Jump to content


Photo

Why film can still keep its place in a digital era


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Richardson Leao

Richardson Leao
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Other
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 21 December 2006 - 12:59 AM

I've found some 30m rolls of Maco Rolei IR that were purchased by my department. I've got so excited that I bought a konvas from rafcamera.com (after finding in this wonderful forum that old russian cameras accept KS perfs). These rolls can be loaded in low light as the sensitivity for light lower than 750nm is quite low. Seriously I can't wait. Since I watched 'I am Cuba' I always wanted to try the IR film to get white leaves and black sky. Now finally I have the chance. I wanna see the digital defenders match this one now (unless they use a IR ccd off course...)

Unrelated to the post, a emulsional marry christmas for all
  • 0

#2 Will Earl

Will Earl
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Other
  • Wellington, NZ

Posted 21 December 2006 - 05:52 AM

Film or Digital?

Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 December 2006 - 12:44 PM

I wonder if there will be a parallel with what happened when synthetic cloths hit the market like nylon, rayon, etc.

Everyone assumed that the clothes of the future would be synthetic, but now cotton is more popular than ever and there are a lot of nice hybrid synthetic/natural combination cloths.

As long as the ecomomics keep it viable, film may never go away even if digital comes to dominate. As much as digital has taken over the still market world, for example, there also seems to be a fairly solid core of film users that probably won't dwindle much further.

Just a thought.
  • 0

#4 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 21 December 2006 - 01:41 PM

Film or Digital?


Looks digital. Definetly doesn't look like Kodak EIR. Certainly the way the blacks are 'occuring.' Looks like the output of a coolpix with a filter on it or perhaps a dSLR with he IR filter replaced with a clear filter.

- nate
  • 0

#5 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3070 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 December 2006 - 03:02 PM

I'm prepping a promo for early January. We were looking at using a Varicam as the director wants a lot of slo-mo. It wasn't quite working for our needs, and so eventually I said to the producer - 'look, how about we shoot 16mm?' He said - 'Thank god for for that! I'm so sick of looking at HD!'

And just like that, we switched to film. It may cost more, but as long as there are Producers who love it and are willing to pay for it, it's going to stay with us.

Happy Christmas!
  • 0

#6 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 21 December 2006 - 03:38 PM

Wow, that's wonderful these days.

HAPPY XMAS!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
  • 0

#7 Jon-Hebert Barto

Jon-Hebert Barto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 December 2006 - 04:23 PM

Film or digital?

Umm, manipulated images over the internet and on to my rather lackluster pc monitor. Fun....

Is it a manipulated film negative? Who knows? Mr Milford probably took the best educated guess anyone can take...

Now tell us...

-Jonnie

Edited by Jon-Hebert Barto, 21 December 2006 - 04:26 PM.

  • 0

#8 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 21 December 2006 - 05:18 PM

I wonder if there will be a parallel with what happened when synthetic cloths hit the market like nylon, rayon, etc.

Everyone assumed that the clothes of the future would be synthetic, but now cotton is more popular than ever and there are a lot of nice hybrid synthetic/natural combination cloths.

As long as the ecomomics keep it viable, film may never go away even if digital comes to dominate. As much as digital has taken over the still market world, for example, there also seems to be a fairly solid core of film users that probably won't dwindle much further.

Just a thought.


I actually think that the WORST case senerio is the film follows the route B&W film does today. Most films are made in color but many films are still done in B&W even today. I think film has it's place for certain projects that digital can never replace and digital works better than film with some movies, particularly those with a ton of FX in them. I think as long as theater owners continue to project film (Which shows NO sign of ending anytime soon) there will always be movies made on film. B)
  • 0

#9 Will Earl

Will Earl
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Other
  • Wellington, NZ

Posted 22 December 2006 - 05:16 AM

Now tell us...


Does it matter what medium it was captured on? Does it matter if it was manipulated or not? Does knowing these things change your opinion of the image?

Film isn't going to keep it's place in a digital era because it can shoot IR images, it's going to keep it's place because artists will still prefer it as an artistic medium. To make a rather rough analogy - artists still paint with oils or canvas, even though they could paint with light, a lens and a frame of film.

The images were shot digitally - there are obviously some minor aesthetic differences between film IR and digital IR if you look hard enough, but you could attribute those to the type of IR filter used or how much Photoshop work that was done on the image.
  • 0

#10 Tenolian Bell

Tenolian Bell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 907 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 22 December 2006 - 05:48 PM

A friend of mine has shoot stills for entertainment mags such as Premiere, Entertainment Weekly. Which has mostly gone digital.

He told me they discuss and debate Photoshop grain filters to be used on their pictures. To add some slight texture and cut down the ultra-clean look. Because its too clean and doesn't feel real.
  • 0

#11 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 December 2006 - 12:38 PM

I think it should be, why digital can still keep its place in a film era.


Sorry I just hate it when people think that it's a case of 'one of the other'.

Our mediums are better than our artists.
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 December 2006 - 06:52 PM

He told me they discuss and debate Photoshop grain filters to be used on their pictures. To add some slight texture and cut down the ultra-clean look. Because its too clean and doesn't feel real.


It's funny that something with an overlay of grain is more "real" than something clean like the way our eyes see things... when I drive around the city at night, I see a more deep-focus and hyper-clean image than something that high-speed film shot on fast lenses would create.

One person's reality is another person's artifice...
  • 0


Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Visual Products

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Opal

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Visual Products