8mm Forum: The Romance Is Missing

This is topic The Romance Is Missing in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003960

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on May 22, 2016, 11:13 AM:

There's been so much written in this forum about film vs digital video. I feel that the debate sidesteps a significant aspect. Where's the romance? What I mean is, given the ease and availability of current technology, the feeling of things being special is gone. Now that anyone can make a movie with their phone, the process and the end results are an ordinary everyday thing. It's difficult to put the feeling I have about this into words. Perhaps other forum members get what I mean and can express it better than I can.

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on May 22, 2016, 11:22 AM:

[Razz]

[ June 02, 2016, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Bill Phelps ]

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on May 22, 2016, 12:52 PM:

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that you are not watching your digital movies on the big screen in a darkened room, i.e. a home cinema. I cannot "get into" a film watching it on a TV. Too many distractions. Re creating as far as possible the atmosphere of a cinema does it for me, and makes all the difference. The really sad thing about the march of technology is that most amateurs just shoot "animated snapshots" with no plot or story line etc. How people can watch a film on a mobile phone, tablet or computer is beyond my comprehension. It is like trying to watch a cine film on an editing screen!! Ken Finch.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 22, 2016, 01:12 PM:

Agree with Ken -- digital has to be projected on a big screen in a darkened home cinema with a full-blown sound system for the impact. That's absolutely where the "romance" you refer to comes into play. Otherwise watching digital media on an ordinary TV is, well, just that -- watching TV.

Believe me, the "feeling of things being special" is absolutely there when digital is projected in a home cinema -- and this is coming from a decades-long and current film collector. Once I saw that the "thou shalt remain wedded to only film even if other technologies happen along" argument as laughably futile and overwrought, I quickly came to realize that there has never been a better time to be in the collecting/screening hobby. I waited decades to build a proper home theatre because I didn't want to limit the options for my screenings to only the relatively small number of shorts, digests and features that were made available on Super 8 and now have been in circulation for up to 50 years. (Just as one example, we collectors have been talking about the very same [and now faded] digests for 40 to 50 years. I don't know about you, but I'm not getting any younger, and I want access to much broader options for screening all sorts of movies.)

I've never looked back, and I respectfully suggest that others do the same so as to not waste one's remaining days by constantly looking in the rear-view mirror and pining for the past.

[ May 22, 2016, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: John Hourigan ]

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 22, 2016, 02:39 PM:

When it comes to watching films and other special events, I too agree wholeheartedly with John and Ken's comments here.

In the right conditions and atmosphere, I love either method for viewing a film or indeed a movie.

Nothing surpasses the tactile event that can only be from projecting film for someone who is an enthusiast of the medium, but the enjoyment gained from the experience is unparalleled in my opinion when it's a quality projected image, no matter what technology brings it to screen.

This era is amazing for movie lovers given the options available to nearly all of us now.

Posted by Dave Groves (Member # 4685) on May 22, 2016, 02:54 PM:

I have to say that showing blu-rays on my 6ft screen in a darkened room with surround sound makes it just as special as seeing the same thing at the Cinema. A boring film on a 70ft wide screen is no different if it's only 6ft. I recently saw the new Star Wars film in 3D and Imax projected by laser at the Empire, Leicester Square, London. I found the whole experience overwhelming and intimidating. 'Hateful 8' at the nearby Odeon in 70mm with a packed audience in a single screen cinema was a great experience. Can't say I was too fussed with the film but the old pleasure as the lights dimmed and the two sets of curtains opened was very real. And the manager told me they'd presold 1000 tickets for the evening performance. I suppose what I'm trying to say is film for warm nostalgia and digital for functional enjoyment. There's a place for both.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on May 22, 2016, 03:28 PM:

As much as I love film projection in the home, there is no way that I would want to go back to pre-digital projection days. The quality now obtainable from projected blu ray and upscaled DVD'S is as good as anything in the commercial cinema. My home cinema never looked or sounded so good.
A mix of film and digital gives you the best of everything. Throw in curtains, powered masking, preshow cinema music, and you have all the ambience of the cinema as we remember it.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on May 22, 2016, 04:34 PM:

If I did any serious kind of home cinema there's no way I wouldn't include video projection: there's just too much out there to ignore.

