FTFA: Anybody who still uses a Smith-Corona or IBM Selectric typewriter knows what that means: if your beloved machine breaks, you can't just take it to the local repair shop, you have to track down some old hermit in another town who advertises on Craigslist and stockpiles spare parts in his basement.

Because people who like old stuff are old. Also antisocial. Let's lynch 'em!

Always loved a film camera

Big farking deal. Give me an Arri Alexa and a 35mm film camera shooting the exact same scenes with the exact same lenses and I guarantee you there about 10 people on the planet who would be able to tell the difference after post, duplication, and then putting them in some shiatty theater in Des Moines, or more especially, after it's been compressed all to hell and put out on Pay Per View. Hell, I could probably shoot stuff on my Canon 7D and a f1.4 50mm and 90% of you would think it's film.

The end of film means cheaper shoots and less time to make movies. That's all.

Within a few years, we'll have sensors that have 15 stops of dynamic range. I'll stick with digital, although my medium format work will always be film, for those rare shots that require extremes.

I guess it's been "The end of Music as we know it" like 10 times in the past century then.

Mugato: Good riddance. I'd hate to shoot and cut on film. Although Spielberg has stated that he'll always use film. He also goes on TV and asks the little people to give money to preserve decaying film stock.

The only way to prserve it is to digitize it. THere are tons of film reels sitting in salt mines slowly rotting away because they weren't or can't be digitized (due to copyright apparently).

Tr0mBoNe: Occam's Chainsaw: Tr0mBoNe: it has under 100km on it and he's not moving it for a loooong time.

I hope he's at least taking it for a run around the neighborhood once every few weeks or so, or has it specifically prepped for long-term storage. While most parts won't give a crap whether they're used or not, gas goes stale, fluids break down, lubricants coagulate and harden, seals and gaskets dry rot, and some working parts may seize.

It's properly stored. They turn it over every now and again and it's on jacks to keep some weight off the suspension. He also has a few racks full of spare parts, including another engine. He's quite the car guy... he has two garages with about 50 cars in various stages of restoration. It's a big part of his retirement.

Yeah, but what happens when his teenage son takes it on trip to Chicago with his friends?

ChaoticLimbs: Within a few years, we'll have sensors that have 15 stops of dynamic range. I'll stick with digital, although my medium format work will always be film, for those rare shots that require extremes.

The 14 stops on the Alexa just aren't enough for you, huh?

Stop crying, move forward.

Rev.K: And that camera is almost undoubtedly being used to shoot porn.

not a chance, film cost a insane amount more to use then digital. not sure how much more it cost now but in 2001-5 when i was in college for broadcasting the TV department classes that used tape had about 200 bucks a semester in out of pocket materials for tape and DVDs, the cinema classes had about 5 grand for film and development.

Barakku: I guess it's been "The end of Music as we know it" like 10 times in the past century then.

Mugato: Good riddance. I'd hate to shoot and cut on film. Although Spielberg has stated that he'll always use film. He also goes on TV and asks the little people to give money to preserve decaying film stock.

The only way to prserve it is to digitize it. THere are tons of film reels sitting in salt mines slowly rotting away because they weren't or can't be digitized (due to copyright apparently).

Actually, black and white film can be very well preserved and color can be converted to black and white film in a format similar to three-strip Technicolor. Digital storage media not only decay but also digital formats become obsolete. For long-term, low-maintanance preservation, printing even projects that were originally shot digitally as three-strip black and white negatives is good insurance.

As someone who has opened a projection booth only to find "Back to the Future" film 3 feet deep filling the room, I say Good farking Riddance.

I'd plug in that USB drive any day over building up platters and threading the beast.

cardex: Rev.K: And that camera is almost undoubtedly being used to shoot porn.

not a chance, film cost a insane amount more to use then digital. not sure how much more it cost now but in 2001-5 when i was in college for broadcasting the TV department classes that used tape had about 200 bucks a semester in out of pocket materials for tape and DVDs, the cinema classes had about 5 grand for film and development.

Came here to say this. In addition to VHS tape and the internet, it could be argued porn started the digital recording revolution.

We should be sad about moving to newer, more efficient technologies that have better resolutions and don't take as much work to use or edit movies with?

Tr0mBoNe: Occam's Chainsaw: It's not a bad idea. The only concern would be becoming one of these people you see on Hoarders or American Pickers who are sitting on a goldmine they can't and won't use, but refuse to sell a bit of it because they've come to self-identify with the stuff.

If he shrugs and signs a pink the second someone waves middle six figures, he'll be A-OK. ^_^

He will keep it until some meets his price. Everyone has their price.

