Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film. But the Consequences of Going Digital Are Vast, and Troubling

Shortly before Christmas, director Edgar Wright received an email inviting him to a private screening of the first six minutes of Christopher Nolan's new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. Walking into Universal CityWalk's IMAX theater, Wright recognized many of the most prominent filmmakers in America — Michael Bay, Bryan Singer, Jon Favreau, Eli Roth, Duncan Jones, Stephen Daldry. If a bomb had gone off in the building, he thought, it would have taken out half of the Directors Guild of America.

Ross Lipman, restorationist, UCLA Film & Television Archive
PHOTO BY JENNIE WARREN
Ross Lipman, restorationist, UCLA Film & Television Archive
Jan-Christopher Horak, director, UCLA Film & Television Archive
PHOTO BY JENNIE WARREN
Jan-Christopher Horak, director, UCLA Film & Television Archive

Location Info

Map

Cinefamily/Silent Movie Theatre

611 N. Fairfax Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90048

Category: Movie Theaters

Region: Melrose/ Beverly/ Fairfax

1 user reviews
Write A Review
Save to foursquare
Powered by Voice Places

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

8949 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211

Category: Schools

Region: Beverly Hills

Hammer Museum, Billy Wilder Theater

10899 Wilshire Blvd.
Westwood, CA 90024

Category: Community Venues

Region: West L.A.

Universal CityWalk Hollywood

100 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608

Category: Community Venues

Region: San Fernando Valley

Directors Guild of America Theatre

7920 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90046

Category: Theaters

Region: Hollywood

Related Content

More About

"It was a surreal experience because it felt like we were all going to get whacked," Wright recalls.

As the directors settled into their seats, Nolan addressed them with words ripped from the plot of an old Batman serial.

"I have an ulterior motive for bringing you here," the British director announced.

And then he made a plea for 35mm film.

Nolan pointed out that The Dark Knight Rises was made on celluloid. That he is committed to shooting on film, and wants to continue doing so. But, he warned, 35mm will be stamped out by the studios unless people — people like them — insist otherwise.

There is a war raging in Hollywood: a war between formats. In one corner, standing with Nolan, are defenders of 35mm film. Elegant in its economy, for more than 100 years film has been the dominant medium with which movies are shot, edited and viewed.

In the other corner are backers of digital technology — a cheaper, faster, democratizing medium, a boon to both creator and distributor.

A few months later, Nolan steps out of the editing bay to discuss his purpose on that December evening. He says he wanted to remind his fellow filmmakers what photochemical film can do. It is too easy to forget the beauty and power of 35mm.

"The danger comes from filmmakers not asserting their right to choose that format," Nolan says. "If they stop exercising that choice, it will go away. I tell people, 'Look, digital isn't going away.' "

It certainly isn't. James Cameron's Avatar got the ball rolling back in 2009. The 3-D blockbuster could only be shown via digital projectors, and so the first wave of theaters upgraded in a hurry.

Today, the driving force isn't so much a single movie as it is the studios' bottom line — they no longer want to pay to physically print and ship movies. It costs about $1,500 to print one copy of a movie on 35 mm film and ship it to theaters in its heavy metal canister. Multiply that by 4,000 copies — one for each movie on each screen in each multiplex around the country — and the numbers start to get ugly. By comparison, putting out a digital copy costs a mere $150.

"Distributing movies digitally into theaters has been the holy grail of the studios," former Universal Pictures chairman Tom Pollock told Variety back in 2010. "They stand to eliminate billions of dollars in costs in coming years without spending very much."

In 2012, it seems, the grail is finally within the studios' grasp. Fate hasn't yet been sealed on the image-capture end, as directors like Nolan dig their heels in about aesthetics and continue to insist on shooting on film. But even a motion picture shot entirely on film can be converted to digital after the fact. And on the projection side, digital is winning.

This year, for the first time in history, celluloid ceases to be the world's prevailing movie-projector technology. By the end of 2012, according to IHS Screen Digest Cinema Intelligence Service, the majority of theaters will be showing movies digitally. By 2013, film will slip to niche status, shown in only a third of theaters. By 2015, used in a paltry 17 percent of global cinemas, venerable old 35 mm film will be mostly gone.

The repercussions will be vast — and felt down the entire length of the movie-industry food chain.

Upgrade or Die

Hadrian Belove wanted to show Breakfast at Tiffany's for Valentine's Day. As executive director of the Cinefamily at the Silent Movie Theatre in West Hollywood, he's used to working with studios to borrow prints of rare or classic films.

But this year it proved trickier. Studios are pushing a new format. And Belove's cinema — a nonprofit collective of cinephiles dedicated to presenting "weird and wonderful" movies — hasn't made the upgrade.

