Let's just say I'm pretty much in the majority on this topic.

Well that's too bad.

I enjoy learning about fellow filmmakers and why they feel the way they do
and do the things they do. I can't force you into a discussion. I'm just sorry
that you have no desire to have one.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

Well that's too bad.

I enjoy learning about fellow filmmakers and why they feel the way they do
and do the things they do. I can't force you into a discussion. I'm just sorry
that you have no desire to have one.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

---

What makes you think I don't have an interest in discussing this? By majority, I mean I pretty much agree with both you and RJ when it comes to this subject. I have a feeling somewhere along the line we had a failure to communicate. I think I'll do a bit of a review of this post to see where we went off.

I think the confusion came when you answered the question "So, for a number of reasons, film is safer to use than any electronic image acquisition." by saying that it was unfortunate for you that you are using digital.

Certified defended digital as a medium but not the specific of data storage. Somewhere in there the confusion happened. I don't think data storage loss is a big issue myself harddrives are cheap these days. You can by a couple and store a copy of your movie in different states or countries at minimal cost to ensure fire, earthquakes or asteroids don't destroy all of it in one seep. You can't do that with film, at least not at a decent price.

By the way I thought HDD meant High Definition Digital. looks like I was wrong on that. I learn something knew everyday on this forum.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjschwarz

I think the confusion came when you answered the question "So, for a number of reasons, film is safer to use than any electronic image acquisition." by saying that it was unfortunate for you that you are using digital.

Certified defended digital as a medium but not the specific of data storage. Somewhere in there the confusion happened. I don't think data storage loss is a big issue myself harddrives are cheap these days. You can by a couple and store a copy of your movie in different states or countries at minimal cost to ensure fire, earthquakes or asteroids don't destroy all of it in one seep. You can't do that with film, at least not at a decent price.

By the way I thought HDD meant High Definition Digital. looks like I was wrong on that. I learn something knew everyday on this forum.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

---

Yeah, I think so too. I'll wait to see what certified thinks about it.

Actually, having your movie stored on a hard drive isn't really a bad thing after all. You just have to keep up with today's technology in order to keep it safe, that's all. So I learn something new everyday too.

That seems to be the disconnect. Sorry about that.

I have a question for Brian:

You say that film has proven itself to be a reliable form of
"storing" images for significant lengths of time. Yet both
negatives and prints of movies made as recently as the 1960?s
have decomposed to the point of being unwatchable. Colors
changing and scratches seem to be the most obvious.

I understand that that is the reason so many companies are
digitally restoring their movies - using digital technology to
create new negatives. I?ve read that these new negatives will
only last about 20 years.

I understand the changing technology - I have a feature shot on
super8 transferred to one inch tape in the D2 format and can?t
find a house that can play it - but the film itself is losing
it?s color after only 15 years.

Is film really safer then the digital info on my hard drives?

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

That seems to be the disconnect. Sorry about that.

I have a question for Brian:

You say that film has proven itself to be a reliable form of
"storing" images for significant lengths of time. Yet both
negatives and prints of movies made as recently as the 1960?s
have decomposed to the point of being unwatchable. Colors
changing and scratches seem to be the most obvious.

I understand that that is the reason so many companies are
digitally restoring their movies - using digital technology to
create new negatives. I?ve read that these new negatives will
only last about 20 years.

I understand the changing technology - I have a feature shot on
super8 transferred to one inch tape in the D2 format and can?t
find a house that can play it - but the film itself is losing
it?s color after only 15 years.

Is film really safer then the digital info on my hard drives?

---

Well, the quick answer is still "yes." While your film may lose color and have imperfections like scratches, you will still be able to see it and play it years from now. On the other hand, electronic technology is in a constant state of change, so if someone doesn't have the discipline to consistently convert the project to the newest technology, it will be lost forever. True, film degrades, but USING the advancing electronic technology enables the ability to keep the original quality of the film and transfer it back to film for archiving purposes. To reiterate a crucial point, I can always see pictures on a strip of film without a projector. But I can never see the pictures on tape or a harddrive without the proper equipment, which tends to become obsolete very quickly these days.

So, this really isn't a question for film professionals, but for professional archivists. My brother happens to be one at a major library and he also concurs that film is the medium of choice for long term archiving purposes. It is a proven simple long term technology. So acquire images in any way you choose (film or electronic), but for long term storage, film is the way to go.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com

I've heard that argument before but I don't really buy it. There are enough businesses working with digital that there will be a small army of folks with the tech and the time to make updates from dusty to shiny formats for you when the time comes.

