“Revolution is not a onetime event.” David K. Irving looks at film versus digital and how the change in theaters affects filmmakers and audiences.
“Revolution is not a onetime event.”
~Audre Lorde Revolution is quick change, evolution is slow change. As much as we feel the pressure of the digital rage, it is but one of many revolutions in the on-going technological evolution. In our fever to keep up, we often forget that this revolution is being fueled by wholesalers’ marketing schemes to coerce sales.
We have seen the CD-ROM world and the dot-com world, both part of this digital grail, fall without grace into a sea of despair. They were quickly replaced by the next wave of technologies; RED, iTunes, YouTube, etc., and there has been no looking back. But what concerns me most, as a member of the film community, is that revolutions compel individuals to take sides. “I’m digital, new technology, zeros and ones rule!” Or, “The look of film is bee-u-tee-ful.” We’re engaged in a battle over whether to go completely digital or retain the film medium.
Movies are meant to be seen. And currently, the standard for capturing and projecting movies internationally is via film. I do not have a crystal ball. I cannot say when digital technology will replace film. All signs point that way, but I for one believe that the road to that inevitability is longer than we think. Certainly longer than the digital manufacturing industry thinks.
I like computers. I like the digital arena… for some things. Word processing, games, internet surfing, research and non-linear editing. Where I am cautious is in image capture and distribution. While the general public cannot tell the difference between a film shot or projected on stock or digital, I can. The argument that digital image capture is inexpensive and as a result a director can shoot a lot of material is countered by the fact there are only so many hours in a day in which to make the pages. Light, shadows and color read much better on film. Granted there are situations in which shooting High Def makes sense, especially on an actor-driven project, but if one is going to put up millions of dollars to gather a top notch cast and crew to shoot a terrific script, why not use film? The expenses related to High Def shooting, especially in the enhancement process during post, make the medium less of a bargain than one might expect.
If a film or digital project is made up of four equally divided stages – pre-production, production, post production and distribution – we can safely say that digital technology dominates one of these areas: post-production. It took ten years, and now editing on film has become extinct. But how many filmmakers now have not one, not two, but several versions of their story on hard drives. The ability to shoot 30-to-1 or 50-to-1 is more of a problem than a benefit. What that tells me is, knowing the facility of digital technology is an available forethought, might mean working out the kinks in the story will be given short shrift. Now the filmmakers find themselves in post-production without having fulfilled some of the pre-production requirements: getting the story.
Digital technology has made inroads into pre-production with screenplay formatting, storyboarding programs and effective budgeting and scheduling software. No computer has yet to write a good screenplay or cast a film.
In production and distribution, digital technology is now making effective inroads. Some films have been shot on high-def digital, and some have been projected on digital projectors. But these are not yet industry standard. Most films are shot and projected on 35mm and will be for a while. Even though digital projection is currently available, without a business model to change all movie theaters over from 35mm film to digital projection, at a cost of more than $150,000 per theatre, film prints still need to be struck. Distributors and exhibitors are still struggling over who should pay for this expense.
Film stock changed its format once in 100 years. Whereas video has changed 50 times in that many years.
And how about trademark and copyright. A negative is a physical entity. It lasts over 50 years and the new stocks may last hundreds of years. A digital project resides on a server. And with watermarking, password protection and encryption technology still being researched, I feel my concerns about copyright are genuine. The library of Congress insists on 35mm film as the best means to preserve our moving image national heritage. Starting in the 1950s, the Library began to re-photograph paper prints to convert them back into films again. Initially onto 16mm film and then onto 35mm film. The digital preservation project initiated in the 1990’s has been impetus to make more 35mm prints of national works in order to have a superior digital image from which to work. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has concluded a study in 2007 that it costs $1200 per year over 10 years to archive and preserve a 35mm negative verses $12,000 per year over 10 years to archive a digital master feature. That is 10 times the cost for protecting a digital library.
When a new technology first enters the marketplace, bells from all quarters are sounded. Attention is paid. People sign on quickly. And technology has encroached on the film business rapidly.
But, though this revolution is still being waged, there will be another, perhaps even more seductive, revolution to follow… and another… and another. And that is what evolution is all about.
Related filmmaking guides
Keep learning filmmaking
Want more lessons like this? Join StudentFilmmakers free for live webinars with working pros, and stream on-demand filmmaking classes in cinematography, directing, screenwriting, sound and post.
