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

Bill Anderson said:
I've watched Tetro a number of times and feel it is made with every bit of premeditated care as any other Coppola film. It's as beautiful as any film ever made. I watched American Graffiti last night and couldn't help but wonder how it would have played out if Copolla had been able to shoot it on digital. Last I read, Coppola's in no mood to go BACK to film. That's his choice, I'm sure Spielberg wouldn't argue with him. Will you?

And as far as saying that film promotes more care or greater pre-visualization - subliminally or otherwise - compared to digital acquisition: that is not in the least bit accurate.

There is a new energy within filmmaking these days, and it has nothing to do with film. Filmmaking is moving out of the dark ages, and towards enlightenment.
Click to expand...

You do realize that American Graffiti is a George Lucas film right?
 
Hey all, I am new to this forum but, having worked with both Joaquin and Sam Bayer I can confirm that they love film. I can also say that they work on commercials/ music videos with large budgets. My feeling is that it is the content, and not the camera or format, that makes a piece work.
 
I just worked a quick 2 day job. Part of my earnings were 15+ 400' rolls of 16mm...

Now I'm working on what to shoot with it... Rental on a SR3 package is roughly the same cost as a R1 at around $450/day plus Ultra Primes @ $600/day...

Someone's gonna shoot himself some celluloid for cheap!

(Then I ship film to mainland for processing...):devil:

IT IS possible to shoot film cheaply...
 
Shawn thanks for this thread! I like your suggestion for people who haven't shot on film to do it, so they can experience it. Even do it for the sheer fun of it! Doing something different if you have never done it before!

I think it was a good suggestion Shawn. It is interesting however, how rapidly some people made strong comments, and then jumped into a debate of for and against! I for one am glad to have experienced shooting on film, and happy to be paid to do it! I don't mind if the client wants to pay me to shoot film! Or to pay me to shoot digital!
 
Shawn Booth said:
I just worked a quick 2 day job. Part of my earnings were 15+ 400' rolls of 16mm...
Click to expand...

Good for you, Shawn! 6000' of film to have fun with, can't wait to see what you decide to shoot with it!

Shawn Booth said:
IT IS possible to shoot film cheaply...
Click to expand...

Indeed it is!
maybe some people don't know about this, but FujiFilm UK has a website called Film Stock Clearance where they sell film they can't sell as "perffect" at good prices.
 
Having only watched the two first of these, I see people who love their medium and are more comfortable shooting film than digital.

that is good.

It is also generally find it much easier to discuss photography with photographers with a film background than with "video people", even though my own film-experience only is from SLR-shooting.

I think the reason basically is that film forces you to understand photography to a larger extent than a lot of video-cameras do. Which is cool.

I hear a lot of good arguments along Jims: "More of all is better", to which I agree.

But I don't really get much information. I get a lot of emotions. Emotions are good. Excellent people and craftsmen are good. And these were good commersials for their intended audience.

I'll probably try to find time to sit through the rest, though. But to say that this is not a film vs digital discussion, is kinda funny.

Gunleik
Who can shoot on R1. Unfortunately have not access to 400' or a 235 right here, or even a lab in Norway...
 
Gunleik Groven said:
It is also generally find it much easier to discuss photography with photographers with a film background than with "video people", even though my own film-experience only is from SLR-shooting.

I think the reason basically is that film forces you to understand photography to a larger extent than a lot of video-cameras do. Which is cool.
Click to expand...

I disagree that film requires you to understand photography better than video, (or digital SLR for that matter).

The problem is that people are shooting largely on "auto modes" and getting "good enough" results- so they never bother to learn more. That happens in film too- or it used to.

Anyone shooting film for stills today is doing it for a specific reason, and not because its easier. All the "easier" people have moved on to digital.

If you want to get the most out of your camera then you have to learn exposure, your sensor (film or digital!) and the cameras you are using- same as always.

There are a lot of people out there who aren't limited at all by cameras. There are people who are completely satisfied with consumer digital video cameras from 2004. These are not the sorts of people most of us here can learn from.

There are some long time ENG shooters who absolutely depend on auto iris and never light creatively- they just illuminate a scene. Again, not the sort your typical digital cinema camera user will be learning from.

There are film shooters who just stick their Canon A2 on the green box and go clicking and zooming away.

There are even 35mm film shooters who just point a spot meter at their subject and do what it tells them to do.

These techniques work for some... no. They work for many people, but they don't require deep knowledge of photography.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
But to say that this is not a film vs digital discussion, is kinda funny.

Gunleik
Who can shoot on R1. Unfortunately have not access to 400' or a 235 right here, or even a lab in Norway...
Click to expand...

I wasn't intending to start that discussion though... Was hoping to inspire those who have never shot film to attempt it...

