I'd be surprised if film is completely over for a while yet
simply because considering the expense of Hollywood movies where they are paying millions to get certain star actors, the cost of film vs digital isn't a big deal.
So if it's not cost, then if comes down to personal preference, and there's going to be a lot of people who'll stick with film simply because they are used to it. Changing your workflow is alarming, especially if you've got 50 other things to worry about, like you probably have running a massive shoot.
I mean. Yes digital obviously as good technically, and better in price / speed / ease of use but there's inertia in people which means film won't die overnight.
To be honest I did about 5 mins of the film and got bored and they probably addressed by points and my post is irrelevant.
(
rob, Wed 16 Feb 2011, 21:14,
Share,
Reply)
Certainly the workflow thing is key
And nostalgia. People like to be able to touch the film, and there are some who feel they can edit faster by cutting manually.
(
John Q Wagonwheel Spent, Wed 16 Feb 2011, 21:23,
Share,
Reply)
Definitely carving itself a niche.
Aardman used DSLRs on motion control arms for the last Wallace and Gromit, partly because they have the advantage of being very small, and therefore able to get close-in shots that wouldn't be possible with a honking great Bolex. That wouldn't be the only reason of course, the whole digital workflow must make the whole stop-motion process much more agile.
(
smaggers Like a gibbon on helium, Wed 16 Feb 2011, 22:08,
Share,
Reply)
film is becoming a niche product, like vinyl
a couple of large film companies, for example, have stopped making it, and are running out their stock levels.
Digital is very attractive to filmmakers for a number of reasons:
on set, you speed up filming, as changing film on a camera is trickier than changing a casette/memory card. film can result in a 'hair in the gate' that you don't get on tape. The camera is more complex than a film camera, but a film camera is a very technical piece of kit in it's own right.
Digital distribution and projection are also massively simpler than film, and that is where the film industry sees 99% of the savings it needs to make
(
mictoboy shitting in your cunt since, Wed 16 Feb 2011, 22:36,
Share,
Reply)
Funny you should say that,
One of the digital Camera techs I do film developing for has just lost a job as they decided to film it all using film instead of Red digi cameras. the name of the film escapes me but its a large major studio film!
Its also the case that a huge chunk of HD and digi work going out on the big screen is being downrated and made to look more like film as "thats what people want"
BUT, I don't think film as a movie format has long to live though, the extra benefits of working digitaly are starting to outweigh film, the storage and handling of film is quite labour intesive, not to mention the cameras that run it are often old beasts. If you can chuck 3 red cameras in the back of the DOP's motor or a flight case in with the rigging kit, it helps keep some costs down. Once it hits a tipping point the same thing that happened to film photography will happen, manufacturers will start to pull different film stock, no longer mass produce and it will become the preserve of enthusiast and people looking for the old look who don't have the pressures of working to deadlines..................
*looks lovingly at his 1951 press camera*
(
Si o doom Fund me! No catering cost involved! bit.ly/1bFtzN2, Wed 16 Feb 2011, 22:40,
Share,
Reply)