quote: Ian Parfrey

---

eCinema and dCinema will be outdated in 5 years

---

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

dCinema will be outdated in 5 years

---

To someone that is blind to the technology that
might be what one would think. Some of them are 4 years old now, a few of the first 2K units are slightly older then 5... Its highly doubtful they will go obsolete that fast. Even Dolby has publicly stated a minimum of 15 years of support for it's server. Like the DTS 6 that is now 16 years old and keeps getting support in one way or another... what does go obsolete is the firmware they run on but that is easily updated.

Filum will become obsolete just by it's nature. The highly toxic chemicals it takes to make film, process film, and the sheer amount of space and expense to store it. So one might say that filum has a built in obsolescence factor!! While electronics on the other hand are becomming more ecologically friendly thannks in part to the Euro nations.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 02-24-2009, 09:19 AM:
 
Mark sort of covered one of the biggest problems with any widespread technology is that anything new almost has to be compatible with everything that came before it.

[ 02-24-2009, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Bill Enos ]
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-24-2009, 09:37 AM:
 
Mark makes an important point: a few targeted environmental regulations could significantly increase the cost of making film prints. This may hasten the conversion to , just as environmental regulations nearly killed mag striping.

On the other hand, doesn't RoHS usually result in lower reliability and thus more "disposable" electronic equipment that takes up landfill space?
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-24-2009, 10:14 AM:
 
Hmmm, if the way Hollywood has been able to continually manipulate the system to get the Copyright law morphed to their own advantage, I have no doubt that they could just as easily, by plying the right judges and lawmakers with wine woman (or men or both) and money, get environmental laws implemented that would do just as Scott suggests -- target film manufacturing and its disposition to make it so expensive that it's priced out of the market. All of a sudden the film industry will be all gung-ho for very specific environmental issues -- the ones that benefit their digital agenda. And given politicians' penchant for being "green" nowadays, the studios won't have to do very much to get them to go along with a bias against film.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-24-2009, 02:20 PM:
 
Film has eliminated most really toxic (heavy metal) chemicals; that was the point of cyan tracks.

Any new system has obsolesence as its primary problem. That problem has caused much hesitance for the digital conversion and is its most pressing problem. This obsolence is driven primarily by the studios and its anti-piracy viewpoint.

Dolby has been the lone guarantor of non-obsolescence, but only for its own equipment. Kudos to them!!! No one else!!!

Perhaps we need to be able to purchase "non-obsolescence insurance". . . . .oh, wait. . . .we have it. . . .it's called film! Louis
 

---

Posted by Bob Jones (Member # 1756) on 02-25-2009, 01:59 AM:
 
I love this topic!!! And it is my opinion - supported by other industry prognosticators - that the digital conversion is supporting a "behind the scenes" move to return to vertical integration within the production/distribution/exhibition arms. This is one of the last areas that has not been deregulated - and it is only a matter of time.

The thought is - that while exhibitors are now able to benefit from incentives ultimately passed down by Studios in the conversion - these are one-time only deals - and the fact is that Digital Technology will be more expensive to operate, maintain, and upgrade -- it is inevitable - that these systems will require updating/upgrading - from hardware to firmware -- (How many of you are using the same computers and video projectors that are 7-10 years old). Exhibitors are being hit everyday with measures which decrease their EBITA earnings. And the profit margins are not that great. THE PUBLIC WILL STILL CLAMOR FOR THE "MOVIE THEATRE" AND HOLLYWOOD REALIZES IT HAS TO HAVE IT TO MARKET AND PRODUCE "MOVIE STARS" - After all - the cost of exhibition is a mere marketing cost - to help then MAKE ALL THE REAL MONEY via all the ancillary avenues.

So - in order to give the public what they want - the only people who will be able to "save" the experience is the studios - but in order to make it work - they will then need to own the theatres - and get 100% from both boxoffice and the real money maker - the concessions. This will be the only way to "make the numbers work."

If this sounds too wild -- sit back and watch. The studios already have majority positions in many of the foreign circuits.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-25-2009, 06:47 AM:
 
If I were a (large) movie studio, I would certainly go for the vertical integration. Produce, distribute, exhibit. No need for intermediaries, specially in an "all-digital" world of the future.

Film (as we know it) will eventually "dissapear", just as 35mm still photography has "dissapeared" today (or soon will).

This, of course, doesn't mean that it will "fully" dissapear, as it's a heck of an archival method and may have a very small, specialized market in that position.

Most-all-movies movies today are digital at some point (DI, DVD or blu-ray masters, etc). While it makes sense to put them out in a negative (or separation matrix) for archival and storage, it certainly doesn't make sense to do so as an exhibition method. Heavy and expensive and takes a lot of space.

Shoot your movie, your choice of film or digital, digitize it, edit/tweak-it/finish it in DI, print it out to a neg for archival, and send it around DCI'ed for exhibition.

100 years from now, if someone wants to recover it, all they have to do is re-scan your archival negatives in whatever the future allows (i.e. 8K 16bits) and in whatever format they use for storage/exhibition (i.e. solid state "credit cards").

It is true that the majors have been investing HEAVY into exhibition in Europe, with some of them opening enormous fully-owned chains in overcrowded markets that only makes sense to enter if you have some long-term strategy to drive everybody else out of business.

I do think that exhibition is but an "unwanted necessity" of the studios of the future, where digital instant distribution (rent, pay-per-view, itune stores, on demand-delivery, direct-to-theaters-satellite, etc) is what they are really after and independent exhibitors won't be but an inconvinience as they will not be able to "catch up" with technologies that will allow studios make an impact with their products on people's minds and their wish to purchase their products (stars/movies/merchandising).

When technology costs allows, they are gonna want 4K. Then, they are wanna want "Imax 8K". Multi-channel sound (read SDDS-done-right). 3D. 4D?

