Have people forgotten what film looks like?

M

Matthew W Phillips

Active member
Not trying to rant but ask a sincere question...have people forgot what films really looks like?

I see on different forums people talking about how the 5D looks like film or now this BMC looks like film. I have mainly only shot film my whole life so I am used to seeing it and I dont think these cameras image looks anything like film. I really dont see it.

Im not dissing these new cams or claiming films superiority as my choice isnt right for everyone, but they are indeed a different look! Not even the Alexa looks like film. Its a pretty image but its unique.

Why do people say every new camera looks like film? Have these people ever worked with film? Are people just confused or they forgot? Am I missing something?
 
They can simply go see Django, Les Mis, Lincoln, J.Reacher, Argo, Gangster Squad, etc. and remind themselves that their toys look nothing like film. Next year, movies like Man of Steel, To the Wonder and Star Trek will keep showing off film's qualities well into 2013, among many others.

On the high-end and for many true film craftsmen, film matters and that's where it counts. The endless trendy hoards of new "filmmakers" don't need to understand what it is anyway; they will have a new, unrelated job soon.
 
Or they might succeed quietly instead of letting their pretentiousness and insecurity get the better of them. People who spend their energy creating a story and images that help that story are able to beat out people who waste their energy complaining about the competition and thinking that whatever media they choose will do the work for them. The Hobbit seems to be doing well.

As for the original poster, it's a silly concept. An even more important question is why it matters. I agree that none of those cameras produce images that look like 35mm, but 35mm really has no reason to be the definition of 'good'. A discussion about specifics in image quality can be had without mentioning different formats, and it would be a much more objective, meaningful discussion. But people with digital systems seem to feel like they're in competition and need to justify their tools to be real content producers. That's always been the case to some extent and I don't see it changing. It's best to just ignore comments that don't work for you.
 
Last edited:
Cassius said:
As for the original poster, it's a silly concept. An even more important question is why it matters. I agree that none of those cameras produce images that look like 35mm, but 35mm really has no reason to be the definition of 'good'.
Click to expand...

I'm not just talking about 35mm here. Im talking about film in general (16mm, 65, etc.) Everyone wants to go around touting how their images look like this and they dont. As to why it matters, its just annoying. I spend mney to shoot real film and its frustrating to hear people talk about cheaper alternatives looking "just like film" when they dont. As if I and others who spend time and money to shoot, process, and scan film are doing it for no reason whatsoever. The truth is that there is a unique look to film that those who shoot on it demand and desire. If we didn't think it was unique and desirable, we wouldnt spend the money for it.

Digital is great for what it is and I admit that the value for image quality now is about the best its every been and may get better if the competition stays strong. But the look is so different that one must choose for individual aesthetic. When are people going to give up the "film look" idea and shoot what they want for the look they want? I think I get frustrated and amused all at once because I think BOTH mediums should be respected for what they are and the benefits they provide.
 
Look, we love film, and try to emulate it as best we can. Given the costs and complexity to get "true film" look, we're doing the best we can to continue the great tradition ofthe film look. Imitation is the sincereist form of flattery. We know the "look" of film and intend to continue it long after "film" is history.

5d mkiii, and other "new" tech...
 
**** film and there cameras and 100 people crews, etc! I've been trying to make indy personal films for 30 years! And the cost of it was prohibitive! Spent decades writing scripts trying to shake the money tree. Blah blah blah.....
Shot my last feature on the gh2. Will shoot the next one on the BMC. Gh2 was good enuf for coppola it's good enuf for me. My last feature film I was able to write. direct, play the lead and shoot the damn thing. Try doing that on 35. I'm not saying it's the greatest film ever made - but it sure is me - no committee. I enjoyed saying "**** film!" :)))
 
8string said:
Look, we love film, and try to emulate it as best we can. Given the costs and complexity to get "true film" look, we're doing the best we can to continue the great tradition ofthe film look. Imitation is the sincereist form of flattery. We know the "look" of film and intend to continue it long after "film" is history.

5d mkiii, and other "new" tech...
Click to expand...

