Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Film

Zakaree Sandberg said:
audiences DONT care...

plain and simple
Click to expand...

But Clients do and in some cases prod! For example it's difficult to get the agency and clients to sign off on digital when doing a car shoot. The extra latitude with film is a deal breaker and I have to say that as a tool in those circumstances... I do find it to be easier to use. Although saying that I have done shoots where I use both formats, simply because some shots where easier to make with the possibility of just shooting for a greater period of time.
 
The problem with film is: you have to finance every mistake and every lesson learning how to shoot it out of your own pocket. I shot film in college. My first roll of 16mm film was reversal stock, I shot it and had to send it to another state to get it processed. I got it back two weeks later and a few of the shots were unusable. I wish I could have seen those mistakes sooner.

The guys on these Kodak videos are at the top of the game. They don't have pay for the film they shoot anymore. So they can shoot whatever they like. In order for someone to hire you to shoot film, you have to pay for all your mistakes and epiphanies, learning how to master the medium. So the price of admission to shoot film has always been pretty steep.

So the bottomline for me regarding film is that its a more exclusive playground than it ever has been for the individual filmmaker. It will never be accessible as an option for most people. I think its funny that Kodak, in an attempt to get more people to shoot film, has a string of testimonials from people who are literally in the top 1/100th of 1% in their field. As if they represent the average filmmaker. It's like listening to Kobe Bryant brag about how great it is to be an NBA star player and we should all try it.

Well, statistically speaking, you have a better chance of winning the lottery while being struck by lighting than you do of being the world's most sought-after and highest paid Cinematographer. Only a select few will attain that professional height. And its those people for whom Kodak has decided can shoot film on a consistent basis. Consistent enough to get really, really good at it-- because the two go hand-in-hand. Practice makes perfect, as they say.

If Kodak really wanted the unwashed multitudes to be able to shoot films, they would have made it far cheaper to do so. But they didn't. So generations of would-be filmmakers were rendered mute. Silenced by the tyranny of economic isolation. Were these voices that could have potentially changed the course of the twentieth century?

The pursuit of excellence in image making is important- its the level playing field that makes the Pauper equal to the King and the Revolutionary the equal of the Tyrant. The image is what gives a Leni Riefenstahl or a Barbara Kopple an equal footing in the minds of the people who will benefit or suffer from their ideas. Those silent qualities, those luscious jewels of light and color are now in the hands of all of us because of digital technology. Were it up to Kodak, they would still be playthings of the gods.
 
Shawn Booth said:
Seriously, I'm not debating the formats here...
Click to expand...

Seriously? The video links that you posted tell one side of a story on a web board dedicated to the other side. You don't see that as an invitation to a debate?

I've never shot film, and I've only done 2 feature length films with my Red, but I can tell you that I believe it to be cheaper/better/faster.

Its cheaper as you can go out and buy a complete system with a set of still prime lenses for around $35K. You own it; its yours. there was so much 2nd unit work on my first that there would have been no way that I could have afforded to do film. And you only have to feed it hard drives or tape, not film stock. You don't have to pay for transfers, and a dozen other aspects that make it less expensive.

Its better as most commodity film projects are scanned at 2K 4:4:4 (at least that's my understanding from a few years ago). The Red is a 4K Bayer sensor that captures around 3.2K of detail, also in 4:4:4. The MX sensor's latitude is right there with most film stocks, and honestly mastering lighting within the range of a digital sensor is not difficult.

It's faster as you are producing the master right in the camera. It can go directly to your own computer for editing that moment, and you don't have dozens of people handling it along the way, any of which can destroy your work.

I do not see ANY value in following your suggestion of going out and shooting film. What's the point? What is it going to teach me? My job going forward will always be to maximize the image on my camera, and exposing film and taking film through the production and post processes won't give me any new insights on that.

One thing I picked up on in the videos is that the interviewee's mindset was different when working with video. I admit that it is endlessly frustrating when a video crew shows up to shoot on your Red and they do not treat it like film, because they should. The Red One is the first mass produced digital cinema camera; it's a different animal and needs to be treated as such.

