|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Digital is Boring.
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-18-2014 11:56 AM
For still photography, I can see a big advantage for digital for most news and sports work for the reasons mentioned above: speed of getting photos to press (and, now, web) and no need to constantly re-load film. As much as I don't really like the "machine gun" approach, it really is necessary for sports work in many cases. (Interesting side question: how long will it be until video cameras get good enough that photographers just shoot continuously (think of it as a really fast motor drive) and pick out the best still frames?)
I love film, prefer the look, and do not own a digital camera, but if I were a news or sports photographer, I would be using digital cameras, too.
Digital is also a win for distribution. A photograph posted online can be seen by millions in a matter of hours, which would never have been possible before. On the other hand, film wins for long-term storage. I deal with computers and networks every day in my full-time job, but do not trust digital storage for the long term.
As for the larger discussion, I mostly agree with Randy: the mechanical and photochemical elements of photography and motion pictures are what got me interested in both. I am sure that I would still appreciate good photographs and movies if they had been digital from the start, but I doubt that I would have had any interest in the actual details of the process.
Leo also makes a good point, though, that people tend to like to do things in the way that they learned how to do them. People who grew up with manual cameras (myself among them) tend to not like automatic cameras. People who grew up with automation generally don't care (I have always driven cars with automatic transmissions and, though I know how to operate a manual car, have no desire to own anything but an automatic). Still, I would argue that, once one has learned how to operate a manual camera, the skills transfer to any camera quite easily. Button-pushing skills for automatic cameras (both film and digital) tend to be camera-specific, so a new camera model would require re-learning those skills.
In any case, the good thing is that (for now, at least), we have both, and the two can work together as needed. I can scan film photographs and have digital files output to slides or film or photographic prints. We have never had more options for producing and distributing photographs and motion pictures, and choice is not generally a bad thing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-20-2014 12:39 PM
And let's not take the obvious, key component out of this equation -- the human. Fact is, what we learn on we tend to feel most comfortable and can long for that just out of nostalgia, not necessarily any intellectual argument that can be made for or against.
Then there is the whole human tactile thing -- there is something about handling film that makes a very real human connection between the "thing" and us. There is much less of that with digital, at least with digital projection.
A friend of mine, after a few decades has gotten back into LPs...he spends hours in The Vinyl Experience stores looking to replace lots of the albums he got rid of when he moved to CDs. He didn't want to discuss anything about the comparisons of LP sound and CD sound, he said the thing is all about the fact that you hand hold the LP in both hands, it has a texture, you have to handle it gently, you have to place it on a turntable and place the needle in the start groove. You WATCH it go round as it plays. There's an immediacy about it that you just don't have with digital (CDs).
Not everyone would feel that connection, but I don't think you can't take that out of the equation of why some people gravitate toward film or LPs or other more technologies where you are more connected to it, like manual transmission.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-20-2014 08:06 PM
It's like the difference between a Steinway piano and a Casio synthesizer.
Sure. Synthesizers can create a lot of unique sounds and can even make realistic piano sounds but there is a certain depth of sound and a tactile sensation that you get when hammers strike strings and the music resonates from the soundboard that you just can't duplicate with electronics.
You can also place piezoelectric sensors inside a grand piano and connect them up to a synthesizer to get many of the same sounds that a Casio makes, too. Just the same, I can scan my film into my computer and Photoshop the result. (I often do that.)
Which would you rather do? Take a frozen dinner from the freezer and heat it in the microwave oven or cook a meal on the stove in your kitchen? When you cook your own, you can add or subtract ingredients. You can use fewer spices or more if you prefer. You can cook as much food as you want, the way you want and when you want. You can "doctor" a frozen dinner but you, mostly, have to take what you are given.
(BTW: I don't own a microwave oven, either. I prefer to cook my food on the stove.)
There is nothing wrong with using digital but that's how I feel about it.
For me, it is as much about tactile feel as it is about mastery of the medium and the ability of being able to create something, the way you want it, without having a computer as a go-between.
I "like" digital (with quotes) but this is why I like film better.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 04-22-2014 03:05 AM
I don't think either of them is boring, no matter what the application. Also, digital isn't always a suitable replacement for analog and let's not forget that our senses still operate on an "analog level".
The analog v.s. digital discussion has seen many iterations. In many cases it comes down to nostalgia. Not that nostalgia is without it's own merits, we all have our "weaknesses" ![[Wink]](wink.gif) .
