Author
|
Topic: The Romance Is Missing
|
Kilian Henin
Junior
Posts: 8
From: Calgary, AB, Canada
Registered: May 2016
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kilian Henin
Junior
Posts: 8
From: Calgary, AB, Canada
Registered: May 2016
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted 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 ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 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)
-------------------- "All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted 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.
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.
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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|