Shawn Booth said:
Seriously, I'm not debating the formats here...
Click to expand...

Really?

Bob
 
Jeff, while I agree with you that the latest development in digital picture acquisition brings 35mm looking pictures to the masses (which is great) I disagree with you regarding that film is a elitist medium that is only available to the few, famous cinematographers or directors for that matter.

I shot over 12 years film, almost exclusively. I'm neither one of the few, nor am I famous, on the contrary. The market for productions shooting on film has been huge and still is. Of course is film expensive but so are talents, locations, writers, and last but not least all the technical gadgets we like. When you boil it down stock, processing and telecine are the smallest part of a budget. That does not count for indie films where most of the people working for nothing or a very small fee. I'm earning my living with filmmaking, as most of my colleagues do - the costs of film are not the deal-breaker when it comes to bidding.

But, I rather invest money into a better writer or actor and, if the project is suitable, I exchange rolls for better talent. This is a freedom I haven't had before Red and I'm grateful that I can experiment for nothing, no producer is telling me during lunch break "you know we have 30 rolls, we are on roll 23 now.... Great.

But film has still more latitude, is more gentle to skin and renders colour still somehow nicer. If I were to shoot a hair TVC or perfume I would choose 35mm, as I would if my film would take place in a sunny park with its harsh lights and deep shadows.

But reality is that I haven't shot one single frame 35mm in the last 2 years because no project needed it on first hand or I decided in favor of a better talent, location, etc...

Lastly I heartily agree with Rich when he says that 35mm always goes through a high-end telecine with seasoned and skilled colorist. This is an advantage that can be seen every day on television. Sure there are TVCs that are shot on Red and look very, very close to 35mm but then they have been in the hands of one of the rare colorists that really know how to treat R3Ds. Most Red shot TVCs are done with first light rushes out of RedCineX and colour corrected in FFFS. Flame and friends are all but a sufficient substitute for a good grading system.

Hans
 
Wonderful post man, thanks for the perspective and reading. One question - I just cant figure out how to shoot film cheap. I speak as a small production company far from the major production centers, or any city for that matter, and we primarily shoot action, sports, and some studio commercials. I have shot a fair amount of 16mm, but no longer. We needed to shoot some high speed stuff recently, and pulled out the 16mm gear in an attempt to improve on RED 2K in early tests.

The cost of the stock itself, one can get around as you say. The processing fees, also tolerable again if you are creative. But the digitization, doing it well is damned expensive. And it has to be done as everyone here has noted.

We ended up shooting some high speed S16mm tests vs Red 2K, and ended up just perfecting our systems and techniques for red 2K HS - S16mm was generally "better" but we just could not afford the dang telecine.

So, for very small production outfits, even creative ones who LIKE shooting film and can get creative with stock, cameras, processing, etc - its simply too expensive. For us, its a lot more than 10% - given that we are not spending a lot of money on lights, talent, etc - so the % of the budget is much higher than for most high end studio shoots.

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix. Maybe someone knows of a creative way to transfer film to digital really well for cheap. :-)
 
ARRI relativity full licence cost?

ARRI relativity full licence cost?

Anson Fogel said:
Maybe someone knows of a creative way to transfer film to digital really well for cheap. :-)
Click to expand...

Does anyone know the full cost of a full licence version of ARRI relativity?

We tried NeatVideo and it does imporve film scans, but on some digital camera footage it produced some motion artifacts, ARRI relativity might be better in that regard.

My freeish DANCINEL.EXE (tm) can be used with a good "4K" camera, like a monochrome machine vision camera maybe, but getting good color separations is just the first step.

Doing the image processing can take maybe 5 minutes per frame total time, so you need a render farm of computers if you are doing hours of footage and need to get the final TIF or DPX in not too long of a time.

The cost of a relativity licence would be something you would need to do work of current quality class, as well as "dust buster" software. And color correction, which my NLE can do, but you also need de-grain which relativity can do through temporal interpolation.

