Patrick

I'm an old salt. I've worked in film most of my professional life, primarily in labs (gigantic and small) , post-production and editorial. The past fifteen years, I've been in film restoration. I have literally seen and handled hundreds of millions of feet of film in my life, dating from the early 1900's to, well, negs shot just a couple of years ago.
In my work, we use traditional photochemical and digital technologies hand-in-hand. There are things digital can't possibly achieve, and things traditional photochemical processes choke on that digital wins as undisputed champ. And I LOVE my digital tech. I'm no luddite.
In the end, though, I feel posts like this one (and on other blogs) re: the film issue are an exercise akin to arguing how many angels can dance on a saltine cracker. Or, to put it more directly, "You can't argue taste." It's a tool in the arsenal, just like why someone would shoot video with an 8-bit codec at 720P. Because they can/need to/like to. Right tool for the job. Everything else is academic. If YOU, the media creator, make the format choice that you believe is correct from an aesthetic, technical and budgetary standpoint, so be it. You are the artist. If it is to be 4K HFR 3D, great, if you want VHS, okay. If you want film, rock on.
As to the dated, anachronistic aspects of the film medium, I agree it can be frustrating, unwieldy and time-consuming. I also happen to think performing live music with a band is a pain in the butt just for the sheer aggravation of moving a truckload of instruments, cabling, amps, etc. around, setting up, tearing down, but I would never advocate trashing it all for a keyboard and sampler just because it is cheaper, more convenient and "is just as good."
Just one man's opinion...

I'm an old salt. I've worked in film most of my professional life, primarily in labs (gigantic and small) , post-production and editorial. The past fifteen years, I've been in film restoration. I have literally seen and handled hundreds of millions of feet of film in my life, dating from the early 1900's to, well, negs shot just a couple of years ago.
In my work, we use traditional photochemical and digital technologies hand-in-hand. There are things digital can't possibly achieve, and things traditional photochemical processes choke on that digital wins as undisputed champ. And I LOVE my digital tech. I'm no luddite.
In the end, though, I feel posts like this one (and on other blogs) re: the film issue are an exercise akin to arguing how many angels can dance on a saltine cracker. Or, to put it more directly, "You can't argue taste." It's a tool in the arsenal, just like why someone would shoot video with an 8-bit codec at 720P. Because they can/need to/like to. Right tool for the job. Everything else is academic. If YOU, the media creator, make the format choice that you believe is correct from an aesthetic, technical and budgetary standpoint, so be it. You are the artist. If it is to be 4K HFR 3D, great, if you want VHS, okay. If you want film, rock on.
As to the dated, anachronistic aspects of the film medium, I agree it can be frustrating, unwieldy and time-consuming. I also happen to think performing live music with a band is a pain in the butt just for the sheer aggravation of moving a truckload of instruments, cabling, amps, etc. around, setting up, tearing down, but I would never advocate trashing it all for a keyboard and sampler just because it is cheaper, more convenient and "is just as good."
Just one man's opinion...

How do you shave? Do you do it oldschool? With a brush and a bit of soap? An actual fancy bladed razor like back in the day or at a barber? Do you do multiple passes? Listen to a bit of jazz music in the background, taking your time? Dry up with a nice warm towel and finish with a splash of after shave with a slight alcohol burn? Does the routine comfort you? Does it clear your head? Does it keep you focussed? Did your years of shaving like that give you skills, making you hit that perfect clean shave everytime, without any skin irritation or cuts?
It might take a bit longer, but there's something familiar, something comforting, something true and perhaps even romantic, about shaving like that.
You could argue that it's quicker to take an electric shaver and go at it. Facing that blinking LED telling you the battery is out of juice... hairs clogging the apparatus, the aggravating noise. There's hardly any comfort in that, nor is it romantic. But it gets the job done, probably quicker and just as effective...
What I mean is... maybe people just feel more comfortable shooting film, not even so much for the result, but because of the process. Because it feels right for them to do it that way and because of that they're able to give it their best. And who's to say which is better? I think it's a cool thing film is still around. Not that I would use it myself, but it's craftmanship... it's skill... and I'm just glad that there's people willing to keep that alive.

Shooting film requires a Discipline. Its not about being fast but being a creator, an artist, is the magic of the unknown within the known parameters. DP's all over would shoot film over digital, for many technical reasons and its proven that it would not be much more expensive. I have shot 35mm (Fuji and Kodak) and the latitude its fantastic. I agree with one comment, there is a democracy in Digital, But film requires craft and Discipline, that can hardly be found in the simplistic world of fast content.  Its easy to dismiss Film, when there is very little knowledge of the craft.

