The oldest example of the convergence of film and video technologies dates back to 1934, when researchers at Bell Labs and Kodak experimented with a new medium they dubbed "radio-vision." They wanted to find a way to broadcast film through an experimental television system. In 1937, NBC Television was broadcasting 10 hours per week of live programs to 100 television set owners in the United States. The content was a mix of live performances and movies.
In 1940, Kodak Research Laboratories launched an initiative to develop higher quality film for video interfaces. World War II suspended those plans, however, Subsequently, Kodak played a key role in the development of kinescope technology, which was used to copy live programs from a TRC screen to black and white film to be broadcast in different time zones. Kinescope movies also provide the only archival recordings of early classic TV shows.
"The movie is dead." This dramatic big headline was published in the Daily Variety in 1954 when Ampex announced the invention of a two-inch videotape recording system. The article predicted that all TV shows would be produced on video because of their lower cost and that they would soon rival the quality of the film. This was around the time When Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz changed the future of television when they made the decision to produce the original I Love Lucy on film.
Executives at the CBS television network were reluctant to pay the additional costs to buy and develop the film. Instead of acquiring the program, they agreed to pay a license fee, while the producer retained ownership. This is a decision I bet you wish you could reconsider as I Love Lucy is still paying dividends in its worldwide distribution.
Kodak researchers helped develop the film system technology used for the broadcast of Lucy and other nascent television shows. Later they played an important role in the development of the flying spot scanner technology incorporated in the Rank-Cintel telecines and other modern telecines during the late 70s and early 80s. This interface made it possible to convert the original negative during telecine transfer, producing higher quality and film-to-television images.
One of the arguments put forward by video camera manufacturers is that you can save money by avoiding the cost of buying and developing the film. This part is true. You can save money, but at the cost of certain major risks. Images on film and digital video are fundamentally different.
The film "sees" the colors and shades of gray in the midst of the blackest black and purest white practically the way the human eye does. The color negative can register around 1000 different shades between black and white. When you scan a 35mm color negative frame and convert it to a digital file, you usually get an image of just over 4K. Super 16's film records approximately 2K, along with a wide 1000:1 scale of hue and colors.
The highest quality digital video image capture system is the HD 1080, progressive scan cameras and camcorders, capable of recording a resolution close to 2K (about the same as Super 16 film), but much more limited in their ability to "see" different shades of contrast and colors. Only "see" approximately 100 shades or shades between black and white. In addition, the image is compressed in the camera, while the film always offers an uncompressed image.
Sensitivity is another interesting comparison. The "most sensitive" digital video camera or camcorder is equivalent to a film of sensitivity 400 to 500. Cinematographers who have tested the HD 1080P camera with the new Panavision lenses are of the opinion that it is roughly equivalent to a film of a sensitivity of 200. The "most sensitive" color negative film is currently set to an exposure rate of 800.
This difference of two diaphragm points provides cinematographers with enormous creative latitude, however, the film's enlarged tonal scale may even be more important. This is what makes it possible for them to pose dramatic, long and moving shots in places where there are bright lights and shadow areas. The film allows them to reveal details in both the highlights and shadows that will be lost in the digital video.
There are also intangible differences between images on film and digital video. The film possesses a unique texture, or look, that includes more shades of color and hue and more flexibility for selective focusing. Viewers associate this aspect with fantasy. And they associate the look of digital video with reality.
The film has also proven to be a more reliable support for archiving. If properly preserved, it will last for hundreds of years. Digital video images should prove to be more reliable than analog video images, as they are only storing ones and zeros. But the reality is that the data is stored on a relatively volatile magnetic medium. Perhaps the biggest problem is that digital technology is equipment-based, which will become obsolete due to newer imaging systems. More than 70 video formats have been featured since 1954.
The bottom line is that producers need to make an informed decision. What is the actual cost savings and what is the long-term value relative to that cost? What are the creative consequences? How important is the file?
We can assume that digital film and video imaging technologies will evolve in predictable and unpredictable ways. We can also assume that for the foreseeable future, producers will continue to use film and digital tools for content creation, depending on their needs.
This means that we need to concentrate on making hybrid tools for post-production, cheaper and more easily affordable. It is important for people who choose to produce with film to have easy access to digital post-production and distribution. It is also important for producers who choose to produce in digital formats to have easy access to distribution and archiving on film.
Leave your comment