Its not a one button process to get first class results, relativity has many settings for special cases, there is a video on the DCS web site about it.

http://www.digitalcinemasociety.org/content.php?page=Lighting Workshop

Quote: [ARRI’s Richard Antley gives a preview of the ARRI Relativity™ software features including Texture Control, (such as adding or subtracting grain), Film Simulation, and Space Time Converter (spatial resampling and frame rate conversion).]

Its a javascript link, so you will need to click on it on that page.

Here is a link to HS-ART dust and retouch software, remember that film can get muck and spots on it as well as hairs and scratches,

http://www.hs-art.com/html/products/mir.html

I started work on a semi-auto dust off tool with anti flicker as well, but the small dust is not able to be picked out in areas of high motion, so it would need to be semi-auto, and I have not written the user interface for the manual touch up, so its not posted yet.

IR dust removal is the way to go for non-bleach bypass color negative, you can do that with a 4th exposure, again I have not finished the IR dust removal and do not know of off-the-shelf IR dust removal software for use with DIY scaners, maybe someday I will finish that part is done for the scanner program and the fuse program that turns the 4 color images into a 48bpp file, but since we are thinking of going mostly digital for shooting, the dust mitigation issues are on the back burner for now.

If you are thinking of making a film chain or something like that it will not match using an updated optical printer as a transport. We have electrostatic dust remover for the scaner room air and it is only a little help. If you do not have an ultrasonic film cleaner and PTR (sticky rollers) there may not be good enough data in the frames adjacent to the one being de-dusted to get clean results from data swapping.

See PTR Rollers here,

http://www.rtico.com/supplies.html

and here,

http://www.jackroeusa.com/Cleaning-and-film-cleaning.html

They may go bad after time and need to be replaced even if they are not used.

The full costs of working with film ARE high, which is why labs charge so much, most of the time things need to be done more than once to get usable results so there is a "waste" factor.
 
Anson Fogel said:
We ended up shooting some high speed S16mm tests vs Red 2K, and ended up just perfecting our systems and techniques for red 2K HS - S16mm was generally "better" but we just could not afford the dang telecine.
Click to expand...

Anson, thanks for the kind words.

The "dang" telecine is, if one sees it solely, the most expensive part when it comes to shooting film. The point I tried to make was that creating nice selected takes for online finishing is expensive anyway, regardless wether film or digital.

Here in reduser there are endless threads about grading. People talk about Apple Color, Scratch and now Black Magic Design Resolve (the new "cool" kid on the block) and discuss prices. Mostly, people dream of a cheap app. that will solve the "look" problem. IMHO, it's not the application (Color is 0 $, Resolve is 1,000 $ but not on the market yet, Scratch is 50,000 $ +), it's the colorist and the facility that create the look.

Good colour timing is not cheap and it doesn't really matter wether it's done off negative or digital RAW. Digital RAW is a bit less costly as a source, of course, but just a tad. Hence, I find comparing film vs digital when it comes to telecine a bit unfair because digital needs good grading as well.

Rich is speaking in his post of a "head start" of film. Digital does not have this "head start" a priori because mostly it has been treat as WYSIWYG and then somehow colour corrected somewhere later in post production. Bob's post does very well picture this approach. Personally I find it acceptable on some jobs but for others who experienced that "film" workflow through a telecine process and a talent behind the panel doing some magic to their pictures find that the loss of a proper telecine is the biggest draw-back of digital picture acquisition.

Anyway. My old and very trusty Arri SR S16 (it never let me down in 15 years) is sitting on the shelf over 5 years now. It wasn't the RedOne, it was HDCAM and 1080p that made this fabulous camera obsolete. Sometime I will load it with B&W stock (when available by then) and use it for some arty stuff.

Hans
 
IR and B&W

IR and B&W

Hans von Sonntag said:
Sometime I will load it with B&W stock (when available by then) and use it for some arty stuff.

Hans
Click to expand...

