R.I.P., the movie camera: 1888-2011

[terry78]

The one downside to this whole thing is that when charades are played, the camera rolling motion will now be defunct.

 

[flickchick85]

I like Bud Lime.

And this article's being over-dramatic. Film won't be around forever, no doubt, but it's far from gone yet.

 

[dark_b]

As long as Wally still has access to film, I'm fine, since Nolan and Wally are among the few people still making good movies anymore. Michael Bay and every other hack can go knock themselves out.

WOOOW. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

how many movies do you see a year? one Nolan movie ,one Bay movie and one Paul W.S. Anderson movie?

 

[dark_b]

And Scorsese, Tarantino, Nolan, Soderbergh, and Spielberg do not.

I'm not saying one is more right than the other, but I am saying there is a difference of consensus among many of the auteurs fans want to listen to on this issue.

i meant with my post that Fincher and other directors are making sure that if you make a movie with digital it doesnt have to look like a cheap tv show. like Mann.

i dont understand why you wrotte Scorsese,Tarantino,Nolan,....

 

[Teelie]

I wouldn't compare it to sound or b/w. Video is cheaper and easier to use, but the aesthetic it produces is inferior. Color and sound were both more costly and difficult to use at their onsets, but improved the aesthetic. If you can't afford film, then video is great. But to pretend HD video looks better than 35mm is a form of rationalizing using cheaper and more accessible cameras, IMO.

It depends on the filmmaker, the quality of the camera and the way it's used. This is still a relatively new technology (compared to film) still being perfected. Saying that digital is inferior is a broadstroke of nostalgia ignoring the progression of film. The early color films lacked what modern color films can do and looked terrible but they had color. Digital will be the same and it will eventually become superior to everything before only to eventually be steam-rolled by the next invention of something else. Holographic cameras or true 3-D cameras, some technology we can't concieve of right now. Whatever that is will meet with the same criticism that digital gets right now.

And yes btw, sound caused a huge upheaval that some thought was "ghastly" and offensive and ended careers in Hollywood in the 1920s. Orson Wells, director of Citizen Kane and A Touch of Evil, once famously said, "You can't name a great movie that's not in black and white."

And yet somehow we're still making films and despite the flood of crap films and films beneath that level we still have masterpiece works. Digital will have the same. I know people thought it offensive to have sound but that lasted 5 minutes before the benefits and the technology improved and people stopped saying "silent is better."

However, I'm not saying video will ruin filmmaking. I just find the aesthetic to be found wanting and see little reason, other than money, for Hollywood and major studios to make a switch.

And it won't ruin filmmaking and eventually you'll find the aesthetic back in digital. The technology is getting better all the time and the things they can do with it now far surpass what was possible on film.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

We lost the warmth and nostalgic aspects of film long ago. It's not like films have looked like The Ten Commandments, Gone With the Wind, or Ben Hur in a long while. They don't even look like The French Connection or Taxi Driver.

Last commercial film I saw that had a "filmy" look was Down With Love. Looked like an old Doris Day film. Such a nice job.


They all look either generic or overly filtered these days. Might as well commit to the digital.

I agree with this,Watching an older film compared to a modern film feels like day and night.I feel like the cinematography devolved imf course this is not for all films,but the majority imo.

 

[:eek:]

Who needs movie cameras these days:

"The Avengers" Used iPhone 4 For Filming

By Garth Franklin Friday October 21st 2011 10:17AM

"The Avengers" director of photography Seamus McGarvey has made the surprising admission that Joss Whedon's upcoming superhero team-up project used some unconventional shooting techniques.
Specifically several shots of the big-budget tentpole were done with the iPhone 4, in fact some them actually made it into the recent teaser trailer.
"The beauty of photography or cinema is that you make every choice based on the content at hand. On The Avengers, I did a couple of shots on the iPhone and they are in the movie. In fact, they are in the trailer! I understand that sometimes there is no choice and you have to go for the cheapest option, but if you are limited for choice, you can still make poignant decisions that will effect the look of the film" McGarvey told IFTN.
Sadly the cinematographer didn't says which shots were specifically crafted using the smart phone, but the quality of the footage in the trailer itself never demonstrated any visible shift in quality.

 

[terry78]

I have a hunch which ones were iPhone shot, but I'd probably be wrong.

 

[dark_b]

is this supposed to promote iphones like they have the best digital cameras? because if it is then this is 100% scientific BS.

 

[Teelie]

I think it's that digital cameras have come so far it's not as obvious as you'd think to tell a difference.

