Scorsese abandons 35mm!

Sad Professor

He's shooting his next film, The Wolf of Wall Street, using digital cameras.

"It would appear that we've lost the battle," said Thelma Schoonmaker, the director's long-time editor. Talking to Empire's Damon Wise after a film restoration panel at the Edinburgh Film Festival, she confirmed that Scorsese's next film,The Wolf Of Wall Street would stick with digital, albeit in 2D. "I think Marty just feels it's unfortunately over, and there's been no bigger champion of film than him."

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=34396

I thought Scorsese would keep shooting film until the end, but it seems he's given up. Now, obviously Hugo was shot on digital, but that was 3D so he didn't have any choice.

Then again, maybe it's not that big of a surprise. Scorsese has been heavily involved in film preservation. Seeing what happens to 35mm after a few years in storage would probably make anyone want to shoot digital.

It'll be interesting to see if Ridley Scott will shoot his next film The Counsellor in digital as well following his first digital experience on Prometheus.

mike65

Sell out! :mad:

krudler

mike65 wrote: »

Sell out! :mad:

how does that make him a sell out?

mike65

Papa Simpson reaction by me.

Technocentral

C*nt.

Jumboman

Sad Professor wrote: »

but that was 3D so he didn't have any choice.

Their have been many 3D Films in the past shot on 35mm.

Then again, maybe it's not that big of a surprise. Scorsese has been heavily involved in film preservation. Seeing what happens to 35mm after a few years in storage would probably make anyone want to shoot digital.

Film will last over 100years if its stored properly. But if store something on a digital medium it may not even be playable in 20 years time, just like floopy disks and hard drives from 20 years ago are now obsolete .

The big question is how will they be able to play todays digital films in 50 or 100 years time ?

Mickeroo

Jumboman wrote: »

T


Film will last over 100years if its stored properly. But if store something on a digital medium it may not even be playable in 20 years time, just like floopy disks and hard drives from 20 years ago are now obsolete .

The big question is how will they be able to play todays digital films in 50 or 100 years time ?

Huh? Digital can potentially last indefinitely. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer people sticking to 35mm too but what you said there is just wrong. Mediums might become obsolete but the actual data will always be transferred.

It saddens me to see a veteran like scorcese switching to digital, someone like him should be putting the foot down imo. Christopher Nolan is still a big proponent of 35mm and is pushing hard for other directors to take a hard line on using it.

I read this article a couple of months ago, meant to post it up but never got around to it: http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/

Preservation of digital data presents a completely new set of challenges compared to preservation of film.

Yes, you can potentially keep a bit-perfect copy of the original digital master but in practice it's an extremely difficult and labour intensive process. It requires regular refreshing and migration. Even supposed long-term archival media such as tape suffer from substantial bit-rot in the short term.

And that's just the literal task of preserving the 1s and 0s. Making sense of them in 100 years time will also be problematic. We won't use the same formats for digital source masters that we do today in 10 years let alone 100.

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

Preservation of digital data presents a completely new set of challenges compared to preservation of film.

Yes, you can potentially keep a bit-perfect copy of the original digital master but in practice it's an extremely difficult and labour intensive process. It requires regular refreshing and migration. Even supposed long-term archival media such as tape suffer from substantial bit-rot in the short term.

And that's just the literal task of preserving the 1s and 0s. Making sense of them in 100 years time will also be problematic. We won't use the same formats for digital source masters that we do today in 10 years let alone 100.

But won't the continuing popularity of films make the process a bit more organic(for want of a better word)? I get what you're sating about archival stuff though, sounds like that would be a lot of hassle alright.

sink

Deleted User wrote: »

Preservation of digital data presents a completely new set of challenges compared to preservation of film.

Yes, you can potentially keep a bit-perfect copy of the original digital master but in practice it's an extremely difficult and labour intensive process. It requires regular refreshing and migration. Even supposed long-term archival media such as tape suffer from substantial bit-rot in the short term.

And that's just the literal task of preserving the 1s and 0s. Making sense of them in 100 years time will also be problematic. We won't use the same formats for digital source masters that we do today in 10 years let alone 100.

I think the challenge of preservation of digital data although not a trivial task has many advantages over that of film. It's main benefit in that it can be copied an infinite number of times without loss. Every time a copy of film is made both the copy and the master suffer degradation with no way to fully recover it. While all storage media degrade over time and become obsolete copying digital data to new storage media is trivial in comparison to making copies of film with all it's fine chemical processing. And as far as video formats are concerned I think this is a non issue, emulation and virtual machines can simulate any hardware and software perfectly.

sink

sink wrote: »

I think the challenge of preservation of digital data although not a trivial task has many advantages over that of film. It's main benefit in that it can be copied an infinite number of times without loss. Every time a copy of film is made both the copy and the master suffer degradation with no way to fully recover it. While all storage media degrade over time and become obsolete copying digital data to new storage media is trivial in comparison to making copies of film with all it's fine chemical processing. And as far as video formats are concerned I think this is a non issue, emulation and virtual machines can simulate any hardware and software perfectly.

When done properly it has those advantages.

However it is extremely labour intensive and costly and that's where you're going to run into trouble. If the money runs out or someone stops doing it, potentially you can lose everything. It doesnt degrade gracefully like a badly-stored film where you can still get something watchable 100 years later. Go out of business or don't pay the bills on your digital preservation program and even if someone pays enough rent to seal the building, all your data will go kaput in a decade or two.

Maybe that's not an issue for larger studios but certainly for smaller ones.

With video formats you potentially run into issues with proprietary formats used by some cameras...are you going to be able to read your Red camera source masters in 100 years?

Right now old distribution prints have proved invaluable sources for restoring films when OCNs are lost or badly degraded...the digital equivalent of a distribution print is just a bunch of HDDs or optical discs that won't be physically readable in 100 years and even if they were they'd have obscure DRM on them.

You have to remember you're talking about the long term. Preservation isn't about being able to play something in 5 or 10 years time, its about preserving it for future generations.

Sad Professor

There are of course difficulties with digital preservation and I've heard many of the arguments in this thread before, but i don't entirely accept them. Celluloid might survive longer than a disregarded hard drive (see what happened to Toy Story), but how much does it cost to store and then eventually restore degraded film negatives? I refuse to believe that it's less than the cost of digital preservation.

Obviously if you want to hold on to the original raw file format that's going to take enormous amounts of data, but I don't think there's any need for that. It's the finished film that's important. There are film that were shot on celluloid that simply don't exist anymore because nobody thought they were important enough to restore before it was too late or because the negatives were burned when the production company went out of business. Smaller digitally-shot films face similar, perhaps greater dangers in the short-term, but in the long-run I don't think digital preservation and restoration will be as costly or as difficult as celluloid, especially with data storage devices improving all the time.

kumate_champ07

sure it gets converted to digital anyway for editing.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Celluloid might survive longer than a disregarded hard drive (see what happened to Toy Story), but how much does it cost to store and then eventually restore degraded film negatives? I refuse to believe that it's less than the cost of digital preservation.

But you're not comparing like with like. You're comparing badly stored and degraded celluloid with correctly stored digital.

If the celluloid is properly stored (and this is well understood now) then it doesnt necessarily require a multi-million dollar restoration.

And the flip side is badly stored digital information. That costs significantly more to restore than badly stored film and will have a much lower success rate.

Sad Professor

Sure, but celluloid isn't always stored properly. It's also extremely flammable. Remember the fire at Universal a few years ago? How many films have been lost over the years this way? Right now I think celluloid and digital preservation both have their pros and cons, though you are probably right that celluloid has many advantages at the moment - the main one being that were are really good at it now. But digital storage will improve in time, where as in a couple of decades there may not be many film projectors left and the cost of transferring celluloid to digital may be cost prohibitive in the case of many films. In the meantime, it's possible to make multiple copies/backups of digital far easier than with celluloid. I'm sure there's lots of companies looking to make money out of digital preservation, but I don't accept the costs involved.

Kumate's point is an important one though. Most films use a digital intermediate now and that's what is used for Blu-ray transfers and everything. 35mm-shot films have the original film negative to fall back on, of course, but as we've seen with films like LOTR that just isn't practical most of the time due to visual effects. So even films shot on celluloid are depending on the preservation of the digital version of the film.

Its easier to store celluloid properly.

And it is much easier to store digital data improperly.

Also the consequences of improper storage are much worse for digital because it degrades very abruptly and when corrupt is very hard to make sense of. Even today we are literally digging films up out of the ground and managing to restore some frames. In 100 years time people won't be digging up HDDs or optical discs out of the ground or attics and reading them.

So even films shot on celluloid are depending on the preservation of the digital version of the film.

Actually major studios currently archive digitally shot movies on celluloid.

bullpost

Companies like Google are advancing the technology of storage on a daily basis . Using these technologies its possible to store and distribute data locally or globally in such a way as to avoid a single point of failure and to almost guarantee that there will be no data loss. So I think the argument that storing a physical medium like celluloid is superior doesnt hold water or certainly wont for much longer.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its easier to store celluloid properly.

And it is much easier to store digital data improperly.

Also the consequences of improper storage are much worse for digital because it degrades very abruptly and when corrupt is very hard to make sense of. Even today we are literally digging films up out of the ground and managing to restore some frames. In 100 years time people won't be digging up HDDs or optical discs out of the ground or attics and reading them.



Actually major studios currently archive digitally shot movies on celluloid.

krudler

there's a good documentary on the US netflix called These Amazing Shadows, deals with the preservation of 35mm film for the US film institute, well worth a watch to see how the films are stored and preserved.

As long as Scorsese continues to direct good films then his migration to digital isn't something I'm major concerned about. It would be nice to see him take a stand on shooting on 35mm, (especially considering his stance on preserving old films) but when it comes to film it is the finished product that matters most not on what format it was shot.

Technocentral

Deleted User wrote: »

As long as Scorsese continues to direct good films then his migration to digital isn't something I'm major concerned about. It would be nice to see him take a stand on shooting on 35mm, (especially considering his stance on preserving old films) but when it comes to film it is the finished product that matters most not on what format it was shot.

You should sue the place thats fixing your computer boss, must be 6 months or so?

Technocentral

Technocentral wrote: »

You should sue the place thats fixing your computer boss, must be 6 months or so?

Fixed it myself, just forgot to change my sig as I have them disabled so never really thought of it.

kumate_champ07

last time I checked, digital had the edge with high iso clarity, ability to work in low light without artificial lighting. canon eos 5d mk2 made it affordable to get 'pro' quality and not need expensive lighting but for Scorsese that wouldnt be an issue. overexposure is less of an issue with digital so skies dont white out as much

I reckon backups are made to celluloid as a 'backup' plan to the digital backup option, not a replacement.

kumate_champ07

also freshly printed film converted to digital isnt expensive, its old film that needs each frame worked on that brings the cost up, but computer processing has speeded that up, not sure how much of the process is manual unless theres scratches that need special attention

FishBowel

Scorsese abandons film? Big ****ing deal. Other filmmakers have already made feature films on analogue/digital video. Even back in the 1960s and '70s.

Jumboman

FishBowel wrote: »

Scorsese abandons film? Big ****ing deal. Other filmmakers have already made feature films on analogue/digital video. Even back in the 1960s and '70s.

Digital is not cinematic it looks too much like television.

I think the new hobbit film looks horrible.

Jumboman

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

last time I checked, digital had the edge with high iso clarity,

Digital works better in low light granted but it still has lower resolution than film.

johnny_ultimate

Jumboman wrote: »

Digital is not cinematic it looks too much like television.

The ARRI Alexa is almost wholly able to reproduce the aesthetic of traditional film, as are the RED cameras. It's moved on leaps and bounds since the tech was popularised by some of the earlier efforts with the tech. Even the likes of Roger Deakins and Scorcese have finally admitted there's no cause for not moving on. With the right talent in production and post, there's absolutely no reason anymore why a digitally shot film cannot look as good as film. There'll always be romanticism, but practical and economic reasons are constantly favouring digital, and the tech is finally there to justify it. The vast majority of 'great' films from the last few years have been shot on digital, and great cinematographers / directors will continue to be great.

I love 35mm, and still love experiencing it in the cinema where possible. But why a director would spend all the money necessary to shoot 35mm these days, when cheaper digital to all practical extents is able to replicate the effect, and then have increasingly fewer places to be able to exhibit it as intended? Well, there's a point when stubbornness has to give way to the forward momentum of technology.

Jumboman

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Even the likes of Roger Deakins and Scorcese have finally admitted there's no cause for not moving on.

Their may be more films shot on 35mm in 10 or 15 years than their are now. Just like in the music industry more artists going back to analogue.


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun98/articles/hedges.html

With the right talent in production and post, there's absolutely no reason anymore why a digitally shot film cannot look as good as film.

Their is noway you will ever get a digital medium to be the same as an analogue medium its like apples and oranges. They have be trying to made digital sound recordings sound like analogue for decades and still cant do it.

There'll always be romanticism, but practical and economic reasons are constantly favouring digital, and the tech is finally there to justify it.

Its not film still has a higher resolution than digital, and digital does not even come close to matching 70mm Imax.

, and then have increasingly fewer places to be able to exhibit it as intended?

Im not too not bothered how it is shown as long as it was captured on film.

johnny_ultimate

Jumboman wrote: »

Their may be more films shot on 35mm in 10 or 15 years than their are now. Just like in the music industry more artists going back to analogue.

There may be, but at the moment digital is an altogether more practical solution. There will be the nostalgia element for a few (if not many), and some will seek to replicate the style of old. But that leads me in to the next point.

Their is noway you will ever get a digital medium to be the same as an analogue medium its like apples and oranges. They have be trying to made digital sound recordings sound like analogue for decades and still cant do it.

But they're extraordinarily close with film. Let Roger Deakins - who is in a much better position to talk about this than you or I - say it best. Remember, this is the man who was almost the last bastion of traditional cinematography, as hardcore as you could get when it came to physical film:

Deakins wrote:

I have done quite extensive tests with the Alexa and I do feel it produces the first digital images I have seen that are of a quality comparable to film with what I feel is a greater dynamic range. The images the camera produces seem to fit with the ‘look’ I am after.

So not only is it comparable to film, it actually affords certain greater possibilities - whether it's dynamic range, or the huge variety of options available in post-production. There are increasingly fewer reasons not to shoot digitally - increasingly fewer reasons that actually matter, anyway.

Its not film still has a higher resolution than digital, and digital does not even come close to matching 70mm Imax.

But how many films are shot in 70mm IMAX? A handful every year (if even), and is completely out of the budget range out of 99.9% of filmmakers, and 99% of exhibition houses. What the best digital cameras capture is either on a par or better than any common projectors. So yes, 'the resolution' may be smaller, but it's almost a complete non-issue, as barely anyone will ever be able to appreciate that difference. Perhaps when our TVs are 10K, sure, but that's a little while off yet.

And anyway: there's so much more complications than mere resolution (and a quick google will tell you that the resolution gap is ever diminishing). A good shot is down to lens, equipment, talented operators, lighting conditions - all of which are increasingly possible to replicate on digital.

Im not too not bothered how it is shown as long as it was captured on film.

But then what's the point? The goal is to make a film look good for an audience, and in a cinema or on Blu-Ray a digital film is going to look fantastic. This is vastly more important than an individual cinematographer's stubborn romanticism. Why capture it on film when only a tiny percentage of an audience is ever going to see it that way, as it's just going to be digitised anyway?

Digital cinema is cheaper to film on, and it's considerably cheaper to replicate and exhibit than 35mm. It is hugely beneficial for any production, and certainly a considerable factor in keeping cinemas open. Yes, once upon a time digital cinema was a lame duck, suitable for nothing other than found footage films and stylistic experiments. No more - digital film opens up a huge range of artistic and practical capabilities for filmmakers. Great 35mm film will always look great, no-one is denying that. I also think some filmmakers have made some of their images a bit too digitally 'clean', for lack of a better descriptor. I consider it teething pains, and more than offset by the likes of The Social Network that look absolutely fantastic. I for one am overall terribly excited to see how the ever improving tech is going to work wonders in the hands of talented operators and creatives.

kumate_champ07

another point is with full frame sensors(35mm) you can get the cinematic look with low DOF, Im not sure what resolution digital cinematic projection is but blu ray is 2mp and you can get 50mp from iso50 film

kumate_champ07

I have a music producer friend whos always picking up old analog gear, he records with it, old synths and effects machines, but all the editing is done in the digital domain. theres certain sounds that cant be replicated, some can get very close and the average joe wouldnt know the difference.