-nor would I ever exclude film projection: that's my hobby!

We've often said this before: you have various film conventions all over the world and people are crossing continents and even oceans to attend.

-as reliable, cheap and easy to use as digital video is, it's kind of hard to be that passionate about it!

I once restored an old car: for the first couple of weekends I drove it I barely made it back to the driveway, then I'd work on it and it slowly got better: I loved that about it!

Three years back I bought a Honda Civic. I turn the key, it starts, it gets me where I'm going without the least fuss and I went about two years before I opened the hood. (Windshield washer fluid was empty...)

-I love that too....just differently!

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on May 22, 2016, 04:36 PM:

I think my original point is misunderstood. I was referring to the creative desire and the creative process. The technology has turned virtually everyone into 'filmmakers' simply because they can. There's a TV commercial for the iPhone that shows a girl who videos someone cutting up an onion. The video gains instant popularity to the point where it wins a major award (presumably an Oscar). The point of the commercial is that anyone could be an award winning filmmaker with an iPhone. I see it more as lowering our standards of quality and giving recognition where it isn't necessarily due. Kind of like handing out awards to kids on a sports team just for showing up.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 22, 2016, 04:57 PM:

But how is that any different than us shooting Super 8 films when we were kids/teenagers (given that was the technology of the day)? Is "the creative desire and the creative process" as well as filmmaking only supposed to be for an elite few??

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 22, 2016, 05:04 PM:

quote:
I think my original point is misunderstood. I was referring to the creative desire and the creative process. The technology has turned virtually everyone into 'filmmakers' simply because they can. There's a TV commercial for the iPhone that shows a girl who videos someone cutting up an onion. The video gains instant popularity to the point where it wins a major award (presumably an Oscar). The point of the commercial is that anyone could be an award winning filmmaker with an iPhone. I see it more as lowering our standards of quality and giving recognition where it isn't necessarily due. Kind of like handing out awards to kids on a sports team just for showing up.

YES, exactly. And I said this in the other thread.

quote:
But, except for the technology, how is that any different than us shooting Super 8 films when we were kids/teenagers? Is "the creative desire and the creative process" as well as filmmaking only supposed to be for an elite few??

No, it's actually totally different. Today with the instant praise of "likes" on social media, mediocrity is rewarded as talent. Just look at Instagram and digital still photography. Even with Super 8, the filmmaking took more real talent. And there was no "instant" praise a click away to boost your ego. And if you were really good, and serious, you most likely graduated to 16mm. With both Super 8 and 16mm, you needed real drive, and determination. And it cost money. It took more labor, and it was a greater investment in time. So you had to think more carefully about what you were doing; what you wanted to accomplish and how to get there.

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on May 22, 2016, 05:13 PM:

Well said.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 22, 2016, 05:19 PM:

Sorry, but In terms of the "creative process," I've seen some really bad Super 8-shot productions that are easily trumped even by my daughter's class projects that she shot with a video camera and edited on a MacBook.

The use of any format itself doesn't automatically determine whether it's creative or not. In my professional life, we shoot national broadcast spots at 24 fps, with directors who have directed feature films in the film format in their past lives. These directors have said to me that today's digital technology allows them to be much more creative than film ever allowed them to be. Their words, not mine, and they know more about what they're talking about.

Film is great, but let's not over-romanticize it --

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on May 22, 2016, 05:20 PM:

Any romance is of your own creation with a smattering of aid from the filmmakers - Think of it as a theatre, filled to capacity, the lights do down (now, right there you can't feel that atmosphere anywhere else) - The screen lights with attractions, previews and the story itself - No, motion pictures will always live and the romance therein will never die - Shorty

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 22, 2016, 05:29 PM:

quote:
Sorry, but I've seen some really bad Super 8-shot productions that are easily trumped even by my daughter's class projects that she shot with a video camera and edited on a MacBook.

