After 123 Years, Motion Picture Film Cameras Go Out of Production

As far as the archival part – yes, it still is, however with the “cloud” push that claim will be debated, but properly stored film will last so far, forever. I interned at NFL Films where they keep a massive locker of all the film they have ever shot, including some historical reels, such as a football game Edison himself shot (between Princeton and Penn maybe? can’t recall).

Good article however I have a problem with your belief on film not being a good archival source. When film is handled properly and stored properly, it can last for a very very long time. Read up on how film works before publishing an article like this.

I think film will have a gradual drop off like its latitude.

I’ll have to give this one to Koo, film is still very expensive and has to be “handled properly and stored properly;” another great expense. Therefore, it’s cost and costly workflow have hastened it’s demise as an attractive capture and storage medium.

OK, Koo, your site is all about not using film at all, and stuff. We get it. But I’ll give my two cents, anyway:

1.) Archival: imagine using video from 30 years ago, and think of resolution, physical media standards, etc. now think of film the same age. Now imagine it 30 years from now. Hundreds of codecs, one heavier than the other, and one being deprecated sooner the other;

2.) Seems like you didn’t watch the whole lot of shoot outs, like Zacuto. Because every single shoot out points to an stills unrivaled DR, no matter what the Alexa fans (like myself) or RED fans say. Period;

3.) Rolling shutter is awful. The rotary shutter on the new Alexa Studio should solve most of it. But not 100%. And there’s film. And there’s CCD’s. And there’s no comparison between this two.

4.) One frame of 35mm is above 8K. S35 is around 16MP. 65mm is way above anything you can think of in terms of resolution, and it’ll take decades to reach that level.

The more “complicated” film shooting methods involve more care and attention, and there is no place for lazy guys. and that’s why there is no more memorable films like Chinatown or Blade Runner. Just a bunch of forgettable, unprofitable titles piling up.

I can’t agree with many points these dudes are talking about in the kodak short film.

I think you can achieve every look with digital cameras and it’s post-production capabilities. There is so much more to it. Of course the quality of the equipment doesn’t speak for the quality of the end products itself. And if you are that type of person which thinks you can fix everything in post, you fail in the end. That’s the same for video, as for audio !

I’m coming more from the audio industry and I am into filming. However, it was and still is the same in the world of audio like it is coming up in the last few years with digital cinematography. People (mostly dinosaurs in the business) claiming about analog audio recording on tape is much better, blabla. That’s simply not true, you can simulate every piece of dirt and grain in this digital world. If you are doing audio or movies, it doesn’t matter.
In the world of audio, it might be much more far, because there are so many analog simulations out there, and so fort to GET what YOU WANT.

The fact, that nowadays music is so much compressed and there is a lot of BS movies in Hollywood has nothing to do with it’s quality which it has been captured.

In video and music, analog might be more fun, this is why many people keep with it. But I am 1000% sure, with digital, you get every grain and dirt and look into your video or song you want, if you just DO IT RIGHT.

People always talk about codecs ceasing to exist like one day a codec will suddenly disappear and oh no we can’t view our video files anymore! We have software for pretty much everything these days – 50 years from now I can already see it – ‘Magic Bullet Old Codec’.

film defenders’ arguments are rooted in romanticism and nostalgia. i understand that romanticism completely, but it just isnt a rational argument in this debate! the undeniable truth is that film is not a logical choice for virtually ANY production outside of the major studio system. and even those… you have to wonder why they’re so committed to an archaic workflow. probably more a nostalgia thing than kodak would like you to believe.

that kodak video is basically just film buffs REMINDING us why film is so good. and its funny – we really DO need to be reminded. film hardly makes a blip on the radar of indie filmmakers anymore because its obsolete.

and thats really how you boil all this down… film is nice, but its obsolete. debate over.

That was the perfect movie to post for this.

Film’s resolution exceeds anything that we have digitally today. If you archived your camera originals on film, 30 years from now, you could take that archived film, scan it into a computer, and convert it to any digital format without any loss in resolution or any need to upconvert.