I loved the episode of American Pickers where Frank bought a running1927 Model A for $5k and the appraiser guy told him he way over paid.

Nem Wan: Barakku: I guess it's been "The end of Music as we know it" like 10 times in the past century then.

Mugato: Good riddance. I'd hate to shoot and cut on film. Although Spielberg has stated that he'll always use film. He also goes on TV and asks the little people to give money to preserve decaying film stock.

The only way to prserve it is to digitize it. THere are tons of film reels sitting in salt mines slowly rotting away because they weren't or can't be digitized (due to copyright apparently).

Actually, black and white film can be very well preserved and color can be converted to black and white film in a format similar to three-strip Technicolor. Digital storage media not only decay but also digital formats become obsolete. For long-term, low-maintanance preservation, printing even projects that were originally shot digitally as three-strip black and white negatives is good insurance.

It was my impression that we had already lost over half of all black and white films because of this sort of decay. I don't see why downconverting films to B&W would be a solution. Making physical copies after digitizing is one of the advantages of digitizing (and it allows you to make copies, physical and digital like nobody's business). We have plenty of digital storage space, and we can store digital copies in dozens of separate physical locations on a wide variety of media. I don't see how stripping out the colors and sticking it in a slowly rotting format but NOT digitizing the full thing will ever help anything.

Mugato: Nem Wan: Digital storage media not only decay but also digital formats become obsolete

Why can't digital information be transferred exactly to another hard drive or other media when necessary?

Also, once we got past the bad old days of proprietary operating systems and storage mediums, I really can't think of any type of digital files that can't be used in modern hardware. Obsolete software that ran on an obsolete OS? Load the file into an emulator or a virtual machine that replicates the Commodore 64 or Tandy you used to use? Ancient video game machine that no longer functions? Copy the ROMs from the IC in the machine and load it up in an emulator? Ancient document format? There's probably a convertor somewhere if it isn't already built in to the current tools. Just look at some of the obscure file formats that pop up on the Photoshop and Word file open pop ups. Need to open a document you create in Word Perfect 5.1 back in college when Kurt Cobain was still alive? Word 2010 has you covered.

I really can't think of too many types of digital information from the last 20 years that can't be accessed by current computers using some combinator of emulation, virtualization, or file conversion. Does anyone know of any examples?

Barakku: Nem Wan: Barakku: I guess it's been "The end of Music as we know it" like 10 times in the past century then.

Mugato: Good riddance. I'd hate to shoot and cut on film. Although Spielberg has stated that he'll always use film. He also goes on TV and asks the little people to give money to preserve decaying film stock.

The only way to prserve it is to digitize it. THere are tons of film reels sitting in salt mines slowly rotting away because they weren't or can't be digitized (due to copyright apparently).

Actually, black and white film can be very well preserved and color can be converted to black and white film in a format similar to three-strip Technicolor. Digital storage media not only decay but also digital formats become obsolete. For long-term, low-maintanance preservation, printing even projects that were originally shot digitally as three-strip black and white negatives is good insurance.

It was my impression that we had already lost over half of all black and white films because of this sort of decay. I don't see why downconverting films to B&W would be a solution. Making physical copies after digitizing is one of the advantages of digitizing (and it allows you to make copies, physical and digital like nobody's business). We have plenty of digital storage space, and we can store digital copies in dozens of separate physical locations on a wide variety of media. I don't see how stripping out the colors and sticking it in a slowly rotting format but NOT digitizing the full thing will ever help anything.

Yeah, I'm having a hard time following his logic as well. Film decays fairly quickly and the amount of space needed to store film stock as compared to digital is like a dresser vs. a warehouse.

yarnothuntin: Came here to say this. In addition to VHS tape and the internet, it could be argued porn started the digital recording revolution.

Right. Because physicists, chemists, engineers, they mostly invented that technology for the benefit of porn. Meanwhile the corporate suits responsible for manufacturing and distributing the actual products, they got on board mostly to accommodate the porn industry. Yea.

You realize that sounds straight up retarded, right? It's fine that you like porn or whatever. But it's not the tech industry gamechanger you apparently think it is. The success of digital recording owes to the very obvious fact that it's just a very convenient improvement over film.

And with good cause -

My buddy made this film entirely himself - shot directed, starred, edited.. all with a Canon 60D and a couple nice lenses.. all in, less than $3000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q5r2ou2I5U (new window)

FilmBELOH20: Big farking deal. Give me an Arri Alexa and a 35mm film camera shooting the exact same scenes with the exact same lenses and I guarantee you there about 10 people on the planet who would be able to tell the difference after post, duplication, and then putting them in some shiatty theater in Des Moines, or more especially, after it's been compressed all to hell and put out on Pay Per View. Hell, I could probably shoot stuff on my Canon 7D and a f1.4 50mm and 90% of you would think it's film.