Its common now to use a forth scan in IR for dust busting, but that does not work with B&W film, only color negative etc.
 
WOW -

I don't give a shit if you think digital is better than film or it's better or cheaper or any other crap uttered...

HOW simple can I make this?
IF YOU HAVE NEVER SHOT FILM, GO TRY IT. Just to experience it. I don't want you to "convert" by any means. Don't care what you shoot on... I don't even care what you think about anything, considering most of you turned this into a debate about the mediums (if you have never shot film, you have zero ground to stand on BTW).

In this day and age, it IS POSSIBLE TO SHOOT A ROLL OF FILM CHEAPLY. If you haven't shot film before (and consider yourself a cinematographer), now is the time to check it out. You really have no idea what you're missing.

What's more important than medium/format though is craft. I'm shocked by how many opinionated folks out there (who have never shot anything worth a damn) can't compose a frame to accurately tell the story... Or when it's appropriate to utilize camera movement... Actually, I'm not shocked. They simply don't know what they're doing even though they have a R1 with some still lenses...

All of you who think it's completely too expensive to shoot on film, well, for your projects it probably is...
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
I disagree with you regarding that film is a elitist medium that is only available to the few, famous cinematographers or directors for that matter.
Hans
Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe it as "elitist" because that word has loaded implications these days. I think 35mm film is needlessly inefficient, artificially priced, and prohibitive for individuals to experiment with (sans institutional backing). But I dig where you're coming from otherwise.

However, I do agree that if you have not shot with film (and you have several hundred dollars to allot for such an experiment) you should of course go out and burn through ten minutes worth. If for no other reason than to say you did it. Try a Super16mm package, as they may be cheaper than a 35mm MOS camera, but I don't know what they're going for right now.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
If Kodak really wanted the unwashed multitudes to be able to shoot films, they would have made it far cheaper to do so. But they didn't. So generations of would-be filmmakers were rendered mute.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm and that is a fact? Haven't they tried for years to make the film format as cheap as possible - unfortunately the lack of skills and attainability has made it an highly obtainable medium? It's not kodak who are in charge of film labs for example, so if there's no one in your region it's not their fault.

As you said yourself you went and shot reversal and got the result two weeks after. In my film school days we shot our films on reversal, because funny enough at the time that was a quicker turn around (and cheaper) then negative. Some of us memorised and learnt from our mistakes and when time came to shoot on negative we were so much better at it. I recall that we financed a student film and all we got was the shitty camera equipment (mouse ear ARRI 16's) for free. We made a 13min "action film" for $2000 in total - yes we had the steinbeck to edit in at the school for free and our nagra mixer (can't remember names on that equip). BUT it wasn't that expensive and I have to add we rented doorway dollie, 4K HMI (biggest light we've seen lol), guns and bought squibs etc + had our own catering on a 5 day shoot.

Of course no one got paid (but then again they wouldn't if we would have shot on RED). I just want to say, as already said numerous of times, that film is not the biggest cost on shoots. Sure it is a cost but not the biggest.

Now if you want to shoot and telecine and colour grade with the best and shoot 30:1(or more) on film stock etc. Sure the number adds up, but you can shoot film within reasonable budget compared to RED. BUT RED will win, of course, but film is still a VERY sufficient format to shoot on - to say anything else is IMO stupid or just lack of experience. If you know how to shoot and handle film you won't say that it's insufficient.

Also for the record some of my best stuff has been on reversal - you just can't beat that look
 
This elitist argument is a bit silly considering I started making Super-8 movies when I was a 12-year-old in a small desert town. And what does an entire Red package cost to own, about $30,000 minimum? And if you have $30,000 cash in pocket, there's no way to go shoot some film on a borrowed 16mm camera?

There's no doubt that it is more expensive to shoot film, obviously, but I must have shot twenty features on 35mm that were budgeted for under 1 mil. and I did one that was budgeted for under $100,000, and a Super-16 feature with a budget of $60,000... and you can find examples that are much lower in budget than mine, 16mm features made for under $20,000. And I must have photographed over 16 short films in film school on 16mm.

