JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The studios need to make serious effort to restore as many "films" as possible so that a digital transfer is from the best possible source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 455 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Studios should make a film negative for every digitally-shot film they produce, just for a backup in case the digital master file goes kaput. When properly stored, film lasts for decades. When a digital file goes corrupt or erased, you can't get it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 It would not surprise me if a studio has several digital master files, stored at different locations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Studios should make a film negative for every digitally-shot film they produce, just for a backup in case the digital master file goes kaput. When properly stored, film lasts for decades. When a digital file goes corrupt or erased, you can't get it back.Film deteriorates fast. Even a 15 year old film like Titanic(15 at that time) needed serious work.Studios have a duty of film preservation even on the low budget productions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Soon all movies will be stored on The Cloud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Lol!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I'm actually not joking. I'm sure the major studio's have copies of their films stored on FTP servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bespin 8,484 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Oh sh*t, I think I just erased the last Star Wars! Glóin the Dark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Hurray! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Oh sh*t, I think I just erased the last Star Wars!You're my hero. Bespin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,207 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Digital archival is at least equally (perhaps considerably more) fragile than any analogue medium as has already been proven by a number of expansions of 'recent' digitally-recorded scores. The difference is: Digital can be backed up without data loss. Its longevity just depends on having enough backups and converting to new formats in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Well, "digital" is really only a relative term. All digital media is stored on an actual, physical device of some sort. A hard drive, a server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,207 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yes. It's just easier to copy, and therefore easier to backup. If you lose the master, any backup is a perfect replacement. If you lose all backups, you probably did something wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Ware 526 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Digital archival is at least equally (perhaps considerably more) fragile than any analogue medium as has already been proven by a number of expansions of 'recent' digitally-recorded scores.The difference is: Digital can be backed up without data loss. Its longevity just depends on having enough backups and converting to new formats in time.Yes - it's not all bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yes. It's just easier to copy, and therefore easier to backup. If you lose the master, any backup is a perfect replacement. If you lose all backups, you probably did something wrong.Human error is a factor that can never be ruled out. Not even in digital preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkissimo 1,973 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The flesh is WEAK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 455 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Studios should make a film negative for every digitally-shot film they produce, just for a backup in case the digital master file goes kaput. When properly stored, film lasts for decades. When a digital file goes corrupt or erased, you can't get it back.Film deteriorates fast. Even a 15 year old film like Titanic(15 at that time) needed serious work.Studios have a duty of film preservation even on the low budget productions.Nitrate, sure. But with careful maintenance and a cold storage unit, 35mm can last for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 well at least it seems 'films' will be easier to store and more difficult to destroy by time...is film music stored digitally also, right? No more 'master tapes' disaster in the future...Digital archival is at least equally (perhaps considerably more) fragile than any analogue medium as has already been proven by a number of expansions of 'recent' digitally-recorded scores.This could be solved with quartz inspired techniques sometime in the following decades, changing completely how information is stored. Allowing information to last thousands of years intact and withstanding great temperatures like its nothing.http://www.kurzweilai.net/5d-nanostructured-quartz-glass-optical-memory-could-provide-unlimited-data-storage-for-a-million-years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 455 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Paramount will make some 'exceptions' to their digital-only route. One such exception is Christopher Nolan's Interstellar, which will be released on both 35mm and digital prints.http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-paramount-pictures-digital-20140128,0,276668.story#axzz2rilVTVne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,372 Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 455 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I expected that to happen. You don't have clout like that unless you're Nolan, Spielberg, or Tarantino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 What's their Klout score? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 455 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The film stipulations are likely included in the contracts they sign. I didn't know Nolan had the power to say, "There should be a 35mm release for every film I do" but apparently he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixon Hill 4,234 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,694 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I find it unsettling when a director or actor seems to have that level of influence. Like the studio is afraid of upsetting or offending them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Depends.You dont think Spielberg has earned the right to make the film the way he wants too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,694 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Certainly he's earned the right to put his arguments across.But even people with clout have to adapt. I would hope that exclusion was made from a discussion, and not just the studio afraid that Nolan won't work with them again (and make them shitloads of money) if they abandon film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The world doesnt work that way.The more clout, the more you are allowed!Some filmmakers need limitations though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,372 Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 Depends.You dont think Spielberg has earned the right to make the film the way he wants too?Again... The Paramount thing has nothing to do with how the films are MADE, just how the final product is DISTRIBUTED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Don't change the subject Jason! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,372 Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 You're the one who changed the subject. Matt C posted an article saying Interstellar would still be DISTRIBUTED on 35mm. Then you said that Spielberg has the right to MAKE his films anyway he wants. Two completely different and unrelated things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I was responding to Mr. Penna!Who is Matt C?Anyway, this thread was about the death of film! Please stay on topic! Ricard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixon Hill 4,234 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Film is dead. Long live film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Film sucks. I want instantism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,551 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 A good question to post, but...did sound signal the death of film, or colour, or 1:85, or CinemaScope, or 70mm, or Todd AO, or Cinerama, or Dolby Stereo, or DTS?Film will go on, and films will continue to be made. Older, more scrupulous eyes will learn to adapt. The rest won't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,345 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 That's right, Richard. I think most photographers/cinematographers have no problem with digital. Some members of the audience tend to be more nostalgic, it's as if digital renders their analog past obselete, or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 We still "dial" a telephone number though it's probably older people saying that. Things change but stay the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,551 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 #Plus c'est chance,Plus c'est le meme chose-The more that things change,The more they stay the same#That's right, Richard. I think most photographers/cinematographers have no problem with digital. Some members of the audience tend to be more nostalgic, it's as if digital renders their analog past obselete, or something.Heck, even Mike Leigh has gone digital. Time to ditch that Moviola, Steve! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,345 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Roger Deakins, one of my favorites and I know that many here respect him too, is an apostle of the digital format. That includes shooting and processing. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Traitor! Deserter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Roger Deakins, one of my favorites and I know that many here respect him too, is an apostle of the digital format. That includes shooting and processing.AlexHave you seen Skyfall Alex? Say about it what you want. Deakins work on it is first rate, and digital! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitch 57 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Then tell me why has he never won a Cinematography Oscar after 11 nominations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 You can say the same for Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Then tell me why has he never won a Cinematography Oscar after 11 nominations?Because we all know the Oscars are the ultimate bench mark for excellence. Gustavo Santaolalla won two of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Shhh, Hitch loves Gustavo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkissimo 1,973 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Then tell me why has he never won a Cinematography Oscar after 11 nominations?You can say the same for Williams.I agree. John Williams is a criminally underrated DP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,207 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Then tell me why has he never won a Cinematography Oscar after 11 nominations? And how many director Oscars did you win, Sir Alfred? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brown 91 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Film's only for the cool directors now.Except Tarantino. He's not cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makeshift Python 22 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Digital will never look like film from the past and even film today will never look like films from the past. I think the only film stock that is still produced and has been since the 1950s is the Eastman Double-X 5222, which Spielberg used for SCHINDLER'S LIST. Even today, if a filmmaker wants to use that film stock, studio heads will try to persuade them to go for either color film or digital, just so there can be a colorized version of the film if they want to release it. Alexander Payne wanted to shoot with that black and white film stock, but studios said no, so he had to go digital so that the studios would be comforted that there's the possibility of releasing a colorized version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 It's called progress, guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now