This is reply arouse out of a debate that was started o nthe Martic BBS, in Toronto, Canada. The BBS is an artist-run BBS, so we have film-makers as well as video and mulitmedia artists as members. The debate started when a video- + artist wrote an essay entitled, "Why Film Will Be Extinct" WHY FILM WILL BE EXTINCT: NOT! Film will indeed be around for at least the next twenty years. The + high definition of 35mm Colour motion-picture film is better than any electronic format that currently exists: outside of a laboratory that is. In terms of sheer portablity and on location ruggedness, Motion-picture cameras will still be the production medium of choice, well into the first quarter of the next century. In terms of compatibility, 35mm will have higher resolution than any high definition broadcast television system in existence or even proposed, therefore something shot in film, can easily be transferred to any High Definition T.V. format and still look great. I will now elaborate further on these points. My first point indicated that 35mm motion picture stock has higher resolving power than any electronic format currently commercially available, since it can resolve over 5000 lines per square inch. Current NTSC television systems can resolve approximately 290 lines per square inch (don't confuse resolveing power with scan lines, NTSC has 483 picture scan lines and 42 information or blanking scanlines). High Definition television with approximately 1200 scanlines resolves approximately 560 lines per square inch. There is one digital Hi-Def. t.v. system that I heard of that has over 2300 scanlines, still not even one fifth the resolving power of a 35mm motion-picture stock like Eastman Kodak's 5245 EXR colour negative stock (over 5000 lines per square inch resolving power). Kodak has in its labs a new digital optical printer device that comes close to having the same resolving power as 5245, with over 24 million possible colour combinations as well. It is still in the lab and requires three seconds to scan one 35mm colour negative frame: way to slow to use for shooting something in "real" time. Kodak insists that this kind of technology will eventually replace photo-chemical timing of release prints in the next five to ten years, thus eliminating one laboratory step. Since I just demonstrated that there is one post-production system in the + test-lab stage that almost equals the resolving power of 5245, I will now + explain my second point; why film will remain a production medium for at least the next 25 years. Nothing with the the resolution of 35mm film is currently portable. Even today's Hi-def. tv. systems are not as portable as 35mm. Because, 35mm cameras like the ARRIFLEX 535 are very small and are even used as hand-held cameras. Directors of Photography will continue to use Arri's "in the field". The only use of electronic Hi.def. tv. systems in the next five to ten years will be in studio-style shoots. i.e. sporting events, television studio shows like Late Night with David Letterman etc... Nothing, and I repeat NOTHING available today or even on the drawing boards can match the flexibility of film as a production medium. My third point, about compatibilitywith the different Hi-Def. t.v. systems, seems more and more like another reason why film as a production tool is not going to disappear anytime soon. Since the 35mm format has higher resolution than the Hi Def. tv systems, it means something shot today ~\ or in the 1960's for that matter (Star Trek; the Prisoner; etc...) ~\ will be easily transferred to any system that happens to come into existence, be it the analogue European HD-MAC system, the analogue Japanese NHK system, or one of the many Digital systems being developed in the U.S.A. such as the Hewlett Pacard-Zenith system, the Texas Instruments System or the RCA Sarnoff Labs system. The fact that these shows weren't shot on NTSC, PAL or SECAM means that they will still look great when shown on a Hi Def. system. One minor drawback for T.V. shows shot on film is that they aren't in a wide screen aspect ratio, which all the high definition systems will be, anywhere from 1.66 to 1 ratio, to 1.85 to 1 ratio. However this is not a problem for theatrical movies/films since most films from the 1950's onwards have been shot in some sort of widescreen process ~\ another bonus for film. To some-up the compatibility arguement, 35mm film is downward compatible with any electronic motion-picture media. What will the future bring? I can say from lots of experience that the future will be slow. Look at High Definition television. I first heard of the NHK system when I was thirteen, back in 1981. It still hasn't become a commercial system (although NHK now broadcasts five hours a day in High definition). Also look how long it took to implement colour in North America. NTSC was approved in early 1954. NBC became the first broadcaster to broadcast a colour, with a movie in the fall of 1954. It wasn't until 13 years later that all the networks in the U.S. were broadcasting all their shows in colour. Furthermore, it wasn't until 1973 that more than half of all U.S. households had a colour T.V. set. Think about it, almost twenty years passed by since the introduction of colour television before it became a commonplace technology. Keeping in mind the history lesson, take a look at what is on the commerically available technological horizon: Digital High Definition T.V.(within the next 2-5 years); Three Dimensional Television-Holographic (Within the next 20-40 years); Tapeless videorecorders(within the next 5-20 years); and Digital Televison with Resolving power greater than the Human Eye (Within 15-30 years). As I pointed out earlier, film is still going to be around with us for the next 25 years or so, but only as a production medium and maybe as a projection medium. However, even as we speak, electronic media are in the process of taking over the post-production stage of film-making. Electronic media, especially digital media, can more easily manipulate images than the photo-optical systems in use since the days of the Lumiare Brothers (1895). Film will be extinct from the post-production realm within the next five to ten years, once the prices come down so that indepentent film-makers ~\ like myself ~\ can afford the latest computerised non-linear editing system and printers. Eventually, with the use of a new technology referred to as " + microtubes" or vacuum tubes printed on a microchip, the ability for electronic media to out perform good old 35mm , even our own eyes, is likely to occur very soon. However, with all new major technological advances, two factors will ultimately slow its introduction and acceptence into the mainstream (read this to mean commercially available): (1) Fear of new technology that is demonstratably better than the one it replaces. (2) Prophitablity, will it make sense to change to the new format or will the costs incurred in refurbishing outway any technological advances. So I hope I cleared up some conceptions on why film-makers think that film will be around for the next quarter century or so. Be Seeing you! Joey Schwartz: Film-maker, Film Programmer, Projectionist and PRISONER fan. [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] ************************************************************** * This message was sent from MATRIX ARTS BBS + * * The views expressed in this posting are those of the individual author only. + * **************************************************************