Anything to brainwash Average Joe's senses into wanting to buy Lord of the Rings videogames and T-shirts.

Now, all this doesn't mean that it will happen tomorrow. And if exhibitors withold the Digital-bug like they are doing and distributors don't start to pony-up for the convertion, film may indeed have a healthy run for the next 10+ years in exhibition.

About old movies ... well, exhibition prints are fairly rare already (at least in Europe). Most of the time they only have TV-grade storage prints available. Sometimes, even all release prints are lost. Only making sense to strike new ones if there is huge demand. Fact that most are dubbed/subtitled into each countrie's language makes storage and muti-stock management a pain. In that sense, 35mm is LESS "universal" than digital masters, where a single D1 or D5 master could have i.e. two stereo soundtracks in multiple languages for satellite simulcast or chosen by the operator (i.e. it was common to have Spanish-portuguese for satellite delivery to the Iberian Peninsula satellite footprint).

But with HD finally kicking off, a lot of new transfers need to be made anyway for HD sindication and blu-ray re-releases, so it's a good time to do a 2K or 4K storage master. It costs very little to convert it to a DCI package for release, so who knows. Maybe old titles will start to be available again digitally to anyone who wishes.

But Hollywood's business is NOT showing a 70mm print of My Fair Lady a couple of weeks a year in a theatre or two in a revival. I have the feeling for them it's more of a nuisance and a bit of marketing to keep their properties more current and valuable rather than a real-business.

I think small exhibitors have a place in all this picture, but I have the feeling the place majors have reserved in the (far) future is that of a small-town remote operators to reach "rural" areas
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-25-2009, 08:25 AM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

On the other hand, doesn't RoHS usually result in lower reliability and thus more "disposable" electronic equipment that takes up landfill space?

---

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

Film has eliminated most really toxic (heavy metal) chemicals; that was the point of cyan tracks.

---

quote: Paul Gordon

---

This is going to be a nightmare with huge losses of data over the years. Maybe complete films lost.

---

Only if proper plans for preserving a given filum are not made in the first place. You can bet that any big time filum is going to get what ever it takes to be preserved while most of the filums made today are very definately NOT worth preserving at all. It may be that filum finds a small niche in preservation for a while after it's theatrical demise but I believe that in the near future data will be preserved optically in glass plates or the like. Somethinglike on Star Trek... its definately not too outlandish in this day and age. But very definately a whole new preservation standard for archiving digital files will have to be developed and strictly adheared to.

Just keep in mind that 2K D-Cinema was an impossibility just 7 years ago!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Perju (Member # 1482) on 02-27-2009, 09:00 AM:
 
Kodak posted the 3rd straight year of significant production increase in Rochester for release stocks, and are running at or very near capacity. Pro and consumer still media sales have also seen slight increases.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-27-2009, 09:58 AM:
 
Ask Agfa or Fuji

With them pretty much gone, Kodak still has some life to breathe for a while before they have to drastically downsize.

Film is not dead.

Yet.

The only question is: when will it "die"? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?

Die doesn't mean "totally dissapear".

Heck, wasn't there until recently a facility somewhere in Asia that still could do Technicolor after it's been "dead" for 35 years?

"Die" means that nobody would use it as a preferred media for most uses for which it is used today in non-specialized or artistic situations, like nobody (in their right mind) would use Technicolor for a non-specialty project today.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-27-2009, 11:58 AM:
 
What is yor beef with Technicolor now? In many ways it is a superior process though certainly not the end all for everything.

If the last rebirth of it in the '90s wasn't riddled with so many glitches, it would probably still be around. The 1.37 reissue Wizard of Oz prints were phenominal.

Is Fuji really doing poorly on their motion picture stocks...I see them used more and more on releases.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 02-27-2009, 12:24 PM:
 

quote: Paul Gordon

---

It costs nearly 12 times the cost to preserve all the film elements digitally then tradtionally on film

---

quote: Paul Gordon

---

This is going to be a nightmare with huge losses of data over the years. Maybe complete films lost.

---

quote:

---

I actually work at the Crawfordsville Fujifilm lab and while we were having a huge decline on roll work (film), we were also having a huge decline on digital work as well.

---

And from their annual report:

http://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/pdf/investors/annual_report/ff_ar_2008_all.pdf
[Short story: film has been less than 3% of Fuji's business for many years and for the past 4 years it has given the company a loss rather than an operating profit. It seems they are going to continue with it, but who knows for how long.]

And the number of release prints in 35mm are not INCREASING but DECREASING. Slightly, as digital exhibition is slightly moving forward while the number of new theaters is not growing much and most that open new are digital.

I hope, at least, nobody needs a reality check with still chemical (film) photography being a dying art as oppossed to a thriving industry in the uprise.

Those doubting the same thing is happening to chemical (film) cinema only have to wait a couple of years to check out the obvious.

Costco has stopped selling 35mm film, if that's of any significance to you. As it may be that Canon and Nikon has stopped making 35mm cameras.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10835599/
[Nikon to stop making most film cameras]

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/canon-to-cease-film-camera-production-176239.php
[Canon to cease film camera production]

Kodak has discontinued in the past 4 years 5274/7274, 5277/7277, 5279/7279, 5284/7284, 5289, 7289(16 mm), 5246/7246, 5263/7263 ...

Again, I'm not saying it's a quick death or a total death. I'm saying it's an obvious (and "deserved" as digital surpasses quality and economic constrains) slow partial death.

Film served us well for 100 years. Let's hope digital does too.

If someone thinks that film will continue to be mainstream use in domestic, motion picture and TV 20 years from now, I guess he still shops for vinyl records, rents VHS tapes (or better yet, Betamax), buys music cassette, and shoots his kid's sport events on Super8 home movies.