The end of film means cheaper shoots and less time to make movies. That's all.

Uhmm. No. The key is PROPERLY LIT screens, which theaters don't do. A properly illuminated/mastered 35mm print will blow digital away every time. Film has infinite resolution. It's well known, all the projector people talk about it.

I've even seen digital blocking/visual interference/hash in theaters.

And nothing of value was lost.

gardigga: And with good cause -

My buddy made this film entirely himself - shot directed, starred, edited.. all with a Canon 60D and a couple nice lenses.. all in, less than $3000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q5r2ou2I5U (new window)


Yeah, except that looks like video. There is no one on the face of the earth who would be fooled into thinking that was film quality.

So now every film shown in theaters will be dark as shiat because the LCD projectors suck balls and people can't calibrate them right?

I guess it's more piracy for me.

Lol

The_Time_Master: So now every film shown in theaters will be dark as shiat because the LCD projectors suck balls and people can't calibrate them right?

I guess it's more piracy for me.

Lol

I don't know what's sadder, the fact that you don't know the difference between a projector and a camera, or that you're the second person in this thread to make that mistake.

Corn_Fed: gardigga: And with good cause -

My buddy made this film entirely himself - shot directed, starred, edited.. all with a Canon 60D and a couple nice lenses.. all in, less than $3000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q5r2ou2I5U (new window)


Yeah, except that looks like video. There is no one on the face of the earth who would be fooled into thinking that was film quality.

But many would be fooled in to thinking that it was shot with a pro camera and dozens of crew and massive lights and a $200k budget.

Artcurus: Film has infinite resolution. It's well known, all the projector people talk about it.

Very first Google result for "Film has infinite resolution goes to a post saying:

"I've read a lot of the musings from film buffs. Problem is, most of
what they say is just wishful or wrong. The idea promoted by some
that film has "infinite resolution" and the results can be varied
based on increasing scan resolution is nonsense. At best, the
sharpest, finest grain 35mm film can resolve as much as a 6-8
megapixel digital. Film grains, their clumpiness, and the spaces
between them ARE the "pixels" of film and they do not afford infinite
resolution. The highest resolving power film I've ever seen was Tech
Pan (discontinued). It is possible that with the very best lenses,
modern scanning, 35mm Tech Pan could approach the resolution of a
10-12 megapixel digital, but I really doubt it."

The rest of the thread is people saying that no one has ever claimed that film has infinite resolution,

Artcurus: FilmBELOH20: Big farking deal. Give me an Arri Alexa and a 35mm film camera shooting the exact same scenes with the exact same lenses and I guarantee you there about 10 people on the planet who would be able to tell the difference after post, duplication, and then putting them in some shiatty theater in Des Moines, or more especially, after it's been compressed all to hell and put out on Pay Per View. Hell, I could probably shoot stuff on my Canon 7D and a f1.4 50mm and 90% of you would think it's film.

The end of film means cheaper shoots and less time to make movies. That's all.

Uhmm. No. The key is PROPERLY LIT screens, which theaters don't do. A properly illuminated/mastered 35mm print will blow digital away every time. Film has infinite resolution. It's well known, all the projector people talk about it.

I've even seen digital blocking/visual interference/hash in theaters.

Film does not have infinite resolution. Sorry to burst your film school bubble.

Artcurus: FilmBELOH20: Big farking deal. Give me an Arri Alexa and a 35mm film camera shooting the exact same scenes with the exact same lenses and I guarantee you there about 10 people on the planet who would be able to tell the difference after post, duplication, and then putting them in some shiatty theater in Des Moines, or more especially, after it's been compressed all to hell and put out on Pay Per View. Hell, I could probably shoot stuff on my Canon 7D and a f1.4 50mm and 90% of you would think it's film.

The end of film means cheaper shoots and less time to make movies. That's all.

Uhmm. No. The key is PROPERLY LIT screens, which theaters don't do. A properly illuminated/mastered 35mm print will blow digital away every time. Film has infinite resolution. It's well known, all the projector people talk about it.

I've even seen digital blocking/visual interference/hash in theaters.



Thanks for pointing that out. Film has an organic quality that no one in digital has figured out how to replicate.

And it will be years (probably decades) before someone will come up with a process that has the resolution of IMAX. When I saw the Dark Knight the IMAX scenes were fantastic.

Just because you can do something (shoot digitally) doesn't mean you should.

FilmBELOH20: Film does not have infinite resolution. Sorry to burst your film school bubble.

Film school? Seeing as his citation is "all the projector people talk about it," I'm pretty sure he just worked in a movie theater and the projectionists were repeating some BS they heard.

Fireproof: Artcurus: Film has infinite resolution. It's well known, all the projector people talk about it.

Very first Google result for "Film has infinite resolution goes to a post saying:

"I've read a lot of the musings from film buffs. Problem is, most of
what they say is just wishful or wrong. The idea promoted by some
that film has "infinite resolution" and the results can be varied
based on increasing scan resolution is nonsense. At best, the
sharpest, finest grain 35mm film can resolve as much as a 6-8
megapixel digital. Film grains, their clumpiness, and the spaces
between them ARE the "pixels" of film and they do not afford infinite
resolution. The highest resolving power film I've ever seen was Tech
Pan (discontinued). It is possible that with the very best lenses,
modern scanning, 35mm Tech Pan could approach the resolution of a
10-12 megapixel digital, but I really doubt it."

The rest of the thread is people saying that no one has ever claimed that film has infinite resolution,

S'funny - my cinematography lecturer (one who actually worked in the industry) told us that it would take about 24 megapixels to carry the amount of information that a frame of fine-grained (about 100 ISO) 35mm panchromatic film could hold.

The "infinite resolution" thing is shiat.

Film is kinda like binary in a way, though. It only takes one photon to turn the whole grain black (it turns black during processing, not at the time of exposure). Grains don't turn shades of grey depending on how much light they've been exposed to - a grain is either exposed to light, in which case it'll turn black under the action of developer, or not exposed to light, in which case it'll disappear during the bleach/fix stage.

It's the black grains/clear film ratio that determines levels of grey.

/Don't get me started on colour film

Barakku: I guess it's been "The end of Music as we know it" like 10 times in the past century then.

Mugato: Good riddance. I'd hate to shoot and cut on film. Although Spielberg has stated that he'll always use film. He also goes on TV and asks the little people to give money to preserve decaying film stock.

The only way to prserve it is to digitize it. THere are tons of film reels sitting in salt mines slowly rotting away because they weren't or can't be digitized (due to copyright apparently).

Just one of the many downsides of all of those copyright extension acts that the movie industry (MPAA) and recording industry (RIAA) have lobbied for all these decades. Were it not for them, all those old films would be public domain now and could be safely digitized for preservation, to the betterment of our culture.

FilmBELOH20:
But many would be fooled in to thinking that it was shot with a pro camera and dozens of crew and massive lights and a $200k budget.

Are you f8cking kidding me? I work in post production and it looks just like someone shot it with a digital SLR.

Tsar_Bomba1: FilmBELOH20:
But many would be fooled in to thinking that it was shot with a pro camera and dozens of crew and massive lights and a $200k budget.

Are you f8cking kidding me? I work in post production and it looks just like someone shot it with a digital SLR.

Yeah, you work in post. I work in post. We would know the difference. The other 99.9% of the world doesn't know the difference between 35mm, super 16' digi beta, dslr, or 4k. That was my point.

Film geeks, you sound like car geeks.

Question: what resolution would your consumer expect in a movie? Can the consumer tell the difference between film stock and digital?

Is the consumer unwilling to ignore pixelation screwups, but willing to ignore "cigarette burn" marks?

Hey guess what, the camera manufacturers disagree. They say that digital tech has advanced to the point where the two are indistinguishable to all but the professional critic (and fark it, MOST of today's movies are digitally produced anyway-where did you think all those CGI effects came from? Why digitally render a CGI scene then burn it to film, instead of just ship it direct from the digital editing bay as a digital file?), meanwhile digital is cheaper and cleaner to edit, reproduce, and distribute. And they say that the cinemagoing public hasn't walked out due to bad projectionism yet.

/no word on how difficult it is to splice a single frame of porn in at random

FilmBELOH20: Tsar_Bomba1: FilmBELOH20:
But many would be fooled in to thinking that it was shot with a pro camera and dozens of crew and massive lights and a $200k budget.

Are you f8cking kidding me? I work in post production and it looks just like someone shot it with a digital SLR.

Yeah, you work in post. I work in post. We would know the difference. The other 99.9% of the world doesn't know the difference between 35mm, super 16' digi beta, dslr, or 4k. That was my point.



I'll concede to that...

Ishidan: And they say that the cinemagoing public hasn't walked out due to bad projectionism yet.

green lantern

one of the reasons it did so bad at the theater was poorly calibrated digital systems, i went to see it at the drive-in less then half the cars stayed for the full show got the blue-ray yesterday its amazing how much better the movie looks at home

http://www.film-tech.com

go to the forums.