|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: L.A. Weekly article on the switch from film to digital
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-14-2012 10:49 PM
quote: Edward Havens
I would like to see actual, accurate proof how this [that digital preservation costs 12x film, all other factors being equal] is true, considering the cost of data storage has dropped over the years, while the cost of creating 35mm film has been and will continue to go up.
The AMPAS study The Digital Dilemma, published last year, contained some pretty convincing figures and argument. You're essentially right - digital costs are such a moving target (there are so many 'known unknowns') that any speculation is essentially just that. However, one of the biggest digital preservation costs - human resources, to do and manage all that migration - is known, and known to be significant.
Yup - temperature and humidity control for film archives is a major cost, both to install and run. In the archive I used to be the curator of, our 80,000 can capacity vault cost around £20k a year in maintenance, power and depreciation. As far as we can best guess, though, it's still cheaper than any of the current alternatives.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-15-2012 01:25 AM
Sadly, every way of storing digital data offline has some sort of serious flaw - not just HDDs.
Dye-based recordable optical discs (CD-Rs, DVD-Rs and BD-Rs) suffer from two major problems: they can chemically decompose over time, and the dyes themselves are very sensitive to light. Polyester base magnetic media can suffer from sticky shed, and evaporated metal magnetic media is very, very sensitive to humidity. Mould growth on magnetic media is also a problem. Flash memory gradually loses its charge over time, and as you point out, HDDs have an assload of integral mechanical and electronic components, that can and do go wrong (and are extremely vulnerable to mechanical shock).
And even after all that, there is still the problem of format obsolescence. For example, experts in video preservation estimate that there are between 500 and 1,000 times more 2" quadruplex videotapes preserved in archives than there are viable head hours on remaining on all the world's surviving machines to play them back on.
For that reason, there are only two known ways to preserve digital data for the long term: using an "always on" server-based approach (e.g. RAID or MAID arrays), or continual format migration, i.e. planning to copy all your data away from a legacy format as support for it is wound down and onto a replacement carrier.
In contrast, the decomposition of film base - even nitrate - can be slowed down almost to the point of being arrested, just with cold and dry storage. Furthermore, being an analogue "human readable" format, it will always be relatively straightforward to scan it to whatever is the current digital usage format.
For a long time now, archivists have realised that they need an offline digital data storage format that isn't magnetic and isn't an organic dye. Various attempts have been made to develop and launch one, including a number of experimental systems that use digital data on b/w film: but the bottom line is that none of them have ever made the jump from proof-of-concept prototypes to commercial viability. Until one does, film is the best we've got - for content that was originated on film, at any rate.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 04-15-2012 05:42 AM
quote: Victor Liorentas
Well we keep fighting the good fight to preserve the art and craft of film and put digital side by side when the time comes.
It is reassuring to see that you keep fighting Victor. Everybody seems to agree that film is currently the preferred archived format and, interestingly, the lack of production of 35mm prints may affect the production of 35mm stock for archival purposes. It seems therefore that a limited production of 35mm prints of repertoire titles could help to make viable the continuity of 35mm film production, so necessary for archival purposes. I still prefer to see classic titles on good 35mm prints. Most restorations are done at 4K and since many repertoire houses only have 2K projectors, a good 35mm print may provide a better experience. To compound matters, when a repertoire theatre promotes a digital presentation you do not know what you will end up seeing. Recently I went to the tongues on fire Indian festival in London. One of the prints I saw was a nice anamorphic 35mm print, the other one was a rubbish digital presentation. During the Q & A I told the film director that it was a shame that we had seen such a poor portrayal of his work. He told me we had seen a Blu-ray, but the image was extremely pixelated and the colours, brightness, contrast, were all wrong. I bet it was a DVD. In any case, Blu-rays should not be shown in a cinema, they are domestic formats. It did not help that the screen was a silver screen for 3-D. The whole experience was a disaster. More and more cinemas are showing DVDs and Blu-rays, I do not know who is to blame here, but they can keep their domestic media screenings, honestly.
I am keen to see proper 4K DCP restorations from a 4K projector, but do you think this is going to be the norm? What I fear is this is only going to be done for flagship films and the rest will be seen in substandard digital/video formats. It looks like 35mm reprints of classic titles is a more economic way of showing these films and at the same time it may help to keep a reduced film industry which will produce the required film stock for archival purposes.
And, admittedly, another great thing about the new 35mm prints is that, for better or worse (depending on each one’s taste), they provide a different experience to the DCP prints and so they are unique. DCP are ubiquitous and can be shown anywhere whereas the precious new 35mm prints could be the asset the repertoire cinemas could hold onto and hence ensure a niche market.
