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 :)

Red at www.cinematography.com, why so much bashing?

David Mullen ASC said:
Film works fine, it's just darn expensive.
Click to expand...

I have always wanted to ask why it is so expensive? Is it overpriced and monopolized or is just really that expensive... and why has the price not dropped dramatically since high end digital cinema cameras were introduced?

What I mean to say is it Kodak/Fuji's fault or the cost of developement/processing/printing that makes "film" expensive?

Could I go further and ask if productions sourced on film, in Hollywood, are decreasing rapidly? Are digital cameras making that big a impact on Hollywood ... there is always talk of film dying blah blah... but I for one would not know if it is or isn't, I have no facts.

Thanks. :biggrin:
 
Well, for one thing, film uses a lot of silver in the process. Second, the motion picture stock isn't made by cheap labor in China.

I got to visit the Kodak plant in Rochester, NY and saw long train cars bringing in silver into the plant. But Kodak won't tell anyone how much silver it consumes because they don't want to drive up the price of silver on Wall St.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Well, for one thing, film uses a lot of silver in the process. Second, the motion picture stock isn't made by cheap labor in China.

I got to visit the Kodak plant in Rochester, NY and saw long train cars bringing in silver into the plant. But Kodak won't tell anyone how much silver it consumes because they don't want to drive up the price of silver on Wall St.
Click to expand...

So it's as simple as silver and cheap labour...? :waaa:

Realy silly question, can the emulsion only work with silver? ie no man-made chemicals that can work as well as silver...?
 
Big T said:
Your expectations weren't met?
wow. tough.
Click to expand...

Hi Big T

I was commenting on the thread, not on Shawn's pictures.

Many of the early builds had problems, both with reliability & picture look, clearly there was a long way to go. Red even replaced the first 100 cameras so it would seem not everybody's expectations were not met in the day 1.

Best,

Stephen
 
Another point to be made about film, it's incredibly bad for the environment. The waste it creates is quite toxic, both from the manufacturing process and in the processing phase. It also costs more because of the extra steps it takes to bring it through the pipeline, like telecine and color timing. Film requires specialized machines to do these tasks, expensive machines.
 
Think of the horses.

Graeme
 
Christopher Grant Harvey said:
So it's as simple as silver and cheap labour...? :waaa:
Click to expand...

Only Kodak knows for sure, but it doesn't appear that the price of silver has a whole lot to do with the price of film -- there's not enough silver in modern film stocks to have salvageable value, and the wide fluctuations in the silver spot price don't seem to correlate with the price of film stock.

BTW, the original silver nitrate film stocks used a lot more silver, which accounted for deeper blacks and a luminous reflective quality which you no longer see in modern B&W stocks. Unfortunately, silver nitrate stock had a habit of bursting into flame, so it was discontinued. Or at least that's the reason given. Some historians claim the dangers were exaggerated.
 
Brandon Kraemer said:
Another point to be made about film, it's incredibly bad for the environment. The waste it creates is quite toxic, both from the manufacturing process and in the processing phase. It also costs more because of the extra steps it takes to bring it through the pipeline, like telecine and color timing. Film requires specialized machines to do these tasks, expensive machines.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Of course the waste of non biodegradable computers (and digital cameras) with a short useful life & the power to run them can be ignored! LOL Whilst most of the machines in labs processing film are older than I am. The last time I was in a lab everything was being recycled including the water. Very little waste or contamination.

Stephen
 
The reason I am always prone to give the film purists a lot of respect is that if not for their high standards, people would have abandoned film for the Sony F900 when it appeared in 2000 -- there were so many people back then proclaiming that "now digital is just as good as film." Now those people are looking very foolish.[/QUOTE]


I think they are looking foolish because sometimes digital is better.
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

Of course the waste of non biodegradable computers (and digital cameras) with a short useful life & the power to run them can be ignored! LOL Whilst most of the machines in labs processing film are older than I am. The last time I was in a lab everything was being recycled including the water. Very little waste or contamination.

Stephen
Click to expand...

No one is ignoring the issues the technology curve creates. Describing the toxic byproducts of the film industry does not mutually exclude any other inefficiencies of the industry. We could go on about that all day, including the energy our computers are drawing whilst we type. I doubt any Spirit 3k machines are older than you. Cost more than your house though I bet.
 
I sometimes wish there was a place somewhere between Reduser and cinematography.com. in tone. Here is not always friendly to questions that could be remotely viewed as criticism. Invariably, it ends with the two most famous responses. "... but it only costs 17.5k..." or "... then go shoot a different format..." or another variation "... obviously you don't know how to use the camera..."

If a person seems literate and reasonable, yet they have comments, questions, or even criticisms, why would some still automatically call them a red basher.

Chris
 
Hi knockout films. I hope those days are over at Red User. I THINK there is a different tone in the forum now. The strange "film is dead" stuff really irked me at first but there are more than enough sane voices here now to put a number of different perspectives.

Rob
 
The respected members here are level-headed about film vs digital, and most of us have a strong, long-standing reverence for film and those who know how to work with it well. All of my top-10 cinematography favorites were shot on film. All of my favorite directors and DPs are film die-hards. There is a good reason film retains so many adherents. It produces beautiful results, if you can afford to shoot it and post it.

Within a few years, film will be extremely rare. We should respect and salute it on its way out. :)
 
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!! awww... we are getting along? But I already made my popcorn..

party0052.gif



If you really care about your craft you would understand the pros and cons of both film and digital. Bashing is for insecure people. Yet insecure people sometimes see criticism as bashing... I try my best not to take things personal.
 
Tom said:
The respected members here are level-headed about film vs digital, and most of us have a strong, long-standing reverence for film and those who know how to work with it well. All of my top-10 cinematography favorites were shot on film. All of my favorite directors and DPs are film die-hards. There is a good reason film retains so many adherents. It produces beautiful results, if you can afford to shoot it and post it.

Within a few years, film will be extremely rare. We should respect and salute it on its way out. :)
Click to expand...
you're right.. you should teach the lesson to the BOYS there.. i doubt you get it though :weight_lift:

edit
did i mention boys?.. did i say there?
 
i've found under 25 grown up people far smarter than others..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top