"Every 35mm Print Now Has To Be Considered an Archival Print."

Comments

1
Can someone explain to me why film is better than digital?
2
BECAUSE IT IS GRAHAM. FILM FEEEELS MORE AND YOU CAN TOUUUUCH IT. NOT LIKE DVDS THAT JUST LOOK LIKE ONES AND ZEROS.
3
Oh, also it's because nobody has gone back and done a good digital conversion of those old films. If they did a good digital remastery, assuming there is a high enough quality film print of the film out there to re-scan, it would look fantastic, just like all film to digital remasters continue to do. And the 35 mm prints will continue to age and die and change and get damaged and feel and touch more people's hearts or whatever it is they do.
4
A whole crowd of people tried to explain various reasons to you in the comments under the original story linked in this post, and you wouldn't give anyone an inch. Why should anyone bother to try again? If you can't accept that digital transfers of films shot on 35mm involve specific kinds of compromises that are very perceptible to many viewers, especially in a theatre setting, then why waste thousands more keystrokes on it?

As for the archival question, can you be certain digital files, however they end up archived in practical terms, will not get lost or rendered unreadable for people a century from now? Definitely not. Anyone who's that sure of it and wants to junk all film elements is a complete fool. A 35mm film that's stored well, with common-sense preservation practices, will still be there and will be viewable.
Better to let archivists (I'm not one) hash this out using their professional expertise, I think. The average person who thinks digital is just neat or thinks this is about nostalgia or something will probably never really get it. I have more reasons for making that statement but don't want this to be any longer than it already is.
5
Thank god you managed to rein that in and keep it so brief and fact based.
6
This story and subsequent comments have combined to make me sick this evening. Fuck you very much.
7
Without the capslock, Graham's attempts to troll can't quite make it up to even 24 frames per second.
8
jarvitron: In the space of a comment I can't really build a convincing case about the risks of digital storage into the future and the folly of letting archival materials go that have proven reliable for the ages. That was part of my point.
Again, correctly stored 35mm is archival; it doesn't just "continue to age and die and change" like you say.
It's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about from the terminology you use @2 ("they did a good digital remastery") and the statements you make. You say all "all film to digital remasters" look fantastic but that "nobody has gone back and done a good digital conversion of those old films." Kind of a contradiction there. What are you babbling about?
9
@geyser: So you have yet to explain why film is a better format than digital. Give me reasons, not some sort of nostalgia for grain noise or that kind of shit. Why is film better than digital? Make a case for it. I fucking dare you to do so. Put up or shut up or something.
10
OH SHIT!!!! I JUST REALIZED THAT ALL THE UP AND COMING MOVIE MAKING PEOPLE ARE ONLY SHOOTING ON DIGITAL AND NO ONE IS USING FILM ANYMORE!!! I guess all those movies being shot straight to digital are shit and awful and no one will watch them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films…