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.
If you have a band and want to release an LP, you have to wait.
he big issue is few theaters compared to the whole still have film projectors.
"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."
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.
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.
Yes, it is less profitable for the studio, the distributor and the venue. And that's what it's all about.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
You're missing the point: it matters to the people making them. You are not them.
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."
I agree. There is a place for curation. It is not true that he who has the most images at his death wins.
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.
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.
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..
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.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?!
"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."
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.
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?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.
.
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.
Special effects have never been more expensive than today.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
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/
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?