Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

How many movies are still shot on film ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Mullen ASC said:
How would research tell you that Kodak will always produce film? If film manufacturing was so profitable, then why did Agfa and then Fuji get out of the business of making motion picture color negative? And you honestly believe that the industry will switch back from digital origination to film? I don't see any such trend happening in the still photography world.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. And the other major issue is: where will we get the film processed? The number of available choices just in LA, NY, Vancouver, London, and NY have become greatly reduced just in the last year or so, to the point where you're lucky if there's one lab still running in these cities.

I was always told at Kodak 10 years ago that they basically broke even on the negative and made huge money on theatrical print stock. One exec (no longer there) told me they could literally cut the retail price of print stock in half and they would still have made a profit. They also tried very hard to create a Kodak Digital Cinema division, but that all collapsed as well.

I think as Mike Most said earlier, the real problems with shooting on film right now are not getting the cameras and stock, but rather dealing with the post-production aspects. And I think a lot of directors under 50 are not willing to wait for dailies and on-set looks the way they have to with film. The slower operational pace kind of negates any of the positive aspects of film for many filmmakers.

I truly think the cost differences between film & digital are trivial, once you get a feature production over (say) $40M. At most, it'd be about a million bucks, and I think if you factor in digital camera rental, monitors, the DIT, and all that stuff, you might be halfway towards a million bucks already. I would have to see a line-item breakdown to be sure, but I can tell you the cost is not a gigantic factor, though it is a factor.
 
Two films to see (netflix) that were recently shot on film: The Great Beauty; The Invisible Woman. Both beautiful and really quite different in style: The Invisible Woman (Charles Dicken's 'mistress') has a slow deliberate and painterly quality, very effective in its shades of Impressionist imagery; and The Great Beauty ("La grande bellezza") is full of energy and vibrant colour and light, with contemporary and classic Italian cinema qualities. Fabulous camera work etc. in both.
 
Rumors, rumors, rumors people talk and believe the hype...right? What did everyone say when the Red one was introduced. Oh it will never happen digital can't replace film BOOM now look. Truth... its not a replacement its another option and they still transfer digital to film. There are post houses still in the states but if you don't research you won't know. 100 years of film and how many yeas of digital? You think they are going to just walk away? everything come in a phase. Watch the money. Lens sales are at an all time high old and new. look up a film camera on ebay and check the prices. I thought they would drop to hundreds but they are still in the thousands. hmmm
 
David
AGFA and FUJI may not have gotten the sales they wanted in a tight market but I talk to Kodak all the time and shoot ideas to them because I still own film cameras. The price of film is still high no matter who is selling it and they are working on other versions of 16mm, 8mm and 35mm Why? Hmmm.. You have to bank your product on the new school.Look what happen to Sony after RED EPIC, SCARLET I was around many people saying they were going to stop because the RED one was the best thy had and RED got lucky. Look at them now, Their are 2 power houses in this Cine game....ARRI & RED I love my EPIC X but I got the film cameras because I was told that I will never own a RED due to high prices. boom no more hype for me but if I sell my cameras I think a film wave is going to take place.
 
When Kodak stops making and selling 35mm Cine Film, it would be nice if those who have said that that would never happen
would post here in this thread.... "Oops, I was wrong".

Of course that might be decades from now, but I doubt it. Sad to say.

Also, one day the planet Earth will no longer exist, and 35mm Cine Film will go out with it. :)
 
One lab in stockholm left. I give them 6 months... Kodak still have an office/ sales guy here.... I give him 7 months :)
 
Tony, you can hope all you want but it's not coming back. Film may not go away for a few years but it will go away. It's a wasteful and environmentally unfriendly process and digital will only get better.
I shot what is probably my last film job last year and to tell you the truth, I won't miss it all that much. Short loads, potential dirt and scratches, film jams, trusting your dailies to a film lab - all are things of the past. Yes there are other issues with digital but the film issues I can do without.
 
