Have people forgotten what film looks like?

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

Yeah, I think that is it exactly. You are correct in calling out anyone who says that their digitally acquired footage looks "Like film". However, going forward we need to embrace the technology we have available to us and tell some great stories. Just sayin'
 
The BBC just showed the 1970s low budget (by feature standards) cinema episode/movie of Dad's Army and I was amazed by the quality and general look. Comparing this to the great looking previews on video of the new star trek movie shows a completely different 'film look'. Both these examples are great for very different reasons - and neither look like what you get from DSLRs or any HD camera I've seen. Maybe it's simply that what is seen in the frame is carefully planned, shot and perhaps re-shot until the look is right - and of course the medium used to record it really understood and exploited. With film we had choices of emulsion and lots of chemical tricks in the lab to push or pull the exposure latitude. The latest chemical or electronic tools for the mega-buck movies offer similar features. With everyday video so few people (me included) fiddle and experiment with the menu details to any degree - maybe we should, before we try to insist our own equipment is 'filmic'.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

Somehow you make it sound like digital shooters are chicken to shoot on film, that we can't handle it and so we cheapen our work in hopes of meeting some standard only film can achieve. You're missing something critical about the discussion. Digital is the future and it keeps getting better and better and we like it. Well, I like it! I love the difference between RED and Alexa. I check IMDB for which format ... "ah shot on Sony.. " really that was RED?" I own an AF100, the entry level big sensor camera and shoot and edit so much with it my wife complains she never sees me. I am extremely happy with the results.

As David Mullen says, each has its challenges. You guard your shadows, I guard my highlights. The deal is I wouldn't shoot film if I had the money. I don't pine to shoot film. Film is coming to an end. I don't have any interest in looking back.

I just finished reading "In the Blink of an Eye" by Walter Murch, the great editor. In it he points out the fact that film is being diminished in two directions, as an aquisition medium and more importantly as a display medium. I don't think you can doubt what Murch has to say on the subject.

Here's a quote for you, " Once digital projection make significant inroads, however, film labarotories such as Technicolor will find it difficult to operate in the black, since most of their profits come from massive theatrical print orders sometimes as high as 50,000,000 feet of fillm per motion picture. When (not if) the laboratories go out of the film buisness, motion picture companies will inevitably turn to digital cameras for original photography"
 
Looks it's simple make the film cameras equipment etc etc cheaper and well shoot on it, but Canon, Nikon etc have made opportunities for us indies that have visions and dreams possible, that film wasn't . I think some of you film guys are feeling threatened by the quality of work the Indies a're putting out,the ppl watching the content,doesn't care whether u shot on a red or 35mm,well at the least the majority doesn't.
 
If you want a little bit of insight as to where this is all going, just take a look at where 2" tape fits in to the world of audio recording these days. We're about a decade behind the audio industry in terms of the analog-digital transformation. From a business standpoint, film doesn't make sense anymore. From a creative standpoint (talking about the technology itself, not any perceived benefit from a process that is slower and more deliberate since those same techniques can be applied to digital acquisition), film doesn't make sense anymore. From a logistics standpoint, film doesn't make sense. The only thing film still has on digital is the last few percent of image quality, and for the vast majority of us (both hobbyists and those who make their living by shooting) there's no rational reason to choose film at any budget level. For some it will always be the only choice (see Jack White, or any of the bands who thrive recording to tape and working through a traditional analog process), but the industry is clearly barreling towards an all-digital future. Creativity, the process of film-making, and our individual growth as artists will be better for it. Much better.
 
The point of this thread wasnt to discuss "what the future is" or any of that nonsense. The future of the first world as we know it seems to be toward debt and austerity so the "future" is not necessarily a good thing.

Relevant to the topic though was why digital shooters say their footage looks like film. It seems it was a nomenclature dispute and is settled in my mind at least.

