Kodak's Marketing

[David Mullen ASC]

Film is not "elitist" -- I was a poor high school student when I started shooting film, and yet I managed to learn how to shoot it. Certainly it's more expensive to shoot than video, but the cost does not restrict it to the rich. And today I'd obviously say that a student should primarily be learning on a digital camera, but I don't see the harm in getting to know film technology too, to get some understanding of the photochemical process, if only to have a deeper understanding of how movies have been made for a century. You can talk all you want to a student about how to digitally replicate the look of "Saving Private Ryan" or "Singin' in the Rain" or a Tarkovsky movie but to ignore teaching them the actual photochemical techniques involved is a bit silly. I can't go out and shoot 3-strip Technicolor but I understand the process pretty well and why it looked unique. And such knowledge may come in handy on some future job. If some graduate goes out for a job interview and the director asks him about the filmmaking techniques used on "Citizen Kane", is the graduate supposed to say "Sorry, I only studied modern digital filmmaking because everything else is irrelevant."

We have a 100 years of incredible works of art that we can learn from, and having some hands-on sense of or feeling for what the artists had to work with isn't such a bad idea. Not to mention, if a student is graduating three years from now, there will still be film technology being used in some part of the production chain, it won't be gone.

 

[Elsie N]

...shoot a roll of film occasionally if he wants to.

If he wants to... agreed. I think that those who want to will find a way.

edit:... and will also find a mentor much like yourself who will be glad to show them how to in order to keep the memory of the craft alive. But just like many Native American tongues are going away because there are fewer and fewer who will spend the time to master them and keep the heritage alive, so may go the way of film making. On the other hand... film makers are a larger tribe so maybe not.:emote_popcorn:

 

[David Rasberry]

This reminded me of something that Jim has revealed about himself. He has a HUGE collection of old cameras... and yet he creates something like Epic to shoot on. I think the term irony is correctly applied here, in that a collector of old hardware has created the new hardware that will make the old media obsolete.

Maybe, but I think as a serious shooter, not just a collector, he is driven by the same frustrations with the prior limitations of digital video vs film that many of us share. Fortunately for all of us he has the passion, entrepreneurial skills, and resources to actually do something about it.

 

[Elsie N]

Film is not "elitist" -- I was a poor high school student when I started shooting film, and yet I managed to learn how to shoot it. Certainly it's more expensive to shoot than video, but the cost does not restrict it to the rich.

By elitist I mean well funded Directors who do not have to justify an expense when making a movie. Yes during your poor high school days you shot film... there probably wasn't an alternative. If you were that same person today just starting out, would you be shooting film? The next statement in your post suggests no.

And today I'd obviously say that a student should primarily be learning on a digital camera, but I don't see the harm in getting to know film technology too, to get some understanding of the photochemical process, if only to have a deeper understanding of how movies have been made for a century. You can talk all you want to a student about how to digitally replicate the look of "Saving Private Ryan" or "Singin' in the Rain" or a Tarkovsky movie but to ignore teaching them the actual photochemical techniques involved is a bit silly. I can't go out and shoot 3-strip Technicolor but I understand the process pretty well and why it looked unique. And such knowledge may come in handy on some future job. If some graduate goes out for a job interview and the director asks him about the filmmaking techniques used on "Citizen Kane", is the graduate supposed to say "Sorry, I only studied modern digital filmmaking because everything else is irrelevant."

Look at what is being shot today... there are no "Singin' in the Rain's" or "Citizen Kane's" being shot. Nowadays its "Translemurs" or "Iron Drawers"... or whatever. I'm with you on this, but we are talking about film students. And because we are talking about film students, I don't think a director who cares what techniques were used on "Citizen Kane" will be asking them that question. That director will be asking a David Mullen that question, but not a recent film school graduate. That is to say, they will only be hiring proven professionals. And by the time the film students become proven professionals, a new generation of directors will be interviewing.

We have a 100 years of incredible works of art that we can learn from, and having some hands-on sense of or feeling for what the artists had to work with isn't such a bad idea.

I-feel-your-pain! I try to watch Casablanca at least once a year.

Not to mention, if a student is graduating three years from now, there will still be film technology being used in some part of the production chain, it won't be gone.

But I don't think those students will get work on a film. There are too many professionals still working who will get those elite jobs.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't want to turn this into a "hearts and minds" campaign or an either-or situation because obviously the future is digital, as well as a large percentage of the present, and if a film school eliminated all discussion of film technology and concentrated on digital, they would be preparing students for 90% or more of the jobs waiting for them out there.

But I also see higher education, graduate work, as something more than a trade school; it has to be more well-rounded than that and giving a future filmmaker a grounding in the history of their chosen art form, aesthetically and technically, seems necessary and proper, if only to show respect for the past and to build on it, rather than reinvent the wheel.