And where did I say that all Super 8 films made before the advent of "digital cinema" were good? Not eveyone became a star (not everyone had the intention either). We are talking about the process. Many who did want to be filmmakers for a living crashed and burned - of course. But it certainly did separate the wheat from the chaff when it came to to those who had the real determination and or talent to succeed. This is not about "over romanticizing" film. Not at all. And it's kind of amazing how you keep missing the points being made.

Digital video is a crutch. And I'm glad you brought up people who worked in film before the advent of digital video. That is a very salient point. These people have already proven themselves with film. The real problems lie with those with no film experience whatsoever (though even veterans with real filmmaking process experience can fall prey to being bedazzled by digital this and digital that and losing their way (George Lucas, anyone?)).

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 22, 2016, 05:50 PM:

Thanks Raleigh, but I was simply responding to your statement that "Even with Super 8, the filmmaking took more real talent." And I would tend to place more weight in the comments and experiences of professional Hollywood directors who have worked in both formats over the decades -- believe me, the ones I've worked with don't think of digital as a "crutch," particularly when their creative livelihoods and reputation are at stake.

Not everything that is new is automatically bad.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 22, 2016, 06:38 PM:

Oh but it did. It did take more talent to succeed - a point you keep ignoring. And not *everyone* working in the business for "40 years" is a talent either. I think that goes without saying. Hollywood is full of hacks, both greater and lesser, and yes, even some talent. Digital technology isn't in and of itself bad, it's the way it's being used, in my opinion - as a substitute for real skills and knowledge of craft, from which - when mixed with creativity - can spring real artistry. Here is something I wrote in relation to digital still photography. If you cannot comprehend that digital video/photography is a crutch for people with no experience in film, both still and motion, I don't know what would convince you. If that is the case, stay in your circle...you know the one....

I don't pretend to be a talented photographer, or a photographic artist. I just snap photos with my iPhone, and that's it. You, and so many others like you, because of digital cameras (and the instant praise of social media), think that suddenly you are the new Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange. Lighting steel wool on fire and spinning it around in the air to make pretty little sparkles and lines during a long "exposure", or playing with smoke and fire, does not an artist or talent make. You and everyone like you are posers. What the hell is so cool about those smoke bomb photos you take? NOTHING. The one with the guy burning the playing card? So what! You neither necessarily have a great eye nor artistry. You (and the others like you) rely on gimmicks. You want to really be considered talented? Put down your enabling digital camera, and pick up a REAL 35mm film camera. Buy film. Pay for developing (or better yet, process the film in a darkroom, YOURSELF). You won't be able to rely on unlimited attempts and the easiness of being able to "delete". Your resources will be more limited and you will have to THINK about what you're actually doing, because the film and processing (and chemicals and light sensitive paper) cost money, and you won't have instant access to see what you have just done, and do over. You'll have to really plan, and know light, and exposure times, and film types, and lenses. You will have to know how to be creative in the darkroom instead of relying on digital processors to do the work for you. Then, and only then, might you and all the rest like you, perhaps be revealed to have real talent. The digital camera age has made it so that anyone and their dog can run out and claim to be a photographer, filmmaker, or talent with artificial ease.

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on May 22, 2016, 06:48 PM:

Neither is everything that's old automatically bad. This thread seems to have touched a lot of nerves. Everyone here has valid points. I do feel that there is a discipline to be learned from working with film. Stanley Kubrick began as a still photographer. The knowledge he gained in the darkroom, learning about the properties of different lenses, various film stocks, and types of lighting all contributed to the unique visual style of his cinematic work.

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on May 22, 2016, 06:51 PM:

[Razz]

[ June 02, 2016, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Bill Phelps ]

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 22, 2016, 07:27 PM:

Wow Raleigh -- actually your comments are proving my earlier point about worrying more about the format for the sake of the format. Given apparently even Hollywood directors' experience and expertise do not appear to rise to the level of your expertise when it comes to the merits of film and digital, I'll let your comments stand as proof points to my earlier assertion that in some circles, it's format for strictly format's sake.

