Is analog film making a comeback for movie making

[Robert Maxey]

T

I see a verging marked for theaters to start showing larger format movies on film, with streaming and every second house hold having a big LCD screen and a sound system their not enticed to going to the theaters any more. People will pay up to see something special they cant see at home. Film still looks better than digital, its easier on the eye, just the way analog music sounds better to the ear. If there is money to be made from movies being shot in film they will make them. A few more million on a big budget movie wont break it.

The big issue is few theaters compared to the whole still have film projectors. Not sure how many theater owners are willing to invest the capital to install projectors. Perhaps there is some way to make a device that can project film? I am out of my element here and so I must guess.

Bob

 

[Don_ih]

If you have a band and want to release an LP, you have to wait.

If you have masters, you can get a thousand records pressed in a couple of weeks. The difference between before and now is you have to pay for it yourself, up front.

he big issue is few theaters compared to the whole still have film projectors.

Theatres don't need film projectors. The new Star Wars trilogy (at least the first movie) was shot on film but digitally projected. All new movies shot on film are digitally projected.

 

[Robert Maxey]

"Up until the early 1950s, filmmakers shot on nitrate film stock, which turned out to be not just unstable but highly flammable. Over the years, entire studio collections went up in flames, sometimes accidentally and sometimes on purpose, to avoid the costs of storage. According to the Film Foundation, a nonprofit founded by director Martin Scorsese to restore and preserve important films, about half of the U.S. films made before 1950 have been lost, including an astounding 90 percent of those made before 1929."

Mr. Martin Scorsese also wrote an open letter to Kodak asking why the film stock upon which so many great films were shot have longevity issues. Nitrate or other base materials aside, we are losing many great films. I guess the question is which ones do we save? Not sure we have the budgets to save them all. :>(

Oddly enough, black and white nitrate films might outlive us all, if cared for. Color movies can be color separated.

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

Theatres don't need film projectors. The new Star Wars trilogy (at least the first movie) was shot on film but digitally projected. All new movies shot on film are digitally projected.

Sure, it can be done, but the whole idea of film is lost. A Technicolor movie can be converted to digital; a dye transfer print can be scanned. Much can be lost in the translation.

Bob

 

[Pieter12]

Prints need to be shipped to the theater, are easily damaged and have a limited useful life. Plus, the projector needs to be attended, reels changed, equipment maintained--more so than for digital projection.

 

[btaylor]

There was a whole industry behind getting a movie from camera original to projection print- something that can be projected. It would be close to impossible to do it “the old way” now. Closest approximation would be scan original negative, all digital post (picture, sound, effects), then film recorder out to projection print. I miss the physicality of holding the film in my hand and cutting, or running the footage through the camera and projector. I lost interest in production when it flipped to digital. RED productions were renting my lenses but not the camera packages.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Prints need to be shipped to the theater, are easily damaged and have a limited useful life. Plus, the projector needs to be attended, reels changed, equipment maintained--more so than for digital projection.

I am aware of that. Anyone who reads about what it took to get "The Hateful Eight" up and running will appreciate the effort. Yes, digital is easier, but film is different.

Bob

 

[Pieter12]

I am aware of that. Anyone who reads about what it took to get "The Hateful Eight" up and running will appreciate the effort. Yes, digital is easier, but film is different.

Bob

Yes, it is less profitable for the studio, the distributor and the venue. And that's what it's all about.

 

[Kino]

Most interest in film today is in film as a capture medium, transferred to digital from the camera original and then digitized. No doubt many would like to "do the whole monty" from start to release print, but that's probably only rarely going to happen for many obvious reasons.

Just the fact that they are interested in film as an origination medium is fine by me...

 

[AgX]

You're missing the point: it matters to the people making them. You are not them.

Well, my point is that I do not understand the idea behind going the hybrid way.

Neither I do it for still photography, nor I do it for cinematography. But as you indicated, it is just me.

 

[wiltw]

Those anthropologists who spent their formative years out at the dump sorting through everybody's garbage to try to pull together a snapshot of our culture during the time period the dump was being filled will, in their old age, move on to Facebook and Instagram


I am a little surprised you didn't mention this quote:

"Up until the early 1950s, filmmakers shot on nitrate film stock, which turned out to be not just unstable but highly flammable. Over the years, entire studio collections went up in flames, sometimes accidentally and sometimes on purpose, to avoid the costs of storage. According to the Film Foundation, a nonprofit founded by director Martin Scorsese to restore and preserve important films, about half of the U.S. films made before 1950 have been lost, including an astounding 90 percent of those made before 1929."

