Author
|
Topic: Film vs Digital ... Lets put this one to bed.
|
|
Andrew Woodcock
Film God
Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012
|
posted August 19, 2016 09:54 AM
I can't or won't disagree with anything you say there David. All is true and every point you make is a valid one.
Ultimately, it is simply the fascination with film and film projectors that keeps many of us still interested I suspect David.
As for wear to prints. I am getting away with it for the time being using the cluster of stuff I use. I don't know how long this will be the case or when my luck on this front in recent years, may begin to run out.
All I know is for the time being at least, I'm the most relaxed and contented I have ever been running real film and given the fascination I have for real film and projectors, that I know for certain, will never ever leave me, I will continue to enjoy for the foreseeable at least, the joys of real film.
In fact while ever I continue to experience this level of satisfaction, I will always gain far more personal pleasure from using a cine projector than I ever will by switching on and plugging in my digital counterparts, much as I enjoy both worlds.
My TV produces a far superior image quality than any film I own, yet I hardly ever bother watching that aside from the news, a good northern gritty drama, or the football. Certainly I never find myself wanting to watch a film on tv these days, that's despite its glorious image and sound quality.
I gotta say,I could sit and watch good working refined cine projectors whirring away for hours without getting bored. I'd last about a minute and a half staring at my boring black or white square digital boxes before nodding off despite their superb image quality!
-------------------- "C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted August 19, 2016 11:53 AM
Yes Maurice, all good points, but that's more about the experience of going to a movie rather than film vs digital. Even at 52 years old, I can barely remember when theaters had real ushers with flashlights. I grew up in a small town and most of the movies I went to where at the theater connected to a shopping mall. That theater was spartan to put it kindly, but it was still film.
There was the Cooper theater a bit farther away, - one of the few "Cinerama" theaters in the area. I did go there a few times and it was wonderful, but there is no reason a comparable experience to what you're describing couldn't be done with digital.
Given my recent interest in film, I've been thinking about this topic a lot. I imagine in 30 years folks will be waxing poetic about the "warmth" and tactile nature of Blue-Ray discs compared to the coldness of having VR productions streamed into their brains.
I too have a fascination with film and the mechanical beasts that capture and display it. And one of the positive things about the rise of digital is that I've been able to get some glorious machines for free or very little cost. Things I could only dream about owning as a kid.
Earlier this week I was going to pay $45 dollars for an old but very nice Canon 35mm camera. I brought a battery with me to try it out, but alas the camera didn't work, so I left without it. The man selling it took it to a camera shop and they pronounced it dead. I had told him I'd give him $20 for it if he couldn't get it working. He emailed me back later, saying he'd give it to me for free since he felt bad about my making a 40 minute trip for nothing.
After some tinkering I have it partially functional but the meter isn't working quite right yet. This is half the fun for me.
I'm also very seriously contemplating developing my own 8mm film after realizing that shooting any more Super 8 will cost far more than I can justify.
But all my work with film will eventually end up in a digital format too. There's just so much that can be done in that world that is very difficult or impossible with film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted August 19, 2016 12:44 PM
Celluloid : Long lasting format over 100 years now.
digital : Can decompose in less than a year, no matter what format you save in. DVD, Bluray ect.
Digital : Superior in image quality ... variable
celluloid : Well you really can't improve upon the original celluoid image, you can just come close to equaling it.
Celluloid : endless hours of happily messing with it, editing, splicing, recording ect.
digital : Gee, I have a round little disc ...
... and, if we lose all electricity ...
Celluloid : I can still pull it out, looking at it frame by frame.
digital : Gee, I have a round little disc ...
