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 :)

I hate to say it but film has reached a dead end (but there might be a path forward)

Karim D. Ghantous

Karim D. Ghantous

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
2,682
Reaction score
89
Points
48
Location
Melbourne AU
I've always preferred film, but as it got more expensive I shot less of it, to the point where I stopped altogether. But I have to admit that we're at a point where film has reached a dead end. It's over.

I'm going to summarise my case:

- Photographers have been able to completely replace film, in principle, for a long time now, because RAW shooting is easy

- Photographers cannot get DPX-like scans from any lab AFAIK - a TIFF file is not the same thing at all

- Many DPs have to shoot compressed video, so low end cinematography doesn't have the advantage of RAW, so compressed digital (e.g. MP4) is always a step behind even 16mm

- Most people don't use RAW to its full potential, so film tends to look better in certain situations, giving the misleading perception that digital isn't quite "there" yet

- Digital wins in DR, resolution, colour, and with the right exposure method it can overcome the 'light source problem' which film doesn't have (e.g. brake lights are washed out to almost white, even in the day time)

- Film has way more DR only in large formats like 4x5 and up, even though specific DR hasn't changed

- Colour film, although beautiful stuff, cannot compete with digital unless the film's surface area approaches 4x5

- 15-perf 65mm is insanely good, but insanely expensive, and almost impractical, especially compared to Red 8K VV

- Black and white film can have more DR than digital if manufacturers put in a third or even a fourth layer (colour film has 12-17 layers), in which case, b&w film will see a boom in sales

It's that last point where I think film can not just remain, but be wildly successful. If b&w film is taken further, you will see a level of excitement for film that you haven't seen in a long, long time. Colour film is finished. But b&w film? It's up to the manufacturers.
 
The choice to shoot film is no longer a technical one, and purely an emotional/creative one.

Its like asking why people like to shoot on old lenses that are clearly worse in every way.

They just sometimes look better...

Technically better is not always the right choice...creatively.
 
29 films shot on kodak film at Cannes this year....hundreds of commercials I shot on it...and in the middle of shooting

it's a different medium

nothing to do with specs

amazing sensation and image..alive..

also you could say digital (video) cameras are at a dead end

anyways it's good to have choices
 
Film will always smell better (fresh and processed), feel better (when held with the hands/fingers and when wrapped around the extremities), look better (when held up to the light), and cut better (with scissors or a splicer) than digital. It doesn't have to move forward, it's already there. It's digital that keeps hitting dead ends, can't even view some of it now.
 
Kodak had a booth at CES for an 8MM to HD desktop scanner and I had asked them about 16MM and the reply was that "We would have to see how the 8MM scanner goes". In other words, they're depending on 8K+ video customers today to use the cheapest film format for HD when they could be offering the opportunity for them to easily use 16MM for their indie features, documentaries, commercials, music videos, etc.

Back when they were working on that modern Super 8MM camera there were people asking about a modern Super 16MM version to go along with it but that, as far as we know, has seemingly ultimately fizzled out altogether. It's decisions like this that keep film from making a comeback and, admittedly, I would be interested if there were easier ways to work with film.

Imagine this scenario:

- Easy to use modern 8MM, 16MM, and 35MM cameras, all crystal synced, various frame rates, low maintenance designs, and super quiet.

- Movie film can be bought in rolls for manual loading or can be purchased in pre-rolled light sealed magazines for easy universal camera docking, packing, and long term storage.

- Desktop or deskside scanner(s) can be used with either manual rolling or can have slide docks for pre-rolled easy magazines to allow for quick scanning from camera to home scanners.

- Software included for easy auto cleaning, scratch removal, etc. depending on easy or advanced modes. AI software modules could also be used for cleanup, frame interpolation, upscale, etc.

- Treat your footage just as you do digital video and have all the benefits of film and the ease of use of modern digital methods but video back to film will still have to be a professional process due to the amount of chemicals involved.

Now, while certain things could be done today to make this an actual working process, the cost is still very high and the ease of use is still not quite there. To do as I've described there would have to be various big decisions made, R&D, innovation, and, most importantly of all, consumer interest.
 
Nick, your analogy with lenses is very fair, but it's partly a category error.

Dio, some older digital cameras are dead, for sure. Some aren't, including the Epic 5K.

Les, you're talking about old formats, I think.

Zack, I really like your thinking. We can add affordable film-outs to that. 2 hours worth of film is way cheaper than shooting a production on film. There is also something else which I'm thinking about, too. It's related to film-outs but not quite the same thing. I'll keep you posted. You can ask me via DM if you want. It's just an idea at this point.

Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that digital RAW can do a lot more than film in every metric you can think of, and for a much lower cost. Can an 8-perf 35mm camera do 120fps? How about a 5-perf 65mm camera? 8-perf? 15-perf?
 
To use film at this point comes down to two reasons: nostalgia and to fuel folks with superiority complexes. Digital has already exceeded resolving detail up to 5-8perf 70mm. Recording on 15-perf 70mm and then creating prints without any scan work is still going to be the highest resolving image for cinemas. Though there's only one person doing that, and that's Nolan. The limitations of shooting 15-perf 70mm is no joke though. There is alot of things you can't do with that format, due to the recording time, size of the camera, and noise of the camera. Not gonna even mention the power draw needed for the camera and what happens if the timing belts go out of sync.

DR and color on digital has also surpassed film. There is no question about it. All B&W film from Kodak has less DR than their color films. Speaking from experience on shooting on a bunch of different stocks. If you want to emulate digital to film, it has never been easier than now. One just has to educate themselves.

I think limiting oneself to an older format, is really more of a creative hinderance rather than "breath of fresh air". Having worked with a bunch of 16mm, 35mm, and even 15/70mm cameras, it's really hard to look past all the positives digital provides to filmmakers and creatives.

I keep seeing film vs. digital but I think the real question soon is going to be digital vs. ai/real time vfx engines.

To each their own. If shooting on film makes you happy, please do it! Hell, I have a Canon-1N sitting on a table, so if I ever feel like just shooting film for some reason, I can pick it up and shoot. I had a 435 ES a while back, sold that thing though .


What I'm just tired of hearing are the false technical and aesthetic reasons why film is better, and at this point it's honestly absurd. The problem is misinformation gets picked up by others and then that misinformation is spread, then we have directors and producers making ridiculous claims about formats and camera brands, and then.... I'm just ranting now lol.

Most of us do not have the option of shooting 70mm. If you did, I would highly recommend the Alexa65 and emulate the stock you want. Probably the most access we would have if you had some cash burning a hole in your pocket is to shoot 35mm. I have shot 35mm 4-perf on 250D and after that experience(it went well), I honestly preferred the Raptor / Venice 2 / Mini LF. What I am more worried about than the format and brand is what the hell am i creating or trying to tell.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
We can add affordable film-outs to that. 2 hours worth of film is way cheaper than shooting a production on film. There is also something else which I'm thinking about, too. It's related to film-outs but not quite the same thing. I'll keep you posted.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked (late 2022), a film-out in LA was about $1000/minute, so it'd be about $120K for a 2-hour film. Not cheap.
 
Marc Wielage said:
Last time I checked (late 2022), a film-out in LA was about $1000/minute, so it'd be about $120K for a 2-hour film. Not cheap.
Click to expand...

I think what the other guys are saying, is that the traditional film out is done for big studio work, and today with the prevalence of digital, film out should become less niche, and allow a wider market to access the transfer. Up till now, who does digital to film transfers? pretty much no one but big films.
Who wants to do digital to film transfer? Quite a lot of different types of people, actually. But they cannot afford it.

A lot of film makers would do digital to film transfer (or figital) just for the archival aspects. a reel of film can last 50 to 100years, and it is format agnostic. So, it goes beyond pure nostalgia or hipster-ism superiority. It serves a real function to the issue of longer term storage and short digital format lifespans.
 
Last edited:
Nick Vera said:
Most of us do not have the option of shooting 70mm. If you did, I would highly recommend the Alexa65 and emulate the stock you want.
Click to expand...
I'm going to disagree here. Film and digital are elastic in relation to each other. You don't need (or want) an Alexa 65 as a substitute for 65mm film. There is no benefit.

Marc Wielage said:
Last time I checked (late 2022), a film-out in LA was about $1000/minute, so it'd be about $120K for a 2-hour film. Not cheap.
Click to expand...
Oof. That alone is more than the budgets of some projects!

James Sielaff said:
Just a reminder of all the video formats we have gone through in the past 20years:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CrIRyLdhHvw/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==


There is definitely a market for transfering to film for archival purposes and to avoid the potential that the video format will not be around in 20years, let alone 50 to 100years from now
Click to expand...
You are not wrong. These are definitely worth archiving, despite the effort. But these are physical formats. They are not the same thing as file formats, most of which will always be readable. Although I do not know if RealVideo can be played in QuickTime Player... Now that's the kind of question worth addressing.
 
Hard-drives, SSD's and cards can all fail. Digital data can be lost altogether, arguably easier than losing a roll of film.

