10 Reason Film Will Never Die 1/09

[James Mathers]

We gotten several "Letters to the Editor" in regard to our January 2009 eNewsletter Essay, so here it is followed by some of the comments from DCS Members:

Ten Reasons Why Film Will Never Die, Take II

As previously mentioned, we’re still working on our Digitally Acquired Features List for last year, which we hope to have out very soon. It is a job that has grown exponentially since we started it several years ago, with so many more productions opting to acquire on digital formats. It brings up an old topic for discussion once again. As if I were a doctor consulting about a terminal patient, I’m often asked, “How much time does film have left?” I don’t think film production is terminal, so let’s start by reviewing some of the first content the Digital Cinema Society ever published back in 2004, “Ten Reasons Why Film Will Never Die.” The list was put together by DCS Co-founder Brian McKernan with the help of Richard Crudo, then President of the ASC, the HPA’s Mark Schubin, and Andy Maltz of the Motion Picture Acadamy. I find this content holds up pretty well over the years; (and so, I might add, does Motion Picture Film.)

------------------

Ten Reasons Why Film Will Never Die By Brian McKernan, DCS Co-Founder

We've all read them at one time or another: newspaper articles proclaiming the "death of film." The writers of these articles typically enthuse about how a particular film was produced digitally, but then jump to the conclusion that this must spell the end of film. This, despite the fact that every movie advertised in the same newspaper was shot and released on 35mm.

This kind of bad reporting is not only wrong, it fails to appreciate the importance of the art of cinematography and the role of professional cinematographers. They are the guardians of image quality, regardless of whether those images are captured on film or some other media. And such bad reporting also erodes respect for the principal medium by which the moving image has been recorded, stored, and conveyed since its inception. An either-or, film-versus-digital mentality is not only short-sighted, it obscures the fact that digital has many definitions. Digital can refer to a variety of acquisition formats (HDCAM, DVCPRO-HD, 4:4:4 FilmStream, etc.), a suite of creative tools for the postproduction of film-originated images (digital intermediate), or new delivery alternatives (such as MPEG-2).

Don't get me wrong; new digital cinema technologies are nothing less than a revolution in the filmmakers' toolkit. But just because there are alternatives to film it doesn't mean the end of film. Digital doesn't mean the death of film any more than television meant the death of radio or moviegoing.

With this in mind, consider this list of Ten Reasons Why Film Will Never Die:

1.) Film works; it's a proven, mature medium. Film equipment is widely available, adaptable, lightweight, unencumbered by cables or CPU's, and functions reliably in every environment. Accessories are enormously varied.

2.) Despite differences in aspect ratios and audio formats, 35mm film is the only worldwide motion-imaging standard.

3.) There's more than a century's worth of film content in the world's archives, a vital part of our modern cultural heritage. Transferring all of those archives to an electronic medium is cost-prohibitive. And why bother, when you can convert what you need to the video format du jour?

4.) Video formats can get obsolete fairly soon. The 35mm film standard is more than a century old.

5.) Motion-picture film continues to improve (e.g., Kodak's new Vision2 stocks).

6.) Digital techniques for transferring (and restoring) film also continue to improve, and as they do, film yields ever-more picture information--detail we never knew was there.

7.) The archival life of today's film stocks is at least a century. Less is known about the stability of tape and other media.

8.) Digital film scanning, intermediate, color-correction, and film-recording options are enhancing film's viability.

9.) Film has more definition than HD. Film has a greater dynamic range. Film cameras are cheap. Processed film is human-readable. Film offers color with neither prism color separators nor color filters, both of which reduce sensitivity and the latter of which reduces resolution and introduces aliases.

10.) Film is actually a digital medium (grains are either exposed or not). The grain structure is random, so there are no sensor-site alias issues. Furthermore, the grain structure is different from frame to frame, so there is no possibility of a defective-pixel or thermal-noise pattern. And the transfer characteristic of film is part of its desirable "film look," the same look that 24p HD emulates.

And one more thing: film's viability doesn't mean the death of digital, either. What it does mean is there are more and better tools for making moving images than ever before. Choose what's best for you and watch out for misleading newspaper reports.

-----------------

Like Brian McKernan, I am a lover and supporter of Film Acquisition, and we are not alone. At a recent panel discussion organized by the ASC at the American Film Market, the entire panel of very prominent Cinematographers all advocated shooting film over dig ital, even if it meant shooting 16mm. I think it was Richard Crudo, ASC ala Charlton Heston, who proclaimed “They will have to pry the film camera from my cold dead hands.” Although the top DPs are not crying out for digital, they aren’t afraid to use any certain format that may serve a particular production. Michael Goi, ASC, also on the panel, chose to shoot his feature directing debut, “Megan is Missing” on Canon HDV. As an experimental type production, the micro budget and pseudo-documentary style were served very well by HDV, and I must say the 35mm print I saw at the premiere a few months back looked great. This very freightening narrative on child abduction and the immediacy suggested by a “video look” made it all the more powerful.

