Roger Ebert's Journal: Who would have dreamed film would die so quickly? The victory of video was quick and merciless. Was it only a few years ago that I was patiently explaining how video would never win over the ancient and familiar method of light projected through celluloid? And now Eastman Kodak, which seemed invulnerable, is in financial difficulties.
Friday, November 04, 2011
The sudden death of film
Roger Ebert's Journal: Who would have dreamed film would die so quickly? The victory of video was quick and merciless. Was it only a few years ago that I was patiently explaining how video would never win over the ancient and familiar method of light projected through celluloid? And now Eastman Kodak, which seemed invulnerable, is in financial difficulties.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I don't know that many people could have predicted the rapid advancement of technology that we have experienced in the last two decades. In some ways, I see the people who insist that "the old way is the best and will always be the best" as being stubborn. At other times, I agree with them fully. I do however, share the author's concerns about the longevity of digital files and formats. Not particularly about how long the file will remain uncorrupted, but about how long that format will remain readable. For example, are there any programs on the market today that are able to read the old clarisworks format? I feel like technology is moving at such a pace that as soon as one file format or storage medium is accepted, another has already begun to take its place. How can we keep up with the latest trend, making sure that the works of the past are able to inspire the artists of the future?
Up until very recently there would have been no question about the superiority of film to all things digital. The issue that I think is at the heart of this argument is very simple. Much like sound design on reel to reel tape decks, film requires artistry. To make digital video look good takes much less skill now than film or the older digital equipment. It is also the fact that film makes you take your time and think things through because it costs you for each take. With digital if it is no good there is no penalty. While I believe that film requires a group of true artists to make good product I will say that the same artistry can be attained in the digital realm. The medium an artist chooses should make no difference if they can make the medium work the way they want it to. The idea that digital or analog is better in any context is really not a valid argument when talking about things with artistic intent because all art is subjective and the medium an artist chooses to work in should be the medium that they feel will give them the best product.
I would like to take up issue with Roger on the movie theatre experience. I when I went to the movies it was for the following reasons. I wanted to see the latest releases before it was on basic cable. I wanted to take a girl on a date and not sit in my living room. I wanted to see a huge screen and a banged sound system that I could nor replicate at home. Very rarely did I want to go to enjoy the company of others. I wanted others to be quiet and leave me alone. Now I have the ability to create a high-def screen in my living room and make own banging sound system. I am a little more patient as to how quickly I need to see Transformers 3 too. What is the only part of the movie experience that I cannot accurately re-create and that keeps me going to Loews? The popcorn!
In the article he mentions how digital is easier, cheaper and quicker for the production companies, however the other big benefactor from this transition are the producers of the projectors. By introducing these new processes, theaters are having to purchase entire new sets of projectors. A massive expense. Movies are being made to be 3D, even the ones that aren't big 3D blockbusters. The production companies are putting the pressure on theaters to upgrade their systems, or the audiences will go the big chain theaters.
The thing about film is that threading a projector is not worth the hassle when you can simply stream an HD movie with zero effort and all the quality. When I wonder if things would be different if the projector wasn't so complicated and the film wasn't so bulky, i remember that that is exactly why dvd and dvd players exist. I don't know why projectors would make a come back unless its the old film quality that you are specifically looking for. At this point projectors are valued for their age. There's no reason to produce new ones. I definitely associate film with a thing of the past.
Yeah, the cost of digital projectors is relatively low compared to the time saved by the digital workflow. Even a $100,000 4K digital cinema projector pays for itself in a short period of shooting by not sending thousands of feet of film out to be color-corrected and edited.
The are always those who prefer the vintage approach to things, either because its familiar, or because they like being involved more with each piece of the process. However, when it comes to a business case, it's neither surprising nor unfortunate that film is going away.
this saddens me to no extent, but it does not come as a surprise. the use of film in visual media is not going to really die as it is still a way to capture a successful visual style , but like video before it , it will reach a point wear it is hard to come by due to the fact that it is not economic or faster and those two elements are what can kill or survive a medium or technology. i still hope to continue to use film in my work especially where it benefits projects stylistically.
The duplication and distribution cost savings alone make it a slam dunk decision for digital, the only thing leaving film some foothold is that digital, so at least some people's eyes, still hasn't caught up to film in dynamic range and color saturation. There are a lot of TVs out there that will do some very nice intense reds, compared to another TV, but then you look at a production still of the same scene and suddenly there's a huge difference.
The gap is narrowing, and I wouldn't be surprised if it will change directions before long, but the subjective reasons to keep film aren't going to be as strong as the financial ones to make the switch.
When I saw the headline here I thought it was going to be about film still photography and I had a whole story to tell about how home darkrooms are actually seeing a bit of a resurgence and in some ways film is much more DIY/hackable/independent than digital.
Alas.
I am indeed surprised by the rapid downfall of film for motion pictures as well, although I guess a little less so. It is definitely a bummer that the projector companies are forcing movie houses to remove the film projectors before they can install the digital ones, when both side-by-side would certainly be optimal. It sounds like the article credits this policy and the push for the 'gimmick' of 3d with causing such a rapid transition. I do find it interesting though that the rights houses are willing to sell or rent films to what the author describes as fairly small independent film houses or community film spaces. Because the reproduction cost is essentially nill, one could hope that this means increased access to the art by the public, and maybe slightly weakened vertical monopolies in the film industry.
Like Ethan, I too thought this article was going to be about still photography as apposed to video. I have always had an interest in film, but after taking a black and white photography class, my appreciation for it has grown rapidly. On the North Side there is a place called Photo Antiquities Museum of Photographic History, which is a really interesting and educational place to visit. They take you through the life of photography in all it's different forms, and unfortunately, still photography is being used less and less, very similarly to the video film. I would be extremely interested to see if there was a museum such as this focused on video. I think there would be more of an appreciation for it as an art form if more people understood more about where it came from and all the intricacies about it. Unfortunately, this probably would have no effect on the marketing of video, for as stated in the article, digital comes out to be cheaper,easier, and less time consuming to produce, edit, and distribute, which is the main goal in the business world.
Once again we run into the same problem. Digital media will probably never be as crisp as film is. However, digital media is infinitely easier to work with. It's easier to move from place to place, edit, and manipulate.
Maybe we're getting to a place where technology will make video equal (or better than) film. I wouldn't be surprised.
What I don't agree with in this article is that seeing a movie in theatres is an integral part of movie-watching. Some big-budget blockbusters are better in theatres because they require huge screens to properly display explosions and whatnot. Also, the sound is better. I can understand that. But seeing movies with a room full of strangers is a pain. Movie theatres have seriously disintegrated over the past decade They are all dirty and disgusting. All hail Netflix!
Post a Comment