A revival for Film

[wildflower art]

<p>The IMAX film movie is filmed in a format very similar to medium format. The IMAX movie is film and is 69.6 mm × 48.5 mm. The 6x6 format film is 56 mm × 56 mm. The film is made by kodak and is called ESTAR, which is a special polymer backed transparency or slide or reversal film. I think this means some good things for people who use film. I think some might say this is an endorsement of my continued use of film. This would validate the idea that if your final product is a projection, you should use transparency or slide or reversal film. Digital projections are convenient for storage and ease of use, not final detail or artistic clarity. <br>

I suppose the real question is, how long until there are medium format digital movie cameras and medium format projectors? Many movies are filmed in digital to have to reshoot the digital image unto a 70 mm slide film for projection with questionable quality gains in IMAX. The convenience of digital, and not having to carry hundred pound film reels, means it will be here to stay. The availability of quality digital movie cameras that can be bought and used by anyone will be good for movie making, with the addition of audio equipment in stereo jacks and home movie editing suites. However, the larger format film is still superior to the highest resolution digital camera movie making, the movie goer has decided via free market selection or result or outcome.<br>

I think IMAX might be good for film and the photomaker and the artist who still uses the silver print. Seventy millimeter movie film suggests there is a market or niche for all artists. However, clearly the medium format digital camera, like the leaf backs and the Leica S2 and Hasselblad digital H series will grow to produce a live view camera and a HD film system. The new IMAX will be medium format digital, with a large format chip of 70 mm size. This camera will bring higher quality digital resources to all of us.<br>

Maybe the excess of 70 mm film will make a cheap medium format camera. I think the current situation is somewhat tragic, with many people having disposable cameras and no where to process them or have their family photos print. Perhaps there could be a disposable digital camera or ftp photo loading printing at CVS. I hope that the larger IMAX format leads to large format digital and large format movie making. The race for larger sensors and larger medium may have been ironically struck by medium format film movies. <br>

Matthew</p>

<p> </p>

[randrew1]

<p>Digital IMAX projectors were introduced in 2008. A 4K 3D digital IMAX camera was introduced in 2011. Current digital IMAX digital projection doesn't meet the resolution of IMAX film projection, but in my experience, it is good enough. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>There is not going to be a "revival" or resurgence of film use.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>John has told the truth there. Convenience and "free" photos are what consumer photography is all about. Film photography, which is essentially B&W these days, will remain a niche market for fine art and such. Most people can't tell the difference between a well made B&W digital print and a film print anyway, even in galleries. I can, but I'm supposed to be able to, since I'm a photographer.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"ESTAR, which is a special polymer backed transparency or slide or reversal film."<br /><br />Estar is Kodak's brand name for a polyster film base as opposed to traditional acetate film base. It can be reveral stock, but can also be negative stock or positive print stock. It comes in a wide variety of formats and emulsions. Also, movie prints are almost always made on positive print stock from a negative, not on reversal film, both because reveral-to-reversal printing is more expensive than negative-to-positive, and because reversal-to-reversal prints are usually more contrasty. </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>f your final product is a projection, you should use transparency or slide or reversal film.</em></p>

<p>Well first off, I'm absolutely convinced that non-projection displays are on the whole superior to projection displays, and the quality gap will continue to widen. So I don't want to watch projected movies any more, it is inferior technology. That in some particular niche, location, or size the non-projection (LCD, LED, OLED, AMOLED, plasma, etc.) technology hasn't yet replaced projection technology is just a very temporary condition. At this time, digital video quality jumps by leaps and bounds every few years, while film (<em>especially</em> projected film) quality advances at a glacial pace. (But of course cost will be the biggest driver of change.)</p>