-------------------- "All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Daniel Macarone
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 224
From: Summit NJ, USA
Registered: Nov 2015
|
posted August 19, 2016 01:53 PM
David, It won't be that easy getting all the film lovers to think digital is superior. I worked at a movie theater while there was film and also after the digital conversion. The digital projectors failed way more times than the film ever did and there was constantly a repairman trying to solve a problem. It is frustrating to not know how to fix these new computerized machines when you used to be able to see and touch every part of a film projector. The steady image of digital is cold, sterile and too much like an HDTV at home. Manufacturers perfected film projection many decades ago to meet industry standards. It has a gentle vibrating; just the right amount of trembling that is hypnotizing and vivid; It feels alive. Projectionists and filmmakers have many challenges and responsibilities for film and that is all worth it for watching film. With digital, young theater employees are now given projection duties and there is no rewarding feeling because it is too easy to operate; They have a lack of respect for the presentation. Digital has always been trying to match the look of film and it's still not there. The frames look nothing like 24fps of film. The depth is very flat because there are no physical layers as there are with film. And when movies shot on film are projected digitally, it doesn't reproduce film grain very well, making it too apparent when it should be gentle. I learned that the studios are still archiving on negative film because they know that has the best archival qualities. Hence, we should appreciate physical, tangible things. By the way, there are already many good replies on this subject in another topic called "The romance is missing".
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted August 19, 2016 03:10 PM
I don't think converting current digital formats to new ones will be an issue, but preservation is. You can't just throw them in a closet or a warehouse somewhere and expect them to be playable in 50 years.
And there's a difference between packaged videos and your home movies/videos. If you wanted to make a backup of a packaged Blu-ray, there's encryption to worry about. It can be done, but you have to bother to do it and have some (minimal) technical skills.
Home movies are much easier and they can be backed up to a cloud service. Again, it's not like putting reels of film in a box. A cloud service can got out of business. The person who knows about the cloud service could pass away and family would never find those old movies.
I already have digital images that are close to 20 years old and they look as good as the day I took them, but I'm an IT guy and I care enough to make the effort to preserve them.
A bigger question is how long is long enough? The immediate answer is probably "forever". However, I've paid for lots of music I already had analog copies of. Do I really need to keep it around? Most of it I don't listen to and won't.
The sentimental answer for home movies is also "forever", but there again, I wonder. I really value the home movies that we've taken and that my parents have taken. If my grandparents had any, I might appreciate those too but far less. I never met my great grandparents and while I would like to have their home movies if any existed, I wouldn't treasure them in the same way. The people in them would be like strangers to me.
As for my kids, they'll laugh at home movies of my brothers and I when we were young, but if those somehow got lost, it would not be the end of the world for them. They don't have much connection to them. [ August 19, 2016, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Tom Spielman ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted August 19, 2016 04:09 PM
Last weekend, my mate and I enjoyed the "Final Cut" of "The Wicker Man" on Blu-ray, and on the big screen in my modest home cinema.
The previously lost segments have now been digitally restored from a very faded and damaged 35mm print, the only source left.
The results, whilst not perfect are still remarkable and the whole thing was hugely enjoyable and very filmic on my D-ILA projector.
Next day, for fun, I watched my 400ft Marketing Films print of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on the Beaulieu, blown up to give nearly a scope size image.
I marvelled at how little fade there was, and how booming the excellent mono mag sound was, made me feel 11 years old again.
Again, totally enjoyable.
Best of both worlds!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted August 19, 2016 04:48 PM
Indeed, and I think you and I both wasted a lot of cash on basically poor video projection back in the day.
The point with digital is that a lot of different facets have advanced over the years; scanning, image manipulation and projection to name but a few and the culmination of many areas of the industry now offer us splendid quality at home.
And we're now at the beginning of 4K, and just as importantly, High Dynamic Range in home set-ups.
I think Maurice is right when he says that showmanship and presentation has vanished, but sadly, I think this is more to do with the popularity of the multiplex and the "get 'em in, get 'em out quick" agenda, which has eroded and cheapened presentation values over the last 30 years.
More to do with intensified commercial gain rather than the presentation format.
There's no reason for a multiplex not to have someone in charge of presentation, except that it's cheaper not to.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|