Will film cameras make a comeback like vinyl?

Disappointed with Baby Driver it's not the new Pulp Fiction.

 

I miss cameras, Polaroid, Nikon, Pentax, it had some good times with cameras. Digital my be better, but it isn't cooler....

 

I'm going to say not for the most part, although I'm still disapointed that it's 2017 and not all films are being shot with 4k digital cameras. The only 4k blu ray shot natively with 4k cameras is Planet Earth 2 and it looks noticeably better than all the other 4k BRs I have that are mostly 2k upscaled. Thankfully film has infinite resolution so we can at least count on future releases of more classic films in 4k like the Lawrence of Arabia release or Taxi Driver. Still no Godfather in 4k, why?

 

Film most certainly does not have infinite resolution. Depending on the film stock, you might reasonably expect to get between 2k - 4k resolution, and you'd be pushing it at 4k. Digital cameras can do much better.

 

Is that true? What determines the resolution limit of film? Does it just look grainy past a certain point?

 

Yes, that's true. It's a combination of factors, from grain size and variation in size, to grain distribution, light sensitivity and response. It's all very messy and imprecise when trying to quantify an analog medium in terms of digital resolution, but around 4k is near the upper limit of film in good condition.

 

I assume that although manufacturing quality is a factor, in general 70mm film can be restored to higher resolutions than 35mm film? What are some examples of films you think could be reliably restored to 4k assuming good physical preservation?

I imagine there is a mathematical model out there somewhere to estimate the upper boundaries of the resolution of different types of film. I can work moderately upper level physics problems but never spent much time researching or thinking about film as I'm not a photographer or know as much about video technology as I do audio tech. Digital is pretty straightforward compared to the amount of variables when evaluating an analog video signal.

 

It's funny how some people think film can almost be infinitely blown up. Try enlarging a few pictures shot on Tri-X and you realize pretty quick that's a long way from the truth!

 

^Part of the problem is that I had to Google Tri-X because consumer sales plummeted 10 years before I was born. I never had the opportunity in school or anywhere else to use a dark room. Everyone used digital cameras by the time I entered 4th grade.

Alas, I'm no cinematographer. I'm just a simple biochemist

 

Resolution is actually measured as part of MTF (Modulation Transform Function) and the lens and format's ability to capture a given number of line pairs per mm:

Understanding resolution and MTF

The bottom line is that contrast, lighting, focus, compression, and other factors can all affect apparent resolution. Often, 4K is not really 4K.

A lot of 70mm releases were not shot on 65mm negative but instead were just blow-ups from 35mm. The only reason they released on 70mm was because of the benefit of 6-track magnetic sound stripes. The films that were shot on 65mm from 1950-1992 (Far and Away was the last major studio film until recently) generally could not really resolve anything more than 4K, with rare exceptions. The films shot with spherical lenses -- Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, and My Fair Lady are three I can think of -- really can resolve more than 4K of resolution, but it's not a lot more, plus all these films did use diffusion on some sequences, and that reduces apparent resolution. The bottom line is that there's more to high-quality images than just a number or just resolution alone.

The color scientists I worked with at Kodak about 15 years ago told me they estimated that -- in an ideal case -- their best negative, probably 5219 (Vision 3) could resolve 6000 lines, basically 6K. But they also admitted that you'd never, ever see that kind of sharpness from film projection because of losses in the print process and stability problems in the projector. The Kodak people who created Cineon back around 1992 decided that on an average basis, the most you could see from a typical 35mm print in a typical theater was 2K (going down 4 contact-print generations), so 2K was chosen as the cornerstone of their all-digital processing workflow. I think you can argue that 4K does look sharper than 2K under optimum conditions, but it's more subtle than you might think. I also think that HDR (and Dolby Vision) represent much bigger changes to picture quality than just the K.

 

I saw Baby Driver tonight and loved it, but for the life of my I can't get why they bothered to shoot it on film. It looked no better or worse than the other film my wife and I saw today, The Big Sick, which I assume was shot with an Arri Alexa to judge by the end credits.

 

Totally agree. There is just no practical reason in the world to use film other than you just prefer it. I know we debate this all the time here but for me anyway, vinyl blows digital out of the water if you have the right pressings and hardware, admittedly not easy for some to do but at least with vinyl there IS a reason to go back. I don't know why most are into vinyl if they don't have a very good system because you can get decent digital sound for a whole lot less money and effort, but for me it's worth it. I do professional photography and I am just about positive no one I work with could tell the difference between digital photos and film if both are done right. I would bet film is simply immensely enjoyable for those that are in to that, and that's reason enough to do it. My local Costco has those instant Polaroid cameras available and I can see people doing that for fun, but I don't see film making any kind of significant comeback ever.