I've learned to enjoy what all the formats have to offer from 40-plus years of film collecting, and nothing beats a movie night (no matter the format) with a nice Kentucky Bourbon and a screening audience made up of family and friends.

Life is too short to be pedantic about things that are not life threatening -- enjoy it all, I say!

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 22, 2016, 07:44 PM:

WHOOSH. Things seem to really fly over your head.

Goodbye. You'll apparently never get it.

Posted by Kenneth Horan (Member # 3) on May 22, 2016, 07:54 PM:

Mr. Christopher I agree with you 100%. I've been working in film for decades. I use digital technology now because it's easy and cheap. Digital video was chosen because of this. Film does indeed take real knowledge and talent. Film denotes quality. That is why people, even in the film industry, will say they're "filming" when they really are just recording cheaper digital video. Digital enables hacks, especially with all the dumbed-down morons on social media that give their "likes" to anything. The public is just dumbed-down by the media so they accept digital as the "be-all, end-all" technology.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on May 22, 2016, 09:06 PM:

Raleigh referenced this in the other thread: Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

http://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/frankfurt/benjamin/benjamin.pdf

It's not an easy read (delves into Marx, capitalism, fascism, etc) but there are some interesting points. Like a lot of things you can take it more than one way. I can see it being used to frame digital as just another step in the evolution of mechanical reproduction, and also as another disruptive technology that is taking the art of creating images in a new direction.

One of the things mentioned was that there was a time when there was a debate over whether or not photography should be considered art. It was just a mechanical reproduction of what was already there after all. Where was the creativity? Of course we know that there can be tremendous amounts of artistry in photography, or none at all, depending on the photograph. One important thing though is that photography allowed people who couldn't paint be creative in another way.

Digital does the same thing. Yes, a lot more images and a lot more movies get created without much effort and without much artistry because it's so easy and so cheap. Maybe some people end up with a false sense of their own level of talent but if so, it won't last long. Most people understand that getting "likes" is not the same as getting paid.

Digital provides some avenues for success to people that wouldn't have had the resources to succeed in film. Talented people. Just like Super 8 introduced movie making to kids like Steven Spielberg who may not have gotten into it had Kodak not saw fit to make movie making available to the masses. This is good thing. Yes, a lot more crap gets produced too. No one is forcing anybody to watch it.

The artistry behind making a great film may not be the same as the artistry behind making a great video. There are different skills between the two (and some overlap).

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on May 22, 2016, 09:33 PM:

Well, at least *one* person took the time to read that.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 01, 2016, 12:27 PM:

I certainly agree John with you're point about more creative freedom with digital. Much more cost affective. As many takes as you want with actors and you can edit it very easily on you're own home PC (with a proper editing program). Heck, you can even add a layer of "film grain" for a certain desired effect when necessary ...

but I'm an old curmungeon, and theere's nothing I like more than watching "Big Business" or "Double Whoopee' (both 1929) on an old standard 8mm projector, and I'm instantly taken back to an audience in 1929. I think it's the "analogue" connection with those "days gone by years" ... viewing and holding something organic, which is impossible with digital ...

... on the other hand, i must confess that if I had the money to blow, I'd shoot my features on some high end 16MM scope, no matter what the cost!

Posted by Kilian Henin (Member # 5410) on June 01, 2016, 05:00 PM:

Yes, there are many obvious advantages to digital (cost, convenience, etc.) but film has the one important advantage: the image itself. Film (projected) just looks better. Yes it's more expensive and time-consuming, etc. etc. But so what? As a customer in the theatre, all I really care about is the image on the screen. And digital video is just not as good.

I know most customers probably don't care or even notice the difference, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to educate them.

I also don't think that digital has provided more consistently good theatre showings than 35mm. I've been to too many horrible DCP presentations (garish colours, washed-out blacks, digital shadows/artifacts etc.) to accept that there has been any improvement at all.

Not that this debate really matters anymore - digital has won. Cost always wins out over quality. I just hope that commercial film projection survives in some small way for special releases.

