Discuss Cinematography in this Awesome Rihanna Video

Perrone is right I honestly can't fathom anyone who would in their right mind shoot on film without major studio backing for their financing. Just dailies alone and that specific work flow as he said is tons of money. For a feature at least, even as low budget as possible I can't see how you could possibly spend less than hundreds of thousands when shooting on film.

Love film though and it still is for now the golden standard look but I do think that will change soon. Once digital resolution, dynamic range and all that surpasses film, there won't be too many reasons left for people to keep coming back to it even at the highest level, at least my opinion.
 
p.s. it's interesting that the latest film vision 3 you say is 14.5 stops because I read that the Alexa has up to 14.25 stops of DR so it's basically almost equivalent to the highest film. And Red Epic I'm reading is about 13 stops or a little more which I would assume leaves the old original Red at somewhere around 11 to 12.
 
There is a whole range of DIY films in the no-real-story genre (which here, i mean it as a compliment) out there - films done for pennies, some of which were shot on film and some of which were digital and somehow the ones shot on film have more... honesty to them. It's because the filmmakers couldn't simply roll for hours and hours shooting stuff as each time they pressed the roll button on their film cameras they were burning through hundreds (or thousands) of dollars (often of their own money) that they really need to be sure that the scene was needed and staged and set-up in the best way possible. On the opposite end you have similar filmmakers who come in with the comfort of digital cameras and knowledge that they can roll an droll... And they do roll and roll, but much of it is with out substance. So in that sense the ones shooting on film force themselves into a certain state of mind that help them make better films.
 
Zacatac said:
Jumper wasn't shot on RED, there was 1-2 pickup shots that were shot on it... everything else was film
Click to expand...

Right, imdb mention Red One as second unit camera. I assumed it was entirely shot on Red since it is listed without special notes on the Red page. It would be nice if they had a section with films shots entirely on Red.
 
Yep you're right Patryk I agree but in the end the point is that it's a fact that any film shoots far more footage than is ever used. Titanic had something like 35 hours worth of footage shot. Can you even fathom the cost of all that film? It's unimaginable to me. So the point is that no matter how conservative you are you WILL 100% sure TONS more footage than you'll ever use in any given film/venture. With digital all of that extra footage happens to come at a free price, with film - not so much. Then add all the other things on top of that even if you do have a super well planned production, such as cost of running dailies etc etc and then film cost skyrockets above something like Red.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
Right, imdb mention Red One as second unit camera. I assumed it was entirely shot on Red since it is listed without special notes on the Red page. It would be nice if they had a section with films shots entirely on Red.
Click to expand...
for films shot entirely on Red the only ones I can remember off top of my head are District 9, Valhalla Rising, The Book of Eli
 
Homunculus said:
With digital all of that extra footage happens to come at a free price, with film - not so much. Then add all the other things on top of that even if you do have a super well planned production, such as cost of running dailies etc etc and then film cost skyrockets above something like Red.
Click to expand...

Exactly, 20:1 or 30:1 shooting ratio and requirements for multiple cameras do not mix well with low budgets. These projects wouldn't even exist without digital.
 
The average DVX user will probably not ever need/have the chance to shoot a big feature whether it be on film or not. Digital is probably really only going to be taking over projects that wouldn't be able to be shot otherwise. I don't see the point in comparing/complaining about a situation that the majority of us won't even have a chance to be in.

Shot with that works within your budget but you'd be surprised at the amount of film you can get on discount or donated by your local Kodak rep or good deals of processing by labs. A smart producer will find ways to get good hook ups, I see it all the time if you do more than complain from your computer screen.
 
Homunculus said:
Yep you're right Patryk I agree but in the end the point is that it's a fact that any film shoots far more footage than is ever used. Titanic had something like 35 hours worth of footage shot. Can you even fathom the cost of all that film? It's unimaginable to me. So the point is that no matter how conservative you are you WILL 100% sure TONS more footage than you'll ever use in any given film/venture. With digital all of that extra footage happens to come at a free price, with film - not so much. Then add all the other things on top of that even if you do have a super well planned production, such as cost of running dailies etc etc and then film cost skyrockets above something like Red.
Click to expand...

+ a few others. I think we are talking about two different things. Noone is disputing that shooting film is more expensive or that you will have to shoot more then what ultimately ends up on the screen. What i'm trying to say that the expenses force ultra low budget filmmakers into rethinking their purpose behind the shot/scene and think hard at that - something that is seemingly unnecessary when shooting digital thus almost by the expensive nature of using film the scenes/shots on film originated productions are stronger... Yes, i wish we spoke about responsible filmmakers on both fronts and then we could claim that indeed on what you shoot doesn't matter but it simply is not true...
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
+ a few others. I think we are talking about two different things. Noone is disputing that shooting film is more expensive or that you will have to shoot more then what ultimately ends up on the screen. What i'm trying to say that the expenses force ultra low budget filmmakers into rethinking their purpose behind the shot/scene and think hard at that - something that is seemingly unnecessary when shooting digital thus almost by the expensive nature of using film the scenes/shots on film originated productions are stronger... Yes, i wish we spoke about responsible filmmakers on both fronts and then we could claim that indeed on what you shoot doesn't matter but it simply is not true...
Click to expand...

This is out of topic, but I checked your page and noticed you created Between You and Me. That was a beautiful short.
 
i doubt 7d has 11 stops. Perhaps in raw STILLS yes? But in video I find that highly unlikely or am I wrong? I figured all DSLR's are about 8 or 9 stops max in video (not stills) mode
 
If memory serves they are closer to 7.5 stops. Which explains a great deal why the older, lower contrast glass looks so good on them (allowing capture of more of the image), and modern, very high contrast glass tends to overwhelm them.
 
7D 11 stops?

7D 11 stops?

Homunculus said:
i doubt 7d has 11 stops. Perhaps in raw STILLS yes? But in video I find that highly unlikely or am I wrong? I figured all DSLR's are about 8 or 9 stops max in video (not stills) mode
Click to expand...

Nope. it was at 11 stops in video mode using a 13 stop latitude chart.

PerroneFord said:
If memory serves they are closer to 7.5 stops.
Click to expand...

This is what I remember seeing from the latitude test.

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

Go to 23:40 of Webisode 1. They speak of the 5D being at 10 1/2 stops, the 7D at 11 stops and the 1D also at around 11 stops and the GH1 at around 9.
 
Last edited:
GRENCH said:
Nope. it was at 11 stops in video mode using a 13 stop latitude chart.



This is what I remember seeing from the latitude test.

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

Go to 23:40 of Webisode 1. They speak of the 5D being at 10 1/2 stops, the 7D at 11 stops and the 1D also at around 11 stops and the GH1 at around 9.
Click to expand...


that's highly unlikely. I'm assuming they used some different type of test or somethign because to my knowledge the Red One when it debuted was only around 11 stops so you're telling me the canon $2k DSLR's have same latitude as Red shooting in Raw? Not really possible. No idea what is up with their test but curious if someone can explain.
Perrone's 7.5 sounds much closer to reality.
 
oh and not to mention I saw a STILLS chart recently when I was trying to research this, for the 5d and 7d adn it showed somewhere around 9.5 to 10.5 max dynamic range for STILLS photos which makes sense and would put the video DR at about 7-9 at most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top