Have people forgotten what film looks like?

I shot film for well over 30 years, but in the last two years have only shot 2 projects on it, and only because the client wanted to shoot film. In the last 3 years of really shooting on film, I had installed a full lab and telecine to try and get costs in hand, but it got to the point that clients budgets started to shrink and we really stopped shooting film. We shot with the Red One for a couple of years but sold it 2 years ago. We now shoot projects with one of our 5 in house HD cameras, or we rent when the budget allows. I really like shooting with the Arri Alexa now. It's designed with great ergonomics, and a flexible high quality look. As far as people saying their footage looks like film, what do you care? Seriously, so what. It's funny sometimes, people poo poo projects shot digital, or on camera X, and try to compare to what it would look like on film. And you know what, I can't ever remember going to see a film because of what medium it was acquiored on. Seriously who cares if a movie was shot on film or digital. Either I was entertained or I wasn't. A bad movie shot on film is still a bad movie!

All the best in the new year!

Dave
 
David, I know what you mean. Bad content is bad content. But let's put the shoe on the other foot...say I was shooting 19' stock and I went on REDuser and said "Wow, my footage looks just like it was shot on an Epic!" What kind of response do you think I would get? Its foolish and stupid.

As far as film drying up, that's too bad that some think that way. I spoke with Rob from Cinelab this morning on another forum and he said he has so much film coming in for processing and scanning that he is building new machines in the coming year. He is working on a 4k machine now and will soon be developing a 6.6k scanner. Doesnt sound like film is dying to me. I think its easy to get caught up in the ultra low-budget indie scene so much that you lose sight of reality.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
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...
Click to expand...

It does compared to a pencil drawing animation.

My point is that sure it might not look EXACTLY like film but good digital footage can sometimes do a pretty damn good job of resembling film. A lot of people can't tell the difference between Alexa footage and 35mm film even if many of us can.

But I don't understand why so many people discount using film. If I had a decent budget I would shoot film hands down. It just looks magical when done right. On the big screen even Alexa footage doesn't have the same magic for my eyes.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
As far as film drying up, that's too bad that some think that way. I spoke with Rob from Cinelab this morning on another forum and he said he has so much film coming in for processing and scanning that he is building new machines in the coming year. He is working on a 4k machine now and will soon be developing a 6.6k scanner. Doesnt sound like film is dying to me. I think its easy to get caught up in the ultra low-budget indie scene so much that you lose sight of reality.
Click to expand...
People said vinyl was dead in the nineties but it never really died and now records are coming back strongly. Bands sometimes record albums on old analogue equipment.

I hope film sticks around like these other "dead technologies" so that at least 1 in 50 films that get a theatrical release are shot on it.

I wonder what the ratio of films being shot on digital versus film is currently (that get a theatrical release)?
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
As far as film drying up, that's too bad that some think that way. I spoke with Rob from Cinelab this morning on another forum and he said he has so much film coming in for processing and scanning that he is building new machines in the coming year. He is working on a 4k machine now and will soon be developing a 6.6k scanner. Doesnt sound like film is dying to me. I think its easy to get caught up in the ultra low-budget indie scene so much that you lose sight of reality.
Click to expand...

Some think that way? Loose sight of reality? You must have some serious blinders on. Hey I love film, but for the reality of the issue all you have to do is look at the 2 largest manufactures of film Kodak and Fuji for an insight into film production. Fuji to stop most major production of film mid 2013 and look at Kodak's financial woes. Things don't get much clearer than that.
 
David W. Jones said:
Some think that way? Loose sight of reality? You must have some serious blinders on. Hey I love film, but for the reality of the issue all you have to do is look at the 2 largest manufactures of film Kodak and Fuji for an insight into film production. Fuji to stop most major production of film mid 2013 and look at Kodak's financial woes. Things don't get much clearer than that.
Click to expand...

Kodak is making money. They have a ton of debt and mismanaged. Financial mismanagement doesnt have anything to do with popularity, it has to do with...well...bad choices. RED camera would go under also if they made stupid financial decisions.
 
To add a point since this thread has evolved, I think that those who are being realistic notice that there is a digital "race to the bottom" in terms of camera companies fighting to see who can offer the most features for the smallest money. This rate of advancement cannot be sustained and many companies will either fail or be forced out of the camera game. It may seem like a boon for consumers now but, mark my words, there will be casualties from it.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
Kodak is making money. They have a ton of debt and mismanaged. Financial mismanagement doesnt have anything to do with popularity, it has to do with...well...bad choices. RED camera would go under also if they made stupid financial decisions.
Click to expand...

I think most of Kodak's problems are related to the fact that they were a huge company that had serious pension problems. They just are not big anymore because film, like it or not, cannot sustain them. Creative destruction, Econ 101. Just like photography, film ain't gonna make it out alive.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
To add a point since this thread has evolved, I think that those who are being realistic notice that there is a digital "race to the bottom" in terms of camera companies fighting to see who can offer the most features for the smallest money. This rate of advancement cannot be sustained and many companies will either fail or be forced out of the camera game. It may seem like a boon for consumers now but, mark my words, there will be casualties from it.
Click to expand...