 

[DACrowe]

i meant with my post that Fincher and other directors are making sure that if you make a movie with digital it doesnt have to look like a cheap tv show. like Mann.

i dont understand why you wrotte Scorsese,Tarantino,Nolan,....

I listed those directors because they are ardent fans of 35mm or film in general, as they've all used 16mm, 8mm and, in Nolan's case, 70mm. They haven't made the jump and some of it may be generational like in Scorsese and Spielberg's cases, but a number of relatively young filmmakers like Nolan and Tarantino feel the same way.

I have liked a number of digital movies. For low budget independent and foreign filmmaking, it's great. However, if you can afford the expense and extra effort required to shoot on film, the aesthetic is worth it. While I consider The Social Network a masterpiece and am intrigued to see what Fincher and the Red Ones will do in Sweden, I take into account he is a true visionary and one of the few who can make video look like that. Even so, I've yet to see a digital feature match the approach Lean and Young brought to Lawrence of Arabia, or Coppola and Willis brought to The Godfather and its sequel or Spielberg and Kaminski to Saving Private Ryan, etc.

Digital just isn't there yet.

 

[DACrowe]

It depends on the filmmaker, the quality of the camera and the way it's used. This is still a relatively new technology (compared to film) still being perfected. Saying that digital is inferior is a broadstroke of nostalgia ignoring the progression of film. The early color films lacked what modern color films can do and looked terrible but they had color. Digital will be the same and it will eventually become superior to everything before only to eventually be steam-rolled by the next invention of something else. Holographic cameras or true 3-D cameras, some technology we can't concieve of right now. Whatever that is will meet with the same criticism that digital gets right now.

But by the same token when you see those early technicolor films of the 1930s they are still gorgeous today, if a bit like overly bright paintings--Gone with the Wind, The Adventures of Robin Hood and The Wizard of Oz are breathtaking today to see and they were even more breath taking in 1938-1939 when those films were released because nobody had ever quite seen anything like it before.

Same would go with The Jazz Singer the decade before when it introduced the world to sound. These were new techniques that moved the medium forward. I don't see HD video as comparable because it isn't about "progressing" filmmaking, but making it less costly and more accessible to filmmakers with limited resources. Which is fine. I see the value of video and have enjoyed movies shot in digital. However, it creates a visual that does not have the weight of film or the appearance. It's not just nostalgia, it's that as of today there are no video cameras that can duplicate the look of film. And unlike color or sound, it isn't happening because there is a public demand for this new dimension to the art form/entertainment. The demand is coming strictly from filmmakers and studios who see it as a cheaper alternative.

In this case, I think it is visually a step back, but an inevitable one, I suppose.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Digital has to get there. It's already off to a promising start. When I say get there I mean used competantly by filmmakers. It's going to take a long time until the complete transition into digital. But I don't agree with Nolan and Tarantino, hell I appreciate Spielberg still cutting on his Avid, but Jesus, the future of movies is digital. Not film. I love it too, but the only reason I see people want it to stay is because it's tradition. I don't like that. We shouldn't be looking at the future of filmmaking as tradition. That's contradictory. I would love to shoot on film of course, but if digital can be done well and looks just as good (and The Social Network looks unbelievable) then we're in good hands. Film will always be there. In 50 years from now, will filmmakers still say how film should be used or will they adapt and use it in the best posible ways with digital?

 

[DACrowe]

When digital gets to the point where it can create the image of 35mm in a compelling way, then that is fine. Digital cameras are, obviously, much easier to use and edit, as well as much cheaper. But they're not there now and the people who say film is dead are being premature. One day? Perhaps. But not today. Right now it's an inferior visual and I don't see Hollywood, who can afford film, switching to a downgrade anytime soon.

 

[humbdrumb]

When digital gets to the point where it can create the image of 35mm in a compelling way, then that is fine. Digital cameras are, obviously, much easier to use and edit, as well as much cheaper. But they're not there now and the people who say film is dead are being premature. One day? Perhaps. But not today. Right now it's an inferior visual and I don't see Hollywood, who can afford film, switching to a downgrade anytime soon.

You underestimate the lengths Hollywood goes to cut production costs. Pretty much every single low budget movie nowadays is shot digitally. You can tell by that ugly dark brown tint every one of them has. And when you have directors like Fincher, Ridley Scott, and even Scorsese whose newest movies are shot digitally, I think film is already a dying breed.

EDIT: Found this great (relevant) quote about shooting on film from Keanu Reeves...