But yes, that's a lot of money... but none of the directors involved were millionaires by a long shot!

The price of film is not going to get much lower -- it's made of silver for one thing, and Kodak & Fuji movie film are not made by prison labor in Chinese sweatshops. But I'm not going to argue against the notion that digital is cheaper to shoot, though I think if you took a survey of every RED feature released theatrically, you'll find the budgets were similar to earlier indie features shot on film. There are a lot of other costs attendant to making movies.
 
I've shot miles of 35mm film, and am really glad that I had that as my base for cinematography. I now own a RED and love working with it, but the work I do when using the RED has definitely been aided by my film background.

So, to pass it on... If anyone would like some assistance in the cost, let me know. I'll dig up a re-can from the recent Bruce Willis movie that I shot a tiny portion of, show you how to load the film camera in the back of my office and let you shoot some 35mm. You've got to pay for processing/telecine, but if anyone is serious about wanting to shoot some film and might be in the area, send me a PM.
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
How cheap, give me numbers.
Click to expand...

You can start here: http://www.pro8mm.com/

Wether you borrow, ebay or rent from these guys, you get a nice 8mm camera. A roll of 50' film (which is made from today's stocks BTW) AND processing for $30. (That's cheaper than when I was in school, rolls were $50 plus processing...)

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone in the world but if you're a part of filmmaking, you should know someone who owns a film camera package or at the very least, who has some short ends in their fridge... Have you ever even tried to shoot something on film? When it comes to processing/telecine, you would be surprised what you can get if you ask, are polite... There are plenty of ways to get it done...

By being "EXPENSIVE" - shooting film forces you to be conservative, and more aware of craft. Digital has made a lot accessible to a large number of folks who can't seem to grasp simple concepts like composition, or storytelling through images. There is rhyme and reason why it is so hard to get "IN"... to join a union... The more important question is why is it so hard for a lot of folks to grasp concepts like craft. If you have no craft but have $100mil, A-list actors, 10 RED EPICS... all you're gonna make is an expensive turd that tons of wannabes sitting at home in front of their PCs will rip apart in every way possible with their thoughts on how it sucked, was a waste, how they could have done better, etc. when in fact, most can't do shit because they're stuck in mom's basement or worse, in their own delusions of fancy.
Digital democratized filmmaking? Not really. It allows loads of people to shoot loads of crap.

Bottom line, regardless of your format of choice, filmmaking is expensive. Period. If you're doing it correctly, it is. For starters - you NEED insurance/workman's comp and you have to feed folks hot meals (pizza/fast food every meal and every day doesn't fly). Post production ALWAYS costs $$$. Filmmaking is expensive. It's one reason I make a living doing it...


More over - here's something I haven't seen addressed before. I'm on set. We're shooting digital. The camera "breaks/goes down". What do you do? Hopefully, you have a back up body to turn to but most likely a mechanical set back will result in a lot of lost $$$/time while troubleshooting, sending camera in, locating a replacement, etc. Now, same shoot but with a film camera. Camera breaks. Assistant takes a look, reaches into their belt and pulls nec tool to fix problem. Or we take camera to truck and fix. Bottom line, most assistants can fix most problems associated with a film camera. And get back to work quickly with minimal loss in time/$$$...
 
Super-8 counts as film, otherwise you need to be specific if you are talking about 35mm film. Besides, not all digital is at the same quality level either!

I don't get the hostility towards Kodak, who have brought the world some amazing products in the past 100 years, much to the benefit of cinema and photography. I think the hostility is misplaced. The fact that they were the most successful manufacturer of film shouldn't be held against them. In fact, Fuji once told me that they couldn't handle Kodak's movie film sales even if they wanted to, they don't have the manufacturing capacity. Kodak was successful mainly because they made an excellent product.

I'd also point out that it was George Eastman's decision to back out of the Motion Pictures Patents Company, which was Edison's way of monopolizing the film industry, that helped lead to its demise.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top