The new format is called a DCP, or Digital Cinema Package. It is a virtual format, a collection of files stored on a hard drive. Roughly the size of a paperback novel, the hard drive is mailed in a lightweight, foam-lined plastic case to the theater, where it's inserted (or, in the lingo, "ingested") into a server that runs the digital projector. DCPs won't run on traditional film projectors, however. So if they want to play the new format, theater owners must update their equipment.

For this privilege, exhibitors can expect to shell out from $70,000 to $150,000 per screen. Because the studios will save so much money on shipping costs, they've agreed to help finance the conversion. For the next 10 years, they will pay theater owners a "virtual-print fee" for each new release shown digitally.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | All | Next Page >>
 
My Voice Nation Help
230 comments
philv1
philv1

It is real simple people. Shoot it on any film format Super 8mm, 16mm, Super 16mm or if you have a decent budget 35mm and if you're Coppola or Spielberg 65mm then transfer it to digital for a composite Master and for the distributors who would normally have to risk millions on thousands of 35mm or 70mm prints. That is if there are still any major house film projectors in operation. It is not digital or film. It is shoot on film and distribute on digital. That is the beautiful future. If we filmmakers compromise half way then more distributors will give us a deal as long as they don't have to spend all that money of thousands of prints. Remember it is the film business. Not the film warm and fuzzy feeling association. It is a business and the core of any business is to make more money than spent. To shoot digital is too risky look what happened with Toy Story. Millions were spent on the production and then it was all accidentally erased. If someone on the production team had not had a back up copy at their house (by chance) then it would have meant disaster for producer and distributors and the investors. I personally would rather see one of the majors put more money into TV advertising than in prints. It the new way and it is better than the old way. So let us stop the division among ourselves and agree to shoot it on film and distribute it on digital. If you look at producer directors like Cameron and Lucas who now only shoot on digital,  you also will see that they spend a fortune on these movies anyway. They prefer digital for artistic and other reasons like no blur when the action on scene is fast because it was shot  to the equivalent of what would be sixty frames per second. But to me that is a pale comparison to what film even at 24fps has to offer from a look (overall) perspective. If you ever went to one of my late friend Brian England's (A.C.E.) film and digital side by side comparison you would in no way choose to shoot on digital. There was no competition, digital looked like what it is and that is video and film looked like what it is and that is FILM!!! Digital shooting is still good for TV small screen or computer monitor so what difference does that make. But the theatrical screen belongs to film other wise it is like popcorn without the butter, salt and scent. Yeah you may be eating popcorn but there is the cost of taste flavor and joy. Also as technology changes in digital so does how you shoot it on digital what was good yesterday may not be workable tomorrow. Just shoot it on film and have it distributed on digital a perfect marriage.

eugeneclewlow
eugeneclewlow

I believe the worry is that by eliminating film in the distribution process to exhibitors and replacing it with DCPs, a large market for film sales will be eliminated as well.

Film merchant's (i.e. Kodak) profit will go down. Their costs to run may be too great to match the reduced profit. Therefore, they may plan to not produce film at all anymore. The costs to produce the film is not compensated by the skim profits. If this is the case, then who will produce film?

I believe as well, if movie producers want to shoot in film, they should shoot in film. But the question remains, who will produce film to shoot on?

I want to see film remain in production more than anybody. I'm not sure how tight of a budget would be required for a film production company to survive, based on the market of today's growing digital pioneers and few remaining film advocates. But I feel if the company can still pay its workers, pay its costs to stay alive, and at the same time provide artists with the medium of their choice, then ultimately "Profit" will not be the underlying goal of such a company.

Now, last I heard, Eastman Kodak filed for bankruptcy and no one has bought the rights to the patents yet. Who will buy these rights?

arnebarnard
arnebarnard

Hollywood really isn't thinking too much about this, and, by Hollywood, I mean everyone who's involved in production, distribution, marketing etc.The. "STUDIOS" ARE Hollywood , so enough of this double edged, confusing bullshit.

Chris Nolan and everyone else who still wants to continue shooting film, should do so. "Hollywood" is only complaining about the number of FILM prints that go out at a cost per. 4k prints at 15k a pop is 60 million, on top of already overblown budgets. Digital , at the same number of prints is only $600,000.

Since filming costs are always going to be part and parcel to production costs, let the "filming" continue!

But, I repeat myself: If someone like myself, outside of Hollywood, thought of this, why didn't Hollywood think of it *first*?

Shoot film, develop film, strike a print and then make digital copies of it. Simple...