The topics of "film is outdated, blah blah blah" and "it doesnt make financial sense" are garbage. Film makes as much sense as an Alexa or anything else that isnt the lowest bidder. Using your argument, we should all shoot on webcams because those make the most financial sense. And saying something is "the most value for the money" is also a moot point. Why do people purchase Ferraris or Maseratis when they could just buy a Kia and still get from point A to point B? Because they dont want "good enough" they want "the Best." Yes, you can argue that the best is a subjective term and to some degree it is, but as long as some feel that film is "the best" then it will still be around.

And only a fool will believe that when Kodak drops film that they wont be able to sell their patents to another company who will continue it. Ok, come at me now.
 
Some people want Ferraris, but most people don't.

Personally, I don't want the best camera or shooting format - I want the most cost effective way to get a "good "result. We will differe on what constitutes good, but we will both agree that it ain't a webcam.
 
GrahamH said:
.

Personally, I don't want the best camera or shooting format - I want the most cost effective way to get a "good "result. We will differe on what constitutes good, but we will both agree that it ain't a webcam.
Click to expand...

Tell me that when you see your work on a gigantic screen. You may want to crawl out of the theater (I know, ive been there)
 
As both a Ferrari owner, and as someone who has many years of film shooting under my belt, I'll comment that it's a matter of the right tool for the job. For example, a Ferrari would not be the best choice to pick up a family of 4 from the airport along with their luggage.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Do you feel that Giligans Island, The Brady Bunch, and Seinfeld for example have the so called "film look"? Not trying to call you out here Matthew, but your post is a little troll like. If I might ask, what is your experience with both film and digital cameras?

All the Best!

Dave
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
Tell me that when you see your work on a gigantic screen. You may want to crawl out of the theater (I know, ive been there)
Click to expand...

I have seen footage that I have shot, with a Sony FS-100 and a few shoots with a Canon T2i, on a big screen in a movie theater and I was very pleased with the images. I did not want to crawl out of the theater at all. I think a lot of the modern large sensor cameras are more than capable of making images that can be enjoyed on a big screen. Of course I am not saying it looked like 35mm film, but I was pleasantly surprised at how good it did look and the audience really liked the movie.
 
David W. Jones said:
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Do you feel that Giligans Island, The Brady Bunch, and Seinfeld for example have the so called "film look"? Not trying to call you out here Matthew, but your post is a little troll like. If I might ask, what is your experience with both film and digital cameras?

All the Best!

Dave
Click to expand...

Am I troll like because I disagree with you? Welcome to the world, my friend.

My background is I started out with digital years ago but found myself spending numerous hours color correcting to get a look that I wanted and that look was celluloid. I resisted shooting film because I thought it was more expensive and difficult, shady post chain, etc. Then I got to the point where I couldnt take it anymore because I was always obsessed with grading and never being happy. I decided to shoot some Super 8 to test the waters (and because it was less scary than shooting higher gauge) and I got back the film (reversal) and projected it on an old S8 projector I had. I was in love. No CC at all, just raw processed reversal film projected on a screen and it looked better than anything I had ever done digitally, no matter how CCed or edited. I sold my digital gear (before it lost all its value which is good because I spent 5k+ with accessories and managed to get about 3k back. Today that gear is less than 800! I moved up and have tried other cameras, gauges, but still havent been able to afford 35 but I really want to try someday.

The one thing that is seldom mentioned and it has as much to do with the quality as the format is the colorist. Film generally guarantees that a good colorist is in the chain where digital allows one to foolishly think they can do that job themselves. A person who has devoted their lives to color will always do better than a first timer or casual grader. However, the idea of sporting for world class color is somewhat contradictory to the digital revolution for indies since it increases the cost and time and decreases the level of control one has over their product. I respect being frugal and having control over ones work but we cannot forget that filmmaking is collaborative. To get the best product you can, you must have aces in their places.

If that makes me a troll then so be it. I just wanted to stimulate the film section of this forum for a change.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?299454-The-Canon-5D-still-shines
Matthew...to keep things interesting. Read this thread I linked....then read the thread over at Reduser and hear the reactions. Also watch the piece included in the thread. It's amazing this one has everyone confused exactly at the time this thread here came about. Check it out.
Click to expand...