Posted by Guy Taylor, Jr. (Member # 786) on June 01, 2016, 05:23 PM:

Well said Kilian and welcome to the forum.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on June 02, 2016, 05:12 AM:

Many projectionists have lost their jobs since the change to digital. Anybody who can handle a computer drag and drop can now make up a programme. And there's no longer any need for anybody to be on duty in the projection room.

Posted by Kilian Henin (Member # 5410) on June 02, 2016, 09:25 AM:

Thanks Guy. It's a great forum.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 02, 2016, 11:54 AM:

Yes, welcome Killian!

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on June 02, 2016, 05:57 PM:

Hi Killian,

My guess is that for some time to come there will be cinemas/movie theaters that specialize in film projection. Events like the Hateful Eight Roadshow, where newly released mass market movies are projected on film, will quickly become a thing of the past however. Not many filmmakers have that kind of power and increasingly few would want to do it anyway.

As far as whether digital images are better or worse I think is very subjective at this point. There are certain things that in my opinion look better on film. I believe you are right when you say that the public at large doesn't notice or care. To the extent that they do, I'm sure plenty would argue that digital images are better. And over time, the ability for digital images to be made to look like film (or anything else) will only improve.

All that being said, I'm hopeful that there will still be a future for film. I'm also a sailor. Sails as a means for propulsion for commercial vessels have pretty much disappeared, but sailing as a pastime has not and technical advances continue to be made. No one would argue that there's more romance in a diesel engine than a finely cut sail.

Posted by Kilian Henin (Member # 5410) on June 03, 2016, 11:21 AM:

Thanks Tom, great points. Sailing is a good analogy, and if film survives in a similar capacity, I'd be totally happy. The problem is that many seem to think that digital is a natural progression and that there is no need for film anymore.

And you're completely right: the quality of film vs. digital is subjective. And if people genuinely prefer the look of digital (maybe because of its sharper edges or exaggerated detail) then all the power to them. But there's no denying how different the two formats look. In my opinion, DCP doesn't even come close--I don't think that anyone who's seen the Hateful 8 in 70mm or Interstellar in 15/70 could argue otherwise. Of course, Nolan and Tarantino are purists (they didn't even use DIs) but even an average 35mm print looks excellent.

But as you said, it's subjective. It's an argument that can't be won or lost. I only keep doing it because of those that think that digital has already *won* the debate.

Anyways, I just hope that the two formats can coexist. Son of Saul, Too Late, and Angels & Outlaws are three recent examples of movies with younger directors who insisted on film prints. So there is some hope I guess.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 03, 2016, 11:57 AM:

There are Kodak Kodachrome films constantly popping up on ebay from the late 1930's still with vintage color ...

Lets see that happen with digital files, after existing for 80 years, and I might well be impressed.

Posted by Kilian Henin (Member # 5410) on June 03, 2016, 12:40 PM:

Yes, Osi, that is so true. There is still no way to actually archive anything digitally. Even tech companies back everything up with magnetic tape! I'm sure the studios are keeping a print of every movie they release. They'd be nuts not to.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on June 03, 2016, 12:41 PM:

I am now totally confused about the way this topic has moved!!
At the end of the day people who put their "Moviing snapshots" up on the media are not making a film and do not consider themselves as "film makers". The like responses do not really mean anything other than they liked what they saw. As an amateur film maker who shot his first cine film at the age of twelve on the poor mans gauge (9.5mm) and now use video, the only real difference between the two media is that cine film required more technical skills to get a decent image. The "art" and "grammar" of film making remain the same. Perhaps it can be compared to writing a story using pen and paper and writing it on a computer using a "spell checker". Not the American version!! Is screening a film loaded on a manual threaded projector more "romantic" than one loaded on an auto threaded one? It could be argued that manual threading requires more skill in some respects but the results on the screen are the same. The romanticism is in the way it is displayed not the technology used to display it. Ken Finch.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on June 03, 2016, 12:55 PM:

The romance is definitly missing for me with digital. When I go to the "cinema" (if it can still be called so), the magic feeling is no longer there. The only reason why I still go there is that I have a monthly pass (I don't know if you have that in your country), otherwise I would more than probably not pay to Watch a video projection. Everyone will have his own opinion about that, that's mine.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on June 03, 2016, 01:05 PM:

Archiving is an interesting issue and it's kind of what got me to this forum. My older brother and I have been worried about the state of our parents' 8mm home movies and had been thinking about the best method to digitize them that wouldn't cost a fortune. Ironically, he had transferred them all to VHS video tape maybe 10 to 15 years ago and sent copies of some of them to each of my brothers and I.

