Feedback #1

Well done Danny, thorough research with detailed references that you will be able to use later for revision. My only advice is not to actually cut and paste chunks from other websites - instead reference with a link, select some key quotations and summarise in your own words. This will be much more useful later.

B/1

Digital technology and the film industry

I read the article called "the film industry should embrace digital technology" in which Lord Puttnam gives a lecture at Cass, Monday 14 June 2004. In this lecture, called ‘The Impact of Digital Technology on the Film Industry – Opportunity or Threat?’ at Cass Business School, he said that digital technology offers a huge opportunity for the film industry but the current trend of treating it as a threat could hasten the demise of parts of the industry. Puttnam said the film industry needed to embrace digital technology otherwise it would share a similar fate to that of the music industry which has witnessed a massive drop in profits due to illegal internet trading. Lord Puttnam also spoke of the impact of digital technology on special effects in films, arguing that special effects are both increasingly important in the success of a film as well as being very reliant on specialist skills.

I also read this page on Wikipedia to research digital cinematography.

One of the benefits of digital technology is that it has the potential to substantially reduce distribution costs. Each physical film print costs $1000 or more, which quickly adds up, as in the case of Troy which was released simultaneously on 16,000 screens worldwide at a cost in the region of $16 million. Despite the considerable advantages in the film industry moving to digital distribution, it is taking a long time to catch on. There are only a few digital screens in the UK, and not many more in the United States. It’s countries such as China and Brazil which are leading the digital revolution; China, for example, already has 64 digital screens and plans to have at least 500 by the time of the Beijing Olympics.
In May 2002 Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones became the first high-profile, high-budget movie released that was shot on 24 frame-per-second high-definition digital video, using a Sony HDW-F900 camera.
Today, at the high-end of the market, there has been an emergence of cameras aimed specifically at the digital cinema market. These cameras from Arri, Panavision, Grass Valley and Red offer resolution and dynamic range that exceeds that of traditional video cameras, which are designed for the limited resolution and dynamic range of broadcast television.

Many people, particularly those coming from a background in broadcast television, are most comfortable with video tape based workflows. Data is captured to video tape on set. This data is then ingested into a computer running non-linear editing software, using a deck. Once on the computer, the footage is edited, and then output in its final format, possibly to a film recorder for theatrical exhibition, or back to video tape for broadcast use.

Increasingly, however, digital cinematography is shifting toward "tapeless" workflow, where instead of thinking about digital images as something that exists on a physical medium like video tape, digital video is conceived of as data in files. In tapeless workflow, digital images are usually recorded directly to files on hard disk or flash memory based "digital magazines". At the end of a shooting day (or sometimes even during the day), the digital files contained on these digital magazines are downloaded, typically to a large RAID connected to an editing system. Once data is copied from the digital magazines, they are erased and returned to the set for more shooting. Archiving is accomplished by backing up the digital files from the RAID, using standard practices and equipment for data backup from the Information Technology industry, often to data tape.

Movies shot digitally may be released theatrically or on DVD or VHS. Digital films may also be distributed digitally, either shipped to theaters on hard drives or sent via the Internet or satellite networks. Distributors prefer digital distribution, because it saves them the expense of making film prints, which may cost as much as $2000 each. Digital projection also offers advantages over traditional film projection such as lack of jitter, flicker, dust, scratches, and grain. Theater owners initially balked at the high cost of installing digital projection systems. However, the number of digital venues is now growing, as of September 2007, at a rate of around 400 screens a month in the United States. However, most theaters do not yet have digital projection systems, so even if a movie is shot digitally, it must be transferred to film if a large theatrical release is planned.

• When shooting on film, response to light is determined by what film stock is chosen. Because the film stock is the main determining factor, results will be substantially similar regardless of what camera model is being used.
  In contrast, when shooting digitally, response to light is determined by the CMOS or CCD sensor(s) in the camera, and every camera is different. This means a cinematographer cannot predict how the final image will look by eye without being very familiar with the specific model of camera being used. On-set monitoring can address this issue, as it allows the cinematographer to see the actual images that are captured, immediately on the set, which is impossible with film. With a properly calibrated high-definition display, on-set monitoring, in conjunction with data displays such as histograms, waveforms, RGB parades, and various types of focus assist, can give the cinematographer a far more accurate picture of what is being captured than is possible with film. However, all of this equipment may impose costs in terms of time and money, and may not be possible to utilize in difficult shooting situations. Film cameras do often have a video assist that captures video though the camera to allow for on-set playback, but its usefulness is largely restricted to judging action and framing.
  


• The image quality of digital cameras is not yet up to the level normally desired for theatrical release.

• The sensors in most high-end digital video cameras have less exposure latitude (dynamic range) than modern motion picture film stocks. In particular, they tend to 'blow out' highlights, losing detail in very bright parts of the image. If highlight detail is lost, it is impossible to recapture in post-production. Many people believe that highlights are less visually pleasing with digital acquisition, because digital sensors tend to 'clip' them very sharply, whereas film produces a 'softer' roll-off effect with over-bright regions of the image. A few cinematographers have started deliberately using the 'harsh' look of digital highlights for aesthetic purpose, such as in Battlestar Galactica.
  Digital acquisition typically offers better performance than film in low-light conditions, allowing less lighting and in some cases completely natural or practical lighting to be used for shooting, even indoors. This low-light sensitivity also tends to bring out shadow detail. Some directors have tried a "best for the job" approach, using digital acquisition for indoor or night shoots, and traditional film for daylight exteriors.
  


• In the debate over film resolution vs. digital image resolution, it is generally accepted that film exceeds the resolution of HDTV formats and the 2K digital cinema format, but there is still significant debate about whether 4K digital acquisition can match the results achieved by scanning 35mm film at 4K, as well as whether 4K scanning actually extracts all the useful detail from 35mm film in the first place.
  


• Film has a characteristic grain structure, which many people view positively, either for aesthetic reasons or because it has become associated with the look of 'real' movies. Different film stocks have different grain, and cinematographers may use this for artistic effect. Digitally acquired footage lacks this grain structure. Electronic noise is sometimes visible in digitally acquired footage, particularly in dark areas of an image or when footage was shot in low lighting conditions and gain was used. Some people believe such noise is a workable aesthetic substitute for film grain, while others believe it has a harsher look that detracts from the image.
  Well shot, well lit images from high-end digital cinematography cameras can look almost eerily clean. Some people believe this makes them look "plasticy" or computer generated, while others find it to be an interesting new look, and argue that a film grain effect can be made in post-production if desired.
  


• The process of using digital intermediate workflow, where movies are color graded digitally instead of via traditional photochemical finishing techniques, is becoming increasingly common, largely because of the greater artistic control it provides to filmmakers. In order to utilize digital intermediate workflow with film, the camera negative must be processed and then scanned. High quality film scanning is time consuming and expensive. With digital acquisition, this step can be skipped, and footage can go directly into a digital intermediate pipeline as digital data.
  Some filmmakers have years of experience achieving their artistic vision using the techniques available in a traditional photochemical workflow, and prefer that finishing process.

• Films are traditionally shot with dual-system recording, where picture is recorded on camera, and sync sound is recorded to a separate sound recoding device. In post-production, picture and sound are synced up.
  Many cameras used for digital cinematography can record sound internally, already in sync with picture. This eliminates the need for syncing in post, which can lead to faster workflows. However, most sound recording is done by specialist operators, and the sound will likely be separated and further processed in post-production anyway.
  


• Many people feel there is significant value in having a film negative master for archival purposes. As long as the negative does not physically degrade, it will be possible to recover the image from it in the future, regardless of changes in technology. In contrast, even if digital data is stored on a medium that will preserve its integrity, changes in technology may render the format unreadable or expensive to recover over time. For this reason, film studios distributing digitally-originated films often make film-based separation masters of them for archival purposes.
  

On higher budget productions, the cost advantages of digital cinematography are not as significant, primarily because the costs imposed by working with film are simply not major expenses for such productions. Two recent films, Sin City and Superman Returns, both shot on digital tape, had budgets of $40 million and close to $200 million respectively. The cost savings, though probably in the range of several hundred thousand to over a million dollars, were negligible as a percentage of the total production budgets in these cases.
Rick McCallum, a producer on Attack of the Clones, has commented that the production spent $16,000 for 220 hours of digital tape, where a comparable amount of film would have cost $1.8 million. However, this does not necessarily indicate the actual cost savings. The low incremental cost of shooting additional footage may encourage filmmakers to use far higher shooting ratios with digital. The lower shooting ratios typical with film may save time in editing, lowering post-production costs somewhat.
Shooting in digital requires a digital intermediate workflow, which is more expensive than a photochemical finish. However, a digital intermediate may be desirable even with film acquisition because of the creative possibilities it provides, or a film may have a large number of effects shots which would require digital processing anyway. Digital intermediate workflow is coming down in price, and is quickly becoming standard procedure for high-budget Hollywood movies. Some high-profile directors that have shot with digital equipment include: Michael Mann- Miami Vice, Collateral. Peter Jackson-Crossing the Line. George Lucas-Star Wars Episode and . Robert Rodriguez-Sin City, Grindhouse. Directors Steven Spielber, M.Night-Shyamalan, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, and Oliver Stone have vowed to continue to shoot on film.

I also read an article on this website. It is titled "Digital film: Industry answers", and is a BBC News website which asks for any queries about the way new technology is being used - and the eight best questions were put to the virtual panel. I read the question titled:

With the home entertainment business booming, DVD, home theatres and TVs that deliver a better viewing experience than traditional theatres, what if anything is in the works to save our movie theatres? Responses to this question generally said that there is still nothing like seeing a movie in a movie theatre, as it is a different and exciting experience to watch a new film on a huge digital picture with fantastic digital surround sound. It also suits different people at different life stages. The cinema industry is very competitive, not only in numbers of screens, but in competition with multiple other solicitations for consumers' entertainment spending. In the United States, 'stadium' seating has become almost a necessity. More and more theatres are offering food and drinks for sale (real food, not just popcorn, etc). Some have waiter service in the theatre. They're also releasing movies digitally, which provides a better quality viewing experience. All in all, the theatre owners know that they have to compete with the home viewing experience, and they are trying new ways to entice people to go to the theatre.

These are all desperate attempts at trying to keep the film industry profitable. Advances in technology have changed how, when and where we watch our films, whether it be through our ipod, home cinema, or PC display screen through a file sharing programme. As home cinema prices and lack of availability decrease, cinema ticket prices increase in a fight to not allow the destructive effects new media technologies have already had on the music industry to happen to the traditionally renowned cinema experience.