ChucklesMcGee
ChucklesMcGee

This is such a ridiculous argument. Film's look is not suppose to be perfect and our brains respond to imperfection a lot more than we do for crisp clean look that digital yields. That adds to illusion that we pay to go see in a theater. The debate on whether or not film is better than digital or vice versa is like arguing water color or oil painting. Except in this case, we're dealing with commerce. That said, nothing, and I mean NOTHING equates to the look of film. We all have lived with it for years and can sense when something is "off". Digital is "too clean". And this whole nonsense about resolution, clean clear picture blah blah blah...completely moot. The craft of making motion pictures is no longer in the hands of people who care what is presented. Only that they get people to come out. A digital projection is a cheat. You're selling people their own t.v. sets and calling it an event. Meanwhile, tickets haven't changed to reflect that. The studio is treating audiences like children who can't collectively take a stand for quality. We think it's as empty as fast food (made more apparent that food sponsors tattoo their brand on movies, and has even incorporated themselves into storylines). People wonder why we're broke. Because we're already quality bankrupt. I work on the biggest movies in Hollywood (which I know for a fact, my eyes have gone through more recent blockbusters than the people who've commented on this site. yeah, arrogant, but I'd like for you to know where I'm coming from). I wish I could tell you which ones, so I could tell you which ones have stupidly leapt off the digital cliff without a parachute and are paying dearly now vs. the ones shot on film that traipse along nicely. Guess which crew looks like a well oiled machine. Guess which one stumbles and bumbles around like a drunk in the dark.

Benjohn Barnes
Benjohn Barnes

There are at least two things going on here, and they're being conflated in to one. Digital could be amazing for art house cinema.

As mentioned, it should democratise film making and allow small film makers to get niche films to art houses at much lower costs so they can put there money in to making great films and the screen can give a better experience. This should be a huge pro, a big win.

But in page two it's pretty clear that the problem is the distributors don't give a toss about niche / fringe cinema and just want to push their mainstream money makers (dross, IMHO, but that's besides the point and their business anyway).

This doesn't have to make digital bad though. It just means the art house screens need some way to get the upgrade without being enslaved by a distributor and forced to play block busters instead of what they want to screen.

Also, I presume a digital capable projector is still about to project 35 mil?

I'm pretty sure that someone out there must care enough about niche cinema to stump up the cash and help out? Perhaps as some kind of low risk loan or even a hire purchase scheme on the projection gear?

On the art and aesthetic side of it, I've got time for this dilemma. Changing the tools and practices of artists changes the art they produce. It's happened dozens of times before (sound, colour, stereo, wide screen, blue screen, digital editing, cgi, 3d), and it'll keep happening. I'm sure it's not a good / bad thing. It's a change though and it takes time for artists to learn the new tools, and it can be sad to say goodbye to the kind of art that came from the tools they used to have.

Max Renn
Max Renn

Just look to the BBC's 'Domesday Project' stored on LaserDiscs back in the mid-1980s for a lesson on how digital data can be lost due to technological obsolescence.

RMartins
RMartins

There were those who screamed "the sky is falling" with the introduction of "sound" in the 1930's...

There were those who screamed "the sky is falling" with the introduction of "colour film" in the 1940's...

And now there are those who scream "the sky is falling" as we move from film to digital...all that matters in the end is the storytelling and the medium on which a story is shot has no barring on things.

Patsolo33
Patsolo33

That's a load of crap and colour was introduced to films as early as 1903.

Lamont Cranston
Lamont Cranston

I don't understand this 'democratizing' buzzword associated with digital, can someone explain it?The pros for digital seem to be theatres can screen things other than films (major sporting events and concerts/operas/plays - neither involves the film production studios) and studios eliminate the cost of striking prints for distribution (a saving not passed onto the consumer).The cons are they're using it to exercise a very arbitrarily harsh and strict control over releases with rigidly defined rules as to it use, look what happened in a revival theatre in Melbourne Australia when a digital projection of a film was delayed by a technical error for several minutes: http://astortheatreblog.wordpr...TL;DR - Having missed the time frame under which the program is supposed to be activated the whole thing then shut down, forcing the theatre to spend over an hour calling all sorts of people in the USA, England, and Germany to get a new schedule authorized and activation code emailed to them.This isn't democracy, it is the politburo controlling you right down to the tiniest detail.

Amie
Amie

as Walter implied I am inspired that a student can profit $4489 in one month on the computer. did you look at this link lazycash42.c()m

John Sevier
John Sevier

My new documentary, The Projection Booth, Takes you inside the projection booth of a 75 year old theatre in North Carolina in its last days of showing 35mm film. Most people today don't even realize they have been watching their movies on celluloid all this time.

http://youtu.be/snB3XsikFp0

http://MakeCash25.com
http://MakeCash25.com

Work from the comfort of your home. Earn as much as you like. You chose working hours. Earning potential up to $5000 per week! For more info visit this site

AsteriskCGY
AsteriskCGY

I'm not against a move to digital, I'm against the exclusionary way execs love to restrict things to their way. If buying a new projector was a fair price from multiple competitors producing the equipment, I'm sure even small theaters can make the change easy enough. But these old folks want the control for the money, for that supposed benefit to them from exclusivity.