In terms of image capturing, digital has just recently started to catch up with analog regarding resolution. In still photography we might even be already exceeding it for most common applications, but for moving images, it has most definitely some challenges to overcome.
While the many automagic gizmos of digital image capturing have made photography and filming much more accessible to the novice, good and even great photography still requires knowledge and skill.
This increased automation isn't just bad news for professionals, as it can decrease their workload on trivia, allowing them to focus on other things. Also, don't let us forget the many merits of digital capturing. One of them is due to increasing sensor sensitivity, we can now shoot great material at light levels that were previously unachievable. Stuff that previously needed studios or sound stages can now be captured right where it happens.
Obviously, there are many points to be made for both analog and digital and that's exactly my argument. For the time being, we're living in a world were both coexist. Unfortunately, it's quite clear that analog photography (both still and moving pictures) will eventually become a niche-only business (maybe it already is). But on the bright side, by then, most remaining "digital deficiencies" will probably have been worked out.
For me, one of the most compelling aspects of digital, is that it has the potential to last forever, without any form of degradation. This is something that no analog medium will ever be capable of achieving. Up until recently, the past was an ever fading string of analog records, all with a slowly fading fidelity, eventually into oblivion...
Unfortunately, this most compelling aspect is hampered by some real world problems: digital files are probably even easier forgotten and discarded than old analog media (photos, LPs, film, you name it). Additionally, just like their analog counterparts, no digital medium will last forever, so a constant transfer to current digital storage environments is still necessary. In addition to that, digital file formats have the tendency to become obsolete rather quickly... A photo doesn't need a piece compatible viewer software, analog audio records are quite easy to decipher and the inner workings of film don't need very much explaining. A modern, digital file format can be quite compelling to understand, especially if nobody provides any kind of documentation... (or forgets the encryption key...)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-22-2014 01:39 PM
Digital storage is actually turning out to be a bigger, more costly, time consuming problem than analog. To quote a joke from Robert Harris about it: archival data has a shelf life of eternity or seven years -whichever comes first.
Movie productions routinely do a film-out on any finished digital intermediate. After a decade that 35mm archival print may be the only thing that can be recovered. The DI data and various digital assets that went into creating it might be toast. The big question is what are the movie studios going to do after film manufacturers close for good?
Anyone who has important digital data (be it work files, personal photos, music collection, etc.) is now leap-frogging all that data from one big external hard disc to another. Sales of blank CDs & DVDs have plummeted over the years. That could be for multiple reasons, but it's definitely a lot easier to copy data from one big hard drive to an even bigger capacity hard disc rather than fart around with stacks of optical discs.
When we think of a 20 year old 35mm film print or film projector we think of something that still seems not all that old and it's something that probably still works (and probably even works well). A 20 year old computer or 20 year old hard disc is probably something buried deep under a lot of other stuff at the land fill.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
In terms of image capturing, digital has just recently started to catch up with analog regarding resolution. In still photography we might even be already exceeding it for most common applications, but for moving images, it has most definitely some challenges to overcome.
There's still plenty of things to improve.
The best 35mm DSLR image sensors have reached pixel densities/resolution levels that exceed the optical capabilties of some low cost and mid range lenses. If you get a high end camera you need high end glass to go with it. As sensors continue to improve and pack in more pixels lens designs will have to improve too.
Color depth is another matter. I think this is an area where film is still maintaining an advantage. Film photographers could apply a certain mood or style to an image based on the film stock used. Digital camera sensors typically see the image in only one electronic manner. There's only so many bits of color depth per pixel. That places limits on how far you can go using Photoshop or Lightroom to change or improve an image without damaging it.
Let's not forget all those rolling shutter limitations. DSLRs, smart phones and just about any other still camera trying to serve double duty as a video camera is affected by this. Global shutter designs (where all the pixels on the sensor record the image at the same time) would solve those problems. Better re-sampling methods are needed for sensors that have to reduce the imagery down to 1080p, 4K, etc. to combat moire.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
This increased automation isn't just bad news for professionals, as it can decrease their workload on trivia, allowing them to focus on other things. Also, don't let us forget the many merits of digital capturing. One of them is due to increasing sensor sensitivity, we can now shoot great material at light levels that were previously unachievable. Stuff that previously needed studios or sound stages can now be captured right where it happens.
If we're talking about professional quality work there is no substitute for good lighting. A faster image sensor won't replace speedlights, strobes or even studio space for that matter. Portrait photography & event photography, the two main things that make photographers money, both require lights of some kind. You're not going to shoot much of that stuff in available light.