I'm sorry you aren't able to shoot any celluloid Gunleik...
 
Fix it in the Lab

Fix it in the Lab

Alexander Ibrahim said:
There are even 35mm film shooters who just point a spot meter at their subject and do what it tells them to do.
Click to expand...

One point people talk around here is the role of the Lab in movie film work.

I think many if not MOST DP have relied on the Lab to grade their footage so that when the client sees the dalies or video transfer the exposure has been leveled.

Its possable to level the expsoure errors because film has -1 and +2 stops of more or less straight curve and another -1/2 and +2 stops of rounded curve to be able to salvage exposures made that are off a bit or more than a bit.

My Brother told me a story of a Newsreel company that had a sign on the wall of their camera check out room it read "if you don't know the right exposure set the lens at f/5.6" since the lab would be able to time a usable masterpositive out of just about any negative shot at f/5.6 on the EI 32 black and white film stock used, more so if they did a "test" which labs sometimes did. If there was some doubt about the exposure you would shoot a few feet and then can that as a test, the lab would process the test and then pull or push process the longer roll shot so that it would not be over or under processed for the lighting used.

I heard about some DP in Hollywood that would shoot everything at f/ 5.6 maybe someone knows his name? Perhaps he bluffed his way into a job not knowing how to read a light meter, and depended on the lab to clean up his work, and also depended on the gaffer to know how many lights to turn on when he would anounce "we'r shooting this at f/ 5.6..." with as much authority in his voice as he could muster.

Video on the other hand had issues with the broadcast signal limits and the poor dynamic range of FM recording video tape. There was no reason to increase the dynamic range of TV cameras since without digital LUT the video tape could not record any longer range at the slope angle required for broadcast standards such as REC 609 etc.

Today we are starting to see true RAW recording cameras become available that have a capture range and noise level much closer to 35mm movie film than any TV camera ever had because they record all 12 to 16 bits of sensor data rather than a clipped range that can fit onto video tape.

But even so, Digital is still a little more demanding on getting the exposure right, so maybe some people who never knew how to get the exposure right in the first place and depended on films latitude are a bit frightened of the care needed to expose a hard clipping sensor?

I think from what I can see working with both film and digital images, that in the next few years it will be very hard to say that anything about film will yeald better results than digital capture for the most part.

Unlike many people who just send film to a lab and hope the lab sends back a great image somehow, I have tried working with 35mm film DIY and can tell you that I have very much higher regard for the labs that do good work than I did before I tried doing everything myself. You cannot imagine how hard it is to control dust and gunk at the level of todays standards. To make a movie with cement splices on the dup negative or master positive yourself is almost impossable because of the standard of Cleanliness required, something my Brother does not make any easer by wanting to do the splicing. Negative cutters were paid a good amount of money, and even so such edited films always had specks and spots, something that today is filtered out with the DI and software so audiences are not used to seeing any longer, just as people do not hear the pops and clicks of vinyl records.

When you look at older films and say "what great cinematography" don't forget the roll of the many people that were not credited and worked in film labs to get those images to look as good as they turned out. Technicolor did not trust the DP to know enough about exposure to set the iris himself, they sent out their "approved" cameramen and color consultant, because the Technicolor camera was not easy to expose for since the film was push processed all the time, it looked good because the cameramen and the lab worked together to adjust the processing for EACH SHOT, sometimes doing "slop tests" on the set to confirm the negative density.

If you are a small filmmaker who just brings in a few rolls of film to your local lab, they may not even want you around and may scratch your film to get rid of you, so you cannot depend of first class care for your exposure from your local lab.

I have been looking for some young filmmakers in the area to shoot 35mm with, I have both color and black and white stocks sitting around rotting, and when people hear about using an NC in a Raby blimp they lose interest, its just too much to deal with, even for myself, shooting digital makes for better results, if you can compare Super16 on T500 with the RED ONE M-X and not say that the RED ONE will look better on the 35mm transfer?

This thread is not about what looks better, but just the need to shoot film, but why? One answer given before was to "get your hands dirty", well maybe greasy maybe, I know the NC is covered in oil as that Mitchell oil creeps all over the camera, but for me its what shows on the movie theatre screen, and DIY film just looks inferior to DIY Digital, I know because I have done both and looked at them on the same screen, so its not about the end result, its about the joy of watching the footage counter flip dollar signs?

Maybe its fun to watch the footage counter flip dollar signs when someone else is paying for the film stock, but even then you have to have them pay for the lab fees all the way through. If you end product is shoot film, edit a video transfer on a MAC, and post on YouTube, then I guess free negative and processing and transfer lets you say you "shot film" for whatever that gets you in the end...
 