Like the old shouldn't hold back the new, the new should not just destroy the old.

arnebarnard
arnebarnard

@AsteriskCGY  I use the current technology to reinforce my sense of traditionalism.

I use it to produce what I believe in....

The current crop of people who would claim to be "photographers" only do so under the guise of  using multi-thousand dollar cameras and using Photoshop as a substitute for even *minimal* skill with a camera.

Once upon a time, training wheels were used to help us learn to ride a bicycle. Now they're all but standard equipment for which money seems to have usurped the learning curve.

Bob Fry
Bob Fry

Yawn. Stereotypical Luddite article. New technology, the sky is falling. Meanwhile Hollywood continues to churn out mediocrity and good stuff is increasingly found internationally. Anyway who goes to theatres anymore? What with streaming, on-demand movies available from any number of sources, most watch from their home.

FeyH
FeyH

When you start with "yawn," it's a guarantee hat you're about to say something stupid. And ya did. In this case stupid aaand cliched.

Timoleo
Timoleo

If you put aside any questions of art or culture, the entertainment industry is in a deep economic contraction. Their product is simply less interesting to the public every year. The wholesale elimination of film is one way in which corporations can outsource (directly and indirectly) thousands of pesky American jobs and stave off collapse for a while. Certainly who am I to stand in the way of the free market?

Might I suggest these executives learn from the past--that is, look at those same tactics they employed back in the 80s when CDs eradicated vinyl in less than a year. Not because the public wanted it, but because the recording industry was driven by fear, the same fear of today. They got sold on a new technology and it was supposed to be a panacea for their contracting industry, but only if its saturation could be "total". (Now there's modern, creative thinking). Had they maintained both the new and old technologies, they'd have an industry that was, if not expanding, at least vital.

Of course this would require a major shift in thinking, and it would involve promoting both technologies, identifying markets in which each technology could fulfill its best potential and marketing them BOTH as sexy and interesting. Though I do not believe film will die completely, it would still be a big loss, if in the future, we have to scramble to save the remaining equipment and human know-how of a craft that should never have been killed, much as the small vinyl record industry has been (honorably) attempting in the past decade.

The other issue is how much more outsourcing can America handle before we reach a point of no return? I don't think these executives have thought about it, but their continual decline in ticket sales could be related to a lack of jobs as much as the poor quality of the product.

Seva David Louis Ball
Seva David Louis Ball

film has all kinds of wonderful organic things: frame jitter and grain are my two favorite, and i'm not being silly. it actually has a little life to it because no frame lines up perfectly with the previous, and the grain is literally on a near-molecular level, which is very similar to dithering in digital media, but sweeter-looking. i don't think film will go away, but there will be a huge shakeout, bigger than what we've seen with Kodak, Deluxe, and Technicolor. but it will survive.

RT Rickmghc: actually vinyl does not have a better freq response. no way. it has a much worse S/N ratio, wildly varying surface noise, and there's not much above 15kHz. CDs go to 22kHz. what vinyl _does_ have is --by restriction of the medium-- a better dynamic range. not better in the strict sense --it actually has only about a 60dB dynamic range. the difference is simply that the records still have their punch and transient response because they really can not be played if the signal is crushed (limited) like they are for CDs. CD signals are done this way simply because A&R people think the record should be "as loud as" someone else's, or that it will be louder on the radio, or some such nonsense. but since vinyl doesn't hold heavily-limited audio very well, it is cut with a more organic and uncrushed transient response. *this* is why people prefer their old "FavoriteBandHere" records in comparison to the "remastered" CD releases.

preservation of film is paramount. digital definitely has the ability to capture all the nuance of existing films, including all the beautiful organic irregularities, so that these pieces can serve later generations. this may be the most do-able and most important job ahead.

Rickmghc
Rickmghc

My first exposure to digital filming was Star Wars and I was disappointed in the quality. The cost of going to see a movie in the theater has gone so high I have pretty much stopped going. Back in the 70's I'd see anywhere from 2 to 8 movies a month. Now I only bother going to a movie once a year or less. The last 3 movies I've seen in the theater were Harry Potter movies and Deathly Hollows wasn't among them. I have the patience, for the most part, to wait for DVD's to show up in the Walmart bargain bin. Much less expensive then going to the theater and I can view on my schedule.