If you shoot digitally, you’re limited to a certain resolution. Archive that footage today and 30 years from now, you will likely have a need to upconvert and your 4K footage will probably not stand up to the resolution of the current technology. If you had originated on film, you would never have a problem with that. Not to mention the fact that hard drives will fail over time and your footage will be lost. If you’re using a SSD, it’s limited to a certain amount of read/write cycles.

Properly archived film (or even improperly archived film; see “Restoring Melies Marvel” in the Post Focus section of the October 2011 issue of American Cinematographer for a good example of this) can still be restored to a watchable state. Try that with a digital file that’s been lost…oh wait…you can’t. I feel that film acquisition coupled with digital post is a perfect blend of the two.

Digital may be the future, but there is still a need for respect for the technology that has brought us here. Film is better than digital and quite frankly, probably will be for many years to come. When you convert light to 1s and 0s, there will always be things that will be lost in translation. That probably won’t ever change. Since film sees like your eyes do, you don’t have that loss.

There seems to be a sentiment among the members of this generation that we need to throw everything old away and do everything digitally. I find that most of the people who feel this way don’t have a real understanding of the thing they’re trying to get rid of. We’ve been oversaturated with the digital revolution and it’s destroyed our respect for film. Film is a discipline…much more than digital ever will be. One thing we’ve lost in the revolution is that discipline and that dedication to thoughtful and meticulous lens language. It has been replaced by a thirst for “cool” camera angles. While it’s great that we can “go anywhere” with the new digital cameras, we need not forget the principles of storytelling and lens language that have established cinema from the beginning. Just because it looks cool doesn’t mean it has a place in the story or helps establish the subtext.

I’m not against digital film making. It has definitely made it easier for indie filmmakers to realize their visions within their budgets. In many ways it has revolutionized film making. However, I am against the complete ousting of film, especially for the sake of getting rid of the old and bringing in the new. Let us remember that digital was built on the shoulders of the giant of film. Yes it’s expensive, but it’s still the best acquisition format out there…that’s not just nostalgia…it’s fact. As someone said before, its true resolution exceeds any digital acquisition format we have.

Just wanted to chime in here regarding archival. Sorry Koo, but trust the professionals that live and breathe this stuff. There is no comparison between the two.

An optical medium will always be readable. Always Think of microfilm storage from decades and decades ago that you can still read. With a magnifying glass if necessary. Same thing applies to film. It’s basically completely platform or specific technology independent because it’s human-readable. You can easily build a device to read the medium with simple technology.

Now think of a 5 1/4″ floppy disk from 30 years ago, or even 3 1/2″ floppies from 20 years ago. It’s getting pretty hard already to find a place to read any of those. Hard drives from 20 years ago? Different interfaces that are no longer made, that are not supported by current operating systems, with file formats that are no longer even known, much less documented. In other words, you’re basically screwed.

These are the kinds of scenarios and time scales that archivists have to think about. The quote from the article about coming back in 99 years to see if that great 100 year archival medium is any good is really appropriate.

The advantage that you described of digital being an exact copy of the original is only good as long as you can keep reading and interpreting the data that you have stored. Which means impractical amounts of work to keep transferring the data to new formats and new media every 10-20 years.

The film guys are right on both counts. One aspect that has not been mentioned is grain, which is what gives film that very desirable look that everyone wants. Analog static storage methods are superior to digital. The only way to ensure recoverability of digital media is to turn it over before current media failure, as biological systems do with DNA. That said, as an independent filmmaker, current digital media are a dream. I made home movies on Super 8 Sound film thirty years ago. The only thing I miss about that experience is the tactile sensation of editing original film and moving it frame by frame in the viewer. The whole process was crude compared to FCPX, but it was a very satisfying experience.

I’ve never had the opportunity to work with film myself. I DO madly admire the look of super 16 film. So I can understand where the cinematographers and directors are coming from completely.

However at this point, if digital has equaled/surpassed film in latitude and equaled/surpassed film in resolution, then where is the argument anymore? After that, we’re only speaking about aesthetics and those can be easily emulated. Thanks to so many post filters, or companies like Cinegrain who give us real film grain to our digital workflows.