Digital aquisition can be very attractive for speculative Indie productions. Filmmakers can achieve good production value and create a showpiece they can display at film festivals without the upfront expense of film stock, processing and transfer to film. If they are lucky enough to grab the brass ring, and get theatrical distribution, they can always transfer to film, which is still necessary for any real theatrical release. Although “Filmout” is a costly process, this expense is saved until after there are funds available from a sale.

Major Producers and Studios, on the other hand, are about as eager to give up film as top flight DP’s. Spending millions of dollars on other aspects of production, they are just not that eager to scrimp and save mere thousands during production, especially when the long term archival costs of aquiring on digital can eventually make it more expensive. According to "The Digital Dilemma," a report recently released by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, digital film storage costs are over twelve times that of celluloid. More dramatically, source materials, (outtakes, audio recordings, etc., that often make up bonus content for special edition products) can cost 429 times as much to store for digital materials vs. film.

The Majors enjoyed another record year at the box office in 2008, up 2%, to almost 10 Billion dollars, even in these difficult financial times. Why should they switch to digital aquisition and try to fix what isn’t broken? I should also point out that the top grossing film of last year, Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight,” with almost 1 Billion dollars in receipts, was not only shot on film, but major portions were photographed in a horizontal 65mm Imax format to achieve the ultimate in visual quality. I’m sure Warner Brothers isn’t crying about the extra expense of shooting large format film now.

In order to present both sides of the coin, let me play Devil’s Advocate now, and point out a couple of kinks in the armor, that while not signaling the demise of film production, may point to it becoming more elitist in the future. Now that the industry has figured out who will pay and how to finance the hardware change over, the “Digital Cinema Rollout” is finally gaining some steam. This was no small challenge since it has traditionally been the Exhibitors who pay for new equipment, but the distributors who stand to reap the savings. However, the vast sums to be saved in not printing and physically shipping celluloid, was tremendous motivation to bring the parties together to figure it out.

Another boon to Digital Exhibition is, of course 3-D, which is coming to the fore with the box office home runs like the “Hannah Montana” concert movie and many releases slated in the near future. There are also some very exciting upcoming live 3-D events, such as sports, concerts and other large venue entertainment. For example, you can visit the Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Hollywood, (or 80 other outlets around the country), on Thursday of this week to see the College Football Championship Gators vs Sooners in 3-D live via satellite. This co-producti on between 3ality and Cinedigm, (formerly AccessIT), is only the first of many such events being put together by various entities and the impact could be HUGE! I think it will the one big nudge that will get reluctant theater owners to go digital.

The motion picture industry was once only a very small part of the overall celluloid market, with the lion’s share made up by still photo film and medical imaging, but these have now both gone largely digital. Remember the old days, (way back three or four years ago), when at least one aisle “end cap” at every market, drug, or convenience store had a large display full of various selections of film stock for still cameras? There were also usually rolls of film hanging out with the impulse items at the check out stands around the candy bars and gum. My friend, David Stump, ASC reminded me recently when he asked, “When was the last time you saw one of these displays?” With the rise of digital still cameras, they have all but disappeared; still photo film has become a specialty item.

With still and motion picture film sharing an almost identical manufacturing process, this loss of a sister product has undoubtedly hurt Kodak and Fuji’s ability to take advantage of economies of scale. Basic economic theory informs us that as Theatrical Exhibition goes digital and when they also lose the lucrative motion picture print manufacturing business, it will get even more expensive to produce motion picture production stocks. If the price of film stock then shoots up exponentially, film production could quickly become a boutique business, with only the very highest budget productions able to afford the luxury. And, lets also remember that Kodak and Fuji are in the business of film manufacture to make a profit, and when they see the margins diminish in this market, they may decide to leave it, just as AGFA did some years ago. It’s scary to even imagine the possibility, but as we’ve seen recently with the fa ltering global economy, once market conditions dictate, there can be rapid and radical change.

It will not happen tomorrow, next week or next month, but when the scales do hit the tipping point, the change will happen quickly. I only hope that by the time that sad day comes, Digital Cinema cameras will have evolved to the point where they meet or exceed the dynamic range, the aesthetic subtlety, and the robustness of motion picture film.

James Mathers
Cinematographer
President, Digital Cinema Society
Studio City, CA

[James Mathers]

David Worth / Chapman University Singapore

Dear Jim,

Let me preface what I'm about to impart with the fact that I have been a professional Director and Director of Photography for over 30 years and have completed more than that many features capturing & delivering most of them with 35mm camera's and film...

I was fortunate to have been the DP on two Clint Eastwood films, BRONCO BILLY & ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN, before I moved into the Director's chair and worked as a Director / DP from Hollywood to Hong Kong to Israel to Cape Town to Bulgaria and
back again...