I don't think I've seen a DCP film yet. I'm concerned about the quality. The different media's all seem to look a little different. As mentioned in the article, DCP/digital black and film black are different.

I find it amusing that there is a resurgence in vinyl records over CD due to the higher quality of vinyl record over digital CD's. I'm not surprised since records have a better frequency response. I'm wondering if that will end up happening to film.

Digital is NOT a long term storage media. Formats change, hardware fails, stuff gets deleted, accidents happen, errors go undetected. Error detection methods do not catch every error. Simple parity checks only detect an odd number of bit errors. More advanced detect 99.9x% of errors, but do not detect 100% all the time.

I find DVD is fine for home viewing. My eyes aren't what they were when I was younger. Some movies do look best on the big screen, or used to. I remember seeing 70mm and IIRC 135mm (?) films in the 60's.

I'll hold off my judgement until I've seen DCP, but I'm wondering if 16mm might be better then DCP even for a theater.

Lionel Faure
Lionel Faure

Oscar winning "Black Swan" was mostly shot on 16mm and looked beautiful on the big screen according to many people if I am not mistaken.Some of the latest successful TV series are shot on 16mm (Boardwalk Empire and the Walking Dead for example). Seems fine for HD.

Rob
Rob

From what i've seen and read... DCP is far superior to film projection systems... let's face it gang, sending out 25 lbs canisters with film reels in them to all points on the map is ridiculous in itself - i used to work as a manager in a multiplex movie house and i hated film delivery day (most of the time i got the ushers to move the cans, but that's bedside the point)... we were lucky if the film lasted the entire 6 week run before it needed to be replaced because of wear and tear... and let's not get into optical printing for special effects... the process was laborious and tedious on 35mm systems (and one could always see the composite layers at the average movie house)... I don't care what anybody says... film is inferior in so many ways today that I don't feel this debate is even warranted.

Lionel Faure
Lionel Faure

You seem to confuse practicability with the medium's own imaging merits. No doubt digital makes things much easier on many levels. I'm all for technological improvements but I'm reluctant to be forced to loose something else in the process. Why losing the qualities of film, why not try to keep all the tools available instead of denying all that film has still to offer?

Lionel Faure
Lionel Faure

We agree then. But remember that with a good scanner film can acquire all the practicalness of digital. I tend to think that a very well scanned film movie well digitally projected or traditionally projected still look better than most digital movies I've seen. When digital cameras fill that gap and there will be only digital projectors available, then I'll agree we should just shoot digital.

Rob
Rob

I have no problem with making film available to the artist... and no one is denying the merits of film here... however, its practical use has serious limitations in this digital age... and as an artist I must be aware of those limitations.

Der Bruno Stroszek
Der Bruno Stroszek

That's the problem I have with these arguments, though - it's always about "the soul", or "the organic quality", or "zeroes and ones" or something else completely unquantifiable. Towards the end of this article there are some seriously alarming facts about digital film storage, but you have to wade through four pages of Luddite tosh where people pretend flaws and limitations in old equipment are vital tools in the film-making process. If Edgar Wright is worried that digital might not afford him the time to think about his shots, he could remedy that by, I don't know, taking a couple more minutes to think them over?

Stevens Strauss
Stevens Strauss

Lieber Herr Stroszek,

As I've said below, this entire polemic boils down to anthropic mechanists(digital) vs. anti-mechanists(analog). You may complain about "Luddite tosh where people pretend flaws and limitations in old equipment are vital tools," but ask yourself, is there anything about human consciousness that is "unquantifiable"? Your answer will determine on which side of the fence you sit.

Guest
Guest

But my war is over, my side lost, and it's important to consider this in the real world. -Roger Ebert

Rob
Rob

lol yes brother but the soul doesn't pay the bills... kidding aside... of course the "soul" is vital to any artform... without "soul" we would never have explored art as a species... but i ask you this... why is the "soul" the sole domain of film... as I see it, "soul" comes with the artist not the medium... that is to say... i as the artist bring soul to whatever i create... not the other way around.... to suggest that film possesses "soul" whereas digital doesn't is in my view.... elitist.