Film, as a "mainstream" use, will die, just like Super8 did when DV video came along (and even before that with analog camcorders). The question is when. Some of us think it's only 3-5 years until most everything outside cinema exhibition is mostly digital, with film being less than 25% of that market. After 10 years, probably film will also be a small minority even in the stronghold of the cinema exhibition market. In 15 years, I have no doubts that film will have "mostly" dissapeared.

Others here may think that my dates are off by x% and they may be very right or very wrong. But I hope nobody thinks that film is going to last another 100 years (as a mainstream medium to capture photographies and moving pictures).
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-27-2009, 01:16 PM:
 
The advantage of digital storage is that exact copies can be made cheaply and easily. For less than the cost of a single 35mm print, you can make a dozen LTO-4s and ship them all over the world. This provides excellent protection against fires, natural disasters, and the like. Identical copies can also be made from these copies with no generation loss.

The concern that I and others have with digital storage is that it requires a significant amount of maintenance over time. It is not reasonable to simply put the tape in a vault and expect to be able to pull it out in a few decades and make use of it.

If someone finds an LTO-4 tape in fifty years, the chances of getting anything useful off of it are slim. First, one would need to find a functioning drive. LTO is a good format with a high degree of backwards compatibility which is likely to be retained in the future, but the newest drives will then be at least 30-40 years old. Next, one needs to find an computer with an interface (likely some SCSI variant) which can talk to the drive. Then, there is the question of how the file was written to the tape--was it done with dump, tar, cpio, or some other (possibly proprietary and unavailable) software. Finally there is the question of the format in which the files are stored.

The original format may be obsolete and undocumented, making it nearly impossible to reconstruct whatever was on the tape. At a minimum, it will be necessary to store full documentation of any file formats used (preferably on paper, but a standard text file would probably be almost as good) to allow future software developers to read older file formats.

Now, this can all be solved by paying someone to periodically retrieve the tape from storage, read it, check it for errors, copy the data to a current storage format, convert the file format to a current format (if necessary), update any documentation if necessary, and return everything to storage. This works, but costs money. It can also introduce errors. Furthermore, there is the risk that not all of the metadata (or actual data!) associated with the original file will be retained if the file format itself is converted.

The advantage of film storage (or acid-free paper, or stone tablets, or various other non-digital formats) is that one can put the material on a shelf in an archival storage container. Assuming relatively stable temperature and humidity, it can be taken off the shelf in fifty years and used. The file format is self-documenting--one can hold the film up to a light and see an image. Even if something is wrong with the film (shrunken, dirty, water-damaged, etc.), it is usually possible to get _something_ from it. The other issue is that film storage and preservation are rather well understood at this point, whereas digital archiving and preservation is still in its infancy.

Digital stuff tends to either work perfectly or not work at all, and storage is no exception. In fifty years, may have perfect "looks-brand-new" copies of films that went through a DI stage and where the original scans were preserved electronically. On the other hand, it is possible that the data may be irretrievable and we may need to rely on film elements to see this material. I hope to live long enough to find out.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-27-2009, 01:31 PM:
 
If John Pytlak was here right now he would be providing a link proving that 35mm film is still alive and well!
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-27-2009, 01:55 PM:
 
I personally think that, for today and a few years into the future, I would want "my" $200m motion picture stored as a film separation negative, or at least a color 35mm negative.

Printing out and developing 35mm neg today is "cheap" enough.

In the future, who knows. It may not be practical to use film anymore (i.e. process too exotic like Technicolor today to really be economically viable for many smaller productions)

About digital "interoperativity", that's an issue that can be tackled with things that XML formats that put most of the information needed for decoding within the data itself.

Perhaps huge redundant "on-line" data centers will develop that will take care of just copying the information over-and-over to new media as needed.

XML meta data con describe the format (i.e. uncompressed 12bits word 4:4:4 2048x1080 pixel matrix and describe the color space in wavelenghts). For audio, uncompressed 24bits words 48khz 7 tracks, i.e.

Even a monkey can decode that in the future.

The problem is "reading" the data, not as much as interpreting it. But if it keeps being copied to a "on-line cloud-like" facility, it doesn't matter, as it will always be kept current.

Sort-of like your email on hotmail.com.

You don't care if it's backed up in hard drives, tapes, or whatever. You leave that up to microsoft. You just know that you "log-in" and you can get your mail (and attachment files) back into a readeable form into your brand new SSD flash drive, i.e.

If you know the format is, i.e., ASCII text, then you are (pretty much) all set to "recover" your mail.
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 02-27-2009, 03:18 PM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

It is not reasonable to simply put the tape in a vault and expect to be able to pull it out in a few decades and make use of it. If someone finds an LTO-4 tape in fifty years, the chances of getting anything useful off of it are slim.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

You leave that up to microsoft.

---

And there is your downfall
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-27-2009, 05:28 PM:
 
quote "videotape ever made, including 40 year old quad tapes"
I was told that there are no functioning 2" quadraplex machines anymore
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-27-2009, 06:01 PM:
 
Julio wrote, "Kodak has discontinued in the past 4 years 5274/7274, 5277/7277, 5279/7279, 5284/7284, 5289, 7289(16 mm), 5246/7246, 5263/7263 ...."

This is unfair. Most of this is part of the normal chronology of film stock development. When '274 was discontinued, it was replaced by '217. When '279 was discontinued, there were plenty of other 500T stocks available to replace it, like 5218, 5260, and 5219.

It's true that '277 and '289 were discontinued without corresponding 320T and 800T stocks to replace them. But it's not like they had been long on the marketplace. VISION2 introduced a whole pile of new stocks, and some of them lasted in the market place, and some of them did not stand the test of time.

I have to agree with Mark, Scott. Though I would be hard pressed to read an 8" floppy now, I know people who do have the hardware. With something like the film industry, data migration issues are tractable, though expensive. I would not be too concerned about failing to migrate critical metadata from one format to another. Also, don't forget that digital formats can exhibit redundancy, too. They are not necessarily "all or nothing" games.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-27-2009, 07:37 PM:
 
I do think we are giving the "new technologists" WAAAAAAY too much credit. Experience has shown this to be an error.

With audio, thank God they saved the analog masters. Early digital had to be thrown out. Still, thanks to tape binder problems, some masters from the 70's are now gone (Old ones are still OK.) Louis
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-27-2009, 07:41 PM:
 
There is another issue with digital preservation though and that is the much greater volume of physical material involved, apparently.

Also, Cinematographers like John Bailey, ASC have expressed concerns that if only a filmout of the DI is preserved, the detail in the original camera negative is lost.

Another concern is that apparently some DI facilities cannot retain data on their hard drives so filmmakers without the resources of major studios behind them - e.g. independent filmmakers - face the risk of losing their work completely.

These concerns were expressed in a round-up of the latest thinking on digital preservation in the December 2008 edition of American Cinematographer.

(Purchase your copy now! )

quote:

---

What is your beef with Technicolor now? In many ways it is a superior process though certainly not the end all for everything.

If the last rebirth of it in the '90s wasn't riddled with so many glitches, it would probably still be around. The 1.37 reissue Wizard of Oz prints were phenominal.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

If Technicolor was so superior that only an idiot would ever doubt it, with perhaps only cost being a negative aspect of it, at least a significant number of $200m productions, for which cost of stock/prints is not such a huge issue due to the investment, would be shot/released in Technicolor.

---

Education is the key here. How many in the filmmaking community appreciated IB Technicolor when it was briefly revived?

It could still be done now; in fact it might become even more of a possibility if film is re-positioned as a "boutique" format in the future. If Technicolor don't want to do it, they could license the process to some enterprising specialist lab.

Where there's a will there's a way!
 

---

Posted by Eric Lammes (Member # 4772) on 02-27-2009, 11:06 PM:
 
Here is a simple view. I am reopening a Drive In in Oklahoma. I am from Rochester, NY. Dad worked at Kodak. I am happy that film is still here at all. I watched Kodak downsize for the last 20 years. Reality. However, I believe we are in the golden age of film. I think all that can be done to restore, enhance, preserve (film) is at our disposal. But, I feel that until this discussion, I was looking at the simple, black and white, silent movie comparisons of digital, and comparing them to the golden age of film. Honestly, I cannot even concieve what digital will still do. I will always love film. Haven't seen a pixel yet, on film, except the date stamp... I respect the old, cherish it, but welcome the new. Besides, last time I checked, a 100 year old car still draws a crowd... And that's what I'm putting food on the table with.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-28-2009, 12:27 AM:
 
Film today is ALIVE and well, but it is NOT in the "uprise" or gaining market share, but declining. And somewhat quickly.

It will not be too long until digital can obtain similar (or even superior) quality/cost/convinience factors. Probably only a few years. When that happens, I hope nobody "roots" for film for other than specialized applications.

Nobody complains about an occassional Technicolor or black and white/analog sound/ektachrome reversal film if done for artistic purposes.

But anybody using but the "latest" fine-grain negatives or the best digital cameras with multitrack digital sound for new movies is, artistic-licenses aside, a fool.

Analog sound served as well. But not anymore in spite of nay-sayers.

Film is still serving us well. But NOT for long, I don't think. The only remaining question, again, being only in how long it will take to be dropped as a preferred method of image adquisition/exhibition. A few years? 20 years? even 50 years? Or just 10 years?

When it's "gone", like pretty much it is today for still photography applications (including shooting professional $7000/h models and medium/large formats or pro sports shoots), I hope only a few nostalgic will root for it the way a few still root for open-reel analog tape or Betamax or LaserDiscs.

Film is great, wonderful, and even today's top digital technology can but approximate it. But soon it will surpass it. That would be the beggining of the end. Super8, 16mm, 35mm still photography, all kept alive for small specific applications, but ALL OF THEM in a downward spiral that who knows how long can be kept alive after 35mm falls into little use and Imax etc going the same way.

If I had to shoot a feature film (or, rather, a feature motion picture) today, I wouldn't hesitate to use either film or the latest generation of digital cameras, whatever suited my needs best. 3-perf Super35mm cameras are but a rage today (like are digital counterparts). But if I had a saying in it, after I convert my film to digital intermediate like "ALL" films are done today (to edit it, colorize it, etc), I would have no desire to put it back into film (it would be "stupid" to add a lossy step back to analog) except as a "backup" archival method. From that point on, it better remains digital rather than putting it back to an analog "lossy" medium like film.

Those that say they've never "seen a pixel" (other than in their computer monitors, I'm guessing) either never watched TV or never watched 99% of movies in the past 5 years. Most have been fully digitized and that's the only way to see them, whether they are put back into film or straight into "DVD", they aren't but a collection of digital pixels (some would call it "video") and no longer a collection of film-grain and dyes. It's no longer "film". It's video put back into film. There is no "film" anymore just about anywhere to be seen.

The only reason they are put back into film is that exhibition business is not set up for straight digital exhibition at reasonable prices and quality levels, so the best "universal" solution so far has been (and remains to be) to put it into film. Cheap for the exhibitor, but expensive for the distributor, of course.

Whenever exhibition quality levels similar to Digital Intermediates can be cheaply obtained at the theaters, and some consider it "already there", we can all just save the "back to film" step and project a "perfect digital" copy straight away to the full specs (hopefully, one day).

Get over it. Virtually all "Film" TODAY is only (often) a 12 or 14 bits 2048xYYYY (YYYY=depending on flat or "spheric-scope", say 1080) 4:4:4 digital file.

Nothing more. If you do a 4K master, that's basically all the information that film contains. You could generate a CGI picture at 500K and 50bits if you wanted, far suparssing film, but there is no projector capable of that. Wherenever one is made, film will no longer have any advantages whatsoever, so it shouldn't be widely used just like Super8, which is also film, shouldn't be widely used today instead of HD camcorders.

You would be a fool to prefer Super8 (film) to HD camcorders today (for most uses) and you would be a fool to prefer 35mm motion picture film against digital cameras/display devices in the (far?) future.

With a camera like Red's announced Epic 645 or 617, images of up to about 14K (28K bayer) 12bits will be possible to obtain, surpassing what Imax prints can deliver in many measurements. Not even "film" can hold that much information in a sensible space, so another way to display it would have to be found (if such a format is deemed necessary, which is overkill, of course). LGV-laser projectors like E&S's can project 8K images on large screens at full film gamuth, if you wanted, today.

Digital is not "inferior". It's just not conviniently and cheaply enough a full replacement for film in some circunstances. Yet.

And unfortunately, with the "rush" to push digital into exhibition the industry has settled for a standard that is one notch below what it could easily be and a bit below what film can offer today, thus my full support to the nay-sayers to digital.

[ 02-28-2009, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-28-2009, 01:56 AM:
 

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

I was told that there are no functioning 2" quadraplex machines anymore

---

This guy has quite the collection of quad machines...

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-28-2009, 08:02 AM:
 
There is also a very important point regarding the film heritage. Other art expressions, which are considered “serious” are extremely careful in preserving art as close as possible as it was (i.e. universal principle in restorations to keep the original as close as possible as it was in terms of materials used for the restauration).

Unfortunately, people who are responsible for film heritage are not as careful or knowledgeable as those responsible in the painting world for instance, apart from people like Grover Crisp, who chose the revived dye transfer process in the 90s for Funny Girl. I see too many bad examples nowadays in the UK of museums and other film institutions deliberately choosing digital to show films that were never meant to enter the digital domain.

So, it is a pity that those of us who like the 7th art, have to rely on curators who do not care to preserve the original experience.

I mean, I would accept someone from a museum saying, look there is no money to get proper 35mm or 70mm new prints of old films because there is not enough interest, but to shamelessly promote the exhibition of old films in 2k digital and even say that it looks better is beyond belief.

I know that there are not that many of us who want to enjoy old pictures in their original format, but there are probably even less people interested in some obscure restorations in the first 6 art forms and still things are done properly there.

I see so much wealth of knowledge when reading this forum and then the ones who should know better, many films programmers, haven’t got a clue and have a very, very suspicious enthusiasm for anything digital. Look at the NFT in London and their very suspicious promotion of digital with superlatives used every time they show an old film “remastered” in digital, like their forthcoming showing of many Bond films in digital.

There should be an international association of proper film handlers showing old films as they were meant to be seen and trying to make those prints profitable by multiple screenings and get some governments funds (as many other art institutions get) to keep the tradition of film experience for future generations (even if film disappears for current films) and not the bastardisation of films into 2k digital.

And I saw the first reel of The Thin Red Line in dye transfer Technicolor and it was very beautiful, very pictorial and not video-like at all.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-28-2009, 09:05 AM:
 
Just butting in for a moment because I have the feeling the current capabilities of digital adquisition are not well known.

There are cameras capable of shooting 8K resolution, it's just that it's not practical or needed.

Since 2004 the japanese NHK has them:

http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical/pdf/02_3.PDF
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/9/98/Uhdfuji0000.jpg
[picture of updated current version]

Arri estimates that a 65MM (5perf) modern NEGATIVE can hold a bit less than about (8746 x 3855). Now, such resolution will NEVER reach a release print. Say the release print was 6000x3000 (at best). Since digital doesn't lose information with each generation, all digital would need to do is obtain that 6000x3000 image from the beggining (i.e., scan the negative and don't resize it) to obtain the same resolution level as 65mm film.

Here is a lesser example:

http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=camera_65_new
[link is to the phantom65 camera, available since quite a few years now]

There was also very hi-res russian cameras

http://www.kinor.ru/en/products/camera/dcx/
[link to manufacturer that puts up to 12 sensors together to offer HDR hi-ress recording, click on Kinor DC4K to actually see a camera built]

Panavision also has prototypes of super-hires cameras.

14bits color, 13 stops latitude, 4K resolutions are no longer "dreams" but everyday realities TODAY. In a few years, even better. From then on, film will be the "inferior" format, as those cameras already closely matches 35mm film in most parameters and slightly surpass it in others.

Except, of course, film will remain reasonably competitive quality-wise and cheaper than hi-end digital for quite sometime, so it will still be used. Not to mention die-hard DOP who are masters in their art and will refuse to learn how to use gain, log scales and LUTS or digital filters

http://cinetaur.googlepages.com/hd24pdigitalcinematographylinks
[link is to a page showing some of the digital motion picture cameras (over-HD video?) being available today]
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 02-28-2009, 10:55 AM:
 
Aside from the all-to-frequent proclamations of film's iminent demise, I find it interesting that these digital vs film topics always seem to center around every conceivable reason for its failure to reach critical mass, except what probably means the most to 95% of the exhibition side of this industry.

Nope, it's not quality of presentation, or ease of transportation, or keeping up with the march of technological progress, whether someone has to go upstairs to watch the equipment or whether there's even an upstairs to go to.

It's simply, cost.

To many exhibitors, the booth is merely part of the 'package'... maybe not more important than how quiet the HVAC equipment is in the auditorium. Most around here wouldn't want to hear that, since we're all technically inclined, to one extent or the other.