1 thing I hate is when digital video is made to look like film: Grindhouse & Death Proof, it doesnt look right, just cheap

johnny_ultimate

Worth reading this whole article about Deakins' views on the matter: http://www.theblackandblue.com/2010/11/18/roger-deakins-on-digital-cinema-and-arri-alexa-quality-comparable-to-film/

Sad Professor

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

1 thing I hate is when digital video is made to look like film: Grindhouse & Death Proof, it doesnt look right, just cheap

I think you mean Planet Terror because Death Proof was 35mm.

Jumboman

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But they're extraordinarily close with film. Let Roger Deakins - who is in a much better position to talk about this than you or I - say it best. Remember, this is the man who was almost the last bastion of traditional cinematography, as hardcore as you could get when it came to physical film:

The guy must be getting old and his eye slight is going. I have yet to see a digital film that looks as good as a film shot on film. You dont need to be an "expert" to tell when something doesnt look right. Sometimes digital films look acceptable but once their is a scene with fast movement you can tell straight away that its not film.

So yes, 'the resolution' may be smaller, but it's almost a complete non-issue, as barely anyone will ever be able to appreciate that difference. Perhaps when our TVs are 10K, sure, but that's a little while off yet.

Resolution matters a lot for post production when they are trying crop the image or do other things.

But then what's the point? The goal is to make a film look good for an audience, and in a cinema or on Blu-Ray a digital film is going to look fantastic.

I watch alot films on blu ray and you tell much quciker if something was shot on digital or not. I watched tron legacy on dvd and it looked ok but when I watched it on blu ray some of the close of scenes looked horrible you could even see the make up on the actors faces it was like I was watching television it would of looked so much better on film. Can you imagine 2001 looking as good if that was shot on digital ?

This is vastly more important than an individual cinematographer's stubborn romanticism. Why capture it on film when only a tiny percentage of an audience is ever going to see it that way, as it's just going to be digitised anyway?

Because it will look a lot better on blu ray or other HD media.

I for one am overall terribly excited to see how the ever improving tech is going to work wonders in the hands of talented operators and creatives.

It makes it easier for film makers to make a film but does not enhance the experience for the viewer.

Jumboman

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I have a music producer friend whos always picking up old analog gear, he records with it, old synths and effects machines, but all the editing is done in the digital domain. theres certain sounds that cant be replicated, some can get very close and the average joe wouldnt know the difference.

1 thing I hate is when digital video is made to look like film: Grindhouse & Death Proof, it doesnt look right, just cheap

Havnt seen the film but according to imdb it was shot on super 35

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1028528/technical

Jumboman

sink

As I work in a field related to pro photography I can see the film heading in the same direction as that industry. In the commercial and photojournalism fields almost every single pro-photographers has made the switch to digital. Film is effectively dead for 99% of people who make their living through photography and has been for pushing on 5 years.

Film is only popular with hobbyists and fine art/fashion photographers, and even in these areas it is a small minority. You can't even buy a new still film camera in most camera shops.

I see film disappearing completely from the commercial movies in as little as 5 years, with only art-house and a few independent movies being filmed.

johnny_ultimate

Jumboman wrote: »

Resolution matters a lot for post production when they are trying crop the image or do other things.

I don't want to address your other points as it's just going around in circles, but for this case:

I know of an example of a prominent Irish film where (I'm not naming names because I don't know if it's public knowledge or not), with the RED Raw master, the editor was able to cut an entire character out of the film by selectively editing and cropping images. They still had a cinema quality image. There's so much more than more resolution involved, and the success of the ALEXA (which has a lower pixel resolution than RED) is testament to this. To address your point on close-ups, actually, with a good lens and a good make-up artist there's absolutely no reason why your image will look any worse than it would on film. So many great looking films were shot in 35mm - and I look forward to watching my new Mizoguchi blu-rays, as they should look absolutely amazing - but digital opens up so many wonderful aesthetic opportunities too. Films like The Social Network, Prometheus, Drive, Melancholia... wonderful looking films, and the ranks of beautifully shot digital films are only going to increase as the tech becomes more prominent (given that it's only now that the Alexa and Epic are really disseminating in to the industry).

A 4 or 5K RAW contains an absolute overabundance of information for all practical purposes. The amount of 'stops' and the dynamic range within the same image are remarkable, and you can transform the look of an image easier and more efficiently than you ever could with film. There's a lot to be said for making these decisions on set, but should you need to completely alter the look of a film in post, digital can do it while retaining an absolutely fantastic picture quality.