Shane Kelly said:
Tony, you can hope all you want but it's not coming back. Film may not go away for a few years but it will go away. It's a wasteful and environmentally unfriendly process and digital will only get better. I shot what is probably my last film job last year and to tell you the truth, I won't miss it all that much. Short loads, potential dirt and scratches, film jams, trusting your dailies to a film lab - all are things of the past. Yes there are other issues with digital but the film issues I can do without.
Click to expand...
Speaking as a longtime film guy, there are things I'll miss and other things I won't miss at all. The grain, weave, dirt, and inconsistencies of the lab were all absolutely maddening. I would much, much rather deal with digital lit and shot by an expert than poorly-shot 35mm film.

What I really do miss (and still miss) is people having a film sensibility when shooting digital. I really believe there has been a loss of respect and a lot of shortcuts on set and in post, some of which are really stupid and short-sighted. If people shot digital as if it were film, I would be a lot happier about it.

A pal of mine recently got into an argument with a neophyte filmmaker on the necessity to have a specific routine prior to shooting each scene: "quiet on the set, roll sound, sound speed, roll camera, marker, <clap>, and action!" The neophyte was convinced that all this preamble frightened actors and made for a lot of tension on the set, not understanding that this has been a tradition going back to the dawn of sound films in the 1920s. There are many good reasons for still shooting digital motion pictures this way. As far as I'm concerned, everything should be the same except that there's no film and no lab; the lighting is essentially the same, the labor is the same, you still have to be concerned about focus, composition, exposure, performance, and all the other nuances.

I concede that there are a handful of directors -- Clint Eastwood and Billy Friedkin among them -- who have a different style in rolling each take on set, but I think they're the exception rather than the rule. There are lots of traditions we need to hang on to from the film world, and I'd hate to see them thrown away by newcomers who are unaware of why these things exist, and how to communicate and deal with a film crew, even in a digital world.
 
Marc Wielage said:
Speaking as a longtime film guy, there are things I'll miss and other things I won't miss at all. The grain, weave, dirt, and inconsistencies of the lab were all absolutely maddening. I would much, much rather deal with digital lit and shot by an expert than poorly-shot 35mm film.

What I really do miss (and still miss) is people having a film sensibility when shooting digital. I really believe there has been a loss of respect and a lot of shortcuts on set and in post, some of which are really stupid and short-sighted. If people shot digital as if it were film, I would be a lot happier about it.

A pal of mine recently got into an argument with a neophyte filmmaker on the necessity to have a specific routine prior to shooting each scene: "quiet on the set, roll sound, sound speed, roll camera, marker, <clap>, and action!" The neophyte was convinced that all this preamble frightened actors and made for a lot of tension on the set, not understanding that this has been a tradition going back to the dawn of sound films in the 1920s. There are many good reasons for still shooting digital motion pictures this way. As far as I'm concerned, everything should be the same except that there's no film and no lab; the lighting is essentially the same, the labor is the same, you still have to be concerned about focus, composition, exposure, performance, and all the other nuances.

I concede that there are a handful of directors -- Clint Eastwood and Billy Friedkin among them -- who have a different style in rolling each take on set, but I think they're the exception rather than the rule. There are lots of traditions we need to hang on to from the film world, and I'd hate to see them thrown away by newcomers who are unaware of why these things exist, and how to communicate and deal with a film crew, even in a digital world.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Tradition is there because it works. Deviate only when you know why and how. Once you've mastered your craft, you'll be more comfortable making bold, uncommon choices (they may even "work" if you're lucky!!)...as they'll be grounded in experience and technique.
 
I still shoot digital as if I were using film. What's funny to me is.. why is everyone down playing film and still shoot digital as if they were shooting film? The bad part is all the issues we had with film scratches, flicker, color etc. People pay 100 to 1000 dollars for those issues and add it to their movie shot in a digital format? Buying a digital camera vs shooting on film...shooting on film cheaper if you have a film camera. Feature on film shot with a digital transfer max $5,000.. pro cine digital camera 20 to 100,000 dollars. When the light comes on people may go back to film. If not.. I'm glad I still have that option and my lenses work on both cameras.
 
Tony Harris said:
I still shoot digital as if I were using film. What's funny to me is.. why is everyone down playing film and still shoot digital as if they were shooting film? The bad part is all the issues we had with film scratches, flicker, color etc. People pay 100 to 1000 dollars for those issues and add it to their movie shot in a digital format? Buying a digital camera vs shooting on film...shooting on film cheaper if you have a film camera. Feature on film shot with a digital transfer max $5,000.. pro cine digital camera 20 to 100,000 dollars. When the light comes on people may go back to film. If not.. I'm glad I still have that option and my lenses work on both cameras.
Click to expand...

On which planet can you shoot enough film to make a movie and get it to digital transfer for $5,000? You can't even come close to buying the film for that.
 
Joe Taylor said:
To me the fact that you can now buy a Arri 435 ES from Visual Products for $4900 with 3 400' mags, an electronic shutter and a video tap, is somewhat alarming. The mags themselves would have set you back more than $6000 just 10 years ago the. The 435 body over $100,000. That alone should hint you in on the state of film in 2014. The market for film cameras is basically dead.
.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but what condition is it in? Even 25 years ago you'd still hear about people snapping up ex-rental cameras for a seemingly ridiculous price, until they found out how much it was going to cost to put it into workable condition!
There's no question that film cameras aren't getting the work they used to, so it's not too surprising that rental companies will be getting rid of ones that are never likely to see another rental.
 
David M said:
Yeah, but what condition is it in? Even 25 years ago you'd still hear about people snapping up ex-rental cameras for a seemingly ridiculous price, until they found out how much it was going to cost to put it into workable condition!
There's no question that film cameras aren't getting the work they used to, so it's not too surprising that rental companies will be getting rid of ones that are never likely to see another rental.
Click to expand...

Visual Products is generally pretty good about selling products in usable condition, so I imagine these cameras would at least be ready to shoot. Whether or not they'd need considerable maintenance later on, I'm not sure....
 
If people are really concerned about the discipline of shooting film due to costs per minute then I'll happily setup a web service where your DIT records the duration of the day's shoot. I'll then send you an invoice for $300 an hour (A discount compared to film!) and if you really really want to be disciplined I'll even put you on the platinum program where I bill you $2,000 per hour of footage you shoot per day.

You can all then get that fear of God back into you from every second counting and I'll save you the trouble of couriering dailies to the lab. /s

On a more serious note, for those who really truly do love the look of film (myself included), it's only a matter of time before emulation is perfect. The gamut and accuracy of cameras is increasing by leaps and bounds every year. At some point it'll even be more economical to do a physics simulation at the silver crystal level with a raytracer, simulate the sub surface dispersal of the light and even get film grain as part of the process than it will be to manufacture film. The capabilities of digital are unlimited. The capabilities of chemistry are quite clear. If we can simulate an ocean of billions of particle crashing against a seashore we can handle, what 36 odd million silver crystals? I worked for a company which had a raytracer which could handle 20million rays per second, their new chip will be able to do 200-400 million. I am confident we will never, ever do that but I am also confident motion picture stock won't be manufactured in the not too distant future either.
 
I have a film lab owner in my pocket and because my film school loves me I can still fly under the student radar. I spoke with both last week and it will only cost me about 3G's for a feature film shot on super 16mm and transferred in 3K or 4K using resolve. I have to try it because I'm an artist. we are talking new spools of vision 3 fellas. There are people that still provide a service and don't listen to hype. I ride options, if I don't used what's out here how will I ever know. Just saying don't be so closed minded and listen to everything the big boys say.
 
Well Tom Hanks has made an app that recreates "the sensation of an old typewriter" on an ipad (HanxWriter); perhaps someone will create an app that will apply the sensation of shooting film while using a digital camera:
roll lengths, calculated at various frames per second, sound speed, the purr; even compelling one to check for that virtual hair in the virtual gate, etc., etc.;
in short, an app that will guarantee the quality of tradition and working methods peculiar to film, with settings, perhaps, named after a film-maker appropriate to the transcendent state it bestows on the user.

Or better yet, what Gavin said. ( :
 
Don't hate on me because I love both and have an option,I'm under 5,000 on this planet but it will be higher for you.
 
If in fact the Singularity comes to pass and older generations are able to live very long, healthy lives, then film may remain relevant. Otherwise, movie audiences will be comprised of current small screen viewers who will see film as unclear.

I was watching a Frank Sinatra song today on You Tube. I remember only about a decade ago how much I enjoyed Sinatra's music. But today, even though his music was soft and soothing, it just seemed slow.

Humanity is changing. Adapt or die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top