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 :)

So 16mm is dead...

Peter Moretti said:
Are the HD files from telecine film transfers ususally 24.000 fps or 23.976 fps? I would think it would always be true 24P, since that's the rate the camera shoots at. But I believe I've heard of both frame rates being used.

Thanks ;).
Click to expand...

Typically 23.976 fps for HD.
 
Akoijam Veda said:
Film is so dead.
Being Nostalgic once a while is great but wont be appreciated if it was every day's routine.
Click to expand...

It may be dying, but it's not dead yet. I just shot a feature on 35mm this summer. More movies shot on film are in theaters right now than were shot digitally. Hardly dead -- there are even some TV shows still shooting on film. I think "Glee" is and it's a big hit.
 
Sir I was being just Future tense with my present text. Humble request Please don't get me wrong as an anti film.
 
Akoijam Veda:
I have to disagree with you! It is true that digital technology gives opportunity for a lot of people to shoot cinema style images at HD and 24p. But unlike you, I hardly believe that there would be so much talent outside waiting.... I think that the cheap tehcnology gives opportunity for a huge huge number of rubbish things, let it be photographs, films, magazines etc... Film stock as a technology is really good because it gives a barrier and filters the rubbish and waste from the good stuff. I don't think its a good thing that everyone has the opportunity right now to make a movie without any kind of serious effort, dedication, knowledge, etc.... To make a film, to "speak" to the people is a great responsibility in ever sense. And without barriers its very dangerous to the reputation of cinema, and quality movies.

I think who really wanted, dedicated his life, had a dream and motivation, could always made his or her film even on 35mm with friends etc.... I think the "cheap digital technology for everyone to make "hollywood movies"" is a really bad effort, however it happens....

And the result?? If a talented guy with a professionaly shot movie search distributors he finds closed doors, because of the huge rubbish material tht goes around the circles. And if they see in the credit that your noname movie was shot on "HD" "FullHD" or other fancy cheap format, they won't even talk to you. Everyone can shoot HD, but a very few can shoot film, and make a film production. It takes dedication, knowledge, effort etc... So if they see that you shot your movie on film, let it be S16 or 35mm, they will treat you better.... Or at least give you a chance to talk to you...

So yes, digital opens the door for everyone to become a filmmaker. However those who take this effortless and cheap way will be lost.... at least I hope in the name of the quality visual storytelling for the future...
 
I went to an AMPAS lecture on the history of pre-digital soundtrack technology, given by sound designer Randy Thom -- he ended the lecture by playing the last 70mm reel of "Apocalypse Now", which sounded amazing in 6-track mag in the large Goldwyn theater.

The point he was making was that digital sound technology has basically lifted the bottom and middle, so that the average movie today sounds much better than it ever did, with multi-track sound being commonplace -- but the top hasn't moved a whole lot because at that level, the technology is less of a factor than the artistry and skill of the person or people doing the work, in this case Walter Murch.

I think of digital camera technology in the same manner -- it has lifted the bottom and middle, making your average work look much better for much less effort and cost. But the top remains the top, and it matters less whether digital or film technology is involved. A cinematographer like John Toll or Roger Deakins or Vittorio Storaro is going to do great work whether you hand them an old 35mm Arri-BL3 or a ARRI Alexa or an Epic, but your typical beginner or low-budget filmmaker, etc. is now able to do much higher-quality work from a technical standard thanks to new technology. We all start out now at a much higher level than possible before, but the top is still just as elusive, just as difficult to achieve as ever, because at that point, the limitations are inside of us, they aren't due to the camera we are using.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I went to an AMPAS lecture on the history of pre-digital soundtrack technology, given by sound designer Randy Thom -- he ended the lecture by playing the last 70mm reel of "Apocalypse Now", which sounded amazing in 6-track mag in the large Goldwyn theater.

The point he was making was that digital sound technology has basically lifted the bottom and middle, so that the average movie today sounds much better than it ever did, with multi-track sound being commonplace -- but the top hasn't moved a whole lot because at that level, the technology is less of a factor than the artistry and skill of the person or people doing the work, in this case Walter Murch.

