I always hear people/actors/directors say, this tape or film is x meters long, it is this size, etc. do they really still use physical film? If so why aren’t they using terabytes of storage in a way more compact form?

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    so when they talk about length, they’re talking about the physical length of the film. 35mm film refers to the width. depending on the format being used- super35 for example- the length of a single frame or still on that film is about 18 mm.

    as for why film- because digital recordings are actually pretty heavily compressed and once you lose that data, it can’t be recovered. the information stored on the film is actually much, much more densely encoded even if it’s analog. additionally, there’s some effects that simply can’t be perfectly replicated using digital, simply because it’s a fundamentally different medium.

    You’ll have adherents to both camps, but ultimately it comes down to what produces a better film, and for box office productions, that’s still analog film.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      digital recordings are actually pretty heavily compressed and once you lose that data, it can’t be recovered. the information stored on the film is actually much, much more densely encoded even if it’s analog.

      This is why you sometimes see HD/4K rereleases of very old movies that were recorded on film. It’s not hard to get more resolution as long as they still have the original film reels.

    • accideath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Digital video is not necessarily more compressed than analog film. The way your phone shoots it, yes. Modern digital cinema cameras however are both higher resolution and have a higher dynamic range than motion picture film. They shoot raw imagery that is incredibly high quality and detailed (and indeed needs large SSDs and hard drives) and is not behind film in any way, quality wise. This was different, even 10 years ago but by now, if all you care about is quality, digital is more than enough.

      However, what digital cameras cannot reproduce is the the texture the feel and the specific look of film. Post processing gets close today but not all the way. Besides, the process of shooting film is very different and some directors and photographers prefer the more difficult yet more down to earth process.

      Btw, in practice, most blockbuster films today are actually shot on digital cameras, especially the likes of RED, ARRI and Sony. Analog is only used by some productions although they are a minority now. Fanatics like Tarantino and Nolan are doing their best though to keep film alive and in the case of Nolan, push it to the limits by shooting 70mm and 70mm IMAX film. Especially the latter is better than any current digital camera but due to IMAX being much more difficult and expensive to shoot, almost no one besides Nolan uses it.