What casualties? The big camera companies have broad offerings for broadcast, ENG, consumer. We're talking about cinema cameras. S35 or there abouts single sensor cameras. It's only a portion of what the big camera manufacturers do and for those that are strictly cinema, Arri is the standard with Alexa. RED has legions of people who love it. The only one not keeping up is Panavision, the film standard bearer.
 
hscully said:
What casualties? The big camera companies have broad offerings for broadcast, ENG, consumer. We're talking about cinema cameras. S35 or there abouts single sensor cameras. It's only a portion of what the big camera manufacturers do and for those that are strictly cinema, Arri is the standard with Alexa. RED has legions of people who love it. The only one not keeping up is Panavision, the film standard bearer.
Click to expand...

RED will lose ground if they cannot compete with the lower end likes of BMCC and the others who come and go (DBolex, etc.) I have already seen many who regret buying a Scarlet and wished they had purchased a BMC instead, considering the price point. I personally feel they are the most vulnerable in this game since they dont have the established name of Arri and they have little to fall back on other than cameras. Their price point was competitive a few years ago and now is considerably higher than many "good enough" scenarios.

The humorous thing about this from my perspective as an outside in the digital arms race is that RED camera was declaring film dead a few years ago and its advocates touted "its good enough for less money" and those same fans are angry now about BMCC and tout "BMCC isnt as good as the Scarlett" to which many BMCC advocates counter "No, but its good enough!"

Irony at its best.
 
Purple isn't red but it's redder than blue. In the same way measures can be taken to make video look more pleasing and those measures generally involve emulating certain aspects of the only medium of comparison, film. So what else are you going to call these collective qualities? Trying to make your footage more film-like is not necessarily an attempt to emulate film outright. It's just that film is the only benchmark by which you can measure the visual qualities of the video medium and the comparison yields some qualities that are desirable in either format.

Many of the measures taken come with happy accidents. For example, the 35mm lens adapter through a flaw in the fundamental design introduces grain from the ground glass but this looks good to some. Reminiscient of film grain. Likewise some filmshooters like grain, others have dedicated their lives to eliminating it. In the quest for the best image it is natural to attempt to capture and enhance some of those pleasing qualities, as well as minimise some of the less pleasing qualities in either format. The qualities are almost universally agreed upon, the manipulation of these qualities determines the final look. If there was a third significant medium perhaps the terms film-like/video-like would lose some of their polarised meaning.

Perhaps the real question is why the users of film don't call efforts such as the quest to minimise grain, careful treatment of prints to minimise scratches and dust etc the act of making film look more video-like...? Don't know why it upsets you frankly. Sounds like you're carrying a chip. Noone is saying the digital video is exactly film. They are calling it like film (in comparison to video that isn't).

Matthew W Phillips said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your responses haven't really held true to the intent of your OP. Troll?
 
Last edited:
Egg Born Son said:
Purple isn't red but it's redder than blue. In the same way measures can be taken to make video look more pleasing and those measures generally involve emulating certain aspects of the only medium of comparison, film. So what else are you going to call these collective qualities? Trying to make your footage more film-like is not necessarily an attempt to emulate film outright. It's just that film is the only benchmark by which you can measure the visual qualities of the video medium and the comparison yields some qualities that are desirable in either format.

Many of the measures taken come with happy accidents. For example, the 35mm lens adapter through a flaw in the fundamental design introduces grain from the ground glass but this looks good to some. Reminiscient of film grain. Likewise some filmshooters like grain, others have dedicated their lives to eliminating it. In the quest for the best image it is natural to attempt to capture and enhance some of those pleasing qualities, as well as minimise some of the less pleasing qualities in either format. The qualities are almost universally agreed upon, the manipulation of these qualities determines the final look. If there was a third significant medium perhaps the terms film-like/video-like would lose some of their polarised meaning.

Perhaps the real question is why the users of film don't call efforts such as the quest to minimise grain, careful treatment of prints to minimise scratches and dust etc the act of making film look more video-like...? Don't know why it upsets you frankly. Sounds like you're carrying a chip. Noone is saying the digital video is exactly film. They are calling it like film (in comparison to video that isn't).



Your responses haven't really held true to the intent of your OP. Troll?
Click to expand...

I am hardly a troll. Maybe you are a troll since I use my real name and you dont? I know you attempt to make it seem innocent but it is beyond "emulating aspects that make for a more pleasing shot." It is outright trying to copy a medium that you are either too cheap to shoot or too lazy to learn properly on or maybe just downright scared of the medium.

David Mullen once said something to the effect (paraphrase) of "if you want to shoot digital then you must deal with its shortcomings and if you want the look of film then you must deal with the demands of film."

