The inevitable death of film in the wake of the digital revolution

This has been mentioned on many different threads, but I wanted to introduce something new to the conversation.

A couple years ago, Canon introduced the 5D mark II DSLR camera with a bradn new feature to these photography cameras -- video mode. These cameras have HUGE sensors (24 mp) compared to the video cameras in the prosumer market. The game-changing aspect of this became readily apparent when Vincent Laforet released the first short film ever made on a DSLR, "Reverie"



It may not seem like much now, but consider that for $3000, you were now able to produce an image on par with many $20-$50k cameras. Consider that now you had the capability to produce amazingly shallow depth of field, something again typically only possible on much more expensive equipment. As you might imagine, this triggered a revolution in the industry. Canon wised up and added new features to the 5D specifically for video, and eventually released cheaper models with more video-specific features that had a cropped sensor (18mp instead of 24mp). Other DSLR manufacturers did the same and soon you had a whole new market of prosumer video-capable DLSRs capable of producing film-quality images for as cheap as $700! Here is an example of an amateur short film shot entirely on a $700 Canon t2i and $1500 Canon 7D:



The low-light sensitivity, color accuracy and reproduction, and image quality combined with the depth of field capabilities all for a fraction of the both the form factor size and cost of most "professional" video cameras has thrown the industry on it's head. More and more profressional projects are taking advantage of these types of cameras. Some examples that are shot entirely or mostly on video DSLRs are

- TV show "House" (the 2010 season finale, shot entirely on 5DmkII's and they now use them regularly)
- TV show intro to "Saturday Night Live"
- Film "Corpse Bride" by Tim Burton
- Film "Tiny Furniture" by Lena Dunham
- Film "Like Crazy" by Drake Doremus
- TV show BBC's "Shelfstackers"
- TV show BBC's "The Road to Coronation Street"
- Documentary "Hell and Back Again" by photojournalist Danfung Dennis
- Film "Act of Valor" by Mike McCoy & Scott Waugh

Just to name a few. Additionally there are many shows\\films that use the video DSLRs as secondary cameras or to shoot specific scenes or sequences. Also, many music videos are now being shot on them. Here is an image from over a year ago of Robert Rodriguze shooting one:



A year ago a company called Zacuto wanted to put these new revolutionary cameras up against the big dogs.. film cameras. They conducted a huge collection of stress tests to really see what the differences were between these cheap DSLRs with huge digital sensors, and the professional cameras with film stock. Then they played the results on a cinema screen for a large gathering of industry professionals (licensed cinematographers, filmmakers, lighting guys, editors, directors of photography, and more. If you'r even the slightest bit intrigued I urge you to watch their fascinating, Emmy-winning documentary of it all "The Great Camera Shoot-out 2010"; trailer below:



You can catch the whole 3-part series here.

They've also made a new one for this year where they let the industry pros design and administer the tests themselves, and it's much more scientific. Part 1 was released this week, and is probably what prompted me to make this post. In the 2011 shootout they also included the new Sony F35 and Arri Alexa cameras, which are a step up from the DSLRs and are really giving film a run for it's money. Here is the trailer for the 2011 shootout:



You can catch part 1 here.

Anyway, the point is that digital has come so far in the past few years. It used to be that you could immediately tell when something wasn't film (Mann's recent "Public Enemies" comes immediately to mind). Now, digital is even fooling hardened professionals within the film industry who work on this stuff day in and day out. I'm sure many here will still say "I can tell!", but I'd wager that more often than not, you really can't. Especially when the camera and lighting is in the hands of the professionals.

While these digital cameras come with many advantages; the most obvious is the cost. The invisible barrier that prevented so many from being able to make their films has now been erased. With the combination of these cameras, consumer editing suites like Adobe CS5 and Final Cut Pro, and digital content distribution it really is an open market for anyone to make their presence known. For example, a couple years ago a guy made a short film on Youtube on a $300 budget and ended up getting signed to make a film produced by Sam Raimi.

Additionally, there is no longer the huge cost of recording on expensive film. You can now take a handful of CF or SD cards and record and dump footage at your leisure. Archiving is as simple as backing up to an external drive. Editing is as simple as organizing files on a timeline (generalization there). Beyond that, you don't even have to print your movie to film for theatrical release anymore. Thanks to the Digital Cinema Distribution System you can now deliver your compliant digital movie files via USB drive.

So, to conclude this longer-than-anticipated-post-that-has-turned-into-an-article, film is on it's last legs. It's already all-but-dead in the world of photography and that is spreading to the world of film as well. Whether you like it or hate it (or don't really care), we should all at least be optimistic about the potential opportunities it has opened to our cinematic experience.

UPDATE 10/13/11: The top 3 motion picture film camera manufacturers -- Panavision, Aaton, and ARRI -- have ceased production on new cameras.

Why? When I can shoot the same project for under $2,000 in equipment (not to mention renting instead of purchasing), versus $20-$50k.

You don't have to make your digital look like film, but the point is that you can. Cheaper and more efficiently.

Matt, next time just quote the post with the video shown in it, and you can see how the tags are done

Btw, I have a 60D myself and I love it.

Film is officially dead.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/r_i_...011/singleton/

An excellent article for those feeling nostalgic: The Joy of Celluloid

This quote, by Keanu Reeves of all people, feels particularly relevant:

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.