Film - digital video

S

Sajc05

Active member
I know this has been discussed on here a great deal but i wanted to get some opinions. I'm preparing to shoot my next short and I have what I believe to be a hilarious 10 page short centered around our current economic melt down.

So now that i finally have the script I've been looking for, I'm working on securing the location which will hopefully end up being a hedge fund office in the ny area.

If i get the location and a date set, i'm going to start getting a crew and actors together.

Now with that all down, i'm thinking format. I'm wondering what others here weigh in their decisions to shoot Hi def with 35 adapters, shoot on the red, is it worth looking into super 16 and is the cost that much greater? I'm just debating a lot of pre production questions right now while i have some time. I know it all comes down to budget, and the look you're trying to achieve. but i was just wondering how others here determine what they're filming on, and are other formats better if you have festivals in mind. it just seems to me that hi def video will be easiest for me with the the camera racing around a small finance office.
 
Sajc05 said:
Now with that all down, i'm thinking format. I'm wondering what others here weigh in their decisions to shoot Hi def with 35 adapters, shoot on the red, is it worth looking into super 16 and is the cost that much greater? I'm just debating a lot of pre production questions right now while i have some time. I know it all comes down to budget, and the look you're trying to achieve. but i was just wondering how others here determine what they're filming on, and are other formats better if you have festivals in mind. it just seems to me that hi def video will be easiest for me with the the camera racing around a small finance office.
Click to expand...

Even if I ever have the budget, I'd probably shoot digitally vs. film of any stock. For me film film is dead. Ok, only output to film when a venue or distribution channel requires it...

The other 'discipline' I've been applying to myself, is take what the camer 'naturally' has to offer, rather than trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

If the camera has 'interchangable lenses', go for what makes sense... otherwise adding a bunch of 'addon's' not only costs more, but also leads to a certain sort of 'fetish' about what is the 'movie look'...

If you 'story' can't be told without having a narrow depth of field... I think there's something wrong with the story... in fact, look at 30's and 40's vintage 'real(tm)' films... and what you will notice is that most have pretty deep DoF and the cinematographers even invented stuff to get really deep DoF... which comes almost for free with low end digital cameras...
 
personally im not a fan of film and i HATE shooting it only because i can't stand not having daily footage, but film is not dead. it's far from dead. digital will never be able to look as good as film, ever. it's an arguement that really has no end. so if you want a film look, shoot film. period. like he said above me, all those add on's and other, i think, rediculous adapters, have a distinct look. theres alot of movie sites, (youtube, vimeo,) that have plenty of footage that you can check out. if you like the look of adapters than go for that. as for interchangeable lenses and such, eng camera types i would recommend over a fixed lenses. 2/3' camera with digiprimes are way better than nothing. atleast you can get a wide lense, decent focal.

my advice - dont worry about the camera and just focus on other far more important things, production value, acting, screenplay. thats what most lack because to many people worry about how good they look on set with a red camera, everyone wants the best of the best and leave out whats more important. spend a decent amount on audio, which is superior to anything else. without that you have nothing
 
Film is beautiful, but it is pricey and time consuming between developing and transfers. Digital is quick and very cheap, as well as easy to edit on the spot. Just remember though, you can't have Digital without an igit in the middle.
 
very few comedies would benefit from film's advantages - shoot digital, and use the money you save for your next project
 
I'm a great advocate of the fact that the question : Film or digital?, answers itself.

If you are unsure, go with Digital. At the point you need to shoot on film, you'll know about it.

Whether that's an artisitc choice or a distribution choice to do with theatrical presentation, you'll know.

"So now that i finally have the script I've been looking for, I'm working on securing the location which will hopefully end up being a hedge fund office in the ny area. "

Comedies don't generally require the type of visual experience that film can bring. Huge panoramas and sunsets creeping over hills and deep drama seem to me to be the reserve of film stock. There is still something a bit magical about film.

In a choice between a red and 16mm, I'd go with the Red pretty much everytime personally.

Comedy is about timing, it's technically more difficult than drama, as it requires perfect dramatic timing, whereas an actor can carry drama with a great performance.

I reckon the flexibility of the digital medium will give you far more chance to spend the time you have gettign what you need from the material. That's where comedy will live or die. It has to be funny. A funny film is a good comedy. It doesn't matter if it looks like an Ang Lee film if the jokes fall flat.
 
Of course you could shoot B&W and go for the classical comedy look.

I can get you Eastman Kodak 5222 film 35mm B&W for little money. Developing is easy and telecine is cheap. You will have it better with festivals too. email me -- vic@felliniesque.com

You have a tightly written script. If you're going to improvise and shoot 20:1 or 50:1 ratio, by all means, go for a digital camera and experiment.LOL
 
Anyone who says Digital will NEVER look as good as Film - EVER - doesn't pay anywhere NEAR close enough attention to technology. They run the risk of being left behind, as many stuck-in-the-mud DOP's are currently finding themselves in the low to medium budget production market.

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326

Digital Still Camera used to shoot a short film. Digital is getting closer to film every day and with the development of technology that we CAN'T EVEN DREAM OF AS YET, Digital will replace film for 80-90% of film's current applications.


As to answer your question - budget, availability, DOP's area of expertise and final delivery format are all things considered for a shooting format.

Case in point my short film (http://www.vimeo.com/769224) shot on a Sony DSR-Series. Picked the camera because of budget and availability and DOP's familiarity with the model. Also picked the camera because with the money we saved, we were able to invest in a Wide-Angle Diopter, a set of Pro-Mists and spend more on hiring a larger lighting truck in order to get better lighting on the day.