If the average owner could write a comparable check for digital equipment, and not have two or three permanent hands in his pockets for recurrent maintenance and licensing fees, and if there was a reasonable expectation that the equipment would outlast its depreciation schedule, you'd probably find that digital would already be the standard, and film would only be found in the art houses still using arc lamps.

I've seen too many cases, where exhibitors put less-than-good projection and sound systems in their new theatres not to believe this.

And why can't/won't the cost of digital cinema equipment go down to that level? Beats me. 4 years ago, if you told me I could eventually buy a 65" flat screen for around a kilobuck, I wouldn't have believed that, either. Somehow, the manufacturing part of the chain thinks exhibitors' pockets are deep enough that they can charge a lot for the technology, then continue charging to make it run... or let it.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-28-2009, 01:47 PM:
 

quote: Jack Ondracek

---

And why can't/won't the cost of digital cinema equipment go down to that level? Beats me.

---

It's because of the relatively small number of theatre screens vs the huge number of living rooms.
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 02-28-2009, 04:01 PM:
 
what is "filum"?
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 02-28-2009, 04:19 PM:
 
filum is the old school version of film.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 02-28-2009, 07:54 PM:
 
As I noted in a post on Ground Level, a new theater opened here-15 film screens, 2 digital, asked why, my GM was told what we all know to be true---the equipment costs less than half as much, lasts 10 times longer, gives 1/100th the trouble can be repaired inexpensively, looks better on the screen at least half the time, and the problems are known, no mysteries, works when the switch is thrown, every time.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 02-28-2009, 09:08 PM:
 
Good answer.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 02-28-2009, 09:21 PM:
 

quote: Bill Enos

---

As I noted in a post on Ground Level, a new theater opened here-15 film screens, 2 digital, asked why, my GM was told what we all know to be true---the equipment costs less than half as much, lasts 10 times longer, gives 1/100th the trouble can be repaired inexpensively, looks better on the screen at least half the time, and the problems are known, no mysteries, works when the switch is thrown, every time.

---

Take that, D-Crapema!!

Long live FILM!! (Or Filum if you prefer.)
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-28-2009, 10:04 PM:
 

quote: Mark Ogden

---

I wonder, Paul, if you could provide some qualification for that statement. Twelve times the archival costs? From what, exactly?

---

quote: Mark Ogden

---

As opposed to the thousands of films lost over the years by improper film storage?

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

If Technicolor was so superior that only an idiot would ever doubt it, with perhaps only cost being a negative aspect of it, at least a significant number of $200m productions, for which cost of stock/prints is not such a huge issue due to the investment, would be shot/released in Technicolor.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Fuji closed a plant or two recently and are downsizing.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

And the number of release prints in 35mm are not INCREASING but DECREASING. Slightly, as digital exhibition is slightly moving forward while the number of new theaters is not growing much and most that open new are digital.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

I hope, at least, nobody needs a reality check with still chemical (film) photography being a dying art as oppossed to a thriving industry in the uprise.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

If someone thinks that film will continue to be mainstream use in domestic, motion picture and TV 20 years from now, I guess he still shops for vinyl records, rents VHS tapes (or better yet, Betamax), buys music cassette, and shoots his kid's sport events on Super8 home movies.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Here is a link to a Variety article... Variety Article And those are the pro digital people trying to figure it out.

---

quote:

---

I ask because the reasons for the loss have nothing to do with archiving and that alone ends your arguement. The loss of such movies have to do with the previous use of Nitrate stock,

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

they feel they have archiving methods that should keep film for 1000-years now

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

I'm not sure that 2" quad videotape is comparable to LTO-4.

---

quote: Mark Ogden

---

I don't lose a lot of sleep wondering if the people 500 years from now will be able to watch an episode of Married With Children off a data tape. Fact is, I hope they wouldn't want to.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Exactly.. and the same with 80% of todays feature films. Its called "disposable entertainment".

---

Or Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

Nonetheless, the problem is who decides? As Steve said, archivests want to save everything. They should be content neutral. Save them all, let god sort them out.

The problem is with science and technology, not esthetics. Right now film is far and away the best thing for preserving the moving image. Left up to the bean counters or "the people's choice" the early works of future great filmmakers would disappear, while Paul Blart: Mall Cop would live forever.
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 03-03-2009, 01:06 PM:
 
I work at an archive and we are still optically printing new dupes from old films, and making fine grains and release prints to archive. We are looking into film scanning and digital formats but at this stage only old video formats are a priority to transfer... and we do have working 2" quads!
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-03-2009, 02:37 PM:
 
If I was doing anything (motion picture/TV/documentary/etc) of significant value today, I would pony up for a film output (whatever format, a low-con, a separation negative, whatever). $50K well spent.

Cheap enough (hurry, while supply lasts ) and with enough longevity and convinience to serve the purpose for a long while.

Until some sort of high density lasting digital thing develops and standarizes (holographic optical storage?), storing digital as digital is both, a pain and a risk in the long term. And cheap ain't either.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 03-04-2009, 03:46 AM:
 
There have been some incredible posts in regards to this topic and I thank everyone for their input.

When it comes to archiving valuable material, film would have the advantage over video -any format- because the stored image can be read not only by machine but also by human eyesight. As the image is stored as a "visible" image, any video format of the future, which will have single-frame capability will be able to do a single generation copy of that image. It seems the sticking point with any of the video based systems is that the information must be "decoded" into an image, either by analogue or digital means. Additionally, in the digital realm, a drop out has more of a degradation effect whereas a scratch or splice is usually a momentary occurance and is not as severe as digital dropouts. I'm not really up to speed on the strength of digital error correction but I still think that the human readable image is still a far better method of future-proofing one's work rather than risking the dreaded oxide-shed of days gone by.