I've never had, or even heard of, a lab scratching my negative on purpose! That's absurd Dan.

I don't shoot film with YouTube as end result either...

How does your post help anything? It comes across as a jaded one...

How many people just send film to a lab and hope for the best?

I disagree with your assessment of shooters... Anyone can shoot digital, not everyone can shoot film.
 
Live and learn

Live and learn

Shawn Booth said:
I disagree with your assessment of shooters... Anyone can shoot digital, not everyone can shoot film.
Click to expand...

If someone who has never shot Super16 or 35mm wants to and can swing it they may learn something or enjoy the experience.

San Francisco is not maybe the best place for me to meet people who want to shoot 35mm features on a micro budget, so I'm working on something that I can manage better and I would think I am not the only one in that boat.

As for the other points I cannot say anything other than peoples experiences can differ...

I'm just not sure what exactly it is that being promoted? Shoot film before its gone? Shoot film because famous people have shot film?

People who shoot film are better than people who shoot digital?

Maybe my point about the role of labs in the end result got lost, but the minute you pick up a roll of film you are in a collaboration with many other people who contribute to the look of the end result. You can shoot film but its not an image until it gets worked on in a lab by people with much more experence than you have with film, that was my point.

With Digital you may be able to DIY easer and better, but you still need some skill I would hope to match what a team of experenced lab people can do for you without your even knowing what they did for you..
 
Dan Hudgins said:
If someone who has never shot Super16 or 35mm wants to and can swing it they may learn something or enjoy the experience.
Click to expand...
Exactly...

I'm just not sure what exactly it is that being promoted? Shoot film before its gone? Shoot film because famous people have shot film?

People who shoot film are better than people who shoot digital?
Click to expand...
I felt I stated the intention multiple times. Simply, if you're a cinematographer, filmmaker... and have never shot film... go shoot some. Regardless of anyone's opinion, you'll learn something. If you do it enough, you can learn a lot. You can learn more shooting film than digital IMO, but then again, I learned to shoot with film... Not promoting anything really other than an experience...

Maybe my point about the role of labs in the end result got lost, but the minute you pick up a roll of film you are in a collaboration with many other people who contribute to the look of the end result. You can shoot film but its not an image until it gets worked on in a lab by people with much more experence than you have with film, that was my point.
Click to expand...

But filmmaking IS a collaboration...
 
I really want to shoot film, but these Kodak films don't really inspire me to that, just adds to the mystisism.

I think it even may work out ok, given I had a lightmeter and some fun stuff to shoot...

I don't deny the advantages of film. I rather see them. And to me - what I see, is a more compelling reason than the ad naseum repeated "magic" arguments...

It's physics, not magic. The physical arguments for shooting film are still pretty strong - given that everything else aren't significant factors or are equal in the equation. No denial from here...

But this kind of talk is not what makes me tick. Communication is a funny thing. What turns some on, turns others off...

To me it's about as inspiring to hear about this as phillip bloom advocating the DSLR thingy without any hesitations.

Yup... It can be nice... But, you know, horses for courses...



Thanks for posting, though.
 
Illford?

Illford?

Gunleik Groven said:
I but these Kodak films don't really inspire me to that
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motion_picture_film_stocks

Quote: [The company (Ilford) specialises in B&W films and, until 2003, produced motion picture versions of their photographic films for 16mm and 35mm cameras.]

My Brother got quite a pile of 16mm single perf 200 speed Ilford, maybe enough to shoot 2 features on. Its nice fine grain extended red film. It might work in Super16. Pull process 1 stop and get extended tonal range, could work for some "people" story like "A Man and a Woman (1966)".

He also has some DuPont 35mm High Speed (ISO 320) that looks great processed even though its maybe 50 years out of date. I keep telling him to write a script to use it up on, but he does not want "waste" it, although to me its more of a waste to let it sit and get even more out of date.

Those films by non-Kodak companies have a personality so you don't need a LUT or to add grain, the have their own halo effect and grain in "natural" proportions.

I think Kodak is "shooting themselves in the foot" by making their film look more and more like "video" without each film having its own personality that is distinct and unique. The less silver they put in and the more "linear" and "grain less" them make it the more it looks like the newer Digital Cameras, except you get the digital look easer just using a Digital Camera and you can use the SAME LUT on those frames...

I've got a case of Kodak 2484 if someone wants to shoot a featire on it with me, it has lots of grain, I can probably get more my Brother has something like 125000 feet (?) of it getting fogger every day, if someone wants to shoot something that looks a bit like "Pi (1998)"... I just can't lug all that heavy equipment around by myself any longer...

I keep telling my Brother that you need to go with the look the film has, amplify it and work within that world, rather than trying to force it to be something that it is not...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top