Try to get info off of a floppy disk now, I bet you can google and find more than one willing to do it. I would say the world is moving digital and you might have the same problem with film. I think it is more likely that film will go away as a common format than digital formats if the rate of adoption is any judge.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

It seems that losing color and scratches on the negative are major issues for film preservation.
According to The Film Foundation "Half of all American movies made before 1950 have already
disintegrated and are lost forever, and a mere 10 percent of the films produced in the United
States before 1929 are still in existence."

Companies like Disney and Turner are spending hundreds of millions to digitize their negatives
because film is such a poor archive medium. Foundations like UCLA Film and Television Archive,
Academy Film Archive and George Eastman House are working frantically to digitize negatives
before they fade and deteriorate beyond restoration.

I spoke to David Lynch who isn't a professional archivist a while back and he was so happy that
"Eraserhead" was being digitized, restored and archived because the black and white negative
was fading.

While I understand being able to hold the negative itself in your hand and seeing the images,
from everything I've read and from speaking to archivists and restorers, I was under the
impression that film is a poor medium for long term archiving purposes.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

I can really see how film might be better than newspapers and other print storage in an archive situation. The ability to shrink down the size alone would be gold, and each frame of a negative could be enlarged using normal photographic methods no matter what happened techwise. Still for a movie, where picture quality is such a huge factor, I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Wow! when are we going to get back to the main topic and stop talking about which format will last longer over time?

The main topic is a guy in a shop somewhere in the UK told
krazeesquirrel that film cameras are easier and quicker to edit
with than HDD cameras. RJ and I and you all agree that isn?t true.
Film cameras are much more difficult to edit with than HDD cameras.

I'm kinda done with the main topic, but If you would still like to
discuss that, feel free.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

The main topic is a guy in a shop somewhere in the UK told
krazeesquirrel that film cameras are easier and quicker to edit
with than HDD cameras. RJ and I and you all agree that isn?t true.
Film cameras are much more difficult to edit with than HDD cameras.

I'm kinda done with the main topic, but If you would still like to
discuss that, feel free.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

---

Well, technically, you don't edit with any kind of camera. 🙂 You edit the film, tape, or digital files.

Film is loaded into a magazine in a darkroom, threaded into a camera, taken out of the magazine and put in a can then sent to the lab for processing. The negative can be telecined or printed for the rough edit. Usually the images are digitized at low res for an off-line edit. When the cut is locked, the online process will edit a high-res digital file or go back to the negative for physical cutting.

Tape and digital means loading the electronic camera with a tape or attaching it to a harddrive or inserting a storage card of some kind. The images are turned into electronic information that requires specific equipment and software in order to read it. Those files or tape can be used to create an edit prior to the on-line.

Film isn't necessarily easier or harder to edit with than the tape or files from an electronic camera... it's just a different process.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com

hey, thanks guys.

I've just ordered myself a panasonic NV-GS330 TAPE camera.

As many of you guessed what I was meaning to say was tape, not film. what I was realy wanting to know was that tape wasn't a dead art form.

thanks for all the help!

I'm sure that every post in this thread was well-intended. I started a long time ago in 16mm. It was the only format available, because I couldn't afford to experiment in 35mm. When videotape was introduced, I struggled with crash edits, then hopelessly buggy Edit Decision Lists, 1" B and C format, component cameras, and finally nonlinear and digital. If you can find a 16mm and a lab nearby, it's still the right way to learn IMO. The goal is to see the framing of a shot, to move the camera smoothly, to learn something about lighting and color, which consumer DV doesn't offer. Easier is not better.

Separately, I want to mention that concept and featured players matter more than format.

Multimedia tutorial on star power posted today at
http://www.duckdiversified.com/stars/stars.html

Cyd Charisse Fred Astaire Gene Kelly Jimmy Stewart Jean Arthur
Claude Rains Katherine Hepburn Humphrey Bogart Laurence Olivier
Charleton Heston Steve McQueen Yul Brynner Lee Marvin
Donald O'Connor Charlie Chaplin Zero Mostel Gene Wilder
Peter Sellers Herbert Lom George C Scott Slim Pickens
Frank Sinatra Mick Jagger Annie Lennox pix links videos
authoritative historical overview no spam no redirects

I think there's plenty of room for new filmmakers, so long as you're prepared to invest 10 or 20 years learning the ropes. I was luckier than most. Charlie Scirba, ASC, taught me camera and cutting when I was a beginner. Alejandro Rey coached me on story development and directing actors. Friends collaborated on many of my early semi-pro projects, and when I got my first few assignments as a working director, I learned from all of the pros who were hired to do a better job than I could on camera, sound, post. What I'm saying is to find the path that makes sense for you as a person. If you want to be a filmmaker (producer, director) it's primarily a visionary role, recruiting others to collaborate.

Duck Diversified is a film and TV production company established in 1967