A Sea Change for the Motion Picture Industry

[JBrunner]

Why would the lighting be any different?

Two stops of latitude versus ten.

 

[donbga]

If quality were what mattered, studios would still be using TechniColor.

Don't we wish.

 

[mgphoto]

I was recently doing a large advertising shoot along side a film crew shooting three 30 second commercials for the same client (My job was to shoot the same scenes/subjects for use in the print and billboard campaigns). During the pre-production meeting I was thrilled to find out that the DP was shooting super 16mm film and not video as I had assumed would be the case. As the shoot wound down, we had a chance to chat about the whole film vs. digital thing, so I asked the inevitable question "So why film over video"? His answer was that the post production for digital video is not there yet and [surprise, surprise] film just works and works well! He went on to say that on a typical project you might save $20k on the front end by shooting video instead of film, but you wind up spending at least $30k on the back end for all the post production that must be done with video. Plus the turnaround for the client would be longer. The bottom line is that the MP industry has the film based process down to a science with very predictable results. Let's face it, the motion picture industry is about making money and as long as the current system isn't broke. They have no incentive to "fix it". It's just too bad that the editorial and commercial photography markets don't see it the same way. BTW, I was shooting 2 1/4 chrome as well as digital on that shoot. Thankfully, there are still a few clients out there that actually allow the photographer to choose the right tool for the right job.

-Mark

 

[3Dfan]

At a recent trip the movie theater I was seated closer than normal to the screen. I couldn't help but notice that the screen was pixilated like on a tv set when you get to close. Digital movies are definitely not better than film.

 

[SilverGlow]

Distribution is one big issue, and sending reals of film allows tighter control, and provides more venues.
Gordon Moat Photography

Actually the opposite is true. Film is a nightmare for distribution. I consulted for Technicolor in 2002-2004 in their distribution business unit, and I can tell you that they are getting further and further away from film and going over to digital distribution more and more. Digital distribution means more control, faster delivery, and a better product for the movie houses. It's also a lot cheaper, and a heck of a lot less gasoline/diesel fuel is required for the FedEx or UPS trucks. No reels to get lost in transit, or damaged too.

 

[Ross Chambers]

Actually the opposite is true. Film is a nightmare for distribution. I consulted for Technicolor in 2002-2004 in their distribution business unit, and I can tell you that they are getting further and further away from film and going over to digital distribution more and more. Digital distribution means more control, faster delivery, and a better product for the movie houses. It's also a lot cheaper, and a heck of a lot less gasoline/diesel fuel is required for the FedEx or UPS trucks. No reels to get lost in transit, or damaged too.

And as I might have said before: no kid running the candy bar and the projector at the same time.

Does anybody miss the scratches, the dirt and the lousy repairs to be found in release prints after a week or two run?

And are we talking production, post production or exhibition here? The technology is interchangeable and mix and match at any point.

Regards - Ross

 

[munz6869]

I'm doing my bit - somehow this month, I managed to convince work to buy a brand new (built to order) Kinoton FP 38 E, which will be installed (with much glee on my part) in February... I'm hoping for a renaissance in 16mm film, but at the very least, there's stacks of archive stuff that continues to pass through my little venue, and with a 1.5kW lamphouse (as opposed to the 350W portable projectors it replaces), the screen will literally glow...

Marc!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Interesting posts over in the Rangefinderforum on this topic. Start around #77 and read at least through #81--

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=931222#post931222

 

[Uhner]

Interesting posts over in the Rangefinderforum on this topic. Start around #77 and read at least through #81--

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=931222#post931222

Quite interesting. Many thanks.