Now, it just seems to be about nostalgia and “that feeling” and less about technical advantages in any way.

It always amazes me how some people hang on to old technology and find ways to rationalize that it is better than new methods. It’s like everyone’s love of 24fps, or even some people’s like of interlace (I’ll never understand that one). Hopefully, when Jackson releases his new Hobbit films shot at 48fps, people will begin to realize that maybe 24fps isn’t so great. I’m sure film will always be around, if nothing more than a hobby for people who like antique things. But as a new filmmaker, I love the digital direction filmmaking is heading in. It enables me to do so many things that were not possible with film. Keep your 16mm camera, pay for your stock, pay for the transfer to digital for effects… I’ll start and stay digital…. I’ll shoot faster, edit faster, pay less, and produce more ‘films’.

This phenomenon has already occurred in the world of still photography, for capture, storage and display. Although the amount of date is far less than video/motion capture, the quandary is still the same: how to make the capture look its best, and how to store the image data so that 1,000 years from now it will still be accessible.

Film capture is over 100 years old. Digital still image capture started, for actual paying jobs, around 1994 with the Kodak DCS420 (1.6Mp). The industry is now 17 years old and we’re getting still imagery that blows the doors off film capture. It’s cleaner, better tonal balance, and more adaptable to modifications in post production. The capture process (sensor, photosite, pixel processing) will only get better as the industry rolls on.

Data storage requires the flexibility to migrate the data from one storage device to a newer one, over the lifetime of the archive. This costs money, even while no one accesses the data. Who pays for this? The studio? The producer & director? Someone will.

I am not sure much of my work needs to be archived. Here’s the thing about film I miss already. The process of getting correct exposure, then perfect exposure on film took a long time to evolve. It started with one guy hauling a camera around and ended up adding a camera operator, focus puller, loader, gaffer, lighting crew, grips, hair make-up wardrobe, props. . . you get the point. Even the no budget film documentaries I worked on would have a skeleton crew (sound, camera assist. grip/elect ). Film stock was expensive and you couldn’t waste it if you were in a remote location. So much work went into everything before you rolled the camera, and when you cut, you checked to make sure your “print it” takes had no surprises. The “you can’t relax until it’s developed” aspect of filmaking sold a lot of antacids, but it also helped create a culture of expertise that I’m not sure digital production is hanging on to. As a DP my expertise on film stocks, camera and lighting equipment was highly valued when so many things could go wrong. Many I talk to today believe they could be a professional DP right now if they just had the right equipment. My generation never imagined a Panavision Gold package would make us better cinematographers if we couldn’t get a watchable image out of a GSMO. I know film is on the way out, but the next generation will miss out not knowing what “okay the gate!” means.

Regarding codec, I still have problem trying to find a solution to my archived short film using AVR77 codec by Avid. It wouldn’t play on anything i have throw at it on my newest 12core Mac.

Regarding film, was involved recently in a project, home 8mm film shot in the 1950s, still can be projected and transferred (although send to Australia to do that) and the film scratch looks nice. Now my other shorts archived in SVHS format got moudy and I don’t want to think about it anymore….

I’m just grad I did not archive any stuff in Umatic format 20 odd years ago!!

Koo, are you aware of maxivision 48? I think their style of updated film projection is worth looking at, and by their estimates exceeds 6k digital. I also spoke with a kodak representative this summer in Cannes and he hinted that they might be developing new projector technologies. I think that film could still have a significant role in our future, considering that the floundering kodak’s biggest source of income used to be film prints for feature distribution, as well as the fact that some theatres are sending digital projectors back and putting back their 35mm projectors (I also read somewhere that film projectors fail less often than digital ones)

It sure is a good thing those Egyptions created that Rosetta Stone!

Haha. Let’s be “real” here. If we were approached by a foreign race, would they try to speak to us in pictures or binary code? If we’re talking archival, we would naturally want to remove any possible variables of complication. At its very base level, film does that.

I am very experienced in both film and digital acquisition, post processing and archival. I will tell you that currently that we have a beautiful marriage of both.

