http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/film-fading-to-black



You'll be unable to go out and purchase a new film camera if you want to go and shoot a movie on film. Obviously, used film cameras will continue to be around for a while yet. But, will the unavailability of new cameras hasten the downfall of film? Is film dead or does it have some time left?

As an aspiring filmmaker myself, and having listened intently to Fincher's Q&A at Westwood's Hammer museum, all I can say is: about damn time. I, for one, am looking forward to a career in the world of digital media, having none of the nostalgia that others exhibit for the look and feel of 35 mm.

Film will only die along with the last film-diehard, rich-off-his-ass filmmaker who can afford to custom-order cameras that are no longer being mass-produced.

And not even then, because there are still tons of film cameras in working order, either in active service or sitting on the shelf. Film (stock) might not even die until film (the medium) does.

Bully, I say. More colors for the canvas.

Fincher is a big proponent of digital. He's supported the technology from the start. I have no doubt about the medium's advantages but I would still be interested in an alternative opinion. The strange thing is that most of the filmmakers shooting on digital seek to replicate the look of film. There are a few, like Michael Mann, who experiment with the digital picture, but those are few and far between.



That's kind of what the article was talking about. They haven't been mass-producing film cameras for a few years now. It's strictly been a custom-order for those who want them. Now they've stopped that too, so no more new custom film cameras for the rich-off-his-ass filmmaker.

If Spielberg wants a film camera, he'll find someone who will either scrounge one up and do whatever refurbishing is necessary or, failing that, build one for him.

well I think it has (almost) nothinmg to do with nostalgia. Noone wants to edit a movie on a 6-plate Steenbeck or a Movieola anymore. Noone wants to see a scratched and worn out 6th generation 35mm print projected on the screen anyomore. The processed film will be scanned to digital and from then on it's digital - in computers. Digital cameras (same in Photography) still don't have the silky and "finished" look of film.

The same happens with music production. It's all digital now - within software - but we are using shitloads of plugins and tons of painstaking tweaking to get near that powerful and dense analog sound - just without the hassle: worn out tapes, misaligments, tape hiss, no editing flexibility etc. Not to mention microphone pre-amplifiers with real vacuum tubes which are still in use by those who can afford them. Higher and higher resolutions and CPU power (at least during the production stages) allowed for the developement of virtual tools (plugins and the likes) to emulate the sound of yesteryear. Sure it's not a carbon copy - it's a modern interpretation of analog sound.

Same with film: grain shouldn't be too evident, contrast (including rich deep blacks - impossible in an all analog film process from camera to projector), but that silky overall feel and the color palette looks way better when it resembles film.

I higly recommend checking on Youtube some amateur footage made with Super 16mm film.

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2iun_OQfh8

These are modified 40+ year old semi-pro cameras like the Bolex for modern film stock and widescreen. It's sharp, its smooth and with only a little color or contrast tweaking in the computer after scanning it simply kicks ass.
Yes, film will end one day - just like any technology. For me the "official" end of film (in the camera) will also mean that I will like the movies a little less. I know "Drive" has been shot entirely in digital. Not bad at all and way, way more film-like than Michael Mann's Collateral (which I found almost unweatchable with its video-look complete with motion smear), but man would it have looked so much better on 35mm or even Super 16 (The Hurt Locker, The Wrestler and Black Swan all heve been shot on Super16mm which is about 60% cheaper than 35mm). The textures are still too "glassy and metallic" when shot on video - and something's always wrong with the "creamy" contrast - no real visual "punch". I'd say: digital movie cameras - back to the drawing board guys! ...just my opinion. I'd love to hear what Tarantino has to say about this. I've heard he hates digital cameras and refuses to use them.

That's a great post and really explains something I was curious about. It does seem like everyone is using this new technology but in a way that makes it feel like the old technology. Apart from motion smearing is there any reason directors shouldn't experiment with "the video look"?

And, yes, Tarantino is a serious film fan. In fact, he's on record as saying something about retiring when every theatre projects in digital or if he can no longer shoot on film. Chris Nolan, too, has so far refused to shoot on digital.