Camera manufacturers are releasing new sensors that boast over 200,000 ISO. But any image at that setting is as noisy as off-air snow on an analog TV picture tube. Noise free yet still tack sharp imagery at ISO 3200-4800 would be very useful though.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 04-22-2014 03:28 PM
quote: Frank Angel
Then there is the whole human tactile thing -- there is something about handling film that makes a very real human connection between the "thing" and us.
I agree, there was a human tactile thing about film. The whole idea that a film print was made, shipped out to a theatre, put together by a projectionist and then shown to a paying audience was really cool to me. Then the print was broken down and sent to another theatre keeps in going. I found it all interesting.
I was lucky to watch a private screening of a 35mm print of Miracle Mile two weeks ago, what an awesome time. Trying to determine what soundtrack was on the print was also interesting as well.
But, like I have said before, I have moved on from the nostalgia of 35mm, I don't concern myself too much of the whole film preservation argument and things like that. All that is left is the memories and the odd 35mm film that we someones find on ebay.
quote: Frank Angel
There is much less of that with digital, at least with digital projection.
I find digital interesting, where and how digital evolves is interesting to me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-23-2014 12:26 AM
It's not just about nostalgia or about whether digital is better for a particular purpose as compared to film. Neither is is about film being the medium I prefer because it was what I learned first.
I can make digital photos as well as or better than anybody else. I have Photoshop and use it daily. I can create and edit digital video using Final Cut, etc. I have produced digital videos for television broadcast, for distribution via the Internet and for presentation in the theater. I do these things on a regular basis. This is not because I, somehow, can't use digital or that I don't know some part of the process. This is about the fundamental way I work and the process I use to do work.
I like developing film. It is interesting to me. I like to think about my exposure and developing process and how that effects the picture. I like experimenting with different developers like D-76, XTOL or Diafine. I like experimenting with developing times to achieve a certain result. I am not always successful but that is part of the process. If something is easy and predicable, it is no longer a challenge. Is it?
I like making prints on the enlarger and developing them. What if I use a different contrast filter? What if I add or subtract 1/3 or 1/4 stop from the exposure time? What if I develop the paper for an extra 15 or 30 seconds? What if I use hotter developer temperature? What can I achieve if I treat the print with selenium toner? If I use sepia toner, what will I get when I bleach the print for a little bit longer or a little bit sorter time?
I *LIKE* doing these things and, when I work digitally, I often find it boring for the lack of ability to do them. I don't mean things like digitally simulating a sepia toned effect. I mean using real potassium ferricyanide solution to bleach a real silver-gelatin photo print.
Would you rather carve a figure out of wood, using a knife, or would you rather generate a figure on your computer and a 3-D printer? 3-D printers are cool. I would like to have one. Wouldn't you get a certain sense of accomplishment and feel a sense of pride when you carve a real wood sculpture with your own two hands? I'm not a very good wood carver but I would feel pride and accomplishment if I carved something out of wood.
I like the smell of film chemistry. I can tell the difference between a metol/hydroquinone developer and an ascorbic acid developer by smelling them. I can tell whether a movie print is in good or bad condition, and hence how to handle the film, from the moment I open the can and smell the scent.
Hoppe's No. 9... If you know what I am talking about, I don't even have to explain it to you. If you don't know what I am talking about, there is no point in explaining.
I like working with my hands to make something. I like making things that you can hold in your hand. Digital is dandy but, unless you have a computer, digital pictures and videos are useless but, even with a computer, the results are still largely intangible.
I like digital multimedia but, compared to film, I find it to be intangible, transitory and sterile.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 04-23-2014 04:15 AM
quote: Barry Floyd
Booth tours are really boring now! When we played 35mm, opening the door to the projection booth and seeing peoples faces when the platters were turning, gears spinning on the back side of the projector, and film moving all over the room was kind of magical. Now they kind of go "huh... big black box with blinky lights".
So, you got a blinky lights upgrade kit for your projector? Does it have cool Knight Rider-style scanner lights too? And maybe you should consider getting the red stripe and tail-spoiler kit too, it makes your big black box look so much more faster and retro .
quote: Bobby Henderson
Digital storage is actually turning out to be a bigger, more costly, time consuming problem than analog. To quote a joke from Robert Harris about it: archival data has a shelf life of eternity or seven years -whichever comes first.