What I extracted as quotes all had parallel issues with the storage of digital still photos...I did not see a parallel in the deliberate destruction of images in order to save costs of storage. Is there one?!

 

[wiltw]

I agree. There is a place for curation. It is not true that he who has the most images at his death wins.

It is not so much about the number of images preserved, but that certain key ones are lost for all time when stored digitally on devices from which the image files cannot be extracted.
If someone in Dallas in 1963 had inadvertantly captured some detail pertaining to the assassination of JFK while present at the motorcade, if it were a print in a cardboard box there is a CHANCE it can be found and that detail added to historical records of the asassination..
That same shot stored on an ST-506 harddrive would be, OTOH, lost for all time because current computers in 2060 could not read ST-506 harddrives because they cannot support an ST-506 controller..

 

[halfaman]

If I remember correctly the most expensive thing 20 years ago was to send the films to Fotokem in Los Angeles for color correction. Almost $1000 per minute. The university had a deal with them and students didn't have to pay for it.

35 mm stock filmmaking was and is very expensive, for professional productions only.

 

[Don_ih]

Sure, it can be done, but the whole idea of film is lost. A Technicolor movie can be converted to digital; a dye transfer print can be scanned. Much can be lost in the translation.

Apparently, the whole idea is not lost, since film makers continue to use 16 and 35mm film for capture and convert to digital for everything else. They think it's worthwhile.

And don't forget, as long as film is used as a capture medium, the technology for conversion to digital will improve. If film makers want to get the "look of film" by using film, they will also want that look in the end result.

See this page for one guy's trials using super8 for a documentary and his justification for doing so: https://nofilmschool.com/super-8-documentary

 

[faberryman]

It is not so much about the number of images preserved, but that certain key ones are lost for all time when stored digitally on devices from which the image files cannot be extracted.
If someone in Dallas in 1963 had inadvertantly captured some detail pertaining to the assassination of JFK while present at the motorcade, if it were a print in a cardboard box there is a CHANCE it can be found and that detail added to historical records of the asassination..
That same shot stored on an ST-506 harddrive would be, OTOH, lost for all time because current computers in 2060 could not read ST-506 harddrives because they cannot support an ST-506 controller..

So no issues with storage on film? Just stick it is a cave and it will last forever?

The way I approach the issue is that at the time they transferred movies to digital they were trying to solve a problem. They may have made a mistake (or not) in choosing to transfer films to digital, but that doesn't mean that the problem they were trying to solve wasn't real, and continuing. Not all of the 50% of films before 1950 and 90% of films before 1929 that have been lost were deliberately destroyed.

 

[faberryman]

What I extracted as quotes all had parallel issues with the storage of digital still photos...I did not see a parallel in the deliberate destruction of images in order to save costs of storage. Is there one?!

You seem to be deliberately overlooking the word "accidentally" in the quote. Either that or you are simply blind to the fact that film has its own set of issues in capture and playback, initially and over time. Pointing out digital's set of issues in capture and playback, initially and over time, does not eliminate those which exist with film.

"Up until the early 1950s, filmmakers shot on nitrate film stock, which turned out to be not just unstable but highly flammable. Over the years, entire studio collections went up in flames, sometimes accidentally and sometimes on purpose, to avoid the costs of storage. According to the Film Foundation, a nonprofit founded by director Martin Scorsese to restore and preserve important films, about half of the U.S. films made before 1950 have been lost, including an astounding 90 percent of those made before 1929."

 

[guangong]

I was told that NY Ballet company used to archive performances on 16mm film, and then began using video tape. After some passage of time, when tapes were viewed, nothing but snow and unusable images. A whole decade of documentation lost. I had the same thing happen to a tape that I valued.
Because digital capture is so cheap, less creative thought is employed when filming. Most contemporary entertainment movies drag on and on, 2 and 2 1/2 hours seems to be te normal length for a contemporary film, but would be improved if cut down to 75 min. The most annoying is what I call the deer’s head shot...the long face or head close-ups of actors staring into space, who lack the skill to make such shots interesting.
As already pointed out, film demands a certain approach quite different from digital, just as a genuine painting using brushes and paints requires more conscious preparation than a digital imitation.
I have always felt that one reason Italian and Japanese post war films were so much more creative than Hollywood product was poverty. Film and other materials in short supply meant a thought of thought went into every shot.

 

[faberryman]

Because digital capture is so cheap, less creative thought is employed when filming. Most contemporary entertainment movies drag on and on, 2 and 2 1/2 hours seems to be te normal length for a contemporary film, but would be improved if cut down to 75 min.

