digital vs film - the final word

[miker]

note I am talking about media, NOT formats:

resolution of digital is limited only by current technology - even so, current resolutions are on par with the chemical resolution of film

digital can be downgraded to look like film

digital is (will) be cheaper overall

digital is easier to copy

digital is being used by industry leaders such as ILM

digital allows non-destructive editing

I'm sure film junkies will come up with more, but here's a couple of downsides:

current infrastructure is based around film

copyright infringement is far easier

this generation of filmmakers are stuck in their ways

why fix what aint broke

you'll note that, really, everything just comes down to the bottom line (cost) and copyright (profits) - whether digital succeeds or not, it won't be due to any inferiority (oh christ, VHS vs Betamax, Mac vs PC, Windows vs Linux, Microsoft vs AOL Time Warner, Microsoft vs IBM, Microsoft vs Netscape, Microsoft vs Sun ... okay, digital *is* doomed)

--

Anyways, the way I see it, digital has a future, film is 20th century. digital is the next phase of evolution of the moving image, who knows where it will be in a hundred years time?

My asbestos suit suit is primed.

[wageslave]

did you know that when the internet was young (in the 70's) there were two protocols to choose from. One was far superior to the other. Guess which one we now use. (yes the crap one)

[Chance1234]

what ever happened to all that stuff they were going ot do with diamonds etc, where your whole life could de stored in a crystal no bigger than a fleas bicycle ?

01001010101010 01010 10111 0111101110 101010 101010 110100001 0010110001 111100001 0100110111110 10101111010 110110101101010110

[no_one119]

That's holographic storage chance. Some research institute got something like 10 terrabytes onto a roll of stickytape just to show the possibilites. Works like DVD (ie store info on multiple layers). Some way off yet me thinks.

Digital vs Film. Interesting.

I mean, they convert to digital to edit nowadays. Having edited on film I can tell you it's a pain in the rear. I've also sound edited on Mag stock and via computer, digital won hands down on speed and ease.

I've recorded sound on a 1/4" Nagra and on Minidisc and for ease of use (with next to no quality loss) it was well away.

The answer is ease of use. Digital will win. No pandering to film - no fridges, no black bags for changing film, no processing, no hairs in the gate, no waiting for rushes, no chemical problems or lab cock-ups. The quality is almost there. The cinemas have undertaken major refurb's before (to accomodate sound), and this can be done simply.

Give it ten years and it bye, bye film, for the mainstream films anyway. You've only got to look - Lucas and Rodriguez are fans and that base is just getting bigger.

If I were Kodak I'd be getting very worried, very quick. You've only got to look at photojournalism, digital replaces practically all film cameras. Why do you think Kodak have started making hardware?

[miker]

so WTF do some ppl have problems with miniDV and adobe premiere?

why must I use ?10,000 cams and ?40,000 edit suites to be considered 'professional' (I'll admit that a ?5000 lens would't go amiss ;-)

DV is the precursor to whatever digital may evolve into in the future

learn it NOW (or at least accept the fact that economics could dictate the demise of film)

SKILLS are your assets

(hey, why do you think I'm learning all about Linux now? Could it be because it's starting to displace SGI's in the film biz?)

[no_one119]

I don't see why the come down on MiniDV. If the quality's there, who can complain. "Home" cameras (or semi-pro cameras if you prefer) are becoming better all the time. They're already pushing broadcast quality (mainly due to the fact that TV can't handle resolutions higher than the cameras) and then it'll be look out industry, he come the rest of us. No longer will it remain an elite domain.

All those extra channels to fill and no difference in quality, I think that originality will the shine and, whilst many may not get theatrical release, more and more low-budget productions will appear on TV.

I don't care who you are, you're going to have to get used to the fact that digital is here to stay and that it WILL replace film, it just a question of when. I know which I prefer, certainly low-budget (and if EP 2 comes out alright), digital all the way.

I'm not sure people will frown upon you if you don't use a ?40,000 camera, and people who do are rather petty. In my opinion, like on the web, content is king. If the film is good enough, poeple will watch it with sound out of sync, in 240*320 pixel box if they have to.

[marti-c]

Why oh why does the human race constantly judge things by comparing them to everything that is available now. This consumerism is a mindwash created by the market forces to make you strive for the most expensive thing on the market.
My point is that if you had given someone a mini-dv camera 20 years ago with a computer with premiere ,they would ve had the best kit in the whole world and been the envy of everyone. But no we have to knock the kit cause there's bigger and better cameras and editing systems available. BULLSHIT.
TOOLS TOOLS TOOLS that's all they are.

Whenever i watch all the old black and white silent movies i think of what they would think of my mini-dv camera if i could travel back in time?

marti

[miker]

damn. i was really hoping to start an argument here. ;-)

[no_one119]

Sorry Mike, nobody seems to be supporting film. Where's Tyler when you want him?

There's always going to be bigger, better kit than you got, even for the pros, but if it does the job, who cares?

[no_one119]

I don't think anyone will disagree that film quality will keep improving. Already people are using digital cameras (Lucas). When the industry figures out that they won't loose any quality and can save themselves time and money then I think that the film cameras days will be numbered. That doesn't mean they'll completely disappear overnight. Just within the industry.

You've only got to look at the TV industry which shot on film until video capability got good enough. Then digital came along and quality increased whilst being easier to use. No fast forwarding, no generation loss, instant transfer from anywhere around the world.

Digital has so far invaded photo-journalism and TV, the only thing that held it out of the film industry was quality. Now it looks like the quality issue has been solved I think more and more productions will use digital.