Andrew, I just couldn't let this post go.  I guess I would fall into the category of the "privileged few" having been a "film" director for over 35 years and having shot film almost exclusively.  Let me start by saying while I do have a certain sense of nostalgia for film,  I'm not someone who doesn't enjoy and in fact embrace new technology.   I've been happily shooting "video" for the last 5 years with a ML equipped Canon 5D Mark 2.  I have been waiting for the "perfect digital cinema camera" to come along before I upgrade.  That has yet to happen.  Because I'm an old  guy, perhaps I may have a different prospective on this issue.  The fall of film (in my demented perspective) is not that digital is better.. but because its cheaper.  The seeds of the fall of film I think began in the early 80s.  When I made my first film, I shot it in 16mm.  At the time, a 400' roll of film (about 10 minutes running time) cost $34.00. Because of the Hunt Brothers trying to corner the Silver market, within a few weeks, the price of Silver went through the roof.  Kodak raised the price to $76.00, which of course also included raising the price of print stocks.  After a few more weeks, the price of Silver collapsed.  Kodak never adjusted the price back down.  Since then the prices of film and processing continued to rise until film and lab work fell out of reach of all but high end users.  This left a huge hole in the market that video filled. In todays economy film cannot survive.
Regarding Film versus Video;  I made a film for Warner Bros in 2001.  It was shot on an Arri 535 (Super 35mm) and was posted completely digitally.  It was only the second film ever done that way at the time.  The very first was the Cohen Brothers "Brother Where Art Thou?" The film completion bond company called it "Voodoo Technology".  Now looking back on it all these years later, I still think this marriage (Film Capture/Digital Post) was the best it ever was.  Let me be clear, you can get some terrific looking images with digital cameras but if you look at films made 10-15 years ago there are still looks you just can't get with an electronic sensor. There is a smoothness.. a silkiness that's just wonderful.  
For me digital has three big problems.  
Number 1  Rolling Shutter.  LISTEN UP CAMERA COMPANIES!!!  Don't even think about putting out another video camera with this problem... This is NOT a minor issue.  (Yes I know some of the cameras are coming out with global shutters...and I know there are work arounds).   You shouldn't have to rethink how you shoot something to accommodate the camera.
Number 2  6 O'clock News Syndrome  - I guess that I'm the only one who sees this as I've never heard anyone else mention it but it drives me crazy. During some action scenes you suddenly become aware you're watching "video" and it takes you out of the story.  The movie suddenly looks like the 6 o'clock news and the illusion of film is suddenly gone.  This seems to only happen during moving or action shots.  I wish I could finger the culprit here but I just can't tell what's going on. Maybe someone can tell me. 
Number 3 And this one is HUGE.  Archiving of Images.  Many of the major film studios still do Black and White film separations of their movies including motion pictures shot on digital.  Film has a shelf life of at least 100 years.  This is now a proven fact. To date there is no safe and foolproof way to ensure what you shot will survive longer than a few years. I believe this era will be a period of the greatest loss of photographic images... It saddens me deeply... 
So will I go back to film? Probably not (except for shooting some art projects with my old 4x5 Grapflex). Do I miss it? Yes.  There is something very tactile and wonderful about it.  You open the side of the camera ... " I love the smell of Silver Halides and Acetate in the morning.... Smells like ... Victory". 
PS sorry for being so long winded.
WM

I respect your opinion that film is dead, but my main issue with that, is that the archiving process is proven to be better on film than in digital. The best in digital at the moment is LTO tape, and that will only stay for 20 years. If you ever went to a Cinematheque, you will see that most of the films there are kept in film, even digital ones. When Kodak filed for bankrupcy, my first thought was "Fuck, what about the archiving films?". Digital storage companies have great R&D teams that probably are looking for a reliable form of archiving, but that's not profitable for them. Even if they do find a way of better archiving, will they make it a product? They are probably focusing on speed and sizes, as 4K video reaches the market, and not long life storage. And as digital technology improves, what about formats? As you probably know, there are several of codecs and formats being used for films around the world right now. When I went to my local Cinematheque, they still had professional video TV decks from the 80s. Yes, the 80s. And their main issue was that the company that made those decks couldn't provide repair pieces for them because they didn't have the means to produce them. So, they have hundreds of tapes waiting to be archived in other formats because technology went on and got better.

Yes, digital is "cheaper" and more "democratic" (democratic and cheaper from certains points of view), but if we stop funding the only company in the world that still makes THE reliable medium to store films, we should probably stop funding all those Cinematheques all together because history is useless.