Beautiful synopsis of it. Sadly many think they will have their cake and eat it too.
 
You clearly know why others do what they do better than they do. If you already had your answer why ask the question?

Must be sad to live in a world where you aren't allowed to eat your own cake.
 
To the original point...I actually don't hear a lot of people saying digital looks like film, esp around here. Most know that saying any digital camera "looks like film" would rightly generate a great big collective- "No, it doesn't"
What people are saying a lot is that their new cameras can get them close to that "movie look" or that they produce "cinematic" images...both subjective of course. Cameras with interchangeable lenses and Large super 35mm ish sensors with better DR and better creative control over dof (than what was possible with the smaller chip cameras) have enabled people to realize more closely their own vision of what their movie SHOULD look like...not that it duplicates film. This GH2 shot project looks like a MOVIE to me, not like film...but not like that old notion of "VIDEO" either.

https://vimeo.com/gamiorbegoso/httpwwwfacebookcompagesmusgo229913677100591
 
:) Hehe, I guess my reply was a bit short there. I think my initial post addressed the OP succintly even if Matthew didn't want to hear it. I was a bit surprised someone would so flippantly dismiss an honest answer to a question asked. I put it down to the 'Troll' comment, which was not tactful. It wasn't meant as an accusation but on reflection couldn't be taken any other way. I apologise, I would have taken it personal too - shoe on the other foot. Anyway, I hope others don't take offence at a response no doubt provoked by my 'Troll' comment hence my fault.

Matthew, if my initial post was unclear (sans troll comment), pulpfiction007 has made the same point I was making in more direct language. Cinematic-look or movie-look are better terms than film-look. It is what digital shooters mean by 'film-look' or 'looks like film'. Film, aside from being a medium is also a legacy word meaning movie. Maybe this whole question is a matter of semantics.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
To the original point...I actually don't hear a lot of people saying digital looks like film, esp around here. Most know that saying any digital camera "looks like film" would rightly generate a great big collective- "No, it doesn't"
What people are saying a lot is that their new cameras can get them close to that "movie look" or that they produce "cinematic" images...both subjective of course. Cameras with interchangeable lenses and Large super 35mm ish sensors with better DR and better creative control over dof (than what was possible with the smaller chip cameras) have enabled people to realize more closely their own vision of what their movie SHOULD look like...not that it duplicates film. This GH2 shot project looks like a MOVIE to me, not like film...but not like that old notion of "VIDEO" either.

https://vimeo.com/gamiorbegoso/httpwwwfacebookcompagesmusgo229913677100591
Click to expand...

Ever since the VX-1000 dropped I have been hoping for the embrace of a "New Digital Aesthetic", that diverged from the established film aesthetic. Now, with SD DV, it was quickly embraced and used to tell a lot of stories using the standard conventions of fictional narrative, and, with a few high profile examples as exceptions, I do not think that it was all that successful. The format could not get passed that, IMO, crappy "Video" look that pulpfiction007 talks about. The "New Digital Aesthetic" seems to have morphed into the vast proliferation of "Reality" TV and has changed television, for the better or worse. With the rise of HD, the new format was embraced for fictional narrative, but the small sensors and video based approach to the visuals production still left us with a distinction between HD video images and the aesthetic that was expected for fictional narrative stories, that was, of course, established by film acquisition. Now with the advent of the advanced large sensor digital HD, and beyond, cameras things have radically changed, again, IMO. No, I do not think that the new large sensor digital looks like film, but, in many, many cases, it sure as $%@& does not look like @#&*ing TV. Finally, 20 years, almost, after the great "DV Revolution" there are very (Relatively) low cost camera systems that are, at the very least, acceptable to making images to tell fictional narrative stories without the glaring differences in look that were produced by previous video camera systems. What is most exciting is that these large sensor digital video cameras are in their INFANCY. No they are not film, but why do they have to be. These cameras, in the hands of talented and skilled storytellers, are, in many instances, making GREAT images. Is that not enough? No it is not film and yes, maybe people are forgetting what film looks like, but why can't we just enjoy the stories we choose to go see and delight in the well made images that these talented storytellers make without regard to what format they chose to use.
 
These responses are clarifying my original question. If Egg and others are correct, it sounds as though there is a failure to communicate. I interpreted "film like" as meaning that people believe digital to look like film stock (ie celluloid) when these people might not mean that at all. Perhaps they are instead meaning "movie like" in that modern cameras look less like traditional video and contain aesthetics that can be immersive enough for narrative storytelling. "Film" is used as a more generalized term to mean "movie" or "flick" in this regard instead of the technical definition of film which is "emulsion."

Is this correct? If so, I think I am understanding the confusion. Therefore, most digital shooters dont honestly believe that their footage looks like "celluloid" as much as they believe it looks like "a perfectly acceptable medium for generating suspension of disbelief?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top