Support NeoGAF

[olimario]

I started my projectionist job and learned how to thread and start movies. I also learned how to cut and wind film so we can save trailers that came with older movies.

Anyhow... I can't help but wonder why everything isn't in digital. I'm sure digital projectors are much cheaper than these huge film ones we have and lord knows it would be easier to put together previews, ads, and start movies if everything was digital.

Just seems like a waste of time and money to keep doing things on film. Once HD-DVD/BlueRay hits there should be no reason to keep film around. Blah.

 

[sprsk]

resolution

 

[olimario]

YOu can get good reslutions from a digital movie? Wasn't Star Wars Ep. II digital?

 

[B'z-chan]

You JOB WORK??? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[sprsk]

YOu can get good reslutions from a digital movie? Wasn't Star Wars Ep. II digital?

with film its really easy to get high resolution and detail. With digital there are instances (like in the star wars movie) where you lose alot of that detail.


alot of directors dont want ot mess with the look of the film by transferring it to antoher medium.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Well, it's a major expense to convert all the theaters over to digital projection. Most of the major chains are dragging their feet due to the costs involved.

Also, not all films are shot digitally yet. There are a number of directors who feel that the look of digital just doesn't come across as well as film. There is also a lot of expense in shooting the film digitally as well, although this is coming down.

I remember a few years back, when George Lucas was pushing the benefits of shooting a film all in digital, and there were many skeptics, but now, it's very much accepted and is certainly the future, but it's not here yet. The technology has improved dramatically, to the point where the can simulate the look of film if a director so chooses.

 

[soundwave05]

Movie's shot on film as opposed to HD still have better resolution and according to most people in the film industry, simply look better. It is a very heated debate, a lot of filmmakers (like Spielberg) do not like digital HD at all. A lot of DPs (director of photography) prefer the more "organic" look of film.

Lucas, Cameron, and Rodriguez seem to be pushing digital, but guys like Scorcese, Spielberg, and Tarantino are likely film-junkies for life.

The CCD chips inside even the state of the art digital cameras don't quite match up with a 35mm film frame as well. This will change as technology advances, but its not there yet.

As for why more movies aren't projected digitally (which is a somewhat different matter), there are matters of cost and infastructure.

 

[olimario]

Then that makes sense. I guess that's why 35mm photos look better in quality and color than the best digital pictures I've seen.

 

[quin]

I may be in the minority but I like films in digital better. It may just be my eyes but after seeing my first digital movie everything on film looks blurry now

 

[Dan]

I'm sure digital projectors are much cheaper than these huge film ones we have and lord knows it would be easier to put together previews, ads, and start movies if everything was digital.

a) EVERYTHING is more expensive than whatever theaters already have. They already invested in projectors, what would motivate them to spend even more to replace them? Are theater chains even profitable? I know a few years ago most of the big ones were all losing money.

b) Studios would have to provide digital films. Theaters don't dictate the content, and any pressure they can give is less significant than the power of the studios.

c) Neither studios nor theaters really want to spend all that cash on replacing equipment.

Once HD-DVD/BlueRay hits there should be no reason to keep film around. Blah.

Totally irrelevant.

 

[olimario]

a) EVERYTHING is more expensive than whatever theaters already have. They already invested in projectors, what would motivate them to spend even more to replace them? Are theater chains even profitable? I know a few years ago most of the big ones were all losing money.

b) Studios would have to provide digital films. Theaters don't dictate the content, and any pressure they can give is less significant than the power of the studios.

c) Neither studios nor theaters really want to spend all that cash on replacing equipment.

Totally irrelevant.

Storage space doesn't matter? I would think higher resolutions would need more space.

 

[SKluck]

There's more to it than storing it. In fact that is probably the least of the issues with it. You need the equipment to capture it, and project/display it as well.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

i give 6 months before Oli takes it upon himself to start showing homemade snuff films featuring Jessica Eileen.

 

[Willco]

FYI, Tarantino is going to digital after doing that Guest Director shot on Sin City. Rodriguez won him over.

+1 DV

 

[levious]

I don't know much about terminology... but I've always been a fan of cool "exposure" type effects done in some movies. Like the interrogation scene in Clockers, how the image seemed like it was overexposed or something. I've always assumed that sort of visual effect was done by doing something physical to the film itself. If this is true, would that be another knock on digital film? I guess you could replicate all these techniques through software, but it doesn't seem like it'd be the same.

 

[pj]

Storage space doesn't matter? I would think higher resolutions would need more space.

Uncompressed theater resolution movies would need way more space than a brd could offer, so they'd obviously come on hdds. Hdds are also more reliable and probably easier to secure..

 

[pj]

I don't know much about terminology... but I've always been a fan of cool "exposure" type effects done in some movies. Like the interrogation scene in Clockers, how the image seemed like it was overexposed or something. I've always assumed that sort of visual effect was done by doing something physical to the film itself. If this is true, would that be another knock on digital film? I guess you could replicate all these techniques through software, but it doesn't seem like it'd be the same.

Over-exposure is a camera effect, not a film effect. It could easily be done with digital film. Haven't you ever taken a picture with a digital camera that came out too white?

