film

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

RichA - 31 Aug 2007 01:15 GMT

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/apr2007/nRodriguez.jhtml

Reply to this Message

Scott W - 31 Aug 2007 02:50 GMT

> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/apr2007/nRodriguez.jhtml

That is far more a marketing piece that anything else.

Sounds like he is trying to delay the inevitable of digital taking over
in movies, good luck on that.

Scott

Reply to this Message

Doug Jewell - 31 Aug 2007 10:14 GMT

> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/apr2007/nRodriguez.jhtml

For motion work, film still makes a lot of sense, as the article says film
wins hands down for resolution, dynamic range, and long-term storage. The
article doesn't even mention the film used for projection, where again film
wins handsdown over digital projection. Even stuff that is mostly created
digitally, is printed to film for distribution. But motion is very different
to still work.
Film still has a place in still work, but it is decreasing. Digital still
cameras are much closer to matching film's capability, than video cameras.

Reply to this Message

Floyd L. Davidson - 31 Aug 2007 10:59 GMT

>> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/apr2007/nRodriguez.jhtml

I didn't look at the above URL, or read previous
articles in this thread, but I was struck by some of the
following statements which appear to be contrary to
fact.

>For motion work, film still makes a lot of sense, as the
>article says film wins hands down for resolution,
>dynamic range, and long-term storage.

I'm on shakey ground when that is prefixed by "for
motion work", as I'm not sure positively how that
affects resolution or dynamic range in practice.
Certainly for still photography, digital has eclipsed
film in those areas for practical uses (there are a few
scientific uses with special films that might still be
ahead of digital).

For long term storage, digital wins hands down going
away. None of those films will last 500 years...

>The article
>doesn't even mention the film used for projection, where
>again film wins handsdown over digital projection. Even

Only if one restricts viewing to some way that is best
for film, such as a big screen. By far the majority of
viewing is not so restricted, and is via digital. DVD's
and cable TV are the major distribution means for
digital projection.

>stuff that is mostly created digitally, is printed to
>film for distribution. But motion is very different to
>still work.

Only in that it is indeed useful to print to film.

>Film still has a place in still work, but it is
>decreasing. Digital still cameras are much closer to
>matching film's capability, than video cameras.

That is probably true. The question though, is do
we want to match film capability, or just go where
digital video leads us? It does appear that digital
video is a much larger and more varied media.

Signature

Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Reply to this Message

Toni Nikkanen - 31 Aug 2007 11:22 GMT

For motion pictures digital has some very clear advantages:

- Duplication is no problem! Even an nth copy is 100% exact - and
cheaper to make.
- No need to develop and chop hundreds of kilometers of film
per movie.

Reply to this Message