Pool Shark. New footage.

[awbacon]

The lack of access to high quality labs outside of the major feature production cities and the progressive disappearance of more and more film stocks has driven the shift to digital as much as anything. A good commercial photographer friend was forced to switch to digital because he could no longer get reliable high quality lab services.
Without consumer purchase volume driving the market, film and lab services are not economically sustainable except for a very few specialized markets.

This is quite true. Outside of NY / LA / Chicago, high quality film labs are few and far between. I use Astro in Chicago, but they only support developing / printing of 16 / 35MM color negative film. So anything b&w / reversal, and it's a no go in Chicago.

I still occasionally shoot S16, but only when I want the tactile feel and work flow of film. For 95% of all my work, it's digital. I'd love to still shoot film, but the cost of raw stock / developing and work printing, as well as 2K scans, just mean that more of my money goes towards the capture format and less of my money goes "on the screen"

[nickjbedford]

Not sure what your first sentence means.

There were many pro still photographers who resisted digital still cameras for years, but that's mostly in the past. There are a few pro still photogs who continue shooting on film, but overwhelmingly digital still photography has won out.

A similar process is now playing out with motion picture photography. Obviously many top cinematographers are already shooting digital on some of their films. By the time the next generation of ARRI, RED, Sony, BMD and other digital cinema cameras roll out the tide will have definitively turned toward digital cinematography.

Traditional, chemically-processed film might "never" completely disappear, but it's inevitable that it will become passé for all (well, ~99.9% of) practical purposes. For better or for worse.

I'm just suggesting that it will be longer than a few years (3ish) before the most film-hardened cinematographers move to digital.

[Jason M.]

I think the next few years will be an era of transition between film and digital.

We're already well into that transition, and we're probably over the hump and on the digital side at this point. And I say this as a (somewhat sad) film lover.

[razz16mm]

The lack of access to high quality labs outside of the major feature production cities and the progressive disappearance of more and more film stocks has driven the shift to digital as much as anything. A good commercial photographer friend was forced to switch to digital because he could no longer get reliable high quality lab services.
Without consumer purchase volume driving the market, film and lab services are not economically sustainable except for a very few specialized markets.

[JIKIJI]

I think the next few years will be an era of transition between film and digital.

[Fluoro]

The sad thing is that there's no need for the death of film... It's really not as expensive compared to digital as is made out (at least on some types of film with certain workflows).

[Fabián Matas]

I don't think it will be a few years. A lot of directors and cinematographers have no intention of shooting digital.

Almost nobody want to shoot in digital if they can shoot in analog(with budget) but the producer wants to shoot digital -_-

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

I don't think it will be a few years. A lot of directors and cinematographers have no intention of shooting digital.

Not sure what your first sentence means.

There were many pro still photographers who resisted digital still cameras for years, but that's mostly in the past. There are a few pro still photogs who continue shooting on film, but overwhelmingly digital still photography has won out.

A similar process is now playing out with motion picture photography. Obviously many top cinematographers are already shooting digital on some of their films. By the time the next generation of ARRI, RED, Sony, BMD and other digital cinema cameras roll out the tide will have definitively turned toward digital cinematography.

Traditional, chemically-processed film might "never" completely disappear, but it's inevitable that it will become passé for all (well, ~99.9% of) practical purposes. For better or for worse.

[nickjbedford]

I don't think it will be a few years. A lot of directors and cinematographers have no intention of shooting digital.

[John Caballero]

Well, movie film is dying. Slowly but surely. Replaced by digital cinema. A whole new monster. In a few years our wondering eyes will be totally adjusted to the digital cinema reality. And the generation growing up would not care what film was. They will grow up watching the movies created in their generation. Digitally. Most likely different cameras will continue having different looks, who knows. Most likely they will. But I will say it again, at this moment in time we have pretty good cameras doing their job, if you are truly a pro and know how to master them. There are plenty of people making a good living with them. Making beautiful moving images, getting awards and contributing to the process. Then there the others.

[mattbatt]