I respect this viewpoint but woldnt it respect tradition more to use the true medium you claim to revere which is still widely available with tons of transfer methods and working individuals who are more than happy to help you manage it? Im not saying you SHOULD shoot film but if you revere the look and want the look than get the look. Im not sure sure that film is dying a natural death but is more being murdered by the "its good enough" generation.

kevin baggott said:
poo poo film and there cameras and 100 people crews, etc! I've been trying to make indy personal films for 30 years! And the cost of it was prohibitive! Spent decades writing scripts trying to shake the money tree. Blah blah blah.....
Shot my last feature on the gh2. Will shoot the next one on the BMC. Gh2 was good enuf for coppola it's good enuf for me. My last feature film I was able to write. direct, play the lead and shoot the damn thing. Try doing that on 35. I'm not saying it's the greatest film ever made - but it sure is me - no committee. I enjoyed saying "poo poo film!" :)))
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Shoot digital if you want but dont state falsehoods. I have shot short films (on film) with less than 10 person crews. It depends on how grand you want to go. 500t stock allows relatively low light as well and film cameras (16mm especially) have never been cheaper. Sync sound cameras can be picked up on eBay in recently serviced condition for 600-800 (there is two on ebay right now, for instance)

The GH2, I know nothing about this camera.
 
16 cameras are cheap now cause no one is using them. I'm talking about all these years when all we had was film - raw stock, processing, making a positive, camera rentals, steenbecks, etc, etc. Anyway - film is dead. Good riddance.
 
It's the 80:20 rule -- if you can get 80% of the way to a look you like for 20% of the cost, then for many folk that is indeed "good enough"
 
Just look at all these talentless hacks using digital cameras...

Judd Apatow
James Cameron
David Cronenberg
David Fincher
Peter Jackson
Ang Lee
Baz Luhrmann
David Lynch
Sam Mendes
Martin Scorsese
Ridley Scott
Lars von Trier
Joss Whedon
Robert Zemeckis

...If only they could afford to shoot on the real thing, film.
 
Last edited:
I came up shooting film, starting on Super 8mm and then with 16mm. I have shoot guerrilla fictional narrative, on an Arri 16mm SRII, with a three person crew, me on camera, a sound guy and a worked to death combo AC/Grip/PA dude. It is very very hard, but it was doable. I love film and agree that digital and film do not have the exact same aesthetic qualities, but I really have gotten over what is "Better". I felt that I had to make a decision about what I was really doing. Was I going to be a "Filmmaker", inextricably tied to a 123 year old technology, or was what I really wanted to be is a "Story Teller", and work as a collaborator telling stories with moving images and sounds? I chose to try and be a Story Teller, and adapt the most appropriate technology that IS AVAILABLE TO ME. To be brutally honest, the bottom line is the cost of shooting on film. The last time I speced out a feature shoot, assuming 120 minute running time with a 6:1 shooting ratio, for Super 16mm acquisition it came out to $60, 000.00. This did not included the cost of camera, lenses, support, lighting and grip/electric; which would have had to been rented. $60,000.00 was the entire budget of the film. I did not get the gig, the producers went with a DP who was an F3 owner, and they have shot their film and it is set for release next March or April, I think. That pretty much sums it up. Now, I am focusing on getting my own stories done. I have a Sony FS-100, and while the camera is far from perfect, I am making images with it that I am very pleased with and, more important, I think would be appropriate to tell the stories I want to tell with. Am I settling for "Good Enough"? Yes, I guess I am, but, *&$A@, welcome to the real world. Now, I am not running around saying that the images I am getting from a $5000.00 camera look like film, that would be ridiculous. What I want to say is, "Hey, I have a story I have told. Watch this". I think that trumps, "Hey, I got a story I want to tell, and when I raise enough money to shoot it on film it is going to look great!"
 
Last edited:
I think most here love the dynamic range, color rendition, and the grain film produces. But lets face it, the majority are shooting digital because it's cheap and less labor than shooting film. Most ad agencies are asking for digital because they learned you can still get beautiful images at a fraction of the cost. If film were still selling the way it once did, kodak and Fuji wouldn't have jumped ship. They can't get rid of the stock they have as it is.

As far as digital images not looking like film, No, not entirely, but the majority of the people watching movies and television cant tell the difference, and as you know it all comes down to one thing, money:) Time is money in this field, the producers are cutting back at every turn. The web is become huge, and digital content is the only way to go for the web. No reason to shoot film for that medium.

But I respect your opinion, I get that you like the look and probably the process of shooting film, but don't be to hard on digital because you may be shooting to hard drive sooner than you think. it's worth trying the format.
 
To me it's simple, if you want to shoot film, shoot film. If you want to shoot digital, shoot digital. Choose whatever's better for whatever you're working on. I own an F3 and also a IIC. Look to use the IIC when I can, but F3 obviously gets almost all the business. A lot of my personal projects I shoot on the IIC.

No format has to be better than the other. Both have benefits and drawbacks. If only they'd stop trying to kill each other.
 
"The GH2, I know nothing about this camera."

Maybe give it a try and come back to give your thoughts. Many of us here have shot a lot of film and a lot of digits and love both.

Also, for those who don't remember of never knew, film stock is mostly really slow; digital kills it in that regard.
 
