film is dead
Much has certainly been written on this topic. And whilst there are many (including myself) who would loudly proclaim that Film is indeed Dead - or at least should be - there is still a huge section of filmmakers who are still addicted to the photo-chemical process of celluloid.
This article from TIME magazine presents a few interesting perspectives from both the Pro-digital and Anti-digital camps.
What strikes me as most interesting is the terminology those who dont like digital use to defend their use of this archaic format - ?soulfull?, ?human?, ?emotional weight?? these terms (apart from being highly subjective and not particularly useful in a debate on a formats mertis) arguably have nothing to do with the format and the way it presents colour and light at all but rather are purely based on an intangible perception. Film as a format trades on its history and a long association in peoples minds with great cinematic moments. Not really anything to do with the technical ?quality? or ?visual aesthetic? of celluloid but rather more than 100 years of audience association with that look?.
This is one of the reasons I find it very difficult to use the term ?Filmmaker? in the 21st century. I think the new Developmental Space of cinematic production should really place these creators under a more inclusive and expansive title of ?media-makers? or ?cinema-makers?.
Posted at 01:00AM Jun 01, 2007
by Mike Jones in general |
Cost aside, film has a technical edge that digital has yet to eclipse. Until it does, film won't die. When I no longer have to use grad filters in HD to reduce highlight contrast that film can easily capture then digital has arrived. When macro-blocking and compression artifcacts disappear so will film. I've no nostalgia for grain, but the fact that a pixel remains in a fixed position while film grain's placement is random with each frame, stilll creates an artificial sheen on digital and a more realistic smoothness on film.
The last beef I have with digital are it's miniscule chips. 2/3" doesn't cut it when you want truly cinematic selective focus. When you look at both Sin City and any of the recent Star Wars, they can't hold a candle to any of the Peter Jackson or Spielberg films originated on film. The earlier filmed Star Wars looked truly epic while the the digital renditions look cheap. I think the only film that got it right digitally would be Collateral but it's aesthetic didn't call for high gloss.
In short, when digital takes care of the highlight compressionl, offers uncompressed 4k in a truly portable set up on a 35mm sized chip then film's days are numbered. Which could be quite soon.
Posted by Tim Naylor on June 01, 2007 at 07:37 AM EST #
Certaily what i do mean when I say 'Film is Dead' is not that its no 'around' anymore but that it is a format without a future. Currently viable and even advantageous in some areas but no long term viability. the writign is on the wall.
Posted by Mike Jones on June 01, 2007 at 09:08 AM EST #
Almost 12 stops of latitude, 4.5k uncompressed or 4k Redcode RAW, Super35 sized sensor... it has a fully refundable deposit of $1000 against $17,500 for body alone and so I signed up for #351.
I am REALLY hoping that I don't have to take them up on that refund offer. We'll be seeing how it works when the first ones come off the assembly line some time in the next one or two months.
Posted by Clint Johnson on June 02, 2007 at 04:57 AM EST #
Of course the real proof will be a shipping product but Its very hard to have any real doubt now that the RED will in fact happen. And I certainly very much look forward to standing corrected. :)
That kind of camera under $20k will be amazing but what I really want to see is that kind of camera in a small fixed lens system under 10k. Effectively a RED version of a HDV camera - ultra portable, ultra flexible. Now that would really be something!
Posted by Mike Jones on June 03, 2007 at 11:25 AM EST #