 

Thank you! That was really very informative. I agree that the color depth and contrast of HDR10 and Dolby Vision specs make a much more impressive difference than 1080p to 4k. The difference between 1080p and 4k is impressive for gaming when viewing a monitor from a 2' distance. Even with perfect eyesight it takes a 65" display to begin to notice a slight increase in detail from the resolution jump at couch distance. For myself and most people I've talked to, resolutions higher than 1080p are only readily apparent on 77" or larger screens if you sit more than 9 feet or so away.

 

Neat post. Thanks!

 

I think you are describing the vinyl experience as well. I like it for it's amazing sound, but it's also an experience and you feel more committed to it, just like I imagine you would when you use film. You would certainly take more pride, and care, when shooting photos with film especially if you also have a dark room. When I put on a vinyl record, I am generally in for the whole album, not just one track. Maybe that is why more casual listeners are going with vinyl when they have modest systems. That never really ever occured to me. I would definitely see how both would attract the same kind of person. I have always shot digitally, and it occurred to me when reading this how only on rare ocassions I have that connection with photos I take. Like digital music, it is so easy to take and delete them, I don't feel connected in any way to most of them. That's how the average listener treats digital files.

 

Well, ues and no. The original buyer I'm sure got a lot of pleasure out of it. My grandfather left a beautiful film camera rig to my dad, with many fine lenses, and my dad feels the same way you do as he will never use them. But grandpa took an awful lot of photos with them and even it is never used again, it served a wonderful purpose. I suppose it will be coming to me next! I would only keep it for sentimental value.

 

More than a few directors still shoot on film at this point, but it will likely pass as "film"makers opt for cheaper options. The other issue is whether or not those 35mm films are later shown in their original format or in a digital cinema package. Theaters can't support analogue film screenings anymore, except for a few art theaters, or self-run retrospective-type gatherings (say, of exploitation cinema). Today 99% of projectionists pop in a cartridge with a playlist. So much for projectionists.

If you like vinyl as offering a record of what music actually sounded like when it first made, then you should be more than mildly interested in the passing of analogue film.

 

There's nothing wrong with shooting on film and finishing & projecting in digital. It still looks like film to me. As far as I'm concerned, that's the best of all possible worlds; the end result still hinges largely on the work of the DP in lighting, exposure, choosing the right lens, and composing the right picture to tell the story.

The sad reality of showing 35mm films at retro theaters is that the prints are generally beat to hell, full of splices, have tons of scratches, and are frequently incomplete. Anything that detracts from the story and the performance is a bad thing -- I couldn't give an F if it's "real film" or not -- I just want to see an uninterrupted movie and be entertained, provided the visual quality level is at or above a certain point.

 

All of this. ^^^ People get so hung up on numbers and would rather ignore that a visual image is an enormous and complicated stew. Resolution in particular seems to be the easiest thing for people to hop on. I hate it. I've hated it since the earliest days of digital photography.

Remember the megapixel wars? I feel like this 4k obsession is a repeat of that. By the time you get to 2k everything else above that is so subtle it's not worth obsessing over. "4K" capability on a smartphone is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. Sure I can shoot "4k" on my iPhone and fill up its memory in line 12 seconds, not to mention the fools errand of getting 4k or 2k resolution out of that teensy sensor and dodgy, cheap lens assembly.

dan c

 

No, it isn't because the 4k UHD standard is about much, much more than a simple pixel count. It's all about the quality of those pixels (high dynamic range, high brightness, wide color gamuts, 3d color spaces, 30-bit+ color processing). This is also now starting to apply to smartphone displays, which will be significant when it comes to VR/AR applications.

 

As you know, DCP vs film is a philosophical difference. Most people agree with you but I also doubt they known the difference. The scratches, splice repairs, etc. breathe life into the film as a thing as far as I'm concerned. Of course, (like with vinyl records) there is such a thing as too beat up where one can no longer follow the story. But yes--I'm very impractical in my views on this.