But it's a moot point, film just isn't viable for widespread use any more.

As others here have mentioned, it can still have its applications, but most individuals who actually had to deal with it, along with the industries (more than just the cinema industry) who also made use of it, were glad to see it go.

The world's moved on in other ways too when it comes to film.

When most homes had a single black and white TV smaller than most desktop monitors now, being able to see motion pictures in colour, on a large screen, was a big deal and worth the effort and expense to make and see.

Now, it's all just taken for granted, to the point where people don't even care that much and are just as likely to be watching most of their content on their phones.

My previous comment was jokingly referring to some of the differences between shooting and editing digital video and film. Those differences have a different amount of significance to different people.

As much as I love film and don't want to see it go away, the thought of dealing with it even for personal use is kind of off-putting. Not just talking about the expense, but the physicality of it that is both a positive and negative thing. The magic of the photo-chemical exposure and processing and of actual physical editing and projection, versus the literal time and physical space and use of material resources it requires.

I still wish digital was a bit more like film, in how people use and present it, and wish film was bit more accessible and manageable, but I think they're going to diverge even more as digital video technology advances. So it's better to just appreciate where things are now in both mediums.

If you really want to originate on film, you can work around the obstacles and get it done. It was never easy and is probably actually easier to do now using a hybrid film/digital approach.

Actual warts-and-all physical projection of film is where it's really at though, and that's too bad, as most people will never see it.
 
I just think we can't use science to judge creative choices.

Again, no one is arguing (reasonably) that film is better than digital. In almost every way, digital is more convenient than film, which is why almost everyone shoots digital.

BUT, that doesn't mean film isn't a viable creative option.

We keep getting stuck in these time loops where we predict that film is "dead", when instead film is just another creative choice, like a LUT, a lens, or a set dressing.

If you want a nostalgic look that evokes a certain era of cinema, shooting on film makes sense (and this is often when we see it used, to "evoke" cinema in a specific, historic, or stylistic way).

But I don't get this need or want to bury film, to make it extinct - to annihilate it.

And to trumpet the maximalism of digital.

There always seems to be a whiff of limitism behind this - using science and facts to eradicate choices.

(By this logic we can say a pencil is useless, because a tablet is better.)

I don't think that's productive, or helpful.

If someone wants to shoot a 3 hour feature film on 8mm, then more power to them. If it works creatively, even better.
 
Last edited:
Nick Morrison said:
Again, no one is arguing (reasonably) that film is better than digital.
Click to expand...
I do - I think it looks better by default in some cases. Depends on the stock. However, digital looks very good. It's just not used optimally. Film looks way better than camera compressed video. That's an easy call, though. I found that Tangerine, despite it being shot on an old iPhone, looked pretty good.

Learn to shoot RAW properly and you won't need to shoot film. Unless there's a miracle stock that can give you 18 stops. In that case, I'm back in, baby.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
I'm going to disagree here. Film and digital are elastic in relation to each other. You don't need (or want) an Alexa 65 as a substitute for 65mm film. There is no benefit.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that is the better option (cheaper, efficient, resolves more detail, more DR) than 70mm 5-perf. You don't need to shoot on the alexa65 of course.
 
Another thing is you do not need to do is shoot RAW video to surpass the quality or DR of film. You can easily do prores and be fine depending on how much information and data the sensor is reading and camera is processing.

In regards to more stops of latitude. I'm not sure what the benefit is at this point. Personally I grade based off of print film emulation and light for my look. Most you're going to get out of that is 10 stops. Pretty much any modern camera, even some mirrorless photo cameras will do the job.

Would highly recommend watching Steve Yedlin's videos on color science
 
Nick Vera said:
I'm saying that is the better option (cheaper, efficient, resolves more detail, more DR) than 70mm 5-perf. You don't need to shoot on the alexa65 of course.
Click to expand...
Ah, right. Got it.

Nick Vera said:
You can easily do prores and be fine depending on how much information and data the sensor is reading and camera is processing.
Click to expand...
Yeah you're right. Although camera debayering isn't quite as good as software debayering. It can be very good, though.

As for Yedlin's videos, I did watch the one about LUTs. That's mostly straightforward - obviously he didn't go into every single detail. Fuji cameras have film profiles built-in, which is nice. I think the Leica Q3 has some of that functionality too, but only for video AFAIK.

It's a balancing act, though. There's film-like colour, and then there's the fake film look which is yucky, so you have to be careful. I say, just let digital do its thing, maybe with a little help.
 
Yes, sensor and camera processing are more important than to be raw or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top