The Digital Dilemna

[Gojira-Fan]

Hollywood is trying to abandon film prints altogether.

http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film ... Hollywood/

It's kind of scary thought. I always prefer watching movies in a theater on 35mm film. The idea that it could perish altogether is sad.

So, what's your opinion on this issue?

[Legionmaster]

1's and 0's don't decay over time or catch on fire really easily.

[Gojira-Fan]

1's and 0's don't decay over time

If you read the article, you would know this is not true.

Digital files can become corrupt. Also, due to file formats becoming obsolete quickly, they have to be updated. This could become tolling as digital format collections become larger.

With film, you can just keep it in a controlled environment and forget about it.

or catch on fire really easily.

I think your thinking of nitrate film, which isn't used anymore.

Granted, film is still flammable. But a fire is less likely to happen in a controlled enviroment than a file corruption.

[o.supreme]

1's and 0's don't decay over time or catch on fire really easily.

True but they do "crash" and how many backups do you need?

I can see this topic expanding into meany realms

Physical meia (CD's & DVD's)vs Digital (Video files) or
Physical Books & Magazines vs Tablets
Traditional Film & Photos vs Digital

Heck just last month my wife had our kids pictures taken at a photo studio in the mall, just to end up with a high res photo CD, they dont even give you prints or negatives anymore!?!

One of my relatives tried to take a roll of 35mm Film in to be developed not too long ago and Sam's Club said "we dont do that anymore", Walgreens evidently still does, but for how long??

I ultimately would not mind moving full on to digital everything if methods to prevent huge data loss were more readily available, economical, & dependable. Also I'm not going to say the world is going to face the apocolypse any time soon, but if for whatever reason, electronics world wide do fail at some point in the future, I will be glad to have my books, photos etc... whatever hard copies I have. Also I'm a sucker for nostalgic, as many have said, I love the look of "classic" film grain, or the feel of a book in my hands

[wataru]

Im still pissed at digital TV. Analog was so much better. You could get up close to the screen and it wouldnt pixelate. Now unless you watch the channel in HD, it sucks balls.

Im sure digital will replace 35mm. And Im sure any digital movie will be kept in more then one server.

[Gojira-Fan]

Im sure digital will replace 35mm.

I can see digital becoming the standard, but film has such a following that I can't see it being replaced entirely.

Honestly, I think both methods should exist. I think it's better to have options.

And Im sure any digital movie will be kept in more then one server.

The first 2 Toy Story films were almost lost because they were only on one hard drive.

The thing is though, servers have to be maintained. I doubt they could last as long as film.

[TheSecondComing]

When Universal Studios Hollywood had a fire in 2008 it burned down the Video Vault (among other things), where they store the backups. The fire was caused by a worker misusing an acetylene torch. Not sure how I feel about the possibility of film disappearing.

[Tyler]

I want to be a director and I plan on shooting on film if the budget or whatever allows. This saddens me.

[Giga Kaiju]

This just plain sucks. This aspect is what almost defines Cinema but eventually it had to occur.
Although i hope both could coexist and each Director/Producer can choose the one they prefer.

[g2kmaster]

This reminds me of that documentry Keanu Reeves just got done making, Side by Side. The trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POLylqWL-j8

Scorsese, Lynch, Cameron, and Nolan are among the ones interviewed.

Now, I do not feel bad about film not being the popular format. I do think it is bad that it will be "Extinct". I do not hate digital filmmaking. Non-linear editing edivces like Pinnacle Studios are great and I love my little silver Sony Handycam. If anyone has watched HEARTS OF DARKNESS, and Coppola says that film will become a true art form when film is democratized and "a fat girl in Ohio" can make movies. But now, there is a certain look for actual film which is - as far as I know - not reproducable digitally. And Nolan is right in the trailer only in terms of Imax film stock. 35mm film stock can be reproduced digitaly as far as I am aware.

However now, unlike film, stuff mentioned above like the book vs. iPad thing is just ridiculous. The most obvious pro-book argument is that the iPad has a similar stigma to most screens - it is an electrical format. Sure, there is the fact that batteries could run out, but I am talk about another technicality: technically, monitors and screens are not on 100% of the time. They are actualy flickering on and off at a rate that the human eye cannot notice. Hence eye problems. No, give me my printed material. I want to feel ownership.

Oh, and skreeonk digital files vs. DVDs/Blu-Ray. Same thing: ownership. You cannot have things like a deluxe box set with special printed material in it and such with a printed file. You know, beautiful things like this:



Thankfully, people like Quentin Tarantino is still using 35mm.

Just a thought though, in regards to digital vs. film... in regards to the artistry. When you deal with digital, you can digitally alter the image any way you want to make it look like anything. With film, you have to spend a lot more time with lens filters and lighting and such. With digital, it is like you are shooting your canvas and then altering it with paints in the editing room. With film, you do not create the paintings as much as you have to go out, find them, and the shoot them (with the only thing connecting the shots being style and script). Of course, there are outliers to this philosophy, but you catch my drift.