I doubt that everybody really gets a grip at the real costs of something like analog film archival, as long as dumping it into a big crate and putting it in some dark corner of a large warehouse qualifies as archival.
Digital archival is more than just dumping it onto a tape or disk and putting it into a cardboard box on some shelf. Digital archival also requires you to keep your storage 'alive' and moving it to new media as time progresses. The cost per byte should go down over time, since storage capabilities of modern media are ever increasing as are transfer speeds. On the downside, we're producing ever more digital information, but it's not like the information we produced in the past is suddenly going to increase, so that should be a factor that can be easily accounted for.
Regarding digital media archival of important works, I think it is paramount to store this data uncompressed, unencrypted and in an easy to interpret, well documented, open format. If all our great achievements are filed in those formats, it is quite unlikely we will ever lose the capability of reading those files, as long as we keep the bits alive.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Let's not forget all those rolling shutter limitations. DSLRs, smart phones and just about any other still camera trying to serve double duty as a video camera is affected by this. Global shutter designs (where all the pixels on the sensor record the image at the same time) would solve those problems. Better re-sampling methods are needed for sensors that have to reduce the imagery down to 1080p, 4K, etc. to combat moire.
The rolling shutter is a limitation of CMOS based designs and although we probably can improve the speed, we need a radical new design to get a "global shutter". Many professional "digital film" cameras use mechanical shutters to combat this problem. Most noteworthy, the RED cameras DON'T use a mechanical shutter. The best alternative would be using CCD instead of CMOS, but CCD seems to be too expensive at the current pixel densities.
As long as you do not kill the raw sensor data, there is no reason the data couldn't be re-sampled later on, using (down)sampling techniques that are better at "debayering", eliminating moire and other sensor and lens related "defects".
quote: Bobby Henderson
If we're talking about professional quality work there is no substitute for good lighting. A faster image sensor won't replace speedlights, strobes or even studio space for that matter. Portrait photography & event photography, the two main things that make photographers money, both require lights of some kind. You're not going to shoot much of that stuff in available light.
No automation will substitute professional lightning and no automation will entirely substitute a total lack of talent. Electronic calculators didn't replace mathematicians and neither did computers, yet many of them embrace the tools they offer and they would be foolish not to do so.
quote: Randy Stankey
It's not just about nostalgia or about whether digital is better for a particular purpose as compared to film.
But aren't most of the points you're referring too actually mere nostalgia? Don't get me wrong, it's not that it doesn't matter, because I fully agree with you that the pleasure in doing this stuff is one of the most important aspects.
Yet, if you're working for a customer and time and money counts, there isn't a lot of stuff in what you mentioned that couldn't equally be achieved using digital technology, yeah, you know, using Photoshop and the likes. Sure, there are differences, you know, I know, but for many applications they are not important.
Regarding your wood carving example: For a wood carver, digital might take the fun out of the job. Yet, there are plenty of people that love using Maya, 3D Studio, LightWave, Blender, AutoCad, etc. all day long. For them, 3D printing offers a whole new world of getting some of their designs into reality.
Also, this same wood carver could benefit from this new technology. He could, for example, scan his sculpture using 3D scanning technology and print or cut it in 3D as many times as needed. So, instead of doing the often menial task of recreating this same sculpture over and over, he can now focus on making a new sculpture.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-23-2014 09:56 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Digital archival is more than just dumping it onto a tape or disk and putting it into a cardboard box on some shelf. Digital archival also requires you to keep your storage 'alive' and moving it to new media as time progresses. The cost per byte should go down over time, since storage capabilities of modern media are ever increasing as are transfer speeds.
That thought occurred to me, too: if Moore's Law continues to apply to offline storage, then sooner or later we should reach the point at which the entire surviving inventory of surviving, archived world cinema originated on film, from Dickson's Kinetograph shots in the early 1890s to whatever is on the last foot of the stuff that Kodak made, should fit on a single physical carrier, encoded at 150k and 64-bit, and clonable in a matter of seconds. When whatever is the equivalent of today's DVD-Rs can hold 50 yottabytes, taking care of the first 1.25 centuries of cinema won't be much of a problem!
If it weren't for copyright issues (of course, by the time technology reaches that stage, the default copyright term will probably have been increased to 1,000 years) you'd probably be able to buy a copy of the disc on Amazon.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
On the downside, we're producing ever more digital information...
Yup - at that point the second law of computing (data expands to fill the space available) will kick in, because if people are now shooting on 150k at 64-bit (uncompressed)... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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