I don't entirely disagree. I just watched (endured) a five part, five hour, HBO remake of Mildred Pierce starring Kate Winslet. It won five Emmys. I thought it bordered on terrible. The original 1946 film starring Joan Crawford is just 1:51 long, and is far and away the better picture, though the new version is truer to James M. Cain's 1941 novel on which it is based.

 

[pentaxuser]

I was told that NY Ballet company used to archive performances on 16mm film, and then began using video tape. After some passage of time, when tapes were viewed, nothing but snow and unusable images. A whole decade of documentation lost. I had the same thing happen to a tape that I valued.
.

Was this the kind of video tape that is, I think, no longer used? What did the NY Ballet decide to do to when it discovered the snow"? Revert to 16mm film or has it moved to digital. I don't suppose you or anyone here knows what it did and why, do they?

This may shed light on the future

Anyone know what the volume of film v digital moves is currently and whether there is any significant trend back to film? In terms of the OP question about signs of a return to film which stemmed from desire of one member of the dept that teaches film making to buy Bolex cameras at his university. I'd have thought that some of the above questions and their answers are important

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Robert Maxey]

Anyone know what the volume of film v digital moves is currently and whether there is any significant trend back to film?

I cannot provide hard numbers, but apparently, some very important movers and shakers in Hollywood want Kodak to keep providing film. I am also guessing that if this move continues, we will see many a student shooting on film. Perhaps Kodak will start taking photographic film more seriously and decide that there is a place for the stuff.

That said, film is costly compared to digital but digital allows one to do special effects that are too costly to attempt with film.

Bob

 

[faberryman]

I cannot provide hard numbers, but apparently, some very important movers and shakers in Hollywood want Kodak to keep providing film. I am also guessing that if this move continues, we will see many a student shooting on film. Perhaps Kodak will start taking photographic film more seriously and decide that there is a place for the stuff.

Kodak continuing to produce film for the studios in contingent on the studio's on-going commitment to buy it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffew...al-renewal-protecting-traditional-filmmaking/

 

[Helge]

I cannot provide hard numbers, but apparently, some very important movers and shakers in Hollywood want Kodak to keep providing film. I am also guessing that if this move continues, we will see many a student shooting on film. Perhaps Kodak will start taking photographic film more seriously and decide that there is a place for the stuff.

That said, film is costly compared to digital but digital allows one to do special effects that are too costly to attempt with film.

Bob

Special effects have never been more expensive than today.
Or looked worse.
Or been overused more.

Film is a blip on the budget of most Hollywood movies.

For smaller filmmakers it could be a concern though.
That’s where we truly need support, discounts and grants.
If film becomes viewed as an exuberant luxury for dinosaur film makers, film for films is on very much borrowed time.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Kodak continuing to produce film for the studios in contingent on the studio's on-going commitment to buy it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffew...al-renewal-protecting-traditional-filmmaking/

These days, it is absolutely true. So many emulsions have disappeared simply because nobody was buying them. We will never get back what we lost.

Bob

 

[pentaxuser]

An interesting read but I am unsure what evidence there was in it to state whether film is making what might be termed a "comeback"

In these quotes from the article:“I’ve seen some films that look great in digital, some that haven’t. But truthfully, it has nothing to do with the cameras. It has to do with the care and attention to detail that somebody is putting into it. It’s just like… Just the same way that I’ve seen films that look like they’re shot through a teabag. It’s like, who’s paying attention to this? Who cares? So I don’t really care what they are using or reach for, to do it. It doesn’t so much matter to me,..I mean, I know what I prefer to work with just because I know it better,

Is the person saying that he know film better and is happier with what he knows but I am unsure if this makes a sustainable enough case to be able to argue we have a definite revival in terms of what most people accept as a convincing case

From a personal point of view I have not been to watch many movies in a cinema but of those I have seen and of course assuming that some of possibly most have been digital, I have to be honest and say that I was not immediately struck by how much different and /or better they looked compared to those films seen in my teens, twenties and thirties, all of which must have been made on genuine film.

It is fine if people can see the kind of substantial differences in film v digital but I do wonder if these differences register with enough viewers/ consumers of movies i.e. the paying public, to give film for movies enough momentum to be other than the desire of some notable individuals who make movies.

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

The people who make movies are the ones who decide if film will give them what they want. Some of those people think it does. There's no debate about what they want - they either want it or not - they either think film makes a difference or don't.

In the meantime, the audience doesn't care if it's shot on film, on a vhs tape, or on digital. If it looks good and they are interested in it, they'll watch it and never even wonder how it was shot.