For story telling, when you consider budget, turnaround, propagation, etc.; digital without a doubt is the preference.

However, how would you choose to prepare that story to be placed in a time capsule? I sure hope your answer is analog.

When’s the last time anyone here shot a still photo on film?

Not a perfect analogy, since analog cameras are still being maunfacured; five years from now, though, this article will be an interesting re-read.

The Archiving problem is not in the recording media itself (film or digital) but in the machines to play it back on, which would have to be archived as well.
Imagine an archealogical dig 1000 years from now, finding both a DVD and a 35mm film version of the same production, but without any playback machines. What do you do with a DVD 1000 years from now, without a DVD player to play it on? It’s just a series of ones and zeros.
But a sequence of visible images on a strip of 35mm film can still be magnified and viewed, even without a machine, and surely an advanced society will quickly figure out how to project and view it, while they are still wondering what to do with a plastic disc with a hole in it.
How many video/digital formats are thre now? Over 100, I’ll bet – can we actually save 2 of each (1 for a backup) of those machines to play back our archived material? Of course not.
Imagine finding some of Edison’s old original phonograph wax cylinders, but without a machine to play them on. How long would it take for us to figure out how to listen to these recordings? Not long. Now suppose you found a thumb drive (but no computer to plug it in to) with all of the Beatles songs on it, or a copy of “Gone with the Wind?’. How do you play it and hear the music or watch the film?
I truly hope we can continue to save our cinema heritage on 35mm film, so that future generations can enjoy them as we do.

Aside from the archival problem and the debate as to whether the film negative has more resolution or latitude, let’s not forget why this “(r)evolution” is taking place: it’s not because digital is a “better” tool. If it was, the majority of feature films would have been shot digitally for at least 5 or 6 years, or even more, and clearly that’s not the case.
The impact of digital in tv series has been largely determined and accelerated by the SAG strike and the AFTRA deal with Studios in 2008, and if it wasn’t for the new wave of 3D crap…ahemmm…I mean “features” in the last 3 years, all this talk about digital cameras would be just the same as it’s been in the last 10 years or so.
But the most important, and saddest, point of it all, is that whatever is being done to “kill” film has nothing to do with picture quality and ease of use. It’s all about camera manufacturers trying (and quite successfully so) to switch the market to an economy model based on obsolescence, where you have to buy new cameras every year to keep up to date in the battle of “ks” and “stops” (of latitude). Same thing happened in the still cameras world with the whole “I’ve-got-more-megapixels-than-you” marketing attitude.
So now, instead of having rental houses and a few private owners investing big money in a film camera, you can get a digital camera for a tenth of the price, and in a couple of years you’ll have to do it again, and then again, and again. Same thing for digital projection (2K DLP, 4k projectors, laser Imax) and even digital archiving (since you must migrate all the data to better storage solutions in a relatively short time frame). At the same time, every camera manufacturer has no interest at all in talking about standards, but ties its technology to very specific, non-standard and “closed” workflows.
Then of course there’s the artistic and aesthetic debate, and personal taste comes into play (I personally happen to like a certain amount of grain instead of noiseless surgically clean digital images, and I don’t care about the immediacy of digital, actually I think it kills all the “lucky accidents” and some of the magic of filmmaking), and I find it quite ironic that Arri, with its Alexa (which, by the way, it’s a very nice digital camera), needs to promote it by writing on its website “film-like, organic images”. If digital is so much better than film, why it struggles to look like it? Shouldn’t it be the other way around, if we believe Red and Arri when they say that film has been “surpassed”?
The digital cameras we have today are great, and in the right hands can produce stunning images, but it’d be such a shame if film disappeared and we as filmmakers couldn’t choose it for our projects. Our arsenal of tools would be more limited, and I don’t believe that would be a good thing.

Something to try. Take a digital stills camera out one day and ask strangers if you can take their photo. Then take a film stills camera out and ask strangers if you can take their photo.

The point is that the “romanticism of film” has real value. Being blind to this is being blind to a major part of what makes art valuable.

Also, I’m pretty sure the military is still using tanks and things that went out of production decades ago, and it’s easy to think of a film camera like a tank.