R.I.P., the movie camera: 1888-2011

[Donat96]

Originally Posted by Atreyu

Not to sound dumb, but why would digital cameras be safer for the environment?

I'm guessing he means less materials will be used in making film stock.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Donat96

I'm guessing he means less materials will be used in making film stock.

Yep. I heard somewhere that celluloid is an environmental hazard.

[Zen_Amako]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Yep. I heard somewhere that celluloid is an environmental hazard.

This is one reason animation cels are no longer used to make animated films. The drawings are scanned into a computer and painted digitally.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Zen_Amako

This is one reason animation cels are no longer used to make animated films. The drawings are scanned into a computer and painted digitally.

Early in the animation industry they used cels made of cellulose nitrate, but later they switched over to cellulose acetate, due to the flammable quality of the former. Were the production and use of the cellulose acetate cels as hazardous? (I don't know much about their manufacture and couldn't find any answers online.)

The major reason that animation cels aren't used anymore was costs. It was cheaper to go with digital ink and paint, and on television they looked better. (Since more animated TV shows would photocopy the pencil drawing onto the cel, rather than actually inking them, which resulted in a weak line quality.)

[42041]

I doubt it's the transparent plastic that's toxic, probably all the nasty photochemistry that goes into making and processing the light-sensitive emulsion. Regardless, this isn't the days of Kodak churning out billions of rolls of film a year. Semiconductor fabs produce toxic waste too.

[HDMe]

The thing that most people seem to miss here... is what it means for the future.

Film (especially 35 and 70 mm film) has FAR more resolution than the current 1080p resolution.

I don't remember what that limit is... but a film like Baraka had an 8K master made from its 70mm print and I think there was more resolution to be found if they wanted.

So... when we go to 4K or 8K presentations in the home or theater at some point in the future... you can go back to film and get a new higher resolution scan and introduce that older movie at higher resolution again!

But... shoot a movie with a digital camera now, and you are maxed out at the resolution you shoot... so shooting a TV show at 1080p is cool now... but in 20 years it will be as "bad" as the problem we have now with TV shows that were shot on analog video tape... and we will all be asking "why didn't they keep using film so it could be better now that we have better technology"...

That's the shame in stopping making film cameras, and ultimately film for those existing cameras... is it puts the line in the sand for when backwards capability to re-scan old stuff will be no longer able to do...

[42041]

Originally Posted by HDMe

So... when we go to 4K or 8K presentations in the home or theater at some point in the future... you can go back to film and get a new higher resolution scan and introduce that older movie at higher resolution again!

But... shoot a movie with a digital camera now, and you are maxed out at the resolution you shoot... so shooting a TV show at 1080p is cool now... but in 20 years it will be as "bad" as the problem we have now with TV shows that were shot on analog video tape... and we will all be asking "why didn't they keep using film so it could be better now that we have better technology"...

I doubt the thousands of films mastered in 2K resolution over the last decade will ever see new transfers. People tend to watch movies from comfortable distances where the human eye is barely able to resolve 1080p's worth of resolution, and unless that changes, the cost vs. benefit of rescanning the negs, redoing the color grading, and re-rendering the VFX is extremely questionable. I've seen many films shot in 1080p on 4K digital projectors and never really noticed anything amiss resolution-wise.

In a couple years I imagine digital cameras are going to be shooting legit 4K footage, and is there any practical value in going past that? Maybe for IMAX screens... but like the megapixel race in still cameras, it makes for great marketing, but questionable practical use. I think the "look" of film is going to more difficult to replace than the resolution but ultimately the bean counters will prevail.

[TheWildWhelk]

Digital cinematography has always been breathing down the neck of conventional lensing techniques since the advent of the likes of the Sony F900 as used in Attack Of The Clones. Michael Mann sent a warning shot over the heads of film stock manufacturers when they heard that the incredible night-time photography in Collateral was achieved by opening the camera aperture to maximum with no additional lighting or digitial processing required. The images of the camera 'seeing into the night' had the likes of Kodak rushing to develop more light sensetive filmstocks for night photography.

I've been waiting for news like this since seeing the results of anamorphic cinematography on the Panavision Genesis. Things can only get better from here on in, folks. Had a thought: Spielberg said a number of years ago "I'll keep shooting on film until the last lab closes." Somebody want to tell him the news?

[retablo]

Just because companies cease production doesn't mean film is dead.

Add to the fact that Digital STILL isn't up to far with film (and even the best cameras don't have the latitude of a film stock). Film will still be around. Heck, records are.