The GH2's resolution is not enough to overcome all it's other short comings most of all poor skin tones even with the hack. Look at all the resolution and detail in this turd! Not what I want. 5D Mark III is soft as can be. Having owned a 5D Mark II, Mark III, GH2 and a 7D (already sold the 5D Mark III and 7D to pay for the BMD CC) I'll be shooting with the 5D Mark II until I get my BMD CC. The 5D Mark II with the vaf-5d2 filter and magic lantern looks pretty damn good despite lacking the resolution of the GH2. The AA filter in the 5D Mark III ruined that camera for me. Way to heavy handed. I was all excited about that camera too but after having it for a month I had to stop lying to myself that sharpening up the footage in post fixed things for 5D Mark III. It didn't the cammera is soft. Have some one coming to look at the GH2 tomorrow. Hopefully I can get rid of that one as well. The 5D while having it's own issues with skin tones as least is pleasant looking and with both Tungsten and HMI Lighting even though not accurate. Florescent and other lights not so much but hey what can you do? The Alexa is the only camera I have seen that produces good skin tones. Not as good as film but at least they are in the neighborhood. That is the biggest reason why I am so excited about the BMD CC! Skin tones look way more like the Alexa instead of looking like the ghastly RED skin tones or the skin tones on DSLRs which just don't cut it including the 5D Mark II which I do like but is still not right. Look at the Pirates of the Caribbean movies shot on film versus the last on shot on Red. What a GIANT step backwards! Then compare Ironman shot on film with Avengers shot on Alexa. While not as good as Ironman, The Avengers holds up really well in terms of skin tones. Most of the stuff I shoot primarily has people in it even if they aren't the main focus. People's skin has to look alive! This is not my original comment but I'll do my best to quote it or better yet paraphrase it from a friend of mine who is fortunate and talented enough to work on mainly big budget stuff. "Working with Red footage is great in that you can grade it to look just about any way you want it to but it's like dying or painting clay any color you want, it still looks like mud. You can have muddy skin tones in any hue or shade but the tonality is still that of mud or clay." I am leaving his name out of this on purpose because the last 3 movies he has worked on have all been shot on Red and I don't want to compromise him in any way being that he hates RED skin tones.

If you look at people's faces under good lights close up it's amazing all the wonderful things that are happening in their. It's like the light slightly penetrates the skin and bounces around before being reflected back out and skin is not the same thickness or same level of translucency all over. That is why tonality is so important. Film does a glorious job with this. Alexa comes close and BMD CC seems to be headed in the right direction. I have no inside information and have not seen anything that the rest of you have not seen but I am very, very excited by the little we have seen. I have very little doubt that the footage delivered by this camera will deliver good skin tones which is something that can only be said of Film and the Alexa. Good skin tones is worth a hell of lot more than 3 grand my friends. This really is the big game changer for me. Access to good skin tones for $3000. If you don't shoot humans then their are a ton of amazing cameras already out their for you. If you have human beings in most of what shoot and can't afford to shoot on 35mm film or rent an Alexa for every shoot then salvation is on it's way and it's called the the Blackmagic Cinema Camera!

Just want to say that as a photographer working with RAW all day, coloring and developing photos (when I'm not doing web design) I can attest to everything David said. So nice having the info you shared on here! I have written a lot with the Zacuto tests, but I seriously cannot see what people see with the GH2. Oh well. People tend to not have a trained eye - the eye is a rowdy, distracted member of the body: it goes after the "shiny" interesting object quickly but easily gets fatigued and has a hard time 'knowing' what it is looking for.

Colorists, designers, photographers, cinematographers don't just look at life, they train their eye to perceive differently than the normal person. As a graphic designer, we spent a lot of time learning the eye and its motion and ability to render color. So when I look into the face of talent on screen while editing or grading and glide over their face and cheek bone, I want to see that translucent shimmer, glimmer, pop in the skin.

Nothing does it yet like film. Arri is least dull. Red has a slight cast in the tones that has to be worked on to get out. GH2 is fairly stark, stale and has to be 'massaged' a lot - hence the TONS of light used in the Zacuto tests.

[jmmusic]

I feel like I'm going to be overtly satisfied with the Magic Cam, once I change the mount.

Kholi, maybe you mentioned this elsewhere, but where are you getting your 4/3 mount mod done? Somewhere here in LA?

[Macalincag]

I don't know what you mean by model 1

Model 1, as in, BMD's first camera.

[Taikonaut]

I'll bet my GH2 that the BMCC model 1 will never offer 1080p @ 60p or higher. Not sell my GH2, give it away for free. (I only paid $630 for it way back in Dec. of '10 anyway).

It'll be fabulous if the BMCC model 1 offers frame rates >30 at any resolution, but I'm not holding my breath, and it has no impact on my eagerness to receive my BMCC model 1 "as is" ASAP.

In any event, detailed discussion about the GH2 should probably be in the "Off Topic" section of this forum. Cheers.

I don't know what you mean by model 1 but since BM has made lots of noise about "the number 1 request" I'm still optimistic that we will see firmware update with 60fps.

BTW In case you havent notice all my discussion of the GH2 is how relevent or not it is living alongside the BMC so putting it in "off topic" is'nt necessary.

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

... If the BMC gets a firmware update for 60p or higher I will sell the GH2 in a heart beat.

I'll bet my GH2 that the BMCC model 1 will never offer 1080p @ 60p or higher. Not sell my GH2, give it away for free. (I only paid $630 for it way back in Dec. of '10 anyway).

It'll be fabulous if the BMCC model 1 offers frame rates >30 at any resolution, but I'm not holding my breath, and it has no impact on my eagerness to receive my BMCC model 1 "as is" ASAP.

In any event, detailed discussion about the GH2 should probably be in the "Off Topic" section of this forum. Cheers.