Des anyone know if hard-drives ever suffer from oxide-shedding and if so, why would one risk one's work to mechanical failure of either tape-head, disk head failure or oxide shedding?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-04-2009, 08:10 AM:
 

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

When Hail columbia was being made NASA even admited they could not play half of the video tape they had "archived" and it was 16mm kinoscope material that was usable

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

You may not care if a TV show is usable in 500-years but an archivist IS...they don't place differing values on content...they try to keep it all.

---

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

Des anyone know if hard-drives ever suffer from oxide-shedding and if so, why would one risk one's work to mechanical failure of either tape-head, disk head failure or oxide shedding?

---

quote: Damien Taylor

---

What is the max R/W cycles on SS hard drives up to these days?

---

Plenty for non-database applications

Now, seriously, wikipedia says:

quote:

---

Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[10], while high endurance cells may have an endurance of 1–5 million write cycles (many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly used parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a computer).

---

Basically, you can read the hell out of them day and night for years and years and years. But if you write the same block only 100 times a day, in may go bye-bye in less than 10 years.

Drives have wear-level mechanisms and failure fallback zones, so they make sure that "the same block" is not written over and over by swapping it with another block that is not written-to often, so the whole drive will fail pretty much close to the end of the total useable life rather than the life of a single block.

Truth is: for many uses, many many years (say 8 or more of constant use).

For some uses: very little (say a year or two).

But stuff like this makes you think about it twice
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/storage/ssd-failure-rate-is-10-20-per-cent--268368

quote:

---

A large computer manufacturer is reported to be getting 20-30 per cent of its SSD flash memory-equipped computers returned due to technical failure and poor performance.

According to IT research firm, Avian Securities, between 10-20 per cent of SSD returns are due to straightforward technical failure, far higher than the 1-2 per cent failure rate of standard hard drives.

"There is an order of magnitude higher in failure rates," Avi Cohen, head of research at Avian Securities explained to CNET.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Firstly let me inform you that I was an original employee of Kodak on the Cineon project.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Now, in general, from this experience I state this to be the case. In general, any film being distributed with a reasonable number of prints needed will look worse then 2k digital projection. Film does not copy well at all. (Random grain to random grain transfer) So in "general" a 2K digital show is sharper then typical film shows.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Its just the way it is guys.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Digital also has a feel that the younger people would probably prefer.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Archival.
Digital is it guys.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Digital is it guys. most if not all films go though a DI. Why, because it is cost effective and you can spend more money where it is better spent.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

One in particular, we had Kodak there taking up Film over digital. During this guys talk he was basically completely misleading and bending the truth so much I considered it lies.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Eventually we cornered the guy and discussed the crap he was sprouting.. He's arguments quickly fell apart when talking to some one who actually knew what there where talking about. And he eventually came clean with us.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

I always wondered why the hi end of town did not embrace digital earlier. It saves money..

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Film producers do not make films to loose money..... As a cinema owner, this should be your aim too

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

The fact is, like it or not, if you plan to be in exhibition, you are likely going to have to jump to Digital within 10 yours.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

You are not likely to see film for cinema hold on like that.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Once the distributors have a reasonable DCI footprint

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

In reality, the distributors have limited reliance on exhibition

---

Anyone, what was the Theatrical gross of motion pictures last year? Do you really think the studios would throw that money away over DCinema?

If the exhibitors were to say "No" to DCinema...it will stop. If DCinema made financial sense to the exhibitor...then they'd do it in a hearbeat. It wouldn't need a "sell" or VPFs or other gimmicks. The DCinema projection platform (DLP), is more precarious than most seem to realize or want to believe.

Hey man but go ahead, drink the Kool-Aid.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-07-2009, 08:08 PM:
 
I think it's obvious, for Steve included, that likely someday most cinema "stuff" (production, distribution, exhibition) will be done digitally and film for any such "new" applications will be mostly gone.

There are some wide-ish discrepancies on WHEN some of us feel this will happen. Time will tell.

But what most of us agree is that digital exhibition, as it stands today, doesn't offer enough advantages to exhibitors to outweight the dissadvantages.

Those that benefit the most from digital are those that don't have to hardly pay for it, or, actually, for them it's cheaper to use digital than to use film. Distributors are the main beneficiaries in this chain.

You are "correct" in that exhibitors are the ones that pay for film prints on way or another, but the cost is spreaded across the industry and it sets the base price.

If exhibitors wanted to switch to digital voluntarily and distributors DISCOUNTED the price of the print that we "already pay", then we would have nor an advantage nor a dissadvantage. Same price. Exhibitors don't get a "print" but they also don't "pay of it", so fair deal.

Except exhibitors would have to throw away their perfectly good, "top quality" 35mm equipment and replace it with expensive, perhaps not so good digital equipment (or perhaps better, but not a whole lot).

But the way it stands, and not counting VPF, the distributors want to continue the same (say 60-40) share, same prices, same everything, but they still want the exhibitors to switch to digital.



Exhibitors will switch to digital voluntarily if:
A) A reliable 4K 3D $30k TOTAL "convertion kit" per screen existed. Why? Well, it brings more quality in non-scratched and rock solid "prints" of good sharpness, it brings 3D, it brings less labor costs, at a reasonable price.

B) The distributors would pay for it with VPF or reduced cuts. Then it's "free" equipment, and we still get 3D and reduced labor.

Distributors benefiting from digital by saving the cost of prints, faster market times (less interest in $200m movies), more availability (digital prints of just about any movie, old or new, can be handed to exhibitors in 24h), but then not willing to pass any of those advantages to exhibitors, who have to pay the full bill for no benefits (same or less quality than 35mm, increased maintenance and operating cost, increased equipment obsolence and technology fights with competitors, missing shows from failures) or just small benefits (3D and reduced labor costs).



The industry has been feeding Kool-Aid and "lies" about the benefits of digital for years (remember the 1.3K of 10 years ago?) trying to get exhibitors to pay the millions for digital switch over so they could eat the free cake.

