film, but related.

[bribrius]

With 35mm Film Dead Will Classic Movies Ever Look the Same Again - The Atlantic


thoughts? read this yesterday. still kind of tossing it around.

 

[Light Guru]

The article you link to is more then 2 years old and 35mm film is definitely not dead.

Kodak and Hollywood finalize deals to save movie film The Verge

 

[480sparky]

Damn.... now I gotta go bury the 35mm film I have.

I never realized it was dead. I guess that explains the smell.

 

[Light Guru]

Damn.... now I gotta go bury the 35mm film I have.

I never realized it was dead. I guess that explains the smell.

You might have zombie film, so if it's dead it doesn't really matter.

 

[480sparky]

Damn.... now I gotta go bury the 35mm film I have.

I never realized it was dead. I guess that explains the smell.

You might have zombie film, so if it's dead it doesn't really matter.

I was curious as to why expired film was selling on ebay for so gawd-blessed much these days.

 

[unpopular]

Ok. Before I say what I am about to say, I have used film. Quite a bit actually. Now. That out of the way.... Am I the only one who doesn't miss 35mm - like AT ALL?

And as far as the film industry goes, what's the big appeal? 25 years ago if you asked a cinematographer "hey, how would you feel about a camera that had more resolution and greater dynamic range in a package slightly smaller than your current rig" don't you think that would be appealing? Now that this is available with digital (that nasty bad word), they're all snobby about it! What if Kodak came up with a super high definition 35mm film stock in 1990. Would we be reminiscing about the good old days of grainy images with only a few stops of latitude? Raving about it's inherent, ethereal superiority?

I can understand making artistic choices that embrace film, but to hold onto it for the sake of holding onto it is just absurd.

 

[timor]

Ok. Before I say what I am about to say, I have used film. Quite a bit actually. Now. That out of the way.... Am I the only one who doesn't miss 35mm - like AT ALL?

And as far as the film industry goes, what's the big appeal? 25 years ago if you asked a cinematographer "hey, how would you feel about a camera that had more resolution and greater dynamic range in a package slightly smaller than your current rig" don't you think that would be appealing? Now that this is available with digital (that nasty bad word), they're all snobby about it! What if Kodak came up with a super high definition 35mm film stock in 1990. Would we be reminiscing about the good old days of grainy images with only a few stops of latitude? Raving about it's inherent, ethereal superiority?

I can understand making artistic choices that embrace film, but to hold onto it for the sake of holding onto it is just absurd.

Apparently you wrong. But don't worry, for super sharp non-grainy pictures Hollywood will still use digital technology. I am sure about it. And don't worry (again), eventually equipment for cinema film projection will crap out and that will be the end you waiting for. Perhaps still in our life... And then who cares, old movies are boring, no matter if made on film or digital, no matter, how superior... Eh

 

[limr]

I can understand making artistic choices that embrace film, but to hold onto it for the sake of holding onto it is just absurd.

Did you even read the article about the problems with preserving the artistic choices and quality of older movies when they are converted to digital? And how they have to convert to digital because many labs have stopped printing the movies on film? And how they've found that digital archives were more fragile and more expensive? So...artistic choices, practicality, finances...how exactly is that holding onto film just to hold onto it?

 

[bribrius]

you all know of course, the nails are going in the coffin on it. it is all going digital. Unfortunate as film does have a distinct quality. happy they managed contract with kodak. wonder how long those contracts are goo for..

Ok. Before I say what I am about to say, I have used film. Quite a bit actually. Now. That out of the way.... Am I the only one who doesn't miss 35mm - like AT ALL?

And as far as the film industry goes, what's the big appeal? 25 years ago if you asked a cinematographer "hey, how would you feel about a camera that had more resolution and greater dynamic range in a package slightly smaller than your current rig" don't you think that would be appealing? Now that this is available with digital (that nasty bad word), they're all snobby about it! What if Kodak came up with a super high definition 35mm film stock in 1990. Would we be reminiscing about the good old days of grainy images with only a few stops of latitude? Raving about it's inherent, ethereal superiority?

I can understand making artistic choices that embrace film, but to hold onto it for the sake of holding onto it is just absurd.

history. Photography and the film industry both have a very strong artistic and cult like following. The idea it is just about the final image I attend with the Walmart mentality. And it clearly matters otherwise people wouldn't be screaming they want to shoot their movie in film not digital. Again, those that say it is just about the final image. Are shortsighted at best. Like photography, digital cheapens the film industry. The real lovers of the industry (Quentin Tarantino for example) I fully expect to get upset. The ones just in it to make a buck of course they don't care .
Quentin Tarantino Reopens New Beverly But Is 35mm Sustai Thompson on Hollywood

I am somewhat a tarantino fan. He will operate and lose money on 35mm before lets it go. If anyone loves the industry it is him.

 

[unpopular]

And then who cares, old movies are boring, no matter if made on film or digital, no matter, how superior... Eh

Simply because I embrace digital doesn't mean I don't appreciate old films. Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

As for projection, meh. If old films were worth preserving on the basis on their story merit, then it does not matter how they are maintained or projected.

 

[unpopular]

Like photography, digital cheapens the film industry.

Cheap photographers cheapen the photography industry. Cheap film makers cheapen the film industry. This appeal to tradition is not only rubbish, but is unsubstantiated given the number of bad films produced in film, and great films produced in digital. Independence Day, Jurassic Park, Spice Girls ... all shot on film.

One of the best films of all time, Ida, was shot in digital. This is hardly a "cheap" film, regardless if money wasn't wasted on silver halide!

 

[bribrius]

And then who cares, old movies are boring, no matter if made on film or digital, no matter, how superior... Eh

Simply because I embrace digital doesn't mean I don't appreciate old films. Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

As for projection, meh. If old films were worth preserving on the basis on their story merit, then it does not matter how they are maintained or projected.

I embrace digital. I see the difference as well. It comes down to a very cultish look of art and craft.

 

[unpopular]

Craft.

 

[bribrius]

Like photography, digital cheapens the film industry.

Cheap photographers cheapen the photography industry. Cheap film makers cheapen the film industry. This appeal to tradition is not only rubbish, but is unsubstantiated given the number of bad films produced in film, and great films produced in digital. Independence Day, Jurassic Park, Spice Girls ... all shot on film.

One of the best films of all time, Ida, was shot in digital. This is hardly a "cheap" film, regardless if money wasn't wasted on silver halide!

Most of the new films need to be shot in digital for the special effects. Because they lack story line, plots, or copied them from the past movies with remakes. All they have going for them is the digital manipulation. Reminds one a lot of photography don't it?

 

[unpopular]

Like photography, digital cheapens the film industry.

Cheap photographers cheapen the photography industry. Cheap film makers cheapen the film industry. This appeal to tradition is not only rubbish, but is unsubstantiated given the number of bad films produced in film, and great films produced in digital. Independence Day, Jurassic Park, Spice Girls ... all shot on film.

One of the best films of all time, Ida, was shot in digital. This is hardly a "cheap" film, regardless if money wasn't wasted on silver halide!

Most of the new films need to be shot in digital for the special effects. Because they lack story line, plots, or copied them from the past movies with remakes. All they have going for them is the digital manipulation. Reminds one a lot of photography don't it?

That's far from the case. It's been 15 years since any major film wasn't edited digitally, which involves scanning the footage and editing on a computer. Before that film printers were sophisticated enough that CGI special effects could produce special effects nearly as good as most today (with the exception of the latest generation of spectacles Fern Gully II: Avatar). Titanic was shot on film, and may have been printed (or even edited) optically. In fact the composition techniques we use in software like Fusion, After Effects and Nuke come from film printers.

Again, Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Plan 9 From Outer Space, And yes, IMO Star Wars - ALL shot on film and all lousy due to special effects taking center stage.

This is just bad story telling and bad film making, not bad technique.