NFL and Kodak

[Photo Engineer]

Today, in an interview on the local NBC news, the NFL stated their commitment to film. The person interviewed referred to the ability to view film images directly and to preserve them longer than digital. He discussed their contract with EK for film supplies.

I am sorry that I missed a bit of it, but it does show that film is not dead.

PE

 

[wildbill]

The NFL shoots more film (16mm) per year* than all of the studios combined. They process their own as well. Every single game has multiple guys running around with Arri SR's.



*I read this somewhere a long time ago.

 

[snapguy]

film

In the early days of television the shows were live or on tape. Desi Arnez pioneered the idea of putting I Love Lucy on film because the tape copies of such a show were extremely poor. It made him and Lucy very rich. Digital is quite handy but is still quite iffy as to how long it will last. I have family photographs from the 1920 that are in perfect condition. Ditto with negatives from the 1930s on.

 

[MattKing]

Film has a big advantage for NFL films - it is far easier (or at least cheaper) to do super slow motion filming with film than it is with digital. And NFL Films and slow motion kind of go together .
I am glad to hear of the interview, because last I heard NFL Films were actively pursuing transition to digital media.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I asked Pete Carroll once ("Film or digital?") ... yes, met him and couldn't think of any thing else to ask. Duh.

Anyway, he said without hesitation: "Film, of course!". Go Seahawks!

 

[wildbill]

Film has a big advantage for NFL films - it is far easier (or at least cheaper) to do super slow motion filming with film than it is with digital. And NFL Films and slow motion kind of go together .
I am glad to hear of the interview, because last I heard NFL Films were actively pursuing transition to digital media.

not really.
the arri sr's only go to 120fps and that's easily obtainable with many current video cams. 150fps burns up a 400ft load pretty quickly.

 

[MattKing]

This link tangentially adds more (although it talks about a coming transition to digital): http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/dcp/news/nfl-films-lensing-hd/38804

 

[Jeff Kubach]

This was nice to read! I may have to start watching more NFL games.

+1

Jeff

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Why is the NFL shooting 16mm film? NFL games are broadcast live on TV, which requires digital (TV shows broadcast at a later date can be shot on film, but live must be digital). I cannot think of any reason at all that they would shoot film movies.

 

[MattKing]

Why is the NFL shooting 16mm film? NFL games are broadcast live on TV, which requires digital (TV shows broadcast at a later date can be shot on film, but live must be digital). I cannot think of any reason at all that they would shoot film movies.

The NFL films aren't what you see in live broadcasts.

They document and promote the NFL.

They also to all sorts of feature presentations that show up in corners of the sports television world.

Here are their "current" productions: http://www.nflfilms.com/programming.html

 

[Eric Leppanen]

Here's the interview:

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S3307030.shtml?cat=565

 

[lxdude]

In the early days of television the shows were live or on tape. Desi Arnez pioneered the idea of putting I Love Lucy on film because the tape copies of such a show were extremely poor.

Actually, kinescope was the standard method of recording at the time that I Love Lucy started. Tape was just being developed and was of very poor quality. It was introduced commercially about the time I Love Lucy ended its run.

 

[lxdude]

The NFL shoots more film (16mm) per year* than all of the studios combined. They process their own as well. Every single game has multiple guys running around with Arri SR's.



*I read this somewhere a long time ago.

All that slow-motion footage helps with that consumption rate!

NFL Films says they shoot 1000 miles of 16mm film per season.

 

[lxdude]

The NFL films aren't what you see in live broadcasts.

They document and promote the NFL.

They also to all sorts of feature presentations that show up in corners of the sports television world.

Here are their "current" productions: http://www.nflfilms.com/programming.html

Yes, they are documentaries of games with lots of field-level shots of the stuff going on along the sidelines, coaches yelling at players, players trying to keep warm or acting silly, etc., lots of slow-mo shots of the action on the field, and narration (not sounding at all like game announcing) over it all. They always have a story, like the snowstorm the teams were playing in or the underdog/overdog angle, etc. They are very well done.

EDIT: This really describes it.

http://www.nflfilms.com/about.html

 

[AgX]

Why is the NFL shooting 16mm film? NFL games are broadcast live on TV, which requires digital (TV shows broadcast at a later date can be shot on film, but live must be digital). I cannot think of any reason at all that they would shoot film movies.

You are right. All their footage is digitized. The reason they use film seems to be their benefit from slow motion abilities of their film cameras in the past and not yet having changed their winning horse. With completely digitally filming being discussed though.
In that the article and the TV report are contradictory.

 

[kuparikettu]

Take a look at these:
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/The_Storyboard/4294971827/index.htm
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publ..._a_Filmmaker_David_Dart_NFL_Films_Answers.htm

 

[CatLABS]

The main reason according to the article is the longevity of film, compared to current digital storage technology.
Digital, and extreme HD slow motion, is by far cheaper, and easier to manage, not to mention all the film lost due to mistakes (exposure/processing), and the associated cost.
I guess they decided that its easier to store film as ultimate backup than raid arrays.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Digital is quite handy but is still quite iffy as to how long it will last. I have family photographs from the 1920 that are in perfect condition. Ditto with negatives from the 1930s on.

None of our family digital photographs from the 1920s and 1930s have survived.

 

[AgX]

The main reason according to the article is the longevity of film, compared to current digital storage technology.

Which article? I did not read that.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

This is interesting. My 17 year old son asked me the other day, "how come the 'replay' footage of games from recent past seasons looks 'old' and live action is so 'crisp'?" I'll bet the network (FOX, in this case) is using film from NFL films to show game snippets from very recent previous years. This has to be a very deliberate choice as the taped/digital footage must be available to the network.

 

[fotch]

None of our family digital photographs from the 1920s and 1930s have survived.

Woa, didn't you make back ups?

 

[CatLABS]

Which article? I did not read that.

The TV spot posted above

 

[StoneNYC]

not really.
the arri sr's only go to 120fps and that's easily obtainable with many current video cams. 150fps burns up a 400ft load pretty quickly.

My iPhone does 120fps....

 

[StoneNYC]

BTW I was even surprised to hear they record football games at all let alone on FILM, I thought I was confused at first and that NFL was some other thing... So they actually RECORD and save whole football games? Why? ....

NOT a sports watching fan....

 

[Wayne]

Not only that, rabid sports fans pay for "coaches film" so they can rewatch every play and analyze teams and other such things in lieu of having a life.