I'm an old salt. I've worked in film most of my professional life, primarily in labs (gigantic and small) , post-production and editorial. The past fifteen years, I've been in film restoration. I have literally seen and handled hundreds of millions of feet of film in my life, dating from the early 1900's to, well, negs shot just a couple of years ago.
In my work, we use traditional photochemical and digital technologies hand-in-hand. There are things digital can't possibly achieve, and things traditional photochemical processes choke on that digital wins as undisputed champ. And I LOVE my digital tech. I'm no luddite.
In the end, though, I feel posts like this one (and on other blogs) re: the film issue are an exercise akin to arguing how many angels can dance on a saltine cracker. Or, to put it more directly, "You can't argue taste." It's a tool in the arsenal, just like why someone would shoot video with an 8-bit codec at 720P. Because they can/need to/like to. Right tool for the job. Everything else is academic. If YOU, the media creator, make the format choice that you believe is correct from an aesthetic, technical and budgetary standpoint, so be it. You are the artist. If it is to be 4K HFR 3D, great, if you want VHS, okay. If you want film, rock on.
As to the dated, anachronistic aspects of the film medium, I agree it can be frustrating, unwieldy and time-consuming. I also happen to think performing live music with a band is a pain in the butt just for the sheer aggravation of moving a truckload of instruments, cabling, amps, etc. around, setting up, tearing down, but I would never advocate trashing it all for a keyboard and sampler just because it is cheaper, more convenient and "is just as good."
Just one man's opinion...

I'm an old salt. I've worked in film most of my professional life, primarily in labs (gigantic and small) , post-production and editorial. The past fifteen years, I've been in film restoration. I have literally seen and handled hundreds of millions of feet of film in my life, dating from the early 1900's to, well, negs shot just a couple of years ago.
In my work, we use traditional photochemical and digital technologies hand-in-hand. There are things digital can't possibly achieve, and things traditional photochemical processes choke on that digital wins as undisputed champ. And I LOVE my digital tech. I'm no luddite.
In the end, though, I feel posts like this one (and on other blogs) re: the film issue are an exercise akin to arguing how many angels can dance on a saltine cracker. Or, to put it more directly, "You can't argue taste." It's a tool in the arsenal, just like why someone would shoot video with an 8-bit codec at 720P. Because they can/need to/like to. Right tool for the job. Everything else is academic. If YOU, the media creator, make the format choice that you believe is correct from an aesthetic, technical and budgetary standpoint, so be it. You are the artist. If it is to be 4K HFR 3D, great, if you want VHS, okay. If you want film, rock on.
As to the dated, anachronistic aspects of the film medium, I agree it can be frustrating, unwieldy and time-consuming. I also happen to think performing live music with a band is a pain in the butt just for the sheer aggravation of moving a truckload of instruments, cabling, amps, etc. around, setting up, tearing down, but I would never advocate trashing it all for a keyboard and sampler just because it is cheaper, more convenient and "is just as good."
Just one man's opinion...

I'm an old salt. I've worked in film most of my professional life, primarily in labs (gigantic and small) , post-production and editorial. The past fifteen years, I've been in film restoration. I have literally seen and handled hundreds of millions of feet of film in my life, dating from the early 1900's to, well, negs shot just a couple of years ago.
In my work, we use traditional photochemical and digital technologies hand-in-hand. There are things digital can't possibly achieve, and things traditional photochemical processes choke on that digital wins as undisputed champ. And I LOVE my digital tech. I'm no luddite.
In the end, though, I feel posts like this one (and on other blogs) re: the film issue are an exercise akin to arguing how many angels can dance on a saltine cracker. Or, to put it more directly, "You can't argue taste." It's a tool in the arsenal, just like why someone would shoot video with an 8-bit codec at 720P. Because they can/need to/like to. Right tool for the job. Everything else is academic. If YOU, the media creator, make the format choice that you believe is correct from an aesthetic, technical and budgetary standpoint, so be it. You are the artist. If it is to be 4K HFR 3D, great, if you want VHS, okay. If you want film, rock on.
As to the dated, anachronistic aspects of the film medium, I agree it can be frustrating, unwieldy and time-consuming. I also happen to think performing live music with a band is a pain in the butt just for the sheer aggravation of moving a truckload of instruments, cabling, amps, etc. around, setting up, tearing down, but I would never advocate trashing it all for a keyboard and sampler just because it is cheaper, more convenient and "is just as good."
Just one man's opinion...