I think of digital camera technology in the same manner -- it has lifted the bottom and middle, making your average work look much better for much less effort and cost. But the top remains the top, and it matters less whether digital or film technology is involved. A cinematographer like John Toll or Roger Deakins or Vittorio Storaro is going to do great work whether you hand them an old 35mm Arri-BL3 or a ARRI Alexa or an Epic, but your typical beginner or low-budget filmmaker, etc. is now able to do much higher-quality work from a technical standard thanks to new technology. We all start out now at a much higher level than possible before, but the top is still just as elusive, just as difficult to achieve as ever, because at that point, the limitations are inside of us, they aren't due to the camera we are using.
Click to expand...

And do you think it is good? Do you think the average moviegoer who watches an amateur but for her eyes professionaly looking HD, or RED knows that it is not a Storaro Kaminszki quality?? I think for the audience its the same. They don't have the knowledge to make a distinction between the professionaly looking amateur stuff and the real quality pro stuff anymore. And they are whose money generates the revenue which makes the next movie possible to be made. And if studios see that a lesser quality work, which they made for less money with lesser quality technology and talent, could make so much money they will make the next movie like this. They won't call Vilmos Zsigmond or Kaminszki, or Toll, they will call a "lesser talented" DP who can shot it adequetly to the needs of the audience. Do you know what are the consequences for the future???

The so called "barrier", the cost filmmaking required in the past was a good thing. Without barriers the junk floods... Just an example: why do you think the quality of previously quality consumer electronics is not the same as it was a few years ago??? Because of the cheaper and lesser quality products... It will happen to filmmaking as well. It is already happening....
 
I'm sure people made the same arguments when Kodak introduced the Brownie and photography was no longer limited to people with expensive set-ups making and developing their own plates, etc. or when oil paint was sold in tubes and no longer did painters have to know about grinding and mixing their own oils.

Good art is always going to be rare and exceptional, but who cares if more people get to practice in an artform because the materials are more accessible, affordable, and easier to use?

Just because the tools are easier to use doesn't mean that the great artists in the world are suddenly going to get lazy and less disciplined, or less imaginative -- it's their personalities, ideas, and their skills that make them great artists, not the tools.

When a studio is spending 100 million dollars on a production, they don't suddenly get careless or indifferent to who actually is entrusted to shoot the movie, there is too much at stake. Besides, you don't hire Vilmos Zsigmond because he knows how to load a Panaflex or develop film or use a Spectra, you hire him because he knows how to light a face and how to tell a story visually -- and he knows how to do all of that on a schedule and a budget.
 
I agree completely. I just wanted to point to the "perception of quality" from the audience side, and in more and more cases from "professional" side as well....

Btw I really regret that Zsigmond didn't get the Oscar for Black Dahlia. He would deserved it. He is now 80 years old. If only he could make some really good movie to have another chance at the Oscars...
 
David Mullen ASC said:
It may be dying, but it's not dead yet. I just shot a feature on 35mm this summer. More movies shot on film are in theaters right now than were shot digitally. Hardly dead -- there are even some TV shows still shooting on film. I think "Glee" is and it's a big hit.
Click to expand...

It is, Christopher Baffa ASC shoots Glee on film, beautifully I should add. And he just did a Createasphere interview: http://createasphere.com/En/webcasts.html
 
Gabor D. said:
I agree completely. I just wanted to point to the "perception of quality" from the audience side, and in more and more cases from "professional" side as well....

Btw I really regret that Zsigmond didn't get the Oscar for Black Dahlia. He would deserved it. He is now 80 years old. If only he could make some really good movie to have another chance at the Oscars...
Click to expand...

He should at least get a lifetime achievement award. The man is a true master.

Speaking of masters, I love Deakins' work on True Grit.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I think of digital camera technology in the same manner -- it has lifted the bottom and middle, making your average work look much better for much less effort and cost. But the top remains the top, and it matters less whether digital or film technology is involved. A cinematographer like John Toll or Roger Deakins or Vittorio Storaro is going to do great work whether you hand them an old 35mm Arri-BL3 or a ARRI Alexa or an Epic, but your typical beginner or low-budget filmmaker, etc. is now able to do much higher-quality work from a technical standard thanks to new technology. We all start out now at a much higher level than possible before, but the top is still just as elusive, just as difficult to achieve as ever, because at that point, the limitations are inside of us, they aren't due to the camera we are using.
Click to expand...