Timoleo
Timoleo

Unquestionably, there are going to be artists who are virtuosos in the digital medium, just like there are in film. The problem is simple: Why can't we have both? Doesn't anyone find it highly suspicious when a large bureaucratic entity(s) "push" a new idea or technology? Are we as a culture going to be dictated to by those who have only their own self interests at heart? If digital really was the end-all, be-all, the studios wouldn't have to resort to these backhanded tactics. Ask the theaters about the relative "cheapness" of maintaining digital projectors after the "virtual print fee" dries up. This is simply a clever way for studios to throw off more of their costs onto theaters who already keep only a few cents on the dollar. The answer: In ten years, there won't be "movie" theaters per se--it will be down to a relative few "3D" or Imax complexes showing amusement park-style "attractions". And why is there any question that 35mm film should be available to viewers who want it in the future? I wonder if museum boards argue whether or not they should "show" their original Picassos, Rembrandts etc. instead of an inkjet copy? In fact the film argument is even more ludicrous. This, ladies and gentlemen, really is the end of cinema, not a "new" beginning. There is a dark cloud over the land and even the proponents of digital are wearing frowns.

Rob
Rob

oh go cry me a river over how the movie houses are losing money on the digital conversion... exhibitors have never made money on box office receipts gang... a typical cut is 25%... exhibitors make their money on the 300% mark up on confectionery items... guys, cinema isn't going anywhere... only the way we watch movies in the cinema is changing... the way the movie is projected or shot has no bearing on the audience's enjoyment or appreciation of it... you guys are a bunch of whiny purists with doomsday tendencies.

rat_born_in_1982
rat_born_in_1982

And things have changed for the better. We now have home theater systems that RIVAL what movie theaters are showing anyways so who cares about spending extra money we don't have to sit in a crowded theater and pay extra for snacks you can get at the dollar store for a third the price. I have a nice 1080p 60" tv at home with a pretty good sound system and I don't miss going to the cinema one bit. I wait a couple months and get cinema quality at home on Blu Ray. In five to ten years we will have a 4K format that will replace Blu Ray and home theater will be truly superior to move theater.

Rob
Rob

Also... if you know anything about Kubrick... he was very frustrated with the limitations of film and actually went to extremes in terms of having lenses designed which could shoot in ultra low light situations... he also lamented the limitations of film while making 2001... I'm sorry gentlemen... but visual arts is the designer's domain... the medium or tools he uses to create his art has no significance whatsoever.

Rob
Rob

Elegant sir... but still purist grumblings... Kubrick would have created works of genius with super 8... culture has been shaped by the "visual art form" - NOT the stuff it's printed on... that's like saying literature is significant because it is printed on paper... literature is significant because it speaks to us on emotional level... not because it's printed on paper... I really couldn't care less about the film vs digital debate in terms of its cultural affects because the medium (film) itself doesn't / hasn't influenced culture -- the artists who captured those images influence culture, and it was the artists who solidified the medium of film (which is just a visual delivery system) in art and history.

Timoleo
Timoleo

There are so many people who love film--and they don't owe you or anybody else an excuse, whether it be philosophical, scientific, logical, irrational or otherwise. After film came into being, talented artists began to understand its unique physical qualities and made it a vehicle for the totally new and universal human language of moving images. That golden age has lasted for 100 yrs, give or take, and it may not be over. (Really, that is something any decent art form could be proud of). The best digital can hope for is an 'acceptable' simulation of past glories. This is why the proponents of digital have 1 of 2 emotional states: Resignation or Extremism. Either you accept it because you want to keep your job, or you pretend its better and that you've "won" the war. Even if you know you are right and it doesn't bother you that an entire chunk of our culture is being flushed down the toilet, the victory is pyrrhic and you'll always have that sneaking feeling of inferiority. Digital has been around long enough, and I am still waiting for that great work of Digital cinema that could stand next to the best of Film cinema...I'd settle for a digital work that had even a smidgen of the joy of Minelli, the atmosphere of Antonioni, the rigor of Kubrick, the rhythm of Brakhage...etc...and I wait..and wait. But it won't come...because it's not just a matter of exchanging an old tool for a newer one to do the same job "faster" or "better"--the very motivation for speaking this language we know as Cinema is not relevant to digital. (There are a few digital practitioners who understand this difference, and will no doubt produce something interesting with it. They are not, however, coming to a theater near you. Maybe to an I-phone near you.) So in a sense I admit I was wrong to say this is the end of "cinema". In the long run, people who cherish film won't be convinced to be happy and supportive of its destruction. And for filmmakers and audiences (who use and love film) this situation has inadvertently created yet another cause for celebration of film, of creative soul-searching, and one can hope, motivational angst that will result in action to save it. I'd rather be on this side, if I am forced to take sides, any day.

Rob
Rob

Lol no hard feelings here brother... i still own vinyl too... but there will always be friction among the average consumers of media and the aficionados of media... those two schools of thought will never make good bed fellows... one is concerned with tradition and the other with immediacy... but those differences are beginning to blur and issues of quality with respect to the different formats is also beginning to blur... i don't want to see film disappear... but i don't want to be a slave to it either.

Stevens Strauss
Stevens Strauss

Well, you seem to reinforce my point about greed driving the switch to digital, but if money makes the world go round(which it obviously does), we should all just roll over I suppose. Personally, I don't enjoy music in spite of the fact that it's delivered to me digitally. Maybe as a musician I'm an exception, but don't people at least deserve a choice in the matter? As far as accusing me of hyperbole, that reminds me of a recent interview I heard with Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. When the interviewer asked him about the public's perception of his firm as the 'vampire squid' he responded "it is hyperbole and we'll have to do a better job of explaining how important this industry is". Right. Anyway, I wish you no ill will, brother Rob, and I must say I've thoroughly enjoyed sparring with you. P.S. Steve Jobs had all of his music on vinyl ROFLMAO!

Rob
Rob

But you're implying that we as consumers have suffered in some way because of the digital switch... how?... how have I as a consumer of media lost out... i still enjoy my music even though it's delivered to me digitally... I still enjoy my movies regardless of how I view them... we are social creatures and therefore seek social activities... and those include going to the movies... yes, there is collateral damage... that's unavoidable... any sea change as its issues and complications... and your use of words like "quasi-fascist" is hyperbole and it really doesn't reflect the real life situation we live in... the music industry still generates billions of dollars per year, as does the movie industry... heck, analogue proponents shouted foul play a decade ago and what has really changed when it comes to the way we consume entertainment today? You want to debate subtle differences in methodologies or how corporate America is destroying the analogue experience... money makes the world go round brother... even the guy who made The Great Train Robbery understood that when he changed 1 cent to watch his "moving pictures" to an eager audience.

Stevens Strauss
Stevens Strauss

Come on Rob, I wasn't really talking about embracing progress! I guess I should have used a \sarc tag on my last comment. I guarantee that you could not find a bigger supporter of local movie houses than myself, and I have done much more than simply buying tickets. But you need to read up on the history of digital tech if you're telling me that "consumers create the demand." Digital music was absolutely crammed down consumers' throats at first. The industry faced a bump in the road with Napster et al. (hehe) but iTunes has reasserted a quasi-fascist stranglehold once again. Now, you're telling me that the tectonic shift happened because consumers decided to stop shopping in brick and mortar stores? Idk, sounds specious to me.

Rob
Rob

Consumers create the demand brother (or lack thereof)... not the other way around... if you wanna save the movie houses from being shut down forever... then support your local movie house by going to the movies more often... but if you're gonna sit there and lament about how the big bad studios are robbing us of the film experience and then use that as an excuse to boycott... then how is that embracing progress, sir?

Stevens Strauss
Stevens Strauss

Hey Rob, take a look around you. Notice any bookstores? Any music stores? Any newsstands? I hate to say it, but Timoleo is correct. Theaters are next. If you enjoy watching cinema in a physical location dedicated to that purpose, you're gonna be out of luck, my friend. I know, I know, tangible anything is so passe! I should just embrace "progress"!

Casey
Casey

"the medium is the message" as they. However as long as people make great movies, who cares.

Stevens Strauss
Stevens Strauss

Yeah Rob, but art never has been a great way of "paying the bills", am I right? jk! I don't want to sound elitist or anything, but as I see the issue, film and digital represent two conflicting impulses in our society. One could make the case that film is pure physics and chemistry, but to its adherents, it's something more, alchemy, a form of resistance to the overpowering anthropic mechanist philosophy which, fairly or unfairly, digital technology has come to represent. So yeah, it's more about ideology than art, if you get my drift.

Rob
Rob

Amen brother amen...and wars have been fought over ideologies don't forget... but i completely understand what you're saying... it's the same issue ppl have with digital print... the tactile experience is lost... I personally would rather read a paperback than a kindle device for the same reasons you speak of... and just so there's no confusion... because I think I've taken on the role of anti-film guy... but nothing could be more further from the truth... I grew up watching film on the big screen and it is dear to me as well... but at the same time I don't want to be so militant in my ways that I miss the opportunity to use and explore other technologies... which are just tools really... a means to an end... and that end is self expression.

Rob
Rob

purist grumblings gents... purist grumblings... you can't honestly tell me that artisans like James Cameron and Ridley Scott are pawns in the great Hollywood digital-greed conspiracy that has its sights set on eradicating film from existence... c'mon guys... this isn't Luddite philosophy... it's paranoia mixed with sour grapes.

Stevens Strauss
Stevens Strauss

Yes, Lionel, that last comment was on the money(literally)! I've said it before and I'll say it again, the actual reason for the big push to digital is greed. This is about maximizing profit and putting people out of business, not advancing art or technology. The exact same thing happened to recorded music: the industry jumped feet first into digital before those recording techniques were perfected, much to the detriment of artists and consumers.