We're happy with our choice. :)
 
Film isn't dead. Most major productions still shoot film. Most TV shoots film.

Indies can't afford film so they shoot digital. Film won't help you get in fests. The big thing with acquisition medium is SD vs. HD. Where HD wins all the time. But HD is causing issues for people left and right. Makes it harder for focus pullers, makes it harder for set designers, makes it harder for nearly everyone.

Plus, digital mediums are still expensive to house. The answer is easy. What look do you want? How much do you have in your budget? And do you need film? Do you need digital? High shooting ratios - go digital. Film look? Go film.
 
OK...For your film, I'd shoot digital. You can watch your takes, you can work faster, and a 10 minute comedy won't really benefit from being shot on film unless you have all the gear already and are used to the workflow. It allows you to take your time and do as many takes as you want, to get the best film possible.

As for the film vs digital thing...I see all these fancy HD cameras coming out with their big resolutions, yada yada yada. But they look too clear almost. In some ways, the film look can be achieved with digital and it's getting better all the time. However - film has these little imperfections, it's got a different "feel".

A similar thing is happening with the sample libraries in music, the orchestra sounds are getting better and better and they are at the point now where they CAN sound as real as an orchestra, in many ways. However, even if you own the best of the best, you're still missing out on that extra bit of life that you can only get from a real orchestra.

Personally I have a lot of fun shooting digital but I would love to start experimenting with film when I have the money. But for the purposes of your film I suggest you stay digital for now.
 
Well

Well

In all fairness the "film is dead" is basically an argument starter and a catchphrase for us digital fans, but to me film is dead. And to say that it's never going to be as good as film, HAHAHAHA, where do you get this? It's already way better, has been since 2001 or so when the F900 was introduced. Attack of the Clones still looks far superior to anything ever shot on film. End of story. That was the death knell of film. I still prefer a really good 1080p camera with 4:4:4 color compression to any film stock, which looks like crap and doesn't hold up whatsoever.

Film as an ACQUISITION format is not dead, and will not be dead for a long time.

Film as an EXHIBITION format is COMPLETELY dead, i.e. is inferior in EVERY respect to digital projection. It looks horrible. Anything shot on film looks ten times better when projected digitally, and anything shot digitally should be projected digitally, too. Furthermore, the very first screening of a film print looks "good" but not great, and the screenings two weeks later look like absolute crap because it's an outdated, lame, 19th century format in the 21st century. We don't use ANALOG anymore, it's a digital world. You don't play film on your TV, you won't use VHS tapes, why would you want to watch these bulky lousy looking film prints with cigarette burns, dirt, and missing frames all over them. No thanks. I'm disgusted that theaters still project film prints, it's not 1928 seriously it's 2009, time to move on!

The RED looks far superior to film, no film stock can look that good, and if you don't want something to look that perfect and pristine it's really not tough -- this is what filters are for. Post filters can give you any look you want, much better than compromising your acquisition format. You should shoot everything perfect, then dirty it up if you want later. You don't shoot it crappy because then you have no choices, and having no choices is what filmmaking was about 50 years ago, not today. Now it's all about having options, i.e. playing more, having more takes if you need them, because there is no film stock with digital cameras and you're not wasting film. Sure, you should plan well. Sure, you shouldn't waste time needlessly. But getting one more take because you want to see if you can improve upon a performance or camera move is ok, even if it doesn't work out well, because digital is free.

Film is the past. Nobody who has two brain cells to rub together would deny this. Digital is the future. It's ok -- it's just fine -- to love film still and to want to use it. It's great if that's what you want to do. But to think that film is going to have a large place in the future of cinema is just naive, old school thinking, and shows a complete lack of vision.

I personally want nothing to do with film with anything I ever shoot. I was hoping when I was in high school that if I got into filmmaking I'd never have to shoot anything with film, but when I was in high school we were using MiniDV and it looked terrible compared to film, so it was still a distant dream at that point. Once I saw what they were doing with the F900, F950, and then Viper, Origin, etc., I knew that I wouldn't have to screw with film most likely, and with RED that became a certainty. I would never shoot anything with that cruddy outdated nonsense. Nobody in the pro photography world uses film anymore, seriously, EVERYONE shoots digital. So to think that somehow cinema is going to be any different is ludicrous. The fact it isn't already like that is an absolute miracle and speaks to the slow nature of the business that it really takes this long for technology to change.
 
JonathanLB said:
...
Film as an EXHIBITION format is COMPLETELY dead, ...
Click to expand...

Totally incorrect. It will eventually be supplanted over the next five years in North America as more theatres convert to digital but as far as currently being dead, incorrect. I just went to see knowing which was shot 100 percent on Red, but the exhibiting of it was from a filmout print. So much for film is dead in exhibition. Its not. Remember, a deal isn't a deal until the cheque clears the bank. Our sun will eventually go Nova but because its inevitable doesn't mean its already happened.

As far as Red is concerned, film still looks better. Red is definately getting closer but film still has better dynamic range. Although digital cinema is clearly the future and its got its toes firmly in the door now, finally, it hasn't fully arrived yet. Close, real close, but no cigar yet and I've been on the front lines since the beginning.

The newer sensors Red will be releasing this year are just another part of the inevitable progress that the computer graphics industry has made since Ivan Sutherland invented the field of interactive computer graphics in 1962 with his thesis project "SketchPad".

Plan for the future but live in the present.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top