<p>I'm not anti-film. I just ordered a bunch of B&W processing chemicals. But taking your cues for movies is IMO the worst justification from film. IMOPO, you really shouldn't go looking for "an endorsement of [your] continued use of film." Instead, use whatever tools and media you like and/or you find give you the best results. As long as those tools and media are available and prices you're willing and able to pay, don't worry too much about what tools and media others use. And I'll put that 120 Tri-X on to cook, because I like it--but for most uses, I'll use digital.<br /></p>

 

[waltflanagan]

<p>Hollywood studios already shoot in 4K or roughly 4096x2160 or more which is in the 8-12MP range per frame. There are already 8K video cameras which is around 7680×4320 or 33 megapixels. Here is the NHK 8K video camera.<br /> http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/11/nhk-smaller-8k-super-hi-vision-camcorder/</p>

<p>Here is a JVC 8K projector<br>

http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/21/jvc-8k-e-shift-projector-launch/</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>IMAX, the system that almost ruined the last Batman film by forcing most of the picture into ADR, is the symbol of a "revival"?</p>

[wildflower art]

<p>Thank you for your input. <br>

To me, Kodak is all but out of the film market except for some black and white films and Fuji no longer makes any film other than professional slide films, maybe with a few exceptions. To say you are a wedding photographer is a very challenging thing to say. You would have to have your own printing service and there are no longer any photo services in the area. <br>

I am still very much a film shooter, and very much dependent on film to produce a lasting and physical product. I hope Fuji goes on making their Velvia in 120 and 135 for some time. When film is gone, I think so too will many happy and hands on memories. I haven't studied the digital shooter, but they seem to feel they spend far too much for far less. <br>

I have seen two extremes: a wildflower society meeting with an LCD digital projector to project wildflower images by users and a female performer at a concert with a disposable film camera. <br>

The new camera seems to be the iphone, this is great, it is far less than the $500 intro digital SLR and will mean many people are taking pictures. I hope there is a new market to print iPhone pictures. iPhone printing, help us Lord, will be as ubiquitous as the old one hour photo shops. <br>

Matthew</p>

 

[dave_redmann]

<p>If what one wants is "to produce a lasting and physical product," then that's still easy with a digital camera. Just upload the files to any of the many places that will produce either (1) real RA-4 color prints, just like you'd get from wet-darkroom printing color negative film (which are now more archival than ever before); or (2) real silver-halide black-and-white prints (inexpensively on RC paper from places like Mpix and Fromex, or expensively on FB paper from places like A&I and Elevator).</p>

<p>The iPhone is the new Instamatic, mostly for people who don't care too much about quality or flexibility. Also, it costs more than many, many very good digital cameras--the current iPhone 5 will cost $650 to $850, depending the memory size (the old iPhone 4 and 4s are still available new, starting at $450 and $550, respectively). Only if you sign an extended wireless service contract, in effect the wireless provider will finance the phone and build that into the contract price, which case you may pay only $100 or $200 up front and, effectively, the rest over the two years of the contract.</p>

 

[plasma181]

<p>Film will be dying for 1,000 years. </p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Ten years ago, it had five years left!</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Also, it costs more than many, many very good digital cameras<br>

But it doesn't cost more than a serviceable digital camera, a good phone, a decent organizer, an MP3 player, a low end GPS, a dictation recorder, and a pocket game console.</p>

[wildflower art]

<p>When film is truly gone, how will people make and process X-rays for medicine? <br>

I had suggested to a friend, Mary, that X-Rays, which are large format film, might one day go digital. <br>

What is the ISO of X-Ray film? Could your current digital camera at ISO 25,600 get a good shot of a broken bone, assuming the X-rays could concentrate on a sensor of 135 size? The expense of such a 11X17 digital sensor would be enormous, but would be a reasonable investment for every hospital in the world purchasing in mass. <br>

Less film means higher X-ray costs and cost of film development. Do you know any current X-Ray film lab technicians? Already people might be using sonograms, which are digital sound pictures, in the void. <br>

I would question if large sensor makers have researched making large sensors for medicine. I ask if the lack of silver in film is crushing silver prices and demand. I would guess digital is benefiting the people who need it the most the least. <br>

I hope someone knows how long the last kinds of film will be produced before even Fuji calls it quits, as Kodak has announced that they are not making slide film, it is harder to process prints, and many persons have benefited from digital photography. There are more photographers now than ever. I would ask what why then, with so many people in photography, digital is closing opportunities for photo enthusiast and not opening them. <br>

Polaroid, once almost out of business, has a digital photo printer camera. Photography was always expensive, even now still so. The rules of business have made a digital a clear winner, but funding the opportunities of digital has not kept up. <br>

Do any professional photographers out there deal in client requirements? As in, so many megabytes or megapixels are required for a clean newspaper picture versus magazine print? The very first professional digital cameras had only 2 megapixels, and people said those results were better then film. Today they have 24 and 36 megapixels. The convenience of instant results makes them immediately desirable, the workflow of the professional must keep pace with that convenience.<br>

The 135 digital camera could be used to produce news, a lot of which is made by the iPhone newsmakers on the street. The digital camera could be attached to radios to give military commanders instant intelligence. The digital camera could be even more integral in social media activism. All in the future of those who dream. All for those who know the markets of the world grow opportunity, which is dream. <br>

Matthew</p>

<p> </p>

[mike dixon]

"I had suggested to a friend, Mary, that X-Rays, which are large format film, might one day go digital."

 

X-ray machines started going digital over 25 years ago. Digital x-ray machines have been very common for well over a decade.

 

"The digital camera could be attached to radios to give military commanders instant intelligence. The digital camera could be even more integral in social media activism. All in the future of those who dream."

 

While I congratulate you on the accuracy of your "predictions," they would be much more impressive if you were describing future developments rather than things that have already happened.

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you know any current X-Ray film lab technicians?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know multiple radiology techs, radiologists, and a respected professor of radiology. But I don't know any "current X-Ray film lab technicians" because film x-rays are basically dead. The phosphor plate digital x-ray killed them years ago. Odds are, you've had one, or seen someone have one, and never even knew it, because the equipment looks essentially identical to film x-ray gear. The phosphor plate replaces the film holder, the entire rest of the x-ray system stays the same. The plate goes through a scanner instead of a developing system.<br>

You talked about the sensitivity of x-ray film. The sensitivity of the digital systems are tens or hundreds of times better.</p>

<ul>

<li>Ask the techs how they feel about cutting their own radiation exposure down by a factor of fifty, and eliminating toxic chemicals.</li>

<li>Then ask the radiologists how they feel about higher dynamic range and quicker results.</li>

</ul>

<p>The thing we're seeing today is not the replacement of film x-rays by digital, because that battle is long over, but the replacement of "indirect" phosphor plate x-rays with "direct" or at least 1:1 sized indirect systems, like a phosphor scintillator over amorphous silicon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would question if large sensor makers have researched making large sensors for medicine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You would "question" this? There's a huge market for x-ray sized sensors, and a ton of techniques for making them affordably. Dicom, GE, etc. are pouring big bucks into this. Ever see a 60 inch LCD? That's a huge panel of "thin film" transistors. You can make large sensors just as efficiently as large displays. Then add an appropriate scintillating phosphor to convert the x-ray to something polysilicon or amorphous silicon can detect easily, like IR or visible light, and viola, systems so sensitive and fast that they produce less radiation visualizing an entire surgical procedure in real time than film x-rays used for a single exposure. <br>

Check this out: <a href="http://www.ge-mcs.com/en/radiography-x-ray/digital-x-ray/dxr250p.html">16 inch square flat panel detector that replaces an x-ray film holder</a>. It has an Ethernet port, you just plug it into a PC or laptop, and you're off and running. 7 pounds, and it replaces a shielded cabinet full of plates and a developing system. <br>

That's the tip of the ice berg. Trauma centers love whole body digital x-rays.</p>