Writing on the wall - Kodak to move away from film

[Beeblebrox]

From the LA Times today (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-092503kodak_lat,1,4552926.story?coll=la-home-headlines):

As recently as a year ago, film proponents were arguing the relative merits of film, that it was so superior to digital that it would not be replaced any time soon.

But film is going the way of the dodo. Like with all technology, slower than some would like and faster than others have predicted.

Is film better than digital? On the whole, I say it isn't. It has some advantages, but many disadvantages, all of them practical. And in the end, practicality wins out over quality.

What do you think?

[The Alchemist]

I'll have to agree - it's yet to impress me. I haven't seen Once Upon A Time In Mexico however Attack of the Clones felt incredibly uncomfortable watching - probably because it sucked but it just doesn't look professional to me. I don't know, I'm a conservative type of guy.

The DV movies you see all over the place - like 28 Days Later etc. really look shoddy and pixellated. It's all very well to start off on a miniscule budget but at Danny Boyle's stage he should have stuck to good old film.

Dunno, I'm waiting to see what develops from Digital Cameras. They're certainly easier and cheaper (arguably) to use, but film just looks right.

Anyone else?

[Tuukka]

I saw a 35mm print of Episode 2 twice in the theatre and it looked great to me. I wasn't really able to tell a difference between it and real 35mm. I've heard that in digital projections there is some pixelation, but as a 35mm projection it looked just great.

I'm all for digital. It's cheaper and more flexible with the same quality. DV on the other hand sucks ass on theatre screen, but works well on TV.

The future is digital, there is no way of getting around it anymore.

[Tuukka]

I've read that Once Upon A Time In Mexico looks great otherwise, but scenes with fire tend to look bad. Is this true? Granted, fire tends to look bad on video, but does the Sony HD cam share the problem?

BTW, what was the Sony camera which was used in Episode 2 called again? It had a nickname of some sort.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Tuukka
I've read that Once Upon A Time In Mexico looks great otherwise, but scenes with fire tend to look bad. Is this true? Granted, fire tends to look bad on video, but does the Sony HD cam share the problem?

BTW, what was the Sony camera which was used in Episode 2 called again? It had a nickname of some sort.

Texas Instruments?

I like film better. Digital just feels awkward to me, it generally doesn't have the organic qualities of good old celluloid.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by The Alchemist
The DV movies you see all over the place - like 28 Days Later etc. really look shoddy and pixellated. It's all very well to start off on a miniscule budget but at Danny Boyle's stage he should have stuck to good old film.

We're pretty much talking about HD here, not DV (28 Days Later) which is noticeably inferior to both.

I thought it was very telling that Roger Ebert, a long time advocate of film, proclaimed Once Upon A Time In Mexico as the arrival of digital cinema.

Episode II was not a good example because most of it was completely manufactured images anyway. Still, the resolution looked great.

I prefer shooting digital, certainly editing on digital, and I think digital projection is vastly superior, even if the movie is shot on film. I saw a digital projection of Pirates of the Caribbean, and after that I could live without ever seeing another film projection. It was brighter, crisper, with no dust, no scratches, no breaks.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Texas Instruments?

I like film better. Digital just feels awkward to me, it generally doesn't have the organic qualities of good old celluloid.

To me, talk of "organic qualities" is like the phonograph vs digital debate. There are those enthusiasts who insist phonographs sound better than anything else.

But what they prefer is a combination of nostalgia (what they are used to) and the "organic qualities" otherwise known as "flaws." In film, it's the film weave, the grain, the tactile feel. Those are all products of the analog nature of film. Those are defects, but we've so long associated them with real film productions (as opposed to video) that its' difficult to let go of them.

The interesting thing about digital is that it can simulate those flaws or not, depending on what you want.

Where film is still superior is in certain technical aspects. Film has better latitude and better detail in shadows and highlights. It's also lot more forgiving in low-light.

But those limitations in HD will a) be fixed someday, b) will never be noticed by the movie-going audience, and c) do not outweight the vastly superior practical benefits of shooting digital.

[NobodySpecial]

I don't really care, but analog is always of a higher quality than digital.

The real advantage to moving to digital is time and money, and really, there's nothing more that needs to be discussed beyond that, right? :D

[Whiggles]

Film all the way for me. I can't stand the look of digital: flat and lifeless. Whenever I watch DVDs with digital transfers like Monsters Inc. they just look so artificial to me. I'd much rather have the image alive with grain and flecks. Oh well, I suppose such an effect could be faked, but it bothers me that so many people seem to have an attitude of "the cleaner the better". I remember, though, that Spielberg once said he would always shoot and edit on film, since he sees film grain as being the equivalent of the brush strokes in a Van Gogh painting: take 'em away, and you lose all the expression.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Whiggles
[B]Film all the way for me. I can't stand the look of digital: flat and lifeless. Whenever I watch DVDs with digital transfers like Monsters Inc. they just look so artificial to me. I'd much rather have the image alive with grain and flecks.

I'd be willing to bet good money that I could show you two shots, one shot digital, the other on film, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[Whiggles]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
I'd be willing to bet good money that I could show you two shots, one shot digital, the other on film, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Maybe static shots, yes, but I'm talking about in motion here -- when it's all moving, there's a world of difference.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Whiggles
Maybe static shots, yes, but I'm talking about in motion here -- when it's all moving, there's a world of difference.

No, I'm talking full shots, moving and everything. Not only is there not a world of difference, they are nearly indistinguishable.

I've got some demos shot by Alan Daviau to test the Sony Cinealta. I'll see if I can upload them.

Besides which, the supposed superiority of film is in the image, not the motion (both HD and film are 24 fps and nearly identical shutter speeds), so whether or not it's moving shouldn't make any difference unless you count the flaws of the film (the grain and film weave).

[Tuukka]

"Cinealta"

RE: Is this the name of the Sony 24fps HD camera?

[Tuukka]

And yeah, the more "natural" look of the film indeed comes from the flaws of film. All of which can easily be created in post-production if you are shooting digitally.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Tuukka
"Cinealta"

RE: Is this the name of the Sony 24fps HD camera?

Yes, that's the one Lucas used for Ep II and the one Rodriguez used for his last three movies.

[chasingbanky]

I like Digital video for certain types of flicks....DV can totally set a mood of just raw grittyness...When Johnny Depp goes to see the cook in Once upon a time In mexico you can totally tell its dv...The quality of that scene wasn't great but it set a kind of mood....Firstly he was in a rough part of mexico and it felt dirty and all that so it was good for that scene....28 Days later benefited 100% from DV....The Post apocalyptic(sp?) setting looked great in DV...When they're in the mansion and its raining and its dark out and everything is happening it once again added to the mood with the grainy look....So DV is good for certain types of flicks...See me personally I want to get a good DV and start filming movies but if I had a budget I would totally move on to film...That's why the call movies films.....Dig it

[Beeblebrox]

.Firstly he was in a rough part of mexico and it felt dirty and all that so it was good for that scene....28 Days later benefited 100% from DV.

Again, I want to distinguish HD (Once Upon A Time in Mexico) from SDV (28 Days Later).

For the purposes of this discussion, SDV is not in the same ball park in terms of a quality image.