Chris Nolan warns of the dangers of digital...

http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/

Shame that he was addressing a mass of idiots who only plan to go with the flow and shoot on whatever the studio tells them.

Film Forum in NYC did a DCP presentation about a month ago, showing a range of classic films from THE SEARCHERS to DR STRANGELOVE. Before all of this, they did their own 35mm prints, and I hope they continue to do so for quite some time. There really is a massive difference between a digital projection and a film projection.

I'm all for preserving 35 and also hope to shoot on it some day.

Quote :

Walking into Universal CityWalk's IMAX theater, Wright recognized many of the most prominent filmmakers in America — Michael Bay, Bryan Singer, Jon Favreau, Eli Roth, Duncan Jones, Stephen Daldry. If a bomb had gone off in the building, he thought, it would have taken out half of the Directors Guild of America.

If only.

I only know one remaining theater in my area that projects 35mm. There's a University Edwards around too but I haven't been there for awhile and so I'm not sure if they also converted. It'll be too bad when old film is gone.

But despite that, I haven't seen an issue with digital projection yet. All presentations I've seen looked very good in my eyes. But there's still a difference between shooting in 35mm and digital. I've been against digital but in recent years it's really upgraded nicely with the latest example being THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (come a long way since the ugly ATTACK OF THE CLONES digital years). So at this point I'd prefer both to co-exist. Plus I'm very interested to see how Deakins handles digital with SKYFALL. I haven't seen IN TIME (his first digitally shot feature).

The ship has already sailed over here, at least in the multiplex chains. They converted to digital projectors a couple of years ago, so even the features that are shot on 35 MM are screened in the digital format.

I just hope they don't kill the messenger; I'd hate to think Nolan will die for the sins (& omissions) of all things digital.

There's already a ton of product that has degraded due to originating on digital without proper storage and migration. It's only going to get worse. You can't just expect tech to save things, else we'd say the word 'digital' and pollution would move to settle only on countries you don't like; you have to change your mindset.

It's a depressing article. Makes me angry. FILM FOREVER!

There is no reason why film shouldn't be used as an archival format. It exceeds digital in both stability and resolution at this point. I'd be more worried about losing audio masters than a film negative. Same with production, as handling camera negatives is easier than sensitive multi-terabyte hard drives and magnetic tape.

Tubes wrote:

There is no reason why film shouldn't be used as an archival format. It exceeds digital in both stability and resolution at this point.

Except using film for archival purpose sounds counterintuitive and therefore wrong to a generation or more of people who are convinced (or have been convinced) that new tech is always better tech.

Even people who know better cave to the hive/mob mindset, that's why you saw vfx companies addiing the word 'digital' to their names in order to stay competitive. Had nothing to do with the work they did or how they did it at the time, just had to represent themselves in a way that sounded timely.

trevanian wrote:

Tubes wrote:

There is no reason why film shouldn't be used as an archival format. It exceeds digital in both stability and resolution at this point.

Except using film for archival purpose sounds counterintuitive and therefore wrong to a generation or more of people who are convinced (or have been convinced) that new tech is always better tech.

The results of a consumption based society run amuck. Where 6 month old tech is considered old and outdated.

Digital has been a boon for amateur and independent filmmakers, as it's now cheaper than ever to create cinematic images. The side effect is aspiring filmmakers will only know digital's learning curve and be scared off by film's quirks and lack of instant feedback. It's one thing to expose an image when you can see the result instantly, quite another when you need to wait a few days/weeks until you can find out if you royally screwed up or not.

I've been looking into both Super 8mm and 16mm cameras, hopefully at a reasonable price point. Anyone have any suggestions?