I also feel that as an art, not merely a science, filmmaking has certain emotional, irrational, aspects to it -- the expression of personal taste. When someone like Ingmar Bergman says that sunny weather in movies depresses him or John Boorman says that the color blue in movies is relaxing and inviting, they are expressing a personal opinion that can't be backed up with logic or facts, it's just a deeply personal thing for them based on their past. An artist can become obsessed with the textures of certain paints or colors or processes that defy any logical analysis; it's just something that inspires or fascinates them, and if it moves them to create art, then I'm all for it. And for some artists, more "analog" and older processes resonate with them more directly and telling them that there are digital techniques to replicate that look closely enough that 95% of all audiences would be fooled isn't really the point at all.

Certainly there is always a practical and financial aspect to moviemaking but it doesn't have to devolve into merely those aspects, there has to be room for experimentation, failure, even waste, for it to remain a vibrant art form.

 

[Elsie N]

DAVID!!! EUREKA!!! I'VE GOT IT!

VT... Virtual Technology. If someone can come up with a way to experience film through some virtual means, then cost conscious film schools could afford to incorporate that into their curriculum. Especially if the smells and tactile elements could be incorporated.

(I know this sounds silly, but I'm about half-way serious.)

 

[Vladimir Cassel]

I like that Kodak offers scholarships to film students. I hope to try out for it (with my digital footage).

 

[Liam Hall]

Unfortunately, often the best, the absolutely unique, performance occurs on the first or second run through. Unless that take is captured, it may never recur, even with a hundred takes, which most of us can't afford anyway.

Then why don't you just film the first couple of takes?? Simple

 

[Ryan Sims]

Having read Malcolm Gladwell's fascinating study, "Outliers: The Story of Success" last year, I can't help but think of how this concept applies to film. The theory is it takes about 10 years, or 10,000 hours, of practice to attain true expertise of any task or art.
This is the main reason film sucks for most students, it's way to expensive to master it. I started with 8mm films very young (around 8yrs old) because that's all there was. But latched on to video soon as it became available to the masses. VHS, Beta, Hi-8, S-VHS, all were far inferior to film. But that's all I could afford as a teenager. Even 20 years ago, film was already dead at the local colleges. Outside of the major film production cities, nobody has touched film for 20 years (all the local film labs closed when high school football stopped shooting 16mm and went to video). I have been lucky to have shot and edited two full features on 16mm, but that was 15 yrs ago. I've got about 2000 hrs experience with film, I'm still at the novice level. But with the advent of mini-DV, my world went digital and I haven't looked back. The DVX100, in most cases, outperformed my best 16mm. Yes, films stocks have improved greatly in these past 15 years, but they sure didn't get more affordable.

For now, RED/Epic is the Holy Grail for those of us in the digital film world, that's why we are here at REDUSER. I'm also really excited about the HDSLRs and the "art" I'm seeing coming for the young right now with them. I'm not at all worried that the art of film is dead. It's just now getting started.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Kodak should offer a 1000' feet of 16mm stock and processing free to anyone with a current student ID.

 

[David Rasberry]

DAVID!!! EUREKA!!! I'VE GOT IT!

VT... Virtual Technology. If someone can come up with a way to experience film through some virtual means, then cost conscious film schools could afford to incorporate that into their curriculum. Especially if the smells and tactile elements could be incorporated.

(I know this sounds silly, but I'm about half-way serious.)

How about virtual razor blading virtual dailies on a virtual moviola? :laugh:

 

[Elsie N]

How about virtual razor blading virtual dailies on a virtual moviola? :laugh:

David, someone, somewhere, just read that and said "Yes, I could do that!":willy_nilly:

 

[David Mullen ASC]

How about virtual razor blading virtual dailies on a virtual moviola? :laugh:

Wasn't that the Editdroid?

 

[Mark Collins]

I like shooting on film. Kodak has ramped up their marketing and all to make it appealing, but that's fine by me.

Personally, I find it a much more enjoyable experience to shoot on film than on digital.

As for the comment on the first page about film taking too long for most students: We did a project where we shot film. Yes the project was more expensive than the rest (~$2000 total budget), but our turnaround from shoot to edit was 2 days. (Technicolor and then on through CreativePost for the transfer). We had our rough edit done a day after that.

So, turnaround time is not the issue for students. It's cost. Film costs, and fortunately Kodak heavily supports students, which is great.

As for the look, while we got exactly the look we wanted and everyone was happy with it from shooting on film. Most of the other projects in our group were easily identifiable as digital, and really only 2 other projects worked well for that look. One was an office style piece that was shot on the sony EX1, and it looked good for the look they were going for. There was another period piece that shot on an EX1 as well, and their project also looked good. However, the other 3 projects were less than satisfactory in terms of cinematography. The main reason? They didn't take the time to set up their shots properly and light properly.

So, in the end, what it comes down to for students is budget. If the crews are good and fairly competent, plus show a desire to learn and take chances on certain setups to see if certain things will work for a look, than they can make a project look good.