Presently, I'm a retired member of Local 600 who has transitioned into teaching and who has published an "irreverent & risque" book on Cinematography entitled:THE CITIZEN KANE CRASH COURSE IN CINEMATOGRAPHY...How Orson Welles learned everything about the Art of Cinematography in half an hour... Or, was it a weekend!

& I'm currently a film professor for Chapman University's new branch in tropical, exotic & very humid, Singapore... That being said...

Jim, I really dig your Digital Cinema Society Newsletter... but it seems that there are so many important events happening each month... How in the hell is anyone suppose to even begin to keep up with all of them?

I especially liked your recent "10 reasons that Film is not going away..." essay but I felt that you were kind of "treading lightly" due to all of our associations with members of the ASC & other Old Guard Hollywood Organizations that seen to think Film is not going away...
Two Simple Words: Bull Shit!

I know that you are a RED Camera owner and as one, you KNOW that film is Dead... Kodak & the ASC & Local 600 simply do not want to admit it... but the shelf life of film is nearing it's deadline...

When you have two Major Director's like Robert Rodriguez & Sidney Lumet... One in his 30's and one in his 80's BOTH telling you that film is dead... I think that's a sure fire indication that a major shift in the capture and delivery of cinema product is about to occur...

Do not get me wrong, I grew up on film and I love film and have shot 16mm & 35mm all of my professional life... However I also have the ability to see clearly and I knew that the end was in sight as soon as Non Linear Editing took over post production in the 1990's...

I cut many films on an upright and a flatbed moviola and wrote scripts on an electric typewriter...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the upright or flatbed moviola, there is nothing wrong with the electric typewriter and there is nothing wrong with Film or 35mm cameras...

Except Progress! I'm sorry, to say that the handwriting is on the wall and we are in the process of Moving On... We moved on to Non Linear Editing, we moved on to Microsoft Word and Final Draft and we are about to move on to HD and the RED Camera and Beyond...

The last century was the century of the photo-c emical process... This is the New Century & the HD & RED Camera Train has already left the station and if you do not jump on board, you will
get run over by it!!!

The HD Revolution For Dummies:

1. 100,000 ft of 35mm color neg, processing & printing (Approx. 18+ hrs) =
$85,000.00

2. 40,000 ft of 16mm color neg, processing printing (Approx. 18 + hrs) =
$37,000.00

3. 60 rolls of HD Tape, down converted for editing ( Approx. 50 + hrs) =
$7,500.00

DUH!!!

Three times the material for the editing room at 1/5 to 1/10 the price!!! What's not to like?

As you may have guessed, the last two features I Directed (& DPed) were HD & believe me I'm a huge convert... Oh yes one other item... The first HD film I Directed I did in 12 days & got the 50 hrs of material for the editing room... something that always took me 18 to 24 days to do in 35mm...

So to the three times the material at 1/10th the price, you can also add & 1/3 to 1/2 LESS production time!!!

Once again I humbly ask: What's Not To Like?

When I was teaching at Chapman in Orange CA. I had several RED Camera demonstrations for the students and faculty... I was simply astounded by what it can do. 4:4:4 and Beyond is going to be far more sensitive, flexible and detailed than 35mm.

Part of the RED Camera Demo was a large frame of a man and a woman in silouette, lit only by a translucent sourse behind them... Not only were they were able to "open up" the exposure over 10 stops to reveal skin tone on the couple they also "pulled" ECU's from the two shot with no grain...

Finally, even those DP's who are still capturing on Film, immediately convert it to Digital so that they can do the color timing as well as thousands of other amazing enhansments on the Divinci... Instead of attempting it at the Lab where they tell you... "OK, we can give you another point of Cyan..." & again I say... DUH!!!

Thanks Jim, for letting me rant... I simply think that it is foolish for many professional filmmakers to keep their heads stuck in the sand and not to embrace the Future...

Warmest Regards,

DW

[James Mathers]

Hi James,

I just read your comments attached to the “10 Reasons Film Will Never Die” section of yesterday's DCS newsletter email.

As you are a guy who runs a group focused on digital cinema, I have to say I was a little surprised by your fairly pro-film stance, but very happy to hear it!

I’m a film guy, a technologist, and a digital imaging guy, and I see these all of these technologies and physical media as important parts of the modern motion imaging landscape. Each has it’s own particular attributes, strengths, and weaknesses and should be selected for a given use based on those, and not the analog vs digital holy war mentality I constantly see in the press and hear from those with a vested interest on side or the other.

I’m so happy to hear other moderate voices who, as you apparently do, share my thoughts on the subject.

Kudos on a well reasoned and well written piece!

All the best in the new year,
--
Richard Antley
Sales Manager - Americas

_________________