot on film. Just because film requires restraint doesn't guarantee a better product and just because digital can be abused doesn't make doing so mandatory.

Roger

I suppose I am looking at things from a European perspective, where the aristocratic pecking order has generally cultivated and nurtured great directors. The experience in the UK with the Film Council plowing money into many low budget digital features has given too much freedom and money to people not given the structures to develop into talented directors and cinematographers.

Its getting to the point where at a film festival I will only generally bother to watch anything shot on film, although intrinsically there is nothing wrong or wicked with digital.

As I said I think there are great possibilities with digital, maybe realised only by Kiarostami, but the structures the medium demolishes makes it more difficult for artists to realize this potential.

[sophocle]

So you're saying that, because of these "unique physical properties" you can always tell the difference in a photo shot digitally and a photo shot on film?

Roger,

You will always be able to tell the difference between my 8x10 contact sheets and any print from any mf or scan back--trust me on this.

And beyond 11x14 enlargements nothing in the digital world that can capture the world like my smallest camera -- a 40 year old fujica 6x9. Maybe Jon Q. Public will not, but you will always see the difference.

I am sure someone can make dv look like s8 -- but I have never witnessed it.

On the other hand, I am also sure the look of a funsaver has been successfully replicated with a video still camera.

[carlweston]

So you're saying that, because of these "unique physical properties" you can always tell the difference in a photo shot digitally and a photo shot on film?

Roger,

You will always be able to tell the difference between my 8x10 contact sheets and any print from any mf or scan back--trust me on this.

And beyond 11x14 enlargements nothing in the digital world that can capture the world like my smallest camera -- a 40 year old fujica 6x9. Maybe Jon Q. Public will not, but you will always see the difference.

I am sure someone can make dv look like s8 -- but I have never witnessed it.

On the other hand, I am also sure the look of a funsaver has been successfully replicated with a video still camera.

my canon 20D with L series lens works for just fine...prints are great ...better than film...in my opinion..

[carlweston]

I believe a certain 'aristocratic' pecking order enforced by the costs and superiority of the gauges of film is what encourages the great artists and directors to make greater and greater strives, it gets people into the cinema.

Once this technology is standardized then it can only encourage of withering of film as a great and noble art-form.

I would agree except for one important flaw in the reasoning: Most Hollywood movies suck, despite the fact they are being shot on film. One doesn't have to shoot endless run-on digital takes to create a bad movie. Bad movies have been part of the noble art form known as film for decades.

To me, any sort of "film look" that is convincing and inexpensive allows independent directors with more modest budgets to compete on a more level playing field. This is not to say that I don't prefer the look of geniune film but, frankly, I would rather see a really interesting production shot with film-look than yet another gazillion dollar bomb shot on film. Just because film requires restraint doesn't guarantee a better product and just because digital can be abused doesn't make doing so mandatory.

Roger

I suppose I am looking at things from a European perspective, where the aristocratic pecking order has generally cultivated and nurtured great directors. The experience in the UK with the Film Council plowing money into many low budget digital features has given too much freedom and money to people not given the structures to develop into talented directors and cinematographers.

Its getting to the point where at a film festival I will only generally bother to watch anything shot on film, although intrinsically there is nothing wrong or wicked with digital.

As I said I think there are great possibilities with digital, maybe realised only by Kiarostami, but the structures the medium demolishes makes it more difficult for artists to realize this potential.

Digital cinema is the great democratizer.. because anyone can go out and create a movie. Yes I will admit that there is a lot more garbage being produced digitally but there sure is a lot of bad films being shot on film too…No one forces me to watch these bad films.

[MovieStuff]

So you're saying that, because of these "unique physical properties" you can always tell the difference in a photo shot digitally and a photo shot on film?

Roger,

You will always be able to tell the difference between my 8x10 contact sheets and any print from any mf or scan back--trust me on this.

As a still photographer, myself, I understand what you are implying but you are mixing apples and oranges. To take an 8x10 negative and then say that it is going to be obviously different than something produced on digital ignores the fact the it will also be obviously different from something produced on 35mm film. The sheer size of the image and the amount of resolution in an 8x10 image is off the scale and is far and away different than images produced for motion pictures or even 35mm level photography. More to the point, it is a different scale than Tim was referring to, which is that film inherently has "unique physical properties" that makes it immediately distinguishable from images of digital origins. This should apply to any size image, regardless of resolution. Thus, I should be able to post images here shot with both digital and film and the difference should be obvious to anyone, not just to the most discriminate viewer.

I say that if I post images shot on both digital and film, that no one will be able to consistantly pick out which is which. Most importantly, if they do, I want a prior explanation with each choice that rules out "lucky guesses".

Maybe Jon Q. Public will not, but you will always see the difference.

But why make the audience selective? If according to Tim, "the eye/body/mind of the human organism does not process the information the same way" for both digital and film, then this should apply to all humans and not just people anal about the look of film.

Roger

[carlweston]

"aristocratic pecking order" or do you mean the artistic elitist pecking order......the class of people that can afford film.

[etimh]

Question: you think if digital got everything that you can see with your eyes EXACTLY the same as film - motion characteristics, color, depth, density, latitutde, etc, etc - digital would still be deficient in delivering an experience to the viewer?

I'm a bit burned out on debating this but one last thought regarding your question, which really hinges on the idea of "deficiency." I have no doubt that sometime in the future technology will somehow be able to simulate the surface manifestation of the chemical-based image. And I'm not so arrogant to assume that I will not be superficially "decieved" by such technology. So in your terms, these images won't be "deficient" in any qualatative way. And they certainly will be adequate to satisfy any aesthetic and economic criteria set forth by popular commercial cinema and its audience.

But film does "work" in certain unique ways that I believe are dependent on its inherent physical qualities. Qualities that are lost in the form and process of electronic image creation/replication. I know that most here have dismissed these somewhat "philosophical" observations, but I imagine that we will sense something profoundly "absent" if and when the digital becomes the status quo. And if general tendiencies in industrail production and audience taste are any indication, it will just be us, the people who are capable of discussing such things, who will be sitting around saying, "what happened?"

So, I have no doubt that you guys will "win" this one. But what are you actually arguing and fighting for?

Tim

BTW ccortez, "undiscriminating" is not a word; definition of indiscriminate as I used it: "deficient in discrimination and discernment," "heterogeneous or confused." So I think I used it properly. But thanks for the spell check on "hoard." Yes, I meant horde.

Tim

[Angus]

my canon 20D with L series lens works for just fine...prints are great ...better than film...in my opinion..

I'd be interested in seeing your work because I have *never* seen a digital image substantially enlarged that looked anything other than muddy.

Hell most even look crap full-screen at 1600x1200 resolution...and with today's cameras that's not even close to the native resolution of the CCD.