Fuji announces film stock production to end in 2013
- Thread starter Ryan Patrick O'Hara
- Start date
starcentral
Veteran
I shot some Kodak 16mm in my day, so I'm happy to say "I've done it" before but boy am I ever glad to be shooting with the Sony F3 now...
refocusedmedia
Veteran
Well put. This is the attitude most cinematographers should adopt. Film is dead for many a reason, and embracing the change and innovation of digital is the only way to improve it to surpass everyone's subjective "standard" going forward.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
I don't argue digital has added a lot to photography/cinematography, but it has come at a price as well. It's not all sunshine and lollipops.
starcentral
Veteran
Still what impresses me the most are guys who lit film without really seeing the finished result until after processing... this truly was a craft in its day.
Today everyone is a "cinematographer" or "DOP".
Today everyone is a "cinematographer" or "DOP".
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
That's what I mean about what we've lost. The skill, the knowledge, the technique required to shoot all day without being able to see the results. Having to trust that your skill was getting what you wanted based on your careful checking of exposure, lighting, film stock used, etc... It was a whole different way of shooting, so deliberate and precise.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
While I agree there is a lot of inflation on the 'labels' people with cameras apply to themselves, when in reality they are often camera operators. I also have looked forward to the day when 'cost' was not such an obstacle to film making. And perhaps it will be such that after the initial 'flood' some set of people will start to think in terms of the fundamentals of photography, and not so much on 'cheap thrill techniques'...
refocusedmedia
Veteran
It's also what... 15 years old? Compared to 100+? It's already made exponential leaps & bounds in that short amount of time, and now that people are being forced to stop holding on to the past and look forward, I expect that to accelerate further.
EDIT: I just read your other comment and understand more of what you meant, and I agree with you.
Shooter
Veteran
You make it sound as if the cinematographer was shooting "eyes and mind' disengaged... and waited to get a "lovely surprise" when he/she saw the rushes.
Thats not the way it was at all.
The decent cinematographer knew exactly what was going to be on the neg.
starcentral
Veteran
I didn't mean to make it sound like that, but yes I guess that's the way I wrote it.
It was definitely no surprise to the skilled. I just mean exaclty how Gonzo_E had put it, "the skill, the knowledge, the technique required to shoot all day without being able to see the results". That takes definite skill and experience. Today you have instant preview and can hook up a waveform monitor and see the reflected values being recorded.
starcentral
Veteran
C'mon shooting on film was magic! That's all there was to it, just simple magic!
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I don't know, maybe I was not doing the ritual correctly but I did sacrifice a sheet of virgin film to the Sun God before every shoot... and that still didn't get me in to galleries... what 'magic' was required?
Shooter
Veteran
I dont know if I agree ..but it was fun at the time. We had no choice!
I think its magic just shooting moving images and I have fully embraced digital after years of shooting film (including pre telecine) as well as processing film and selling filmstock.
I certainly would never wish to return to editing film the way we did ...and shooting it...probably not again. Digital is far more magic IMHO.
From the perspective of someone who hasn't shot on film (and from one who probably never will?) I'd like to think that the real magic, and attraction, to shooting on film would be having the opportunity to use and shoot the way the many legends before us have. I mean, imagine, you're essentially using the same technology that Hitchcock used to shoot Psycho or Strangers on a Train. It feels like there's some degree of separation there, and it has some form of prestige attached to it. When you shoot on digital, which I'm sure many of us can agree is nice and all, technically speaking there's not much separating you from all the wanabees on vimeo. I love digital filmmaking, but I think there will just be a little something missing (not in any technical sense).
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I've stated this before, but from my perspective there is no 'magic' about shooting on film... it was expensive, and kept me in particular out of shooting moving pictures at a time I was 'looking for to future and what I could do for a career'. Obviously many others chose moving pictures. That decision is one that I've gone back to in that sort of 'if only I had just put up with the expense'...
In any case, the fundamental 'art' of photography is image formation, and as such young people now looking forward to the future need not limit themselves to 'still photography' because that is cheaper... they can pursue film making to the point where they either do become successful, or for one reason or another, find another path... but the fundamental image capture costs will not be much of the consideration... what will be is the ability to create images that capture the audience... which is what the 'art' of photography should do.
I can appreciate the 'aesthetics' of film... but these days, with Internet viewing or home viewing of moving pictures being a predominant distribution method... there really is 'no visual' difference between digital shot good, and Film film, except to pixel peepers. (For the Harry Potter films, with the last installment Premiere, we watched all 8 installments over a series of nightly showings. All the 1-7 were 'digital' projection, with the final one presented on film, because the theater where we saw the films, only had their captioning equipment in a 'Film film' projection theater... the difference was not so astounding that I'd whine about the loss of film projection...).
Currently digital capture does require some amount of 'compensation' for the lack of dynamic range, and perhaps other 'features/non-features' of the device... but once those have been addressed, most people will not notice that a movie was digital or Film film capture.
