Film is dead--and a few big-budget movies won't save it

Last July, after lobbying by directors including J.J. Abrams, Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino, the major U.S. movie studios signed a deal with Kodak to continue to purchase motion picture film for several years, whether or not they actually use the film. Kodak, which emerged from bankruptcy in September 2013, had planned to shut down its (and the industry's) last remaining motion picture film manufacturing facility. Between the virtually total replacement of film cameras with digital and the almost complete transition of U.S. theatrical projectors to digital from film, Kodak's shipments of motion picture film fell 96% between 2006 and 2014.

Why do this relative handful of directors continue to insist on shooting film? There are two primary reasons:

1. Film can capture a bigger range of colors than digital camera--the equivalent of 16 bits of resolution. By comparison, Arri's Alexa, the most popular camera for high-end cinematography, captures color information with 15 bits of resolution, but then may lose bits of resolution when it converts the video to a color space for editing and viewing.
2. Under ideal conditions, 35mm film has an image resolution of around 5300 x 4000 pixels, while the Digital Cinema standard for 4K acquisition and projection is 4096 x 2160 pixels. However, many movie theaters are still using 2K projectors, which limits the resolution to 2048 x 1080. Compared to either digital standard, film (hypothetically, at least) provides far more image detail.

So, those directors who still want to use film have a solid rationale for doing so, even if most of the increased resolution and color space are lost once they're projected on digital projectors or watched on HD, or even Ultra HD TVs. However, the vast majority of directors and cinematographers have switched to digital for several reasons:

1. Digital cameras have dramatically more dynamic range (the ability to capture bright and dark subjects at the same time) than does film. Typically, the dynamic range of movie film is 1,000: 1 (approximately 10 bits or 10 f-stops.) Even video cameras costing a few thousand dollars can capture 10 f-stops or more, and the Arri Alexa has a range of more than 14 f-stops, or better than 16,384:1.
2. Digital media is much less expensive than film over time, because it can be reused. Movie productions typically offload recorded flash media to hard and flash drives during the day, then erase and reuse the flash media. Digital's much lower costs also enable directors to get coverage from a variety of angles and framings.
3. 35mm film magazines usually only allow a maximum of 1000 feet of film to be loaded, due to size and weight. That means that magazines have to be changed every 11 minutes of filming (at 24 frames per second.) Depending on the image resolution, dynamic range and color depth, a single piece of digital flash media can hold hours of video. That allows for long continuous shots and far fewer interruptions to change media. 
4. Digital cameras have an enormous range of sizes and weights, many of which are smaller and lighter than any practical motion picture film camera can be. This gives filmmakers enormous flexibility for shooting in tight quarters and in sports and action situations. It also makes lightweight drones feasible for shooting, where previously only helicopters and airplanes were viable platforms for aerial photography.
5. Specialized digital cameras can provide much higher frame rates than are either economically or technically feasible for film cameras. For example, Vision Research's Phantom Flex4K digital camera can shoot Digital Cinema 4K at 1,000 frames per second, or 2K at 1,950 frames per second. By comparison, film cameras usually shoot 24 frames per second.

There's a technology coming down the pike that's likely to make film obsolete, even for the directors who still insist on using it. I wrote about High Dynamic Range (HDR) video two weeks ago, and I won't repeat all the arguments I made in that post. Here's a summary of HDR's advantages:

• Much greater dynamic range; Dolby says that its Dolby Vision HDR system will have as much as a 200,000:1 dynamic range. Many current digital cinema cameras can be adapted to shoot HDR video when there are commercially-available ways to view it.
• Color spaces that are as big or bigger than motion picture film.

However, there are several problems with HDR, beyond what I stated in my post:

• There are no current theater projectors, film or digital, that can project HDR images. Film is only capable of 1,000:1 dynamic range, and film can't project a true black because even the blackest part of an image can't block all the light from the powerful xenon bulb in film projectors. Digital projectors use a similar xenon light and have the same problem. It's possible that laser-based digital projectors could project both the dynamic range and color space of HDR, but to my knowledge it hasn't been demonstrated yet.
• With the exception of the handful of expensive professional Organic LED (OLED) displays in use, today's current HDTVs can't provide either the dynanic range or color space of HDR. However, LCD HD and Ultra HD TVs can be engineered to have a separate LED backlight for every pixel, and most LCD displays are capable of displaying a bigger color space than is currently used. Dolby, Technicolor, Philips and the BBC are all either in talks with or have already licensed technology to consumer electronics manufacturers to implement their HDR formats in future HD and Ultra HD TVs.

I believe that when the aforementioned film-holdout directors see HDR, they're going to want to use it--and that's when film dies, once and for all, for movie production. (Film is already dead in movie theaters, despite some last-gasp attempts to keep it viable.) The problem, of course, is that there's no easy way to implement HDR in movie theaters. However, as I wrote in my previous post, if past experience is a guide, it make take as long as ten years for HDR to become standardized and available to consumers at an affordable price. That will give theater operators and digital projector companies time to figure out a way to make HDR work in theaters.

After more leaks than a sieve, the Panasonic GH3 is revealed

Perhaps it was the multiple leaks of specifications to photo websites, or Panasonic itself posting a promotional video on YouTube and then taking it down, or yesterday, Samy's Photo posting specifications and pictures, but today's announcement of Panasonic's new GH3 seems like an anti-climax. It shouldn't, since Digital Photography Review writes that only the Canon 5D Mark III has a higher 2K video bitrate than the the GH3, and the Canon DSLR is priced more than $2,000 (U.S.) higher. The GH2 was a firmware hacker's dream, with the video bitrate taken all the way to 176Mbps in AVCHD with All I-frames, while the maximum video ISO was increased from 3200 to 12,800. The problem was that the some GH2s became unstable when run at this insane bitrate (most users chose to use a more reasonable 44Mbps, which is still much faster than the maximum 28Mbps of AVCHD 2.0 at 1080p60.)

Panasonic has taken the hackers' improvements to heart, and has implemented a maximum bitrate of 50Mbps in 1080p60, or 72 to 80Mbps in All-I Frame at 1080/24p or 30p, both using H.264 compression. (All the frame and bit rates of AVCHD 2.0 are also supported.) Its maximum ISO, in both still and video mode, is now 12,800. This gives the GH3 virtually the same performance as the GH2 with hacked firmware, without requiring hacking or voiding the camera's warranty. In order to provide better performance while maintaining the camera's reliability and stability, the GH3 has a new three-core Venus 7 CPU.

The GH3 also supports timecode in H.264 and AVCHD modes, and it has a headphone jack for audio monitoring, in addition to a microphone jack and manual control over audio levels. The HDMI out can be configured with overlays on or off, so it can be used for monitoring and with an external recorder. (It's not clear whether the GH2's HDMI quirks, which made it unusable in many cases with external recorders, have been fixed in the GH3.)

The GH3 is no slouch as a still camera, either:

• 16 Megapixel sensor
• 1.7 million dot OLED viewfinder
• 614K dot 3" OLED touchscreen display
• Autofocus speed of .07 seconds
• 6 fps maximum continuous frame rate
• Memory card slot for SD, SDHC and SDXC cards
• A fully sealed magnesium alloy frame
• Built-in Wi-Fi

The U.S. price of the GH3, $1,300 for body only, is comparable to the price of the GH2 when it was first launched, but the GH3 is much more camera. The GH2 became the budget "go-to" DSLR-style camera for many cinematographers, even though its Micro Four-Thirds sensor is smaller than APS-C or full-frame. With its faster native bitrate, and a faster CPU that hackers may well be able to tune for even more outrageous performance, the GH3 is likely to supplant the GH2 as the bargain camera of choice for cinematographers.

eBooks: After the transition

In my last post, I examined the impact that eBooks have had on the publishing industry, and I noted that things are just getting started. Most industry observers agree that eBooks now comprise around 20% of book sales by unit volume. The Forrester Research/Digital Book World survey of U.S. publishers I wrote about found that the single largest group of respondents believes that eBooks will comprise 50% or more of total book sales by sometime in 2014.

What will the book industry look like when today's ratio of eBook to print book sales is reversed--when 80% of book sales by unit volume comes from eBooks? I'm not willing to guess when the industry will get to that point, but I have no doubts that it will get to that point eventually. Here are some likely results of the transition:

• Print books will be much more expensive: As anyone who's purchased large print jobs, from business cards to books, will tell you, the unit cost for printing decreases dramatically as the size of a print job increases. It's sometimes no more expensive to purchase a larger print run than a small one, even if you end up recycling some of the printed materials rather than using them. The reason is that set-up costs are the same whether you're printing a small number of items or a large number, and that set-up cost is spread over the total number of items that you print. Books encounter additional set-up costs for binding, especially for hardcover books.
  
  Companies such as Kodak, HP and Xerox are major players in the print-on-demand market, using digital presses rather than offset or letterpress in order to make small runs economical. However, some of the costs, such as binding, remain, no matter what method is used to print. Even with digital presses, it's not going to be possible to make short-run books at the same unit cost as large-run books. We're already seeing this effect, as the "Big 6" publishers are using agency pricing to boost the prices of their eBooks in order to offset the lower profit margins they're getting on print titles. That's with 20% of sales going to eBooks. When eBooks comprise 80% of sales, publishers aren't going to be able to hide the true cost of printing and binding books.
• Nevertheless, print books will still be around: Even though print will be more expensive, I have no doubt that print books will survive, just as vinyl records have achieved a renaissance thanks to audiophiles and nostalgia buffs.
• Publishers will only commit to print runs for their "sure-fire hits": Just as the movie industry is fixated on producing sequels and movies based on existing successful books, television shows and comic book characters, major publishers will only print books that are from well-known, previously-successful authors, as well as new authors who are well-known from other arenas, such as television, movies, sports and politics. All of their other titles will be published as eBooks first, and will get print runs only if they're justified by customer demand.
• Bookstores will be very different: In the U.S., there will be far fewer Barnes & Noble bookstores, and the ones that remain will be much smaller. As I wrote some time ago, they're likely to be cafes with bookstores inside them, rather than bookstores with cafes inside them. They'll still carry some print books, albeit a much smaller selection. Big touchscreen displays will give customers a similar experience when shopping for eBooks that they have today when shopping for print books: They'll see bookshelves with book covers, and with a flick of a finger, they'll be able to see the back cover, inside covers, and leaf through the book, just as they can today with print books. With another few touches, they'll be able to buy the title as an eBook and download it instantly, or for some titles, purchase it in a print version that will be shipped directly to their home if it's not in stock at the store.
  
  As for independent bookstores, there will also be fewer of them, but the ones that focus on used books will do quite well. Used titles will be much less expensive than new ones, so for price-sensitive customers and those who have to have print books, used bookstores will be their best choices.
• Today's black & white eReaders will be a thing of the past: All eReaders and tablets will use color displays. In the case of eReaders, they'll use low-power displays such as Qualcomm's Mirasol and E Ink electrophoretic color displays; tablets will use LCD and OLED displays. The functionality of the devices will be more similar to each other than they are today; both eReaders and tablets will be able to handle audio, video and interactivity. The primary differences will be in battery life and cost.
• The "Big 6" will become the Big 3 or 4: Just as in the music industry, where financial problems have resulted in a wave of consolidation, we're almost certainly going to see consolidation among the "Big 6" publishers, as well as publishers in every market segment: Business and professional books, children's books, religious books, K-12 and college textbooks.

I would argue that most of these developments are already underway, and the ones that aren't will start once eBooks pass 50% market share. As I wrote in my last post, anyone who doesn't believe that eBooks will result in revolutionary changes in the book industry is fooling themselves.