I appreciate everyone's comments but I think many have missed what I am saying. Im not saying you should be shooting film and not digital. Nor am I saying film is better. My ONLY point was saying I didnt understand why people have to say in such large numbers that digital looks like film. It simply doesnt if you have shot a lot of film and know the quirks of it. I understand about budget and all of that. If all I had was the ability to shoot a movie on digital, I would use digital.

I will say though that somewhat of this "film is too expensive" is BS. No offense to David, but how in the world did stock, process, and scan run you $60k with a 6:1 shooting ratio? 120 minutes x 6 would be about 65 cans of film. When I spoke with a rep. about shooting 19' stock, I was quoted about $140/can delivered. That's $9.1k. Processing at Spectra is .13/ft which is $3,380. Scans can be as low as .13/ft and sometimes you can negotiate if you are doing a feature but even still, lets say aother $3,500. This is <$16k by my understanding. Everything else about your film should have been the same regardless of format.

Some spent $30k+ for RED packages believing it would make for cheap filmmaking and started out in a hole that ways more than film for 2 movies. Once again, Im not advocating shooting film but the cost difference isnt always as much as you think.

Also, many forget that if you are making a movie above the line (ethically, that is) you still need to pay people, buy food, procure locations, purchase insurance, costuming and props, and acquire permits. All of this can easily exceed the shooting format cost if you are doing an ambitious flick. Seems that if I were spending all that money, I wouldnt wish to skimp on the recording device. Let's not forget audio which is pricey to get well and film or digital can be ruined by poor audio.
 
Back to the original point, since I started out as a "film guy" too, but made the switch to video back in the early '80s for purely economic reasons:

Regardless of that list of big directors still shooting on film, it is virtually impossible to actually see a movie nowadays that hasn't been digitally processed. Since the rise of digital intermediates and computer editing in the mid-'90s, the number of finished movies produced using only optical and contact printing from one film generation to another has become vanishingly small. I wouldn't even know how to find one nowadays. And of course, anything you watch on a video screen or digital projector, no matter what the original source, has been scanned into a medium of fixed pixel positions and hard dynamic range at some point and doesn't entirely look like a pure "film" product anymore.

So I think this particular horse left the barn a long time ago, and indeed, for most of us, it's been a long time since we saw a film image that has never known the touch of a digital scanner. The quality may be absolutely fine (and it's nice to be rid of the scratches), but it doesn't look exactly the same as it did a couple of decades ago, or before.

About a dozen years ago, in honor of the titular date, I saw a screening of a pristine 70mm print of Kubrick's "2001," which may be the last time I will ever view a pure film-film-film (camera/intermediate/release print) program on a screen.

So sad, but true -- I think most of us have already forgotten, through no fault of our own, what a real "film" is supposed to look like.

- Greg
 
Greg Smith said:
Regardless of that list of big directors still shooting on film
Click to expand...

...I posted a list of directors who are now shooting digital not film, and they are not shooting digital because they can't afford to shoot on film, they choose to shoot digital. Though I think 3D production would be a nightmare on film, so digital may be the only option for 3D. ( I can't wait for the 3D trend to die out again )

This issue will soon become moot, as film stocks will eventually dry up, and all that will be left is digital.
 
I agree with the OP that film and digital look different. I am very excited about the progression of digital cameras. In many ways, I think digital looks better than film, especially 16mm film.

When I talk about getting my digital movies to look like film, I'm not talking about the media, I'm talking about the light, the movement, the sound, the framing. Literal film does not hold a claim on the state of film making with regard to all the artistic goals sought or the skills necessary to achieve them. The "film look" is a function of a process, not a media.

Roger Deakins talked about how he likes the look of the actor's eyes in digital. So do I. The aesthetic is changing. Great "filmmakers" are pleased with the abilities afforded them with digital aquisition.

For me, I never considered producing my own work until big sensor digital became available, first with the 35 mm adapters. Before then I looked at shooting film BUT the investment in media is lost on each project. I could do it if I could do enough to get good at it. With digital the media is reusable. Because of this, each purchase of gear is to make the next project better and less expensive because I do have to pay actors, crew, sound, location costs, transportation, design, etc.

You're whistiling past the graveyard to think the you can put that toothpaste back in the tube. It's like analog sound - people miss it but you don't see a lot of Nagas out there on set. Yes, they are different and digital keeps getting better and film will be a specialty of enthusiasts like archery.
 
Last edited:
TheDingo said:
This issue will soon become moot, as film stocks will eventually dry up, and all that will be left is digital.
Click to expand...

How can you be taken seriously with a comment like this? This is a serious thread, not an invitation for fanboyism.

Niche market, maybe. Gone completely? Long after you're dead pal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top