Very well stated (as usual). I've come to realize this idea year after year seeing great work done by top DPs regardless of the format used. On the other hand, each year, videos on vimeo and youtube look more impressive as the lower end cameras become more advanced and forgiving. You can point a T2i at anything, get a shallow DOF shot, and then throw a magic bullet preset over that and it'll look impressive to the average viewer.
 
Good thread. Thanks David for giving us all that info.
Personally, I'd like to mix S16mm with digital. I might do that in the summer. I think that is the best approach at the moment. While we're at it, does anyone know a good HD telecine in London and how much can that cost?
 
Gabor D. said:
[I think that the cheap tehcnology gives opportunity for a huge huge number of rubbish things, let it be photographs, films, magazines etc... Film stock as a technology is really good because it gives a barrier and filters the rubbish and waste from the good stuff.
Click to expand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERcKcGb-q0U

How does this film fit with your philosophy?
 
George Butterfield said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERcKcGb-q0U

How does this film fit with your philosophy?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by this.. You want to point out that despite the fact it was shot on 35mm, it is a piece of shit? :) I haven't seen the movie, but it doesn't matter. Of course 35mm also, and 16mm also produces so much rubbish. Its a format, not a sign for quality. BUT as the entry cost to 35mm is higher than the cost to digital filmmaking, it filters most of the rubbish to-be-films. On 35mm you can also find rubbish, but compared to the digital their number is way to fewer.
 
Last edited:
Have any of you seen Spike Lee's Miracle at St. Anna? It was shot on S16 (only the bookends of the story was on 35mm, but everything else is on 16mm). I just looked into it, but man.... It is amazing quality! Probably the best looking S16 material I saw in my extensive research process!
I think "Harsh Times" with Christian Bale, also worth a mentioning. Totally 35mm feel... When I began to consider the S16 format I wasn't very sure in it, but as my research goes on I love it more and more... Especially in cases like this, when I see amazing cinematography and/or quality.

This format is pretty amazing... in the right hands...
 
16mm or 35 mm film are amazing.
For no reason, Arri or panavision would develop digital sensor camera under its umbrella,if they were so confident of its existence then they would never have develop those cameras into digital. Even the manufacturer knows its limitation in terms of market expansion and its growth. They are not changing their field but just changing their platform.
Since Arri, panavision, etc has become digital,does that remove the filtration of not so talented filmakers?
The ace will remain ace but there is something call 2nd position too. So stopping them(the flood of rubbish) is not in the hands of the filmmakers but in the hand of audience. Filmmaking is not just about Awards but it is an Entertainment industry. Since Arri or panavision shifted to digital it does not prove that digital is cheap. But much cheaper than 35 mm film so digital cinema will take over soon.
Whats the point of art when that art cant fill your belly. Then we should be calling that art just a hobby. Thanks to digital cinema, there are many successful indie filmmaker coming in and i don't see them fade away.
We should rather welcome digital cinema and try to excel along with it.
:beatdeadhorse5:
 
Well, I don't want to continue this "flood of rubbish" thing, but let me tell you that the renting cost of a Panavision digital camera, called "Genesis" or Arri, called D21 or Alexa, cost the same amount as for an Arri 435... So these are really expensive cameras to rent. So the cost is the same as for a better 35mm camera. So the barrier is here.... RED costs around 1/3-1/4 of the cost of an Alexa to rent...

So I finished the "flood of rubbish" theory here.. :) Let's talk about good S16 films, like the ones I mentioned 1-2 posts ago...
 
An "Is it 16mm?" question...

The opening sequence of Casino Royale was shot on Eastman Double-X 5222 - but on 35mm or 16mm? Either way, I found that sequence a really great way to start things over again for the series.
 
Michael:
I hardly believe that the very risky reboot of the famous "glamour" franchise would used S16 for its opening sequence, what's more do it in 2006....
 
Michael:
I just checked the credit section for the Casino Royale article in the 2006 december issue of American Cinematographer and it says
Super 35mm 2,35:1

nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top