If on the other hand one wants to make films for aesthetes... buy up a couple hundred thousand feet of film while it lasts... make one movie every year or two, and 4-wall it at the few remaining film projection houses in major metro areas...
Woody Allen has been making such films for years... well he hasn't had to 4-wall his films but anyway...
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
For the record, I do think there is. Different strokes for different folks.
skibovision
Active member
film might be dead, film camera might not be...This is the only link I could find but I remember seeing ps technik model in the past as well as one from indycam or something like that. For pros looking to bring new life to cameras, or looking to buy new ones that give them a familiar form factor this idea could see a revival, especially in s35
http://www.urbanfox.tv/articles/cameras/c19joedunton.html
[url]http://cinescopophilia.com/turn-your-arri-sriii-or-srii-16mm-camera-into-a-2k-video-camera/
http://www.easylooksystem.de/
[/URL]
http://www.urbanfox.tv/articles/cameras/c19joedunton.html
[url]http://cinescopophilia.com/turn-your-arri-sriii-or-srii-16mm-camera-into-a-2k-video-camera/
http://www.easylooksystem.de/
[/URL]
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Yeah, I have to second that.
I learned on film. I shot a lot of Super 8mm reversal, but also a good bit of academy aperture 16mm; including a long form fictional narrative film (50 minutes) that was completely finished photo-chemically (To an answer print that was bicycled around for a regional festival run) and I did a little bit of work on 35mm commercial projects for local TV broadcast. Film is amazing and some of the issues that I now deal with shooting digital were just not part of the film experience. Dang it, I have shoot interiors and night exteriors with Kodachrome 40 Super 8mm reversal film (That is right, ASA, or ISO now, of FORTY!), with a Canon 1014XLS and a few 650 watt open faced lights and the images turned out great. The secret, I learned from the book "Masters of Light", is to have something in the frame that was over exposed... then let the rest of frame fall of as it may. With this, you still maintained beautiful blacks. Now, shooting digital, exposure is much, much more critical. Shooting like I could with film, on digital, and you end up with a noisy mess in the shadows. Day exteriors are also an example of where I think that film shines. Shooting film, reversal or color negative, I never worried about shooting bright day exteriors, I knew they would turn out fine with very little "Fiddling". Now, shooting digital I sweat bright exterior days and have to do more "Fiddling" to get them to what I want. When I think of the modern color negative film stocks, my mouth waters at the possibilities!
That all being said, I am very pragmatic and am not a Luddite... I saw the future one day in late 1994/early 1995 when a guy I know showed me a Sony VX-1000 and the digital video revolution started. I fully embrace digital capture and absolutely love the convenience, control and lowered cost of digital motion imaging. With the advent of HD, and especially the advent of the large sensor HD cameras, starting with the HD-SLRs, we have seen a new revolution in digital motion imaging.... OUTSTANDING IMAGE QUALITY. To be totally honest, I absolutely prefer to shoot with my current kit, a Sony FS-100 with a Nikkor prime set, to any film set up I have shoot with before (Super 8mm and academy aperture 16mm). However, I really, really wanted to have the option to be able to shoot with Super 16mm or 35mm someday. I have learned so much more about cinematography since when I last shot film, especially lighting, that I really wanted to be able to shoot another project on film as a kind of personal point of advancement thing. When I read the press release from Fuji, it was a kind of kick in the gut, as I see that the window to have film as an option is closing rapidly. That makes me very sad.
Also for the record, while I do not dismiss the impact of the RED cameras; they have absolutely changed the things in the motion picture camera market, I think that the camera the has sealed the coffin of film acquisition is the Arri Alexa. IMHO, this is the camera that seems to have been embraced by the pantheon of cinematographers with those magic three letters after their names, A.S.C. I just came back from viewing the movie "Killer Joe", shot by Caleb Deschanel ASC.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0221042/
It looked great on a theater screen with 4K projection (I don't recommend seeing the film through. I liked it, but it is pretty rough.) It seems that Arri has a winner and the ASC is embracing it.
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
A couple of anecdotes about 8mm... I use to attend a film group, that had a showing of member's short films. One of the guys made a number of 8mm shorts and the image 'quality'... and I use that term loosely... looked like s*%t... but because it was 'on film' people seem to talk about his works in 'glowing terms'... the focus was often 'off', there were no 'blacks', mostly muddy browns, and often blown highlights.
The other anecdote, the quality was not much better, but because the people digitized, then worked with the clip, the contrast was better, but still looked like 'home movies'... which in fact is what they were selling for 'wedding coverage with 8mm FILM'... they emphasized the FILM despite their digitizing an presenting the image via digital means.
Even the Wife's 8mm projects when she was attending school were not all that great, despite her being a photographer for years. They were 'better' than the average student with no back ground... but not anything I'd write home about.
(I've been meaning to get those projects transferred for archival purposes... and the Daughter did give me an 8mm 'editor' a couple of weeks ago... but the desire to shoot Film film really has gone... even for stills...).
Last edited: