Here's a new article via the LA Weekly entitled:

Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35 mm Film. But the Consequences of Going Digital Are Vast, and Troubling

I think many here at KJ will find the information and implications interesting, at the very least.



(Here's another link to the single page print version if you want to read it on the go.)

I hate digital (until it gets to about 1000pixels per 1 current). I spent half of the American Reunion watching those ugly ass pixels that pop out on edges. And it wasn't an especially big screen either.

I don't see pixels.

I'll just quote one commenter:

Nolan will go the way of the dinosaurs.

I had an entire short film I did on film once be destroyed by one of the only 3 people in NYC that still developed film rolls. It was by far the worst experience of my life. Sure the quality isn't quite there yet in digital, but it will be. Its only been 10 years, another 5-10 and the world will be thankful to be without it.

Digital filmmaking major contribution (other than the hardship that came with processing it) will be the elimination of cinematographer as a chief component of filmmaking.

Nothing tragic at all. Digital is the better format. Some traditionalists cling to film for sentimental reasons or because they fear losing their jobs.

Apples and oranges...

You must have laser eyes because when I watch a film in a digital presentation I'm not focused on trying to find pixels.

I prefer digital anyway. It's cheaper, no threat of a film being cancelled due to a burn or failure to play or watching a film with a scratch or scratches on the print. Plus, it's better for booth personel who don't have to move around prints anymore or make syncs unless their theatre is stuck in the past.

Digital is the apple, film the rotten apple.

Changing the subject again?

You started to bring in 3D. Look who's talking.

In case you haven't noticed, this is not a 2D vs 3D debate.

It is not the same. At all. Film vs Digital only involves the production / distribution side of things. The result in both cases is a flat picture on a flat screen.

There's also no choice for the consumers here, theaters are going digital, they already have for the most part. Fragmenting the market further would only be a big hassle. And anyway, i tell you now, doing a blind test, the vast majority (which might include you) would not be able to tell what is film and what digital.

That's what you are telling yourself but in truth, you don't know, you have never done a test to support such a claim. How could you, you don't have the means. Watching different films in different theaters with different projectors / settings is not a representative test. There's much more that influences a picture than whether the camera has a digital sensor or captures images on film.

A major issue is quality, but an even bigger issue all lies in the cinematographer. As said earlier, digital filmmaking only started making major rounds since 2005 with Zodiac. In those 7 years, the quality is about 95-90 in favor of film, while loosing to digital in every other category.

In another 10 years this debate will be mute not because change is inevitable, but because digital will overtake film in quality sooner than later.

Some filmmakers already prefer the quality of the latest digital cameras.

We all know that if Nolan had said that he prefers digital, Magnus would be already burning celluloid in a bonfire.

FUCK YOU.

I thought this was a bit ironic but the day I posted about how you don't have to worry about the film being cancelled due to a burned print or some projector issue my digital screening of CITW gets cancelled due to a power surge that shut the theatres whole system down. The cause was ridiculously stormy weather. A tornado was taking place just about 10 miles south of me while i was at the theatre too.

Anywhoo, people got to keep their stubs and use it for another time. I went back to watch it again and this time i saw the whole thing.

To be fair, film is still a young medium. In another fifty years, let alone infinity, 90% of films will be forgotten.

You'll have your classics and whatever new films there are then.

Don't mean to be a dick, but it's the truth. Who cares about the lost films of the silent era when people today can't even name the films nominated for Oscars? And, is it any loss to society when all the unpopular shit that's made is forgotten and worthless? You can preserve The Three Stooges in pristine condition for the next billion years, no one cares.

Just like everything in this world, you'll have a few in the know and who care and if they happen to take a liking to a certain film like Metropolis it gets saved even if it may not be the best of its time. I mean, Nolan can preach all he wants, but having Michael Bay use film instead of digital isn't going to win over those diehards who all hate his films anyway.

Good point - - however it's tough to beat the drama of old school nitrate 35mm film in this quote from this thread's primary link:






You may well be right, that this debate will be mute in 10 years, but perhaps you meant to say moot.

Nah, have you ever seen a couple of mutes debate, it's quite pointless

Yeah! And why did they ever get rid of 8 track tapes too?

I don't have anything against digital as long as there isn't a noticeable difference. From what I've seen, it takes quite a bit of effort and skill to make digital look as good as film. It'll be cool when they develop IMAX digital cameras with full IMAX resolution and none of the noise issues that currently prevent Hollywood from being able to shoot full movies in the format.