They've been yelling: "3D, 3D" Well, "perfect" 3D has been here before for the past 60 years many times and it has never significantly impacted the industry. 3D=good? Yes, but only a small %% Everybody welcomes another option to entertain public with good 3D, but this NEED NOT COME with the whole "digital" attachment.

Current 3D movies could be made available in over/under or whatever film format they wanted. They don't want to do that because it's just another black mail tool for digital convertion.

Small producers should take notice and make their future 3D productions available in film too if they want wider exhibition.

But I have the feeling distributors will fold in and start nice VPF programs any time now worldwide, as they are fools for each month they don't do it they are shifting millions of dollars from the chain to Kodak/Fuji now that "decent" and "cheaper" (not enough, but getting there) DCI equipment exists.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-07-2009, 08:21 PM:
 

quote: James B Gardiner

---

I see your having a hard time with this transition..

Just a few more bits.
As a DI is 2K (Well near all are), going from this 2K finish to a lossy analog transfer, obviously it is not going to have as much detail as 2K master to 2K DCI.

2K DCI is the accountants choice. Accountant asks. If we do a 4K DI, who will tell the difference. "1 or 2 %". Will it ad value or better ROI. "No". Well, we are not doing a 4K DI then....

Once the distributors have a reasonable DCI footprint, do you expect them to offer the costly Film any more?? I don't. Or if you want it, you're going to have to pay extra to get it. (You pay for the print now)

You seem to think the tail wags the dog.

In reality, the distributors have limited reliance on exhibition, however, distributors have more options. Exhibitors do not have as many options, tho some do exist.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Current 3D movies could be made available in over/under or whatever film format they wanted

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

But then again Digital also has a feel that the younger people would probably prefer. (Ie your clients)

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

One, the hi end DOP's simply do not want to learn a new skill. And why should they, it is a skill that revolves around understanding the technology and equipment. Going to digital would have been risky. So this makes it very generational.

---

quote: Cameron Glendinning

---

With Mark and his point of view, well he is payed to install the technology.

---

quote: Cameron Glendinning

---

Young males are not big moviegoers anymore

---

That may be true where you are, but for 99% of the rest of the world they are the biggest demographic.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 03-09-2009, 06:01 PM:
 
Just pointing out that that part of the demographic is shrinking! Whilst the over 35 female market has been growing.

Does arthouse cinema really represent only 1% of the world wide marketplace?
 

---

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 03-11-2009, 03:38 AM:
 
OK, lets get serious now........

There is one fundamental mistake written above that all of you have missed and it was made by Mark Gulbrandsen!

He mentions the "Dodge 440 Hemi"; the 440 big block was an R/B wedge head motor, the 426 was a Hemi head motor - two different things. Both awesome big block Mopar muscle car engines.

Alright, game on.

No matter how you stack it, production, distribution and exhibition are going to have a long messy multi-inventory, multi-format situation for the forseeable future.

David
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 03-11-2009, 06:38 AM:
 
...which brings up another important point.
Video in most of its guises has been an expensive evolutionary beast. Unfortunatly, unlike 35mm/70mm film, video neccessitates new and vastly different standards for new equipment, which by the way is rarely if ever, backwards compatible with existing machines. Film on the other hand, has a solid worldwide standard that all manufacturers adhere to, improvements made having to fit within those standards. Some may say this stifles progress but I'm not so sure. Surely it must be of some comfort to theatre owners knowing that any film equipment they buy will not be made redundant in the near future? Contrast that scenario with the current digital dilemma. I still think that many theatre owners will sit back and wait for the digital dust to settle while watching in awe at the "multi-inventory" mess that the studios and distributors have made for themselves.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-11-2009, 06:52 AM:
 
I dunno...David...was the Cornet 440 offered with the 426-Hemi? I know I've seen them with the 318 (another good motor, but decidedly a small-block).

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-11-2009, 08:32 AM:
 
Actually most of you may not be aware that Jaguar actually invented the Hemi Head chamber I believe back in the early 50's... not Chrysler Corp. as they like to claim. I was only using "Hemi" as a refrence... sorry to get the good heads on the wrong block! 318 = reliability but no more no less. I myself was never a Chrysler Products fan ever!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 03-11-2009, 05:09 PM:
 
David.

Resist the temptation. DP70's do not need extra V8 starting power.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-11-2009, 07:45 PM:
 
There are decidedly Mopar fans and those that are not. However, those that are not normally have respect for the 426-Hemi, 318 and the Slant-6.

I'm wondering if the un-Mopar fans are biased against their cars that they were in for stylistic reasons.

I certainly appreciate the offerings from all of the Motown-3. I my driving life, I've owned/heavily used a Dodge Polara ('65, 383...a real pretty sounding engine), Chev. Camaro Z-28 ('84), Chev. Corvette Z-51 ('87), Ford Model-A Coupe ('30).

The funny thing is, I've enjoyed the Polara every bit as much as the Corvette but for different reasons. The Model-A was an absolute blast.
 

---

Posted by Marc Hansen (Member # 705) on 03-11-2009, 11:23 PM:
 

quote:

---

Actually most of you may not be aware that Jaguar actually invented the Hemi Head chamber I believe back in the early 50's... not Chrysler Corp. as they like to claim. I was only using "Hemi" as a refrence... sorry to get the good heads on the wrong block! 318 = reliability but no more no less. I myself was never a Chrysler Products fan ever!

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

And before I celebrate the end of make-up/break down time, can you load a show on to a dci server while a show is running?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

3D takes a lot bigger lamp though.

---

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

Doremi suggests that content loading during playback be avoided because it can cause issues during playback.

---

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

Even that has been reduced for Real D has now introduced XL light doubleing Z Screen. I believe that's what is called.

---