Of course VHS as format is now dead, plus the copies were never that great and are only getting worse. Meanwhile the original films are still intact and probably look as good now as the day he made those VHS copies. And while I have been worrying about those 8 mm films, I have video on 8mm tape that's even less convenient to display and probably more in danger of becoming unplayable than the 8mm film which is 3 decades older.

Digital technology and cloud services have the potential to improve archiving (multiple copies, offsite storage) but it's something that requires vigilance. Your grandkids aren't as likely to accidentally discover your old home video on some cloud service as they would be to find some films kept in a box in a closet.

Romance:

There's no doubt that the experience of going to a movie has changed a great deal over the decades. The switch from analog to digital projection is just one of those changes and though some people definitely noticed, I'm guessing that the bulk of the movie going public really didn't.

[ June 03, 2016, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Tom Spielman ]

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on June 04, 2016, 09:35 AM:

Wow! I started this topic but never realized I'd opened a Pandora's Box. Lots of interesting comments and observations. I'm not against innovative technologies but I'd like to see them co-exist with older established technology. When CD's came along, people thought I was crazy to keep my turntable and all my records. I like CD's but I like records, too. So, I kept everything. Now, people are discovering and rediscovering records. For me they never left. They are on my shelf side by side with my CD's and I play both formats regularly. For me, it's the same with film and digital video.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on June 04, 2016, 10:12 AM:

Me too William. You can't beat the feel of vinyl and analogue in general, coupled with convenience and ease of use of what today's digital tech's bring to the table.

Vinyl, celluloid, CD, DVD, Blu Ray, Vob files,MP4 etc etc etc...
I love em all and use em all! Often, one for another!

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on June 04, 2016, 10:26 AM:

Are CDs finished? I have just ordered a new car. No CD player. The salesman says that CDs are old hat, people now have iTunes and the like on their phones.

My car has a 7" coloured touch screen and will link directly to my iPhone, either Blue Tooth or by cable. The latter is preferred as the phone will keep charged whilst connected with a cable.

Most of the icons on my phone will appear on the car's touch screen via Apple CarPlay. The many controls on the steering wheel will also control some functions. By using Siri Eyes Free I can actually talk to my car. The IntelliLink system can even read emails and text messages out loud.

The car? A Vauxhall (Opel) Corsa.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 04, 2016, 11:25 AM:

AHHHHH ....

But you literally need a college degree to work on you're car these days. I saw a Judge judy case where a car repair shop was being sued over faulty work, and it dealt with an issue as to whether, if you put a new motor in a modern car, will it be compatible with the computer system in the car and if not, the car won't run.

Give me an old hunk O junk car anyday of the week that I can actually work on and keep running just fine!

(OK, I'll admit, this is way off topic now) [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on June 04, 2016, 12:50 PM:

I agree with Osi, cars should not be 60mph entertainment systems. All this electronic junk on modern cars is the reason so many people are driving off the road, or head on into another car. Happens every day here in Florida, but is always reported as ' for no apparent reason the car suddenly swerved into oncoming traffic'.

Posted by Dave Groves (Member # 4685) on June 04, 2016, 01:33 PM:

Having followed the discussion, I looked back again to see what William had written. He seemed to miss the specialty ('the romance') attached to the whole film process. The fact that anyone with a suitable 'gaget' can make a film opens the door to mass mediocrity. But it also opens the door to a creativity that no longer depends upon expensive equipment and a crew and food van! The vast majority of us used to go to the Cinema to watch others make what we couldn't. Perhaps that's what made it so 'romantic'. But now (if we want to) we can indulge ourselves, and what's become available and achievable and possible has become ordinary. When my Uncle and my Dad bought an Austin 7 shared between them, the occasional outing was savoured because it was special. When Dad got a car of his own the magic disappeared. Perhaps that's the way of things.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on June 04, 2016, 02:45 PM:

I could ramble on about this subject for quite a while and have already posted a couple of times. I'm in my 50's now. I've gotten to the point in my life where I'm not sure if it's a curse or blessing that I can so readily look at movies or images of younger versions of myself and my family. [Smile]

It may not be so easy to put it to words but yes, I do believe that something is lost when you compare film and the process of creating it vs digital. On the other hand a lot is gained. How many of us, if we could choose, would remove all imaging capabilities from our phones and gadgets? What if Super 8 was still the predominant means of creating movies for the everyday person? Would we really prefer that over having what we have today? I wouldn't.

One of my neighbors' kids is having a graduation party next week. She and her sister used to play with my two kids for hours on end. They were almost inseparable during the summer months. When the weather was bad they would go down into the basement, put our camcorder on a tripod and make movies. They'd review them, do multiple takes, and basically use up a lot of tape. [Wink]

None of these kids are destined for a career in film making, but they had a whole lot of fun. And I'm going to have a lot of fun putting together a little video montage of those old creations for her party. Sometimes filmmaking is a very creative and artistic process. Sometimes it's about capturing the moment. Other times it's just having fun. All are legitimate.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on June 05, 2016, 08:00 AM:

Well said, Tom.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on June 05, 2016, 08:07 AM:

Dave, I don't understand what you mean by : "The vast majority of us used to go to the Cinema to watch others make what we couldn't. Perhaps that's what made it so 'romantic'. But now (if we want to) we can indulge ourselves, and what's become available and achievable and possible has become ordinary." If you use a super 8 camera or a smartphone, you're not able to make a film like professionnels do because you don't have the same Financial capcities (Professional acrors, locations and so on) so I don't get your point regarding this.

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on June 05, 2016, 09:01 AM:

Many people posting here understand, I think, the point I was trying to make in my original post. Others haven't quite grasped my point. In any case, we all have opinions about the merits and faults of film and digital video. I just want to keep all formats alive and well. We all refer to this format or that format as being obsolete. Why are we so quick to trash the past? If you use a particular format and enjoy it, it's not obsolete.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on June 05, 2016, 12:59 PM:

Hi everyone. Following on from my previous post and the comments made since, I wonder if the "romance" also has something to do with nostalgia. We have lived to see so many advances in technology.There is so much that we have today that didn't exist in my lifetime. I reached the old age of 82 years young this week!! The grandchildren are quite fascinated that I still have a collection of 78rpm records and can play them via an old Garrard auto changer. The sloping spindle model which could be loaded with 8 discs!! Also have LPs and 45rpm discs and decks. Cassette tapes and CDs. Much prefer listening to these than on computer or mobile phone etc. When I transfer peoples cine films to DVD, I always suggest they keep them or have them kept in an archive so that they can always be transferred to what ever digital media comes along in the future. Every few months we seem to be bombarded with advertisements urging us to have the latest improvements and making what we have obsolete. One wonders where it will all end. Ken Finch. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on June 05, 2016, 01:02 PM:

Happy Birthday, Ken !

Posted by Dave Groves (Member # 4685) on June 06, 2016, 04:43 AM:

Dominique, I was thinking about folk wanting to make 'a film'. The ability to make home movies has existed for a very long time but the ability to make something worth people paying to see at the Cinema has not. But now the digital net pulls in everyone from those with real ability to those who should never be near a camera, and what was once somewhat special because of it's uniqueness is now the norm because availabity of equipment. Mix in a bit of nostalgia for the 'old days' and it does seem that the old warm emotions (romance?) has all but gone. I think this whole subject is a swirl of personal preference in the end. For a film buff who still has access to a cinema showing 35mm on a single screen on carbon arcs and who joins a queue to get in on Saturday night, nothing has changed because he knows it hasn't. The same film buff given a multiplex and digital projection misses the familiar because he knows what change has done. Put a 20 year old in the either situation and it's what it is, pictures on a screen. He knows nothing of the background nor cares.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on June 06, 2016, 07:46 AM:

Dave, you're exactly right. For most people (even outside their 20's), it's just pictures on a screen. They don't care about the technology behind it. They're there to enjoy the imagery, the story, the characters, and to step outside their normal lives for a couple of hours.

Digital technology makes it a little bit easier for independent, low budget filmmakers to get their work seen but whether digital or film, the technology is only a small piece of the puzzle. Creating a movie that somebody would be willing to show in a cinema is no small feat.

However, even prior to the digital age plenty of bad films were made. MST3000 wouldn't have existed if that weren't true.

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on June 06, 2016, 08:57 AM:

Happy Birthday Ken!

Just a note to all: I have spent years professionally transferring home movie film to VHS and then DVD. Some film dating back to the 1930's. I would say that most of the films were in beautiful condition after 20-70 years. Those that weren't had clearly been stored under adverse conditions. Yes, I used current technology to transfer them. However, without those beautiful originals there would be no moving images of the past. Are they obsolete? Just sayin'.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 06, 2016, 09:12 AM:

They aren't obsolete, they have been obsolete-ed.

-but the joy of it is they will never become more "obsolete" than they are now, so people that are fond of them aren't waiting around for the next new thing so we can shove it all out to the curb.

We watched "The Martian" on Blu-ray last night: love the movie, also read the novel in about a week.

-after we were done I watched a couple of films.

You would think after that much "screen time" I would have had my fill!

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on June 07, 2016, 09:49 AM:

I don't read any of the posts in this discussion as "trashing the past" or indicating that any format is "obsolete." What I do see is the natural progression of technology in life.

Heck, I still listen to AM radio, but that doesn't mean I don't partake in other options that provide better audio quality. Same goes with my film collecting pursuits -- I enjoy film, but have absolutely incorporated digital into my screening pursuits, and have never looked back. To excerpt Paul Adsett from earlier in this thread if I may, "... there is no way that I would want to go back to pre-digital projection days .... My home cinema never looked or sounded so good." I wholeheartedly agree.

In terms of the loss of "specialness," "romance," or "magic" of film-making or screenings, that's just the natural progression of technology. When radio first came out, groups of people would gather around the radio as it was a "special" "event" in those early days -- now radio is everywhere and, as a result, it has progressed beyond the "event" stage. The same can be said for cars, microwaves, televisions, etc. -- these modern conveniences have now become an integral part of everyday life, and have progressed, and rightly so, beyond the "specialness" phase of when these technologies were first introduced. Film is no different in that regard.

I think the real difference that comes into play is that some people appear to constantly view everything through the lens of pining for the nostalgia of the past. While to each his/her own, life is way too short to constantly be looking in the "rear-view mirror" rather than looking forward and enjoying all that life has to offer today.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 07, 2016, 10:41 AM:

Sometimes I think part of the appeal is the obsolescence: the challenge of making something grown scarce work, and not just a display.

Look at it this way: if you COULD still go down to your local Ford dealer and pick up a brand new Model "T", would it have any appeal at all?

"I want a car with GPS and this one doesn't even have a heater!"

-but as something that you can't have anymore without it being kind of an achievement, it becomes a passion.

I did film back when it was the only game in town, but the nostalgia is part of the appeal to me as well.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 07, 2016, 12:05 PM:

Yes Ken, there is defintely some nolstalgia, with a little bit of 'things were just made better back then" thought process. [Smile]

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on June 07, 2016, 12:45 PM:

quote:
Sometimes I think part of the appeal is the obsolescence: the challenge of making something grown scarce work, and not just a display.

Yes. This is very much a part of the appeal for me.

quote:
... -but as something that you can't have anymore without it being kind of an achievement, it becomes a passion.

I did film back when it was the only game in town, but the nostalgia is part of the appeal to me as well.

Also true for me, except that I wish that obtaining and processing Super 8 film didn't require as much of a financial achievement as it now does. [Big Grin]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2