I dont see what the controversy is? It doesnt look like celluloid to me but it looks like its trying hard to look like it. It also looks underexposed which is one way of giving away that its digital footage trying to look "celluloid like." It doesnt have the color depth or movement I would expect from stock. I dont really see what the big deal is about it, TBH. But if you like that look, that's great.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
I dont see what the controversy is? It doesnt look like celluloid to me but it looks like its trying hard to look like it. It also looks underexposed which is one way of giving away that its digital footage trying to look "celluloid like." It doesnt have the color depth or movement I would expect from stock. I dont really see what the big deal is about it, TBH. But if you like that look, that's great.
Click to expand...

It fooled some experienced film guys at red user....one said he'd eat his shoes if it wasn't film. It's still not confirmed 100% exactly what it was shot on. That's my point.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
Tell me that when you see your work on a gigantic screen. You may want to crawl out of the theater (I know, ive been there)
Click to expand...

Firstly, I have no aspiration to see my footage on a giant screen, so you are making some sweeping assumptions there buddy. Second, if you are arguing that the only footage that will be watchable on a giant screen will come from the top 0.1% of cameras then we are just going to have to disagree.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
It fooled some experienced film guys at red user....one said he'd eat his shoes if it wasn't film. It's still not confirmed 100% exactly what it was shot on. That's my point.
Click to expand...

Well, dont know how it fooled film guys. Ive shot reversal film and projected it and saw images that were never touched by digital at all and you cant mistake that look for digitally acquired footage. The looks are just too different. My point about the underexposure was that, reversal, when underexposed slightly, actually looks a tad bit better than spot on. Further underexposure degrades the quality way too fast. Therefore, it isnt reversal stock. Negative tends to look better and have better DR when over exposed or at least spot on. Underexposed negatives tend to look far too washed out and not very good at all. Digital, on the other hand, can still lok decent being underexposed. Therefore, it makes the most sense that the short was shot digitally as it is obviously underexposed. Also, the movement doesnt look right to me.

GrahamH said:
Firstly, I have no aspiration to see my footage on a giant screen, so you are making some sweeping assumptions there buddy. Second, if you are arguing that the only footage that will be watchable on a giant screen will come from the top 0.1% of cameras then we are just going to have to disagree.
Click to expand...

I meant no offense. I have shot film that looked great on smaller screens and the big screen shows imperfections that I wouldnt have dreamed of. I have done audio for many t3i shoots and I have seen these shots blown up at fests and they look terrible despite the DP thinking they looked good on their viewfinders. Big difference.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
The topics of "film is outdated, blah blah blah" and "it doesnt make financial sense" are garbage. Film makes as much sense as an Alexa or anything else that isnt the lowest bidder. Using your argument, we should all shoot on webcams because those make the most financial sense. And saying something is "the most value for the money" is also a moot point. Why do people purchase Ferraris or Maseratis when they could just buy a Kia and still get from point A to point B? Because they dont want "good enough" they want "the Best." Yes, you can argue that the best is a subjective term and to some degree it is, but as long as some feel that film is "the best" then it will still be around.

And only a fool will believe that when Kodak drops film that they wont be able to sell their patents to another company who will continue it. Ok, come at me now.
Click to expand...

It's not garbage, it's the truth. The expense of film goes much further than just stock and processing, and there are many concessions to be made in the process as compared to shooting digital. If you are making a film with the intent of recouping your investment, then outside of a market where your audience would actually care that your film is shot on actual film, there are few situations where it makes sense from a business standpoint. Sure, it's a viable choice for some, and some have the luxury of whatever excess they choose in staying true to their art, but the only people I know personally shooting film are either experimenting on the cheap for personal enjoyment or are fetishists. The people I know involved in indies with low (<2mil) budgets who chose film are definitely regretting the decision.

Webcams make no financial sense from a film-making standpoint. They don't fit into the existing ecosystem of production standards and equipment, produce an image that