Silver-Made Images Are Golden

Painting "Craftsman" by Ras Ishi

In my lifetime I’ve watched the struggle between excellence and mediocrity, each driven by its own forces. Too often I’ve felt that mediocrity won the day. There are people who devote considerable energy going to the limit of the possible, sharpening tools to enhance the product, and nuancing every detail to coax out the best. These people are driven to whatever lengths may be necessary to attain ever higher standards of excellence, even if, as a consequence, the tendency is for them to become a small intense group. On the other hand, there are also people who seek to spread accessability by lowering standards, doing the expedient, and knowing when enough is sufficient. These people see virtue in broadening the user base to include the maximum number of participants.

In some fields of endeavor, the lone artist can polish a work or skill to perfection, but in other fields of endeavor the infrastructure required to sustain creation inherently limits the creator to those resources which are available. A violin maker, working alone, can produce a marvelous instrument, and a composer, working alone, can write timeless music, and a musician, working alone, can practice a performance of that music on that instrument until the effect is breath-taking. These succeed because, beyond talent and determination. the resources necessary for excellence may be had in small quantities. Other fields of endeavor can succeed because the resources are readily available, often because the component parts are required in a variety of uses. For example, the audiophile can pursue the holy grail of the perfect musical reproduction system because the components making up a musical system can be formed of basic electronic parts produced en masse for the electronic industry.

Motion pictures, however, occupy a unique place in our culture in that they are both a mass medium, and a medium highly reliant upon a specialized manufacturing process that is so high tech that very few companies in the world can manage it. There are probably more companies in the world capable of making rockets that can successfully fly into space, than there are companies that can manufacture motion picture film. There is a strong buzz among some in the entertainment industry to shift us away from motion picture film to electronic production and exhibition. Digital video camera are smaller, easier to use, and make better pictures than older video equipment. Digital video projectors are much brighter, sharper and more colorful than the old cathode ray tube projectors. Certainly the advances in electronic imaging technology are real improvements over what we had before, but just as certainly the technology of film imaging is advancing by at least the same degree. It is so ridiculous and patently uninformed, when video makers add phony scratches and dirt to a video image believing that is the "film look." By that reasoning, a malfunctioning old TV showing a stretched VHS tape is the "video look." I recently saw "The Good Shepherd" screened at the Lucas Digital Center in San Francisco's Presidio. There in the center of the digital cinema kingdom, we were treated to the perfection of 35mm projection which was positively marvelous.

The weakness of electronic imaging is that the entire system must upgrade to upgrade the end result. Today’s video technology is tomorrow’s junk. Changing to high definition TV means everything in the studios and everything at home must be tossed out and replaced with more expensive equipment. Changing theaters to digital projection means throwing out perfectly good projectors for equipment likely to be obsolete before the year is out. If digital video were already superior to film imaging, perhaps we could live with that little problem, but alas it is not so. On the other hand, film techology is very stable, even while constantly under improvement by manufacturers like Kodak and Fuji. My 30 year movie camera takes better pictures today than when it was new because the film negative is so much better now, and I gained all that improvement without making any changes whatsoever to the camera.

In a very real sense, the marvel of movie film springs from the fact that mechanically it is so low tech. Astonishing improvements may be had by simple means. Slit the film twice as wide to 70mm and the screen detail improves by a factor of 5, and that becomes improved by a factor of 3 times 5 in a horizontal IMAX format. Improve the sensitivity, resolution, gray scale, and color response of camera film , and every movie camera gets better by the same amount. Improve the quality of the print rawstock, and every projector automatically shows a better picture. Add registration pins to the projector aperture, and the image is as stable as a computer image. Multiply the frame rate as in Showscan and the grain disappears and the action on the screen seems more fluid and life-like. None of these changes require a massive reworking of the entire system. They have all been done, and there are more that can be done, all simply and reliably.

I am discouraged when film students are sent out with video cameras instead of Super 8’s, because they will miss the chance to see the kind of beauty they can create with film, a sacrifice for the sake of cost and expediency. I am discouraged when people with a stake in cost cutting for themselves try to force theaters to switch to digital projection. I am encouraged when I see the proliferation of IMAX theaters, and a virtual flood of films made in the process. I am encouraged when a MicroSoft exec can restore a Cinerama Theater in Seattle, or the restoration of the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, or the Australian company shooting a new film in Cinerama, 40 years after we all thought it had died forever. I am encouraged by the people who passionately restore 70mm or VistaVision films from the past so that modern audiences don’t miss out on the experience only those films can provide. I am encouraged by the number of independent film-makers who can see the difference and care enough to do the hard stuff.

Let’s face it. If the broad base of demand for a product is lost, we shall also lose the high end because it will not of itself be sufficient demand for the manufacturer to continue. If we lose film as a mass medium, we shall not only lose the beauty of the mass art, but also the special venues, and the independents. Before we lose it, sit in an auditorium with an audience, and watch a film, any film, any gauge, and see the medium itself for itself. The wonder of it is that although you’re just watching a movie, you are looking at a truly great art form. Watch a 35mm Panavision brand new release, watch a 70mm restoration of a classic, treat yourself to an IMAX film, or pull out your 8mm home movies your dad shot in the sixties and see once again how beautiful are those images. Let us not make a mistake. Let the mass medium also be the most excellent medium. Before we lose it, act.

Most of my life I've seen cinema technology constantly striving to improve the image quality, the sound quality, as well as the quality of the acting and cinematography. Now, there's an entropic force to lower expectations, to accept poorer images, and adopt lazy attitudes about the whole process of making movies. First I must question why don't you respect your audience enough to give the best you find possible, and second why don't you respect your own work? I liked the California Dairy Council ad with Vincent Price, when he held up a box of margarine and said, "One thing you'll never hear us say, is butter tastes just like margarine." How about it? Can film look just like video, and why would you want that?