 

Personally, I prefer the look of film and have never loved digital projection. There is something phony looking about digital to me personally, like everything is amped up. However, it isn't a big deal or something I notice once the movie gets going. And in the case of cinema, I have to concede the benefits of shooting and processing digital simply far outweighs a minor issue in presentation where few people care or notice the difference. That's the same battle going on with vinyl, though sound quality isn't the biggest driving element imo, it's the experience. The excellent sound you can achieve is a huge bonus. I wish digital had more of the positive attributes of film, but it will get there (if indeed anyone even thinks it needs to) and it's certainly good enough. And this whole 4K thing is silly imo. The industry, I believe, is going to have a very hard time getting the masses to trade up. 1080 is more than good enough for the majority. It kind of irritates me to see the industry trying to get people, again, to toss out the old and buy the new. That's the backbone of how tech works, but they are going to hit their heads against a brick wall this time, much as they did when trying to get people to upgrade to high rez digital music. Most feel what they have is good enough. No way are they replacing their music again. I think they will find the same holds true with their current flatscreens.

 

I'd suspect not in a big way since film is so much more of a hassle to deal with vs digital in so many ways and any benefits (the 'film' look, etc) are completely swamped out buy digital's advantages IMO; the expensive media, developing time/hassle, dodging and burning in the darkroom, not being able to change the ISO of film shot to shot, having to use a light sealed bag to change lenses, having to wait a period of time to see your results (and finding out a large percentage of your shots were not exposed properly), and a huge learning curve are all things I loath about shooting film and am glad to have in my rear view mirror.

Not to mention that digital gives so much more immediate control and feedback for the exposure; my EVF looks amazing, has a horizon/level, live histogram, a true realtime indication of the current exposure, and instant feedback to evaluate you composition, etc. Some people think all of that is 'hand holding' and somehow you're not a 'real photographer' but that criticism is frankly idiotic IMO. I get 'the shot' so much faster, cheaper, and easier with digital. I traded my entire Nikon dSLR rig for a mirrorless system (Fuji) and love the reduction in size and weight without any compromise in quality.

When digital cameras/sensors really started to mature about 10 years ago my interest in photography was rekindled big time. I got tired of the expense, time to see results, and the overall tedious nature of film/darkrooms years ago.

While all of the digital friendliness does allow you to 'spray and pray' with impunity and can make you a bit lazy/unthinking/less creative (I know of wedding photographers who take literally thousands of shots/session in the hope they get the shots they were looking for...then find themselves in Photoshop for days evaluating and culling them), I find myself still somewhat bound to the mindset when I was shooting film (I'd always ask "why am I taking this picture; what is it I want to say, or what am I looking for"?) and, at times, impose limitations for a day of shooting (I pretend I have only one or two rolls of 36 exposure film thus making me think creatively as I have a limited number of frames I can shoot).

It's funny, I know of a super hard core film shooter who looks down at his nose on digital, going on and on about the look of film, it's 'purity', bla bla. While his nature shots and compositions are extremely well done, I have to wonder when he (and many other film buffs) complain about the overly 'clean' look of digital. His large prints are sometimes grainy (especially the skies), and he pontificates about how the 'film grain' is sooooo much desired and is much more 'natural' vs the clinical look of digital. When I look at a sky (or any other scene) I don't see any 'grain' at all, and, aside from giving an image a dated look, I've never been able to understand why the 'grainy' look is so desired. Real life isn't grainy, not one bit.

So this is my long winded way of saying why I don't think film will come back in any appreciable way; it's just to much of a pain, is too limiting, too time consuming, can be very frustrating, and just has no real advantages IMO.

One thing film still has over digital is dynamic range, but I find shooting HDR with digital leaves that argument in the dust (generally) as HDR with multiple exposures supersedes any film dynamic range and allows a much better capture of a given scene with extreme darks and lights. I'll allow shooting HDR by bracketing exposures can be difficult in some situations (moving subjects like clouds in the sky for example), but I've gotten amazing results with HDR that film could never touch (unless multiple bracketed exposures are scanned and digitally processed). I process my HDR shots so they look natural and not the horrible images you see done by the abuse of the sliders in Photomatix software (shudder)...

But, I see cassettes are making a comeback somewhat so anything is possible....

 

Yeah sub niche of a sub niche, until someone manufactures a decent deck and starts making premium tapes again it's merely a fetish. If someone can build a convincing business case and present it to Sony/Technics/Pioneer/Yamaha/NAD/Rega etc...and make it happen then it's a comeback.

 

I agree. One place I do prefer the look of film is for motion pictures/TV, and post processing film digitally and projecting digitally is indeed the best of both worlds.