[iam1bearcat]

i kind of am sad by this news. many films won't "feel" or look the same now without being filmed... on film. i don't want all our films to look super slick like the latest Fast and Furious movie. i love how some films have grain and have a real grimy, realistic look to them. makes them feel more "real". i don't know if the cameras that are left that replicate that or not, but it certainly seems like it isn't the case.

i'm all for clearer picture and whatnot, but how many films now a days will look and feel like Taxi Driver when they're being filmed with the same camera that shoots Avatar 2, Final Destination 67, and all the others? i'm guessing not many

[42041]

There are decades' worth of perfectly good cameras out there; the nice thing about film is that the actual camera has little to do with the resultant image. I use an early 80s Olympus SLR for my film photography and it works perfectly well.
Now if Kodak and Fuji stop making film and labs stop processing it, that'll be the end. And I don't doubt the end will come eventually, but I think it's still some years off. I'm not a big fan of the look of most digitally shot films so far, so I hope that happens later rather than sooner.

[Snicket]

I recently wrapped on a project that was shot in super 16 mm, and boy does it look fantastic! People saying that digital is better looking are way out of line.

Film is so hard to work with, not so much the cost of the film itself but the processing is already expensive, I can't imagine that this will help things. About 20 minutes of film costs a few thousand dollars to be processed, I don't want to imagine what it will be now.

[ScarredLungs]

Shocked and sad

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i kind of am sad by this news. many films won't "feel" or look the same now without being filmed... on film. i don't want all our films to look super slick like the latest Fast and Furious movie. i love how some films have grain and have a real grimy, realistic look to them. makes them feel more "real". i don't know if the cameras that are left that replicate that or not, but it certainly seems like it isn't the case.

i'm all for clearer picture and whatnot, but how many films now a days will look and feel like Taxi Driver when they're being filmed with the same camera that shoots Avatar 2, Final Destination 67, and all the others? i'm guessing not many

The latest Fast and the Furious was shot on film. Film is a lot cleaner than it was in the 70s, especially the grainier cheaper film used for Taxi Driver.
There will still be films made with film cameras for year, maybe decades. It's just that Hollywood owns hundreds, thousands of film cameras and don't need to buy new ones.
Films, shot on film or digital, will look cleaner and cleaner. At some point, people will not be able to tell the difference, or feel that digital cinema looks better.
If you want grainy films, there are lower quality filmstocks that can be used, and you can even digitally add grain filters to films to make them look "grittier". I'm not worried, there will still be people shooting films on film, and at the same time, digital films will look better and better.
For example, the films of David Fincher are mostly shot digitally, and they have some of the most gorgeous cinematography I've ever seen.

[joenostalgia23]

People are getting too worked up about this.

It's not like there's an embargo on film and film cameras. It's just that there's no demand for film cameras when all the Hollywood veterans own tons of cameras.

New filmmakers aren't choosing to buy film cameras because they're experienced with digital and know how to make it look good. Digital is cheaper, it's easier to work with, and is even better for the environment.

Over time, digital cinematography will continue to look better and better. I love grain too, but films shot on RED cameras often carry that grainy texture that we're so accustomed to seeing in older film stock. One of the greatest cinematographers in the world, Roger Deakins, has begun shooting digitally and he loves the control and convenience of the technology.

I'm not afraid of the future. Digital cinema has been catching up with film and the industry is adjusting. Cinema isn't dead, people say that every month, but people are silly and emotional.

[SpaceDog]

There will always likely be a difference between the celluloid experience and the digital one. That said, I don't have a problem with progress so long as the historical prints remain. If studios continue to provide accurate blu-ray (and future medium) representations of classic films, I'll be thrilled.

Digital brought blu-ray to my home. How can I complain?

[can man]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

There will always likely be a difference between the celluloid experience and the digital one. That said, I don't have a problem with progress so long as the historical prints remain. If studios continue to provide accurate blu-ray (and future medium) representations of classic films, I'll be thrilled.

Digital brought blu-ray to my home. How can I complain?

True dat!

[Lemmy Lugosi]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

There will always likely be a difference between the celluloid experience and the digital one. That said, I don't have a problem with progress so long as the historical prints remain. If studios continue to provide accurate blu-ray (and future medium) representations of classic films, I'll be thrilled.

Digital brought blu-ray to my home. How can I complain?

Originally Posted by can man

True dat!

I agree, too.