"The biggest difference I have found when working photochemically versus digitally on motion pictures is the length of time the takes can last. Broadly, a 1,000ft roll of 35mm film lasts around nine-and-a-half minutes before running out, while a digital tape or recording card or hard drive can last from 40 minutes to over an hour and a half. This translates to a very different rhythm on the floor; the pressure to "cut" to save film is alleviated.

Archiving digital images is a technological dilemma. The idea of that discovered shoebox of pictures, or wedding album, will not exist digitally in your camera or on your computer or in a "cloud": you should print them. I often feel a photochemical image contains the mass of the subject and dimension; a digital image often feels as if it is mass-less. This could be nostalgia or simply how I learned to see. Others will not have this learning: they will probably never experience a photochemical image. Is this loss a tragedy, a revolution, an evolution? What have we lost, and what have we gained?

I will miss walking on to a photochemical film set. It has a magic to me. When the director says: "Action", and the film is rolling, it feels like something is at stake. It feels important and intense. In a way, death is present in the rolling of that film – we live, right now – and the director says: "Cut". And that moment in time is captured on film, really."

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

So after Skyfall, has anyone's opinion's changed?

 

[Anubis]

Nope, I still don't care one way or the other.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Check out Contagion

That wasn't film - that was the red camera - DIGITAL.

 

[redhawk23]

It depends on the filmmaker, the quality of the camera and the way it's used. This is still a relatively new technology (compared to film) still being perfected. nd looked terribleSaying that digital is inferior is a broadstroke of nostalgia ignoring the progression of film. The early color films lacked what modern color films can do a but they had color. Digital will be the same and it will eventually become superior to everything before only to eventually be steam-rolled by the next invention of something else. Holographic cameras or true 3-D cameras, some technology we can't concieve of right now. Whatever that is will meet with the same criticism that digital gets right now.



And yet somehow we're still making films and despite the flood of crap films and films beneath that level we still have masterpiece works. Digital will have the same. I know people thought it offensive to have sound but that lasted 5 minutes before the benefits and the technology improved and people stopped saying "silent is better."



And it won't ruin filmmaking and eventually you'll find the aesthetic back in digital. The technology is getting better all the time and the things they can do with it now far surpass what was possible on film.

A solid point but the color take over of film was far more gradual than suddenly all the companies that make filmstock ceasing production.

 

[redhawk23]

So after Skyfall, has anyone's opinion's changed?

Skyfall proves that committed talented people can make digital work, just as it takes committed talented individuals to make film look good.

At the current moment though there just isn't enough people with the skills to warrant the sudden emphasis on all digital everything.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I don't understand the title of this thread as movies are being shot on film to this day, a year after the supposed expiration date. Most notably being The Master and TDKR.

 

[dude stannis]

Digital has to get there. It's already off to a promising start. When I say get there I mean used competantly by filmmakers. It's going to take a long time until the complete transition into digital. But I don't agree with Nolan and Tarantino, hell I appreciate Spielberg still cutting on his Avid, but Jesus, the future of movies is digital. Not film. I love it too, but the only reason I see people want it to stay is because it's tradition. I don't like that. We shouldn't be looking at the future of filmmaking as tradition. That's contradictory. I would love to shoot on film of course, but if digital can be done well and looks just as good (and The Social Network looks unbelievable) then we're in good hands. Film will always be there. In 50 years from now, will filmmakers still say how film should be used or will they adapt and use it in the best posible ways with digital?

Well said sir.

Besides, if John Hyams can make these sub $10 million DTV movies that look awesome on digital, then guys with the best post-production facilities and cinematographers shouldn't have a problem. In fact guys like Fincher, Cameron, etc have already paved the way.

 

[Bruce Malone]

So after Skyfall, has anyone's opinion's changed?

No, I saw both of them in Imax and to be fair Skyfall was not actually filmed in Imax. However you just couldn't compare the two in terms of looks. TDKR was breathtaking in that format and as of now true IMAX can only be created on film.

Skyfall still looked great but not to the same extent.

 

[Marvolo]

No, I saw both of them in Imax and to be fair Skyfall was not actually filmed in Imax. However you just couldn't compare the two in terms of looks. TDKR was breathtaking in that format and as of now true IMAX can only be created on film.

Skyfall still looked great but not to the same extent.

I think he was talking about Skyfall being an indicator that digital can look as good as 35mm. Not IMAX. His post had nothing in it about IMAX.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Well i assumed this topic was about the demise of film in general. I sort of take the nolan approach that film as it stands still has so much potential and that is shown in the IMAX format which cannot be replicated digitally to the same degree.

With more and more studios choosing to dump film we'll be less likely to be getting real IMAX filmed movies in the future.