 

[soundwave05]

FYI, Tarantino is going to digital after doing that Guest Director shot on Sin City. Rodriguez won him over.

+1 DV

Really? Do you have any links to any articles on that? I thought Q would be a hardcore film freak. He obviously studies the look of various different films to a tee, as evident with all the different film stock/styles his DP used on the Kill Bill movies.

The advantage of DV/HD is its much more convienant. You don't have camera roll outs, you don't have to pay for telecine or have your master copy damaged or degraded over time.

And of course you can playback whatever footage you've shot right on the spot, so you don't have to wait until you see dailies or you're in the editing room to spot a problem.

Nevertheless though, a lot of the filmmaking community still remains strongly pro-film, especailly the director's of photography, and they usually get what they want. If a filmmaker gets a deal from the studios, they're going to have enough of a budget to afford film stock anyway.

Even when if you go into just about any film school and hang out with the budding DPs/ACs
and the "camera kids" in general, you probably won't have to wait too long before you hear "film is art, digital is crap" or something like that. Just about all of them will work for you for free if you're shooting film (especailly 35mm), but it becomes a lot trickier if you say your project is HD or (worse) regular ol' DV.

 

[cybamerc]

olimario:

> Anyhow... I can't help but wonder why everything isn't in digital. I'm sure digital
> projectors are much cheaper than these huge film ones we have

Actually, they are considerably more expensive. Also, eCinema has yet to be properly standardized.

> Just seems like a waste of time and money to keep doing things on film.

Well, you still have a lot of people that are stuck in the past. It can be compared to old LP vs. CD debate or film editing vs. digital editing. Obviously over time eCinema will take over and only a few people will long for the days of film projections.



sp0rsk:

> resolution

Resolution is a minor issue with the new projection systems. 2048x1080 looks awesome even on huge screens.

> alot of directors dont want ot mess with the look of the film by transferring it to antoher medium.

Nah, that's not the problem. Most movies today are digitally edited. Some sappy directors just don't like the clean look of digital video eventhough the film look can be perfectly emulated in post production.



soundwave05:

> It is a very heated debate, a lot of filmmakers (like Spielberg) do not like digital HD at all.

Spielberg was also opposed to digital editing back in the beginning when only a few pioneers (such as a certain George Lucas) yet now he edits his movies on Avid systems like everyone else.

Spielberg has said he'll shoot Indy 4 in HD if Lucas wants it and I'm sure that'll be the turning point for him.



quin:

> I may be in the minority but I like films in digital better.

It looks way better. No noise, 100% stable picture and for some reason the digital projections I've seen have had much better colors than film projections.



Willco

> +1 DV

DV is consumer/prosumer format and not to be confused with the HD cameras that Lucas and Rodriguez have used.

 

[Willco]

Really? Do you have any links to any articles on that? I thought Q would be a hardcore film freak. He obviously studies the look of various different films to a tee, as evident with all the different film stock/styles his DP used on the Kill Bill movies.

Hollywood purists tend to dismiss the geeks in the business as more interested in technology than storytelling. To dispel that notion, Rodriguez persuaded his pal Quentin Tarantino to direct a scene in the movie Tarantino is the poster boy for analog: He collects rare 35-mm prints and doesn't even use monitors on set while directing. He had just come off shooting Kill Bill, where he did take after take, perfecting each scene, but ballooning the movie's budget and production schedule in the process. For Sin City, Tarantino filmed a self-contained segment at Troublemaker and learned that high tech means low stress. Rodriguez explains: "Quentin did a scene where the actors are in a car and it's raining. Instead of worrying about all that stuff, the car and the rain were added later, and he could just get the performance." Tarantino conceded, telling Rodriguez, "Mission accomplished. I'm glad you brought me down here." Tarantino now says he'll shoot his own digital feature.

From Wired Magazine RIGHT HERE.

DV is consumer/prosumer format and not to be confused with the HD cameras that Lucas and Rodriguez have used.

WHATEV.

 

[pxleyes]

No one has given the real reason yet:

Many directors, cinematographers, and film studios do not recognize digital as a viable art form. Many people feel that digital isn't real film and therefore shouldn't be accepted as a viable medium for films.

There is also the issue of price, size, and available projects in theaters, but the change over has been slow going because of the above issue.

 

[Fuzzy]

i give 6 months before Oli takes it upon himself to start showing homemade snuff films featuring Jessica Eileen.

Or taking a cue from Fight Club and inserting pieces of porn flicks in the middle of Disney movies. :lol

 

[TAJ]

>>>alot of directors dont want ot mess with the look of the film by transferring it to antoher medium.<<<

At this point, every frame of almost everything you see in theaters has gone to digital at some point, (even non-effects "films") either through being shot on HD, or more commonly by being scanned. Do a Google search on key words "digital intermediate" to read about the process.
Given the problem of generational loss in 35mm release prints, even 1k projection compares favorably with 35mm. The new 4k digital projectors, basically directly projecting the intermediate at full detail, should absolutely OWN 35mm.

Also, Collateral is an example HD being used to do something that couldn't be done with film. Well, you COULD do a 35mm night shoot using (mostly) only available light... but it would look like 8mm, lol.