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

I have been talking about 35mm but when asked to give numbers, I cited 8mm since it's the cheapest...
Today's 8mm stock though is quite nice too...
 
Cheep 35mm

Cheep 35mm

Shawn Booth said:
I cited 8mm since it's the cheapest...
Click to expand...

If you want to shoot 35mm on a budget you can shoot 35mm color print stock and convert that into Black and White in the DI, it looks very good with a long scale and fine grain (you may need to tell the lab to make some adjustments for best results, but it can be done with "normal" ECP-2B process as well.)

2000' of print stock is about $0.11 per foot, you can check the current price, AGFA was a little lower than Kodak.

88minutes * 90feet per minute = 7920*0.11=$871

Processing is about 0.035 to 0.050 per foot although your lab may charge more, you can shop around for that.

So say 88 minutes is $1000 for a print, and if you shoot 3:1 ratio to teach yourself "discipline" you can come in under $5000 maybe.

I have been talking to people about offering to PAY for that part of the production cost if they can come up with what the camera points at. We have cameras editing equipment lights and everything needed to shoot sitting around gathering dust.

None of the young people I have been able to talk to about making a feature on such EI 3 film has shown any interest in working with movie film equipment, if you know anyone who would be serious have them contact me, as it would be an "exeprence" to shoot something that way.

Sound recording film can be shot Super16 or 35mm and is about EI 25 to 40 depending on the contrast and is much sharper than color negative film stock. I made a Bolex with f/0.95 lens and a 'Scope adapter and pilot tone output for such a project as we have the Super16 blow up printer used (we were told by the lab that junked it) to make "Behind the Green Door" also getting dusty and probably rusty and its been years since it was turned on. If processed in Phenidone A 6g per 1000ml plus Sodium Sulfite 0.1g per 1000ml you can get continuous tone.

If you shoot sound recording film in Super16 then blowup direct by way of zero cut editing to 35mm your cost for a feature could be under $3000.

Its even cheeper to shoot 2.5K digital then do the DI and then output to 35mm color print stock, and the results while not quite as "film like" would probably look better overall because you would not get the added dust and finger marks etc that DIY post from film negative adds (can no camera scratches and hairs in the gate, and lab marks, scratches, and crud).

Short ends of ECN are not much higher than color print stock, but the processing is more so there is maybe a +25% to +50% cost from that. You can figure a 35mm feature shot on ECN short ends would cost $10000, so its about 10x using a digital camera at a minimum, and with digital you get these advantages:

1) No camera noise since digital cameras do not have a motor

2) Higher shooting ratio

3) No scanning time and clean up costs

Even so, if someone was serious about making a film worth seeing, I could pay for the film end of things (0$ film costs), but the costs and time for the other parts are still going to be there if you shot film or digital. If you are shooting film of something that is not worth watching, then I don't see what you are learning...

If you shoot digital you have the $9000 you would have spent on film to spend on actors, costumes, sets, and locations.

My DI systems edit list can readout in frames, Feet+Frames, and SMPTE time code numbers, so you can edit and mix in my software, and then conform the film rolls for printing using a sync block to match the numbers in the edit list. In fact that is what it was written for to start with, digital workrprint and sound mixing, for later use of the edit numbers to cut the negative without the need for edge numbers, you just count from the clapboard frame that gets hole punched through it before workprint scanning.

But we found that you get MUCH cleaner results scanning at near 4K and just do the whole thing DI rather than film-to-film printing in a step contact printer, and you have much better control over the grading as the bell and howell light house is no match to the control you get over the curves in CC software like I have built into my NLE, so overall digital printing is better for low cost production if you want results that match what people expect on a movie screen, as far as we have been able to get so far.

If you want to do film-to-film printing then zero cut type A/B/C roll printing is MUCH better than frame line cutting as much of the damage is not going to show since the cuts are made back 6 inches or more from the finished cut points. I computerized our step printer to do zero cut printing and the jump you get (on projection of the print) when frame line splices go through was avoided, but even so there is still a big issue with dust and crud on the film, and the serious limitations of the bell and howell light house as the sole source of grading.

Anyone planing a film project of any kind has many choices now, and SHOULD concider what options will give the result the impact that they are looking for at the target format.
 
Dan Hudgins said:
None of the young people I have been able to talk to about making a feature on such EI 3 film has shown any interest in working with movie film equipment, if you know anyone who would be serious have them contact me, as it would be an "exeprence" to shoot something that way.
Click to expand...

Problem is that these days it "takes balls" to go for this and very few have that. I remember the fights I would have with producer and quite often directors, when I suggested reversal, pushing or different lab processing for a look. Same answer every time - better to be safe and "kind of" know what you get (we still shot film, but negative straight to telecine, CC) and then apply the look afterwards. Sad since the really IMO good stuff, always comes from pushing boundaries.

So I can clearly see the WSIWYG with for example RED and sometimes it has been my selling point, for shooting RED over film, but I always feel sad when people don't dare to try something new (or old for that matter LOL).
 
Shawn Booth said:
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 $$$/time while troubleshooting, sending camera in, locating a replacement, etc. Now, same shoot but with a film camera. Camera breaks. Assistant takes a look, reaches into their belt and pulls nec tool to fix problem. Or we take camera to truck and fix. Bottom line, most assistants can fix most problems associated with a film camera. And get back to work quickly with minimal loss in time/$$$...
Click to expand...

Shawn, I was talking about this issue a couple of weeks ago with a top-notch 1st AC in the UK, and we were saying exactly the same thing. Based on my little personal experience (mind you, I'm still trying to get my foot in the door and I've never shot anything on Red), camera assistants are the ones who seem to be more "against" digital cameras than everyone else.

I co-directed a 7 minute short 3 years ago in Italy, 35mm, for about 2500€, and we managed to pay most of the crew, to feed them well, to pay for one of the two locations we used, and rent some equipment. I have to say we were very lucky and lots of people (namely all the crew, a big production company that lent us the camera for the weekend, Kodak, Technicolor) were incredibly kind to us, otherwise the budget would have gone up to 10000€ easily. I'm not saying it can always be done the way we did it, but it's easier than most people think, and we now own our beautiful future-proof negative.

So, yes, SHOOT SOME FILM!!!

(Great thread, by the way... :) )
 
So far, this is the cheapest way to shoot 35mm film that I have found:

1: Find a 35mm camera that has a 2 perf movement. I think Panavision has some 2 perf cameras to rent. Aaton's new Penelope can shoot 2 perf as well. If you are really tight on cash, then rent a Commie Cam such as a Kinor 35H that has been converted to 2 perf.

Here is a link to a place that rents them: http://www.indi35.com/

More about 2 perf: http://www.indi35.com/2_perf_techniscope

In a nutshell, 2 perf uses a special gate that shoot widescreen 2.40:1 right in the camera and uses 2 perforations per frame rather than 3 or 4. This means that in 2 perf, you are doubling the time of your reel.



2: Use short ends. Many studios and production companies purchase more stock than they need and will sell it to certain companies at a significantly reduced price.

There are a couple of places to get short ends, one of them is http://www.reelgoodfilm.com/testimonials.html.

You can still shoot 35 affordably but you just need to know where to look. I figure that Red will be around for a very very long time and I will have more than enough time to work with their products. I will shoot film for my next project just for the experience.
 
Film makes you think about stuff before you shoot, not just point the camera somewhere and see what it does. Light a scene by EYE and think about what you're getting.

If haven't seen a printed daily from a camera negative you've shot a couple days ago which turned out exactly how you thought it would turn out, you've missed one of the best feelings you can have as a cinematographer. And missing that feeling because people tell you that it's too expensive to shoot film...
 
Going back to what Joaquin Baca-Asay said in the interview about the laziness of shooting digital. I agree that people can become lazy but I remember this argument when non-linear editing came in. People worried that we'd end up with multiple cuts and extend our edit time but one smart editor I met said that because non-linear editing was so liberal with possibilities that the editor in some sense had to be MORE disciplined in his cut, as disciplined as he was with cutting film. That for me threw the argument out the window. Discipline came with the mind not the medium. To that end I will use whatever is within my budget range to produce the best image I can. I suppose it does come down to the numbers pushing the decision into a grey area where deciding over digital or film becomes moot.

But I have to say after working in both film and digital, if I have a very small budget I would probably shoot digital. It really depends on what deals I can swing and who I know. Once I go into a higher budget then film becomes a player for sure. What's higher in budget terms? Difficult to say but of the top of my head higher than 300K. But even then as David Mullen pointed out he knows of features shooting for far less. But if I was shooting only with 60K I would want to know how good my film would look once it's on the screen (and that's another killer point, is it being distributed on cinema screens?).

There are so many factors in this that I don't think there is a definitive answer really.
 
"But HD is different. It has a monitor, on which you can see what you are shooting. You can add a little light here and there when it's too dark. Everything is on the monitor; you just have to look at it and make everything right. All the thoughts and expecations that go into creative cinematography are gone, as everything has been done already with the monitor"

Mark Lee Ping-Bing on shooting HD, co-DP of "In The Mood For Love" and DP for most of the Hou Hsiao-Hsien movies.
 
J. P. Sendall said:
But I have to say after working in both film and digital, if I have a very small budget I would probably shoot digital. It really depends on what deals I can swing and who I know. Once I go into a higher budget then film becomes a player for sure. What's higher in budget terms? Difficult to say but of the top of my head higher than 300K. But even then as David Mullen pointed out he knows of features shooting for far less. But if I was shooting only with 60K I would want to know how good my film would look once it's on the screen (and that's another killer point, is it being distributed on cinema screens?).

There are so many factors in this that I don't think there is a definitive answer really.
Click to expand...

There are budget issues of course, and with the increase in the quality of digital, there are fewer reasons to avoid it once you factor in the lower costs. However, there is also the issue of personal taste and having a particular creative vision, and a filmmaker may decide to fight for film if he feels passionately enough about that, and I don't see a problem with that as long as he can find a way to shoot film that does not hurt other aspects of the production (and I don't believe that you should automatically look for ways to shoot on a format that costs you the least amount of money, sometimes you may feel that some extra money in one direction or the other is well-spent and appropriate).

These days, most movies under a 1-mil. budget are likely to opt for digital, a few Super-16, even fewer 2-perf 35mm. I'd say about half of the indie movies made between 1-mil and 7-mil are opting for digital, if not more. Once you get above that, there is less pressure to shoot digital unless you are planning a very high shooting ratio.

But that brings up a particular point, some types of movies have low shooting ratios and some have very high ones, which will be a factor in the practicality of shooting film. However, I've noticed lately that some people go nuts once they switch to digital and shoot mountains of footage, only to discover there are attendant costs in post with that high a volume.

Honestly, though, if I had only 60K for a feature, I'd probably pick the Red One to shoot it on unless I had a story reason to choose the Super-16 look, for example (the Swedish movie by Jan Troll "Everlasting Moments" was beautifully shot in 16mm because he felt it had an older Autochrome feeling to it that helped take you back in time. Plus the movie itself is about photography.)
 
There are numerous reasons that people who wander around these forums should go out and shoot on film.

As visual artists I think it is your duty to understand the visual medium as a whole.

Nothing is better for a boot camp in shot discipline. I still like to go out with my medium format camera and shoot images just for the sake of shot consideration.

The amount of self-shooters out there hosing the scene with their cameras should be sent on film boot camp.

As per the cost argument, there is nothing more uncomfortable than standing by a film camera and hearing money fly away with every perf pulled. Having said that all the films I have shot on film I got the film stock either free or at very little cost. For processing buddy up with a film student as there are always student rates for processing.
 
I agree; those that have not yet shot on film should see if they can get their hands on a 100' roll and a camera, and go out and shoot something.

The problem is with the argument of which medium is better; neither is better. They both have their uses and respective pros and cons. The choice of which medium to use should be on a per-project basis.
 
Film obviously served cinema well for a very long time and needless to say you can achieve amazing results on it. But I'm very happy I was born when I was and got into the industry when I did, because I never had any desire to shoot film, I always wanted to use only digital equipment, because it's just an archaic medium and needlessly expensive to do it right.

Our budget was so tight, we wouldn't have wanted the extra expense of shooting on film over the RED when the RED actually looks better than film. I don't like grain, I don't think it's "artistic," and if I want it on a shot I'd rather add it in post, I certainly don't want it there just because. I find it actually really annoying, whether it's digital noise or film grain it's equally poor looking. I absolutely loved the RED footage we got and the money we saved in our budget by shooting on the RED went on the screen, that's the bottom line for me.

I would prefer never to direct a movie shot on film. I suppose as a director it doesn't concern me too much as I'm not touching the camera anyway, but I just prefer the workflow and prefer to have the footage immediately available and backed up to a RAID or two, etc.
 
Jonathan L. Bowen said:
Film obviously served cinema well for a very long time and needless to say you can achieve amazing results on it. But I'm very happy I was born when I was and got into the industry when I did, because I never had any desire to shoot film, I always wanted to use only digital equipment, because it's just an archaic medium and needlessly expensive to do it right.

Our budget was so tight, we wouldn't have wanted the extra expense of shooting on film over the RED when the RED actually looks better than film. I don't like grain, I don't think it's "artistic," and if I want it on a shot I'd rather add it in post, I certainly don't want it there just because. I find it actually really annoying, whether it's digital noise or film grain it's equally poor looking. I absolutely loved the RED footage we got and the money we saved in our budget by shooting on the RED went on the screen, that's the bottom line for me.

I would prefer never to direct a movie shot on film. I suppose as a director it doesn't concern me too much as I'm not touching the camera anyway, but I just prefer the workflow and prefer to have the footage immediately available and backed up to a RAID or two, etc.
Click to expand...

You have obviously no idea what working with film is like or the point of this thread. This is common with your posts. Especially with "because it's just an archaic medium and needlessly expensive to do it right." You really show your ignorance with that one... Even more funny is you say it without even knowing what you are talking about.

Why am I surprised though? There are more and more "directors" who don't know much about their own craft, let alone the joys of celluloid. Can you add talent to your directing in post while you're at it?

Film continues to serve the industry well.
 
Interesting discussion... at least it started that way.

I must say I am torn about the whole thing... on one hand, I love Red. I love what it allows me to do. I love that I can try ridiculous things at no cost because I already own the camera. But, I have never shot motion picture film. I think it would be interesting, but to be honest, not my cup of tea. I say this in only partial ignorance. I love using a 35mm stills camera. An old one at that. I learned to light by eye with that, and truthfully didn't find it as mysterious and difficult as you suggest. For me the real joy in film was processing it. I loved sitting in the dark room developing the film. I loved thinking about the process of getting that image on to photographic paper. I loved watching the image appear as you did the processing cycle. With motion picture film, I get to do none of that. The magic of it is not there for me. Just shooting film cause it's film means nothing to me in the stills world either. Its the part of the process that most people will never understand that i enjoy the most.

With Red, I get just a fraction of that back as I play with the files in redcine/rocketcine. I get to tweak the image in strange ways to try and bring out odd colours as a by product of a Grad filter. I get to push the water to give a silvery tone. I get what i loved about shooting film on a stills camera, and i get what i love about film making. Shooting film to Shoot film has zero appeal to me. It's not that i don't like film, I do. I just don't feel the magic in the actual shooting of it. The magic for me is elsewhere in the process.

Hopefully my view point can be understood. I would encourage people who feel they can't afford to get out some motion picture film to go get themselves a 35mm still camera and find a place to develop it yourself. There is magic in your hands. Meanwhile, i am gonna keep on pushing my own limits with my Red.
 
The smell of the film, lacing it up...

The low purr of the camera...

The optical viewfinder... Oh my God, the optical viewfinder!

Lighting ratios and the simple beauty of film speed, aperture and shutter angle calculations in ballet with composition in the mind.

The anticipation of the sealed can.

The telecine suite with in-house craft, snacks and coffee and comfy chairs.

The timing.

The Red gives every person the opportunity to write a story and for that story to get to screen, it'd have to be a right good story though, but it's good to have something to aspire to, some kind of payback for the slog. Like doing jobs for free to land bigger better projects. Anyone can buy some paints and sell a picture for a million pounds, it'd have to be a right good picture though, but not everyone gets to paint the sistene chapel.
 
I like film. But I don't miss this stuff:

"Do we have enough in the mag for one more take?"

"Rollout!"

"The lab said there was a scratch on the negative."

"I'm worried about that last roll. Make sure they check it at the lab."

"Apparently B Camera wasn't holding sync on the stunt"

"Did we get it?"

"We'll know on monday if it came out. Can they hold off on striking the set until then?"

"We had a bad mag."

"Somewhere along the line it got fogged."

"The power went off at the lab while it was in the developer."

"Why does it look washed out?"

"What do you mean it looks soft?"

"Why didn't anyone tell me while we were shooting?"

"Its been in the freezer so it should be fine."

"Every time it goes through the projector it dies a little."

"We're going to try and do a wet gate transfer to see if that helps."

"We had a light leak."

"That spotting could be from the chemistry."

"I know we shot that. Keep looking."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top