[image title="kodak" size="thumbnail" id="621" align="left" linkto="http://www.fxphd.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/kodak.jpg” ]I was recently invited to the Kodak Vision 3 launch of their 250D film stock. The tag line on the invitation got me thinking.. it read “If digital capture did not have enough challenges already…” – catchy line – I like it… but it made me think… what does film need to do right now.
I am not against film – I have used it almost all my career until recently, but clearly people like me also now heavily consider digital cinematography on any job. To be honest I did not mind vision 2 stock – I thought it was great, so vision 3 pushing superior low light or ultra low film grain was not pushing my buttons… so what I asked myself what would work for me ?
3 things would really get me excited I figured… see if you agree?
1. Lower cost. Producers have budget problems so making film stock or film processing less expensive at any point in the procedure would be useful, and in my opinion increasingly vital.
2. Something I cant get now… that used to be high speed or latitude – which brings me to 3
3. Why not just make the whole film process look like a data process? Why not shoot your film, send it in to the lab and get back a 16bit – high dynamic range set of data on a fast firewire 800/ E-Sata drive with all the range and latitude and no longer a 10 bit cineon file but an OpenEXR + with a matching quicktime AND DNxHD – all linking the edgecode to a DPX style timecode – ready to work. No film neg handling – no telecine, no select takes, neg pulling, no rushes, just the files ready next morning – with the quicktimes able to be dropped into FCP OR the DNxHD ready to be dropped into AVID for rushes syncing OR an option to just get the offline files and come back for the full scans that I want later (the scans being stored temporally at the lab for 1 month – saving me having to walk away with 20 firefire drives). Better still invent your own .r3d format Mr Kodak that is compressed but with the full dynamic range – go on: you guys are really bright – Cineon was a great file solution when it was first released, invent Cineon II.
These scan would be all the material we shot – but the files would have all the dynamic range of film but no longer be in 10 bit Log (which let’s face it was just a way to save about 36% of the storage over a full 16bit file back in the day when I gave a toss about disc costs). Give us OpenEXR directly if we want it. If this was ready the next morning – wouldn’t that be almost faster than even dealing with SR tapes or data transcoding ? Wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper – not to mention faster if there was a fast no questions method without expensive client in attendance (fresh muffins & latte) suites in the procedure ? Clients would never attend another transfer. (Do they even want to now?)
This seems to obvious : is this already happening ? If it is someone should run some ads promoting that and not lower film grain. I take nothing away from Kodak’s fine innovation – I just want to be able to use it !
I totally agree. Let’s put an end to the stupid “film is better than digital” race. It’s pointless. I too grew up using and loving film, and now moved on RED or other modern alternative, depending on the projects. Kodak and the labs should listen to customers like you instead of endlessly claiming their superiority. Nobody is interested in their “endangered species” attitude. Give us new ways to use old tools.
Its a great idea but you’ve just wiped out half the industry in the process. Neg cutters and lab workers will be all made redundant. Its closing in on them no doubt, but as much as we would like technology to work faster for us, its not there yet.
Film has to be processed first, that takes time. Then scanning the rolls will take as much time depending on how many scanners you have. Half a million for one will always outweigh the ever growing number of users making it an impossible bottle neck at the labs.
Then you have someone check the frames and convert it to exr from DPX thats another day gone. Last but not the least you have a transfer issue with a 50mb dpx frame. How many rolls? Just forget it. You’ve already lost days to get to this point and then you have a classic questions whos paying for that extra space. The drives, the fibre network, the San ain’t cheap. Supposing you had an issue with a few frames and have to go back a week later. Who pays for keeping it and backing the frames up.
Yes as much as we all love film it too shall pass as the photographic industry has already seen happen.
However the answer might be with telecine machines as they get better and better, that 10 bit dpx file is easier to spit out. Which is already happening now. Cheaper and inexpensive method.
I do agree that a Cineon II should have been the right way to go but open EXR beat them to that, unless they come up with another a flavour of the format. But its too late now.
Film will always have its own market and digital its own. The pro and cons will always be there for any object of choice.
It just comes down to what your needs and budget are at that particular point in time.
Any captured media is as good as its output. Be it the web, print, video or film.I would think projection is one area where an substantial amount of improvement needs to happen. Although film has a greater distribution market than digital, theres a whole lot of room for stocks and printers to improve.
What’s the point of shooting on film anymore? I mean, it has an artistic feel to it. But IMO I would rather see crisp clear images than the grain of film. Maybe that’s just me, maybe that’s my generation of filmmakers, but still. If you can shoot digitally something that looks just as good (if not better) than film, for a fraction of the cost.
Why shoot film?
Awesome. Thanks for writing this. Its always nice to see someone help out the public.