And before many people start throwing stones at me and accuse me of being a luddite, please remember that I am talking about specialised cinemas and specialised audiences and the possibility of a niche market. I still seek screenings of nitrate and dye transfer prints and I have never regretted attending any of those screenings. I know that in the near future we will all have laser projection at home, with 8K resolution, 3-D without glasses, small projectors and Sensorama with films being released in pay per view channels before they are even produced and I have no problem with that. But please, allow some of us to continue to see film in 35mm from time to time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-15-2012 11:16 AM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Everybody seems to agree that film is currently the preferred archived format and, interestingly, the lack of production of 35mm prints may affect the production of 35mm stock for archival purposes. It seems therefore that a limited production of 35mm prints of repertoire titles could help to make viable the continuity of 35mm film production, so necessary for archival purposes.
That's a difficult issue to predict around. Kodak was (and AFAIK still is) reluctant to release data as to how much film stock they produce(d) is of what sort. Common sense dictates that 35mm movie release print stock accounted for the vast majority of film made: even with, say, a 10:1 shooting ratio on the set, if you produce 500 prints of a film for worldwide distribution, you're going to need a lot more print stock than of any other sort.
If that's true, then economies of scale are going to turn against film big time once the demand for prints drops off; and of course, that demand is dropping off right now. Of course it's not release print stock that archivists need for preservation. Release prints are graded (timed), high contrast, and in short hold a lot less image information than pre-print elements. Assuming that an archive is not able to obtain the camera negative immediately after production and has to create preservation masters by printing from other surviving elements, it will use camera negative, b/w sep or fine grain interpositive stock to do that on. Also, in recent years, Kodak and Fuji have launched a small range of stocks specifically designed for archival use, including ones optimised for burn-outs from laser film recorders. But of course these stocks are only viable for such a small market, becuase the manufacturers already make film base and most of the chemicals needed in vast quantities anyway. It is if and when that critical volume of film manufacturing goes away that archives are in serious trouble.
Of course, no more release print stock means no more new archival projection prints on film. Curatorially and in terms of preserving the film experience for the viewer, this would be very bad news, but in itself would not endanger current preservation techniques. But the disappearance of original and intermediate stocks is going to be a huge problem.
There are signs that this is already starting, especially with 16mm. In a recent conversation with a friend who works at the film preservation lab at the US National Archives, she told me that several lines of 16mm intermediate stock are now available from Kodak on special order only: in other words, they'll wait until they have enough orders to make a production run viable before doing one. The wait for these stocks is already over a year in some cases, and if you're only trying to buy a small quantity it can be a lot longer. Maybe 35mm will prove more resistant, because there are still a critical mass of filmmakers who insist on shooting and post-producing using 35mm for artistic reasons, even if the eventual release is mainly or entirely digital. I suspect that a lot of the 16mm issue has been caused by the TV industry abandoning Super 16 in favour of digital alternatives over the last 5-8 years or so. But I fear that even the best case scenario will consist of doing anything involving 35mm film becoming a lot more expensive.
And then of course, there is the issue of lab services. Labs are already closing down and downsizing, and the ones that remain are going to become more expensive and with longer lead times. Very few archives operate their own wet labs, and fewer still with the capability for colour and release print processing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 04-15-2012 01:57 PM
quote: Leo Enticknap
Of course, no more release print stock means no more new archival projection prints on film. Curatorially and in terms of preserving the film experience for the viewer, this would be very bad news, but in itself would not endanger current preservation techniques. But the disappearance of original and intermediate stocks is going to be a huge problem.
Very interesting information Leo. I read an article where there was a proposal of, eventually, having lab facilities owned by film archives.
quote: Martin McCaffery
The distributors in this country push very heavily for rep houses to use DVD/BluRay. Even the art distributors make it an option, or the only available format.
It is said quite often on this site that DVD/BluRay is a consumer format, not a professional one, but the distributors have clearly designated it a professional format for art and rep.
Art houses are continuously wrestling with this conundrum.
I understand it must be quite frustrating for the exhibitor Martin, it is also frustrating for the audience. I am very particular as to what I want to see in a cinema. There are cinemas like The Egyptian that are quite clear as to the format being shown, but they are the exception to the norm. The other day I went to see Yolanda and the thief, mainly to see Minnelli’s use of the richly saturated hues of the glorious Technicolor but sadly it was a dreadful 35mm print, probably produced in the 70s, that looked more Metrocolor than Technicolor. The main point of this film is its gorgeous colours and their use by Minnelli and this was lost. I would expect the curator of a film season to understand this. It is an otherwise unremarkable film and to see it that way was a complete let down.
I have heard that even with recent films the DCPs are erased to be reused for new releases and so repertoire cinemas will have to do with DVD and/or Blu-rays, as you say, inferior formats not suitable for a big cinema screen. In that sense, having proper 35mm prints for repertoire cinemas would ensure quality and a unique product. As digital formats keep changing, 35mm has a consistency which is ideal for the repertoire circuit.
Of course, these prints should only be loaned to trusted repertoire cinemas that know how to handle them but I would hope that the few cinemas that show films still know how to handle them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic