1,000,000 feet of film : something to think about.....

[PaulClements]

I think it has always been realised that the cost savings of the digital workflow are of little relevance to the studios and larger budget movies. Where it might save money once the workflow is set in stone is being able to shoot more and faster in the day, thus shortening the length of a shoot, but this remains to be seen.

I've always considered the greatest asset is not in the actual time saved or cost of stock persay. But simply in the fact that smaller budget movies can shoot without consideration of the amount of filmstock required. It takes away part of the whole equation of what is needed to shoot a movie and hopefully allows those productions to focus on the quality infront of, behind and beyond the camera.

Paul

 

[M Most]

I've always considered the greatest asset is not in the actual time saved or cost of stock persay. But simply in the fact that smaller budget movies can shoot without consideration of the amount of filmstock required. It takes away part of the whole equation of what is needed to shoot a movie and hopefully allows those productions to focus on the quality infront of, behind and beyond the camera.

I think that's wishful thinking, but maybe it's just me.

The bigger problem with such voluminous amounts of original material is database management and retrieval. In the film world, assistant editors have been keeping very tight material records, in the form of code books and, more recently, computer databases - for years. My guess is that very few people here have ever done this - they rely on something like Final Cut to do all of this for them. Physical management and backups is only one part of the solution. Knowing what's where, how to find it, how to retrieve it efficiently, and how to restore it is a lot of work and a lot of trouble if you haven't dealt with 30+ day productions before.

 

[Tom Lowe]

At some point, when these cameras meet or exceed current 4K or 6K resolution and dynamic range, part of the advantage of shooting digital will simply be cutting out the chemical process. For example, once digital still cameras reached a quality even close to chemical film, they were accepted, because what many people really, really wanted was to get clean, clear, crisp, pristine digital copies of those photos onto their computers. With chemical film, you need to scan the prints or negs, whereas with a digital camera, you already have them "scanned" from the start. Even if you lose say 25% of the resolution by shooting digital rather chemical, how much resolution is lost in the scanning process? And how much of a pain in the ass is it? Not to mention shots lost to poor lab work, a hair in the gate, etc.

At some point people are going to want to cut this chemical process out of the loop since all films will eventually go to DI, and that is what will be the nail in the coffin for film, just as it was for 35mm still cameras. People are going to want to go into DI with pure digital, if that digital can be captured beautifully. The only remaining benefit for film at this point would be a nostalgia for the grain. But one day that will go away, too.

 

[Stephen Williams]

At some point people are going to want to cut this chemical process out of the loop since all films will eventually go to DI, and that is what will be the nail in the coffin for film,

Hi Tom,

Until the quality of DI's can be assured, many will insist on a photochemical finish.

Stephen

 

[Noah Kadner]

MB's movies cost like $100K+/day to keep everyone hired *highly* *highly* *highly* doubt the relatively minimal cost of film stock and camera have any factor whatsoever in the budgeting. He can shoot whatever format strikes his fancy be it digital, 35mm, Imax or Pixelvision.

Noah

 

[M Most]

Hi Tom,

Until the quality of DI's can be assured, many will insist on a photochemical finish.

That might have been true about 3 years ago, but it is no longer the case. There are very, very few pictures being finished photochemically by choice today. Chris Nolan/Wally Pfister are very much the exception now (even Wally would admit that), not the rule. And there is very little dissatisfaction with the results obtained, in spite of all the comments you might read here or elsewhere about the supposed inferiority of 2K finishing.

 

[Stephen Williams]

That might have been true about 3 years ago, but it is no longer the case. There are very, very few pictures being finished photochemically by choice today. Chris Nolan/Wally Pfister are very much the exception now (even Wally would admit that), not the rule. And there is very little dissatisfaction with the results obtained, in spite of all the comments you might read here or elsewhere about the supposed inferiority of 2K finishing.

Hi Mike,

I guess my eyes need a firmware update! LOL

Stephen

 

[Ramesh Jai]

You can also think about it this way -- if Michael Bay isn't going to care how much he spends on film stock, why would he start caring now? If someone like him switches to the RED camera, it will probably be for image reasons primarily, not cost savings. Unless his budget for "Transformers 2" is half that of the first one... This is a guy who switched back to the more-difficult and expensive anamorphic format after trying Super-35 again on "Bad Boys 2", so clearly he has very definite ideas about how he wants his movies to look.

Or perhaps he doesn't know what he wants... just a thought.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

Malick shot like 3 million feet for the Thin Red Line, so give credit where credit is due.

Since when did exposing more raw stock equate to genius?

 

[M Most]

Or perhaps he doesn't know what he wants... just a thought.

That is one thought, but the reality of large scale action movie making - a la Michael Bay - is that you will shoot an awful lot of footage. You have to, both to get all of the many, many pieces you need to make it work, and because a lot of that footage will be overcranked. If you want the type of frantic, non-stop action that he delivers, that's what it takes.

Now, whether it takes quite as much as he shoots is still open to debate.

 

[M Most]

Hi Mike,

I guess my eyes need a firmware update! LOL

I wasn't questioning your opinion, or your reasons for it, I was just pointing out that your conclusion seems to be incorrect based on the available evidence.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

That is one thought, but the reality of large scale action movie making - a la Michael Bay - is that you will shoot an awful lot of footage. You have to, both to get all of the many, many pieces you need to make it work, and because a lot of that footage will be overcranked. If you want the type of frantic, non-stop action that he delivers, that's what it takes.

Now, whether it takes quite as much as he shoots is still open to debate.

I have a feeling a lot of Hollywood 'directors' are probably having a laugh at our expense. Plant as many cameras to cover as many angles as possible and leave it to the editor to create the story. Where does directing come in?

I'd love to know how much raw stock Woody Allen exposes. I'm sure it doesn't come anywhere near the figures I am reading in this thread. Now HE is one great story teller. Steven Spielberg tops my list.

 

[PaulClements]

I think that's wishful thinking, but maybe it's just me.

Hi Mike, I wasn't implying that the duty of keeping a thorough log isn't of any importance, merely that the availability to shoot without the cost or amount of film stock being an issue for lower budget productions. Having someone log the necessary info is as important as ever if not perhaps moreso in a digital environment.

Paul

 

[mezmo]

One of my favorite directors of all time, Michael Bay, used 1-million feet of film while making one of his great action movies. The movie ended up only using 20-thousand feet for the final.

That equates to One Thousand reels of 1,000 foot cans, down to Twenty cans for the final print.

If we assume my man Jerry Bruckheimer bought the best stock for Michael, something like Vision II, then it's safe to assume each reel costs about $600 bucks a pop. (maybe less due to the volume).

That means the production spent roughly $600,000.00 USD on raw film stock to shoot the movie and kept only $12,000 worth in the end....throwing away $588,000.00 USD worth of exposed film.

RED owners.....

.....sleep with confidence tonite. *smile*

Hi Shannon,
Don't forget a large budget US action movie may have up to four
high speed cameras on set for many stunt setups all running
100 plus fps. Think about the amount of filmstock going thru the four
boxes at any given time, it's s**tloads.
On the other hand Red at the moment can't get above 25fps in 35mm
FOV full sensor mode.
This makes Red a TOY CAMERA on a film like this.
You could maybe use it to shoot the "making off" Doco or some VFX plates.
Get real man, these films are made this way becuase IT WORKS on all
levels making them this way.
The stock costs would be more like 500K $US and not an issue for producers,
reshooting a stunt because it happened out of frame or a camera ran out of
film, could possibly cost the D.P. his job.
If you plan to use Red to shoot a film like this, sleep worried tonight Red owners.
Sorry for the rant, Mezmo

 

[M Most]

I have a feeling a lot of Hollywood 'directors' are probably having a laugh at our expense. Plant as many cameras to cover as many angles as possible and leave it to the editor to create the story. Where does directing come in?

It comes in during preproduction and also on the day, in knowing exactly where to place those cameras and what speeds to run them at. When you're doing large scale stunt and pyro work, you often get only one shot at it, so you need to get all of the angles you'll need both to ratchet up the scale of the action itself, and to allow for whatever POV's your other coverage demands. Like many other things in production, this may seem simple if you haven't actually had to be involved in it. If you have, you learn - quickly - that it's not nearly as simple as you might have thought. And rather expensive and embarassing to mess up.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

It comes in during preproduction and also on the day, in knowing exactly where to place those cameras and what speeds to run them at. When you're doing large scale stunt and pyro work, you often get only one shot at it, so you need to get all of the angles you'll need both to ratchet up the scale of the action itself, and to allow for whatever POV's your other coverage demands. Like many other things in production, this may seem simple if you haven't actually had to be involved in it. If you have, you learn - quickly - that it's not nearly as simple as you might have thought. And rather expensive and embarassing to mess up.

Agreed.

On the other hand I also find a lot of editors trying to accommodate as many shots as possible into a sequence just because there were multiple cameras shooting the same action. They don't stay on a shot long enough for the viewer to grasp what is happening. This fast paced editing is distracting.

There was this car chase sequence in a 70's movie (forget the name) which took place on a mountainous road. There were two cameras. One inside the car chasing and one in a helicopter above the two cars. That's it. I have never seen a more thrilling and nail biting chase sequence in my life. The shots stayed on for minutes and you could feel the tension as the cars nearly skidded off the cliff, etc.

Not only was the chase beautifully executed but the editor also did a brilliant job stringing the shots.

I think Hollywood should go back to basics and directors should start earning their money instead of making movies that look like they were coming from the same factory. I am done. Thanks for your patience.

 

[mezmo]

"Bullet"
Mezmo

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I've been kind of on the fence as far as shooting veracity myself. Both personally creatively and in the movies I like to watch.

There does seem to be a significant backlash against copious coverage beginning. The quote I remember was from George Clooney in a Newsweek interview where he referred to directors who shot everything as "collectors not directors." But I think this is just a resurgence of the old "director is auteur" philosophy... something I'm not 100% certain I agree with. While clear cohesive direction is absolutely undoubtedly necessary I sometimes feel like not shooting in excess causes the film to sometimes pick up a stale, controlled and over thought quality almost bordering on visual pretension.

Limited shooting volume does force you to really think through the film and get everything locked in before showing up on set but once on set it tends to prevent risky, potentially wonderful discoveries.

All things in moderation I suppose.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There are directors who are geniuses with multiple cameras, going back to Kurosawa or maybe earlier, but there are a lot of mediocre directors who use it as a crutch, to keep them from learning how to do their jobs.

There is a good argument to be made for directors to learn their craft by making careful decisions about staging and camera placement and editing before shooting, then living or dying by those choices. It certainly teaches them when they were wrong and when they were right, as opposed to delivering so much footage to the editor that they can always make it work because they have so many options.

But having learned one's craft in staging, composition, and editing, a director may decide that a looser "reportage" style involving multiple cameras may be the best way to tell that particularly story.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

We're in an interesting time where directors are getting used to overshooting and creating various edits. Now with DI, there's no need to even cut the negative.

They are even releasing different edits on DVD. The VHS days rarely had director's cuts or unrated versions released. Now it's the norm, especially for box office duds that attempt to win over audiences.

Years ago at a Apple event, JJ Abrams said while his editor was cutting in the Avid bay, he would sit there with FCP on his laptop and make his own edit, the broadcast version may be a combination of both their cuts.