Thanks.
As far as I know the motion smear (which simply looks poor IMHO) is no longer a problem with the newest digital motion picture cameras. There are some delay issues though. Mechanical traditional film reacts virtually with zero delay to the incoming light. Not so with digital. Like everything it is just a matter of time until the delay will become irrelevant.
Yes I think there are many ways to experiment with the video look. One thing for example is abandoning the 24 frames per sec. look. You can go way higher with digital - but of course not when it is being projected as a standard 24 fps 35mm print. That raw, non-refined, glassy, low contrast look is perhaps not the greatest to experiment with but I like what modern stills photographers do with digital and Photoshopping. That ultra-sharp "metallic" look on some recent photos looks great (even if the colors are still rather ugly in digital, I have seen "color shift" charts for each camera chip in a digital photography magazine - this is cleary a problem to be solved still). Sure: colors of traditional film aren't more true to reality, but chemical (as opposed to cumbersome three strip Technicolor from the 30s through 50s - which still today looks breathtaking IMHO) color film stock has been in development for over 60 years.

I think people should experiment with that digital look - to find something new and better than just something resembling live (high definition) television. Stagnation or moving backwards can't be the solution. Forward is the direction to go, but not with recent technology which is still in the R and D stage. ...just my 2C.

Threeper,

So you aren't a fan of the Red One digital cameras? I myself can't wait to get a look at the new Red Epic camera being used in the new Spider Man film. I've watched some interviews on it, and if this camera delivers, it will be THE TITS in hollywood for the next few years. Peter Jackson is also shooting his version of The Hobbit using 48 Epic cameras in a 3D configuration at 48 FPS.

Wow!

Well let's see. All movies, film or digital, are tweaked in software like Avid and Final Cut Pro. So the "film look" of today is a digitally tweaked film look. 35mm prints are as cheap and quick as possible to make and not as good as possible. Film doesn't look as good as it could and all the intermediate stages are digital since the mid 90s anyway. Film projectors usually run with two blade shutters as oposed to three blade shutters (which greatly reduces flicker but requires more light) - so we are not comparing the best any of those formats can be. Too many compromises.
Yeah if you see a movie camera as a piece of hi tech gear, digital will win. I am not trying to preserve steam locomotives here - but I can see in the near future film students walking around the streets with small hand held cameras, looking just like any "tourist" mini gear, producing fantastic results which can be further enhanced at home in the computer. What the heck is the fun of that? Well, there soon will be new generations who won't miss the times when every profession required its own gear with its own look, feel, sound and character. Looks like soon everything will be connected to everything and when someone shoots a movie, the sponsors can already see the results in real time - anywhere in the world. It will be a very different world. I know it's farewell "real film". As I said: I will love the movies a little less when 35mm will be gone for good. Same as I like stills photography a lot less since it doesn't use film anymore. I was born and raised in a time where it was all about the hardware. Now it's all about the data. Now let's work and get the Slush Puppie "green apple flavor" lawn out of those hi def tv screens - in favor of something resembling reality - each time we see a ball game, please? Hi tech my ass!

Haha...I notice this the worst whenever I watch golf tournaments...namely the Masters. Having been to Augusta National, the tv muddles it and does it no justice.

O.K. I am talking tv cameras, transmission and screens here, but the technologies are now the exact same (there is no difference between tv, video and the movies anymore - just the tech specs of individual hardware). You see: digital photography still has some very serious issues regarding colors (and textures for that matter). Not saying film is technically better - but it looks better; way, way better.

I think digital cinema and HiDef Tv are actually sponsored by Slush Puppie. Check picture below (I might be onto something )

It's funny that proper IMAX (70mm film) still out does even the best digital movie cameras in the world.

Very few digital STILL cameras can 'faithfully' match 35mm and these are not ones you'd buy casually due to the high price. Hassleblad S series cameras contain the largest CCD chip of a still digital camera and even that only just matches medium format (6X) just in terms of image size.

Add to this the lesser known fact that the exposure latitude of digital (still and movie) has yet to surpass negative film (but still beats slide film) and I really don't think this is the way to go just yet.