Lionel Faure
Lionel Faure

You're right Rob, I won't be convinced easily until digital really achieves to replicate faithfully and precisely all the qualities of film. And I'm not only talking about resolution here. Until then we are nonetheless forced to witness countless attacks on film with pseudo-facts proclaiming digital is superior and cheaper than film for the sake of a much more profitable business model pushed by greedy salesmen who got jealous of how much profitable the computer and software business model has become.

Rob
Rob

well, brother, I don't think you will ever be convinced... even though research into 16K resolution is underway... at what resolution will this debate be silenced... probably never because you will always have film vs digital debates no matter how advanced digital technology gets... but as it stands now we have digital systems on par with 35mm film (this is no longer contestable)... the artist has a wider choice of paint brushes to choice from... as for me, I will continue to be open minded and welcome innovation... but in the end it's all about evoking emotions -- not comparing technical specs.

Speaking of which... I read about a study done a few years ago which determined that theatrical 35mm projection has a TV line equivalent of 825 lines, which doesn't even match the 1080 standard of HD TVs... old 35mm projection is clearly inferior... I'm afraid we could be here forever discussing the merits of film vs digital... but perhaps that time would be better spent actually making art and not fussing over tools.

Lionel Faure
Lionel Faure

Since they needed to scan again the orginal 35mm negatives of "The Wizard of Oz" at 8K in order to start making justice to it just for the Blu-Ray, I have a hard time beleiving a 8K digital camera can match what a true 70mm/15 perf IMAX can do. And even if theoretical resolutions were similar, there is much more than just amazing resolution that sets IMAX above the rest in image quality (color richness, color saturation, smoothness of tones, let alone bokeh and depth of field are just greatly superior to 35mm which is already not matched yet by any digital system).

Rob
Rob

here's a thought... perhaps film's future lies in media preservation... that's not relegating it to second class... but rather giving it a place of honor and prestige... there's no reason why Joe Hollywood can't make a celluloid hardcopy of his digital film for storage purposes... especially if film can survive a 1000 years... heck, if the studios are gonna spend 150 million bux on his latest blockbuster... then spending 1,500 bux to make a film print back up is paltry to say the least... not only is it a safety net in case studio hard drives fail... but when the Zombie Apocalypse happens... there will be lots of great 35mm films to project while we're all hunkered down inside our caves.

Rob
Rob

Gents, check out the Red website and watch the videos there... Red is the latest digital cinema system and it was used by Ridley Scott on Prometheus... it has 4K resolution... and their newest cam, Epic, has 5K resolution... amazing innovations... and the newest format out of japan UHD is 8K and has 16 times the pixel resolution of HD and approaches the image resolution of Imax... there really is no limit to digital imaging... today we already have 8K resolution technology... what will we have 5 years from now? It's mind-boggling.

Rob
Rob

Good read:

http://filmschoolonline.com/sa...

The breakdown demonstrates that theatrical projection of 35mm film is equal to about 875 TV lines... the study was done a few years ago, but it also mentions that Ultra HD (4520 TV lines) makes this whole debate moot... it really doesn't matter anymore and is purely an aesthetic choice whether one shoots digital or film for theatrical distribution because in terms of measured image quality they are equal... and in terms of perceived quality there is no difference whatsoever... you can debate "soul" and "depth" and "warmth" all you want... but those are personal perceptions based on preconceptions... however, when it comes to large format photography... film wins hands down in terms of higher resolution... but it's only a matter of time until digital matches the 800 megapixel results of large format photography.

 

Now Showing

Find capsule reviews, showtimes & tickets for all films in town.

Powered By VOICE Places

Join My Voice Nation for free stuff, film info & more!

Box Office

  1. Iron Man 3, 72.5 mil, 284.9 mil
  2. The Great Gatsby, 50.1 mil, 50.1 mil
  3. Pain & Gain, 5.0 mil, 41.6 mil
  4. Peeples, 4.6 mil, 4.6 mil
  5. 42, 4.6 mil, 84.7 mil
  6. Oblivion, 4.1 mil, 81.9 mil
  7. The Croods, 3.6 mil, 173.2 mil
  8. Mud, 2.5 mil, 8.6 mil
  9. The Big Wedding, 2.5 mil, 18.3 mil
  10. Oz The Great and Powerful, 1.1 mil, 230.3 mil
Movie Title, Weekly Earnings, Total Earnings
©2013 LA Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places Los Angeles

    Voice Places

    Find everything you're looking for in your city

  • Happy Hour App

    Happy Hour App

    Find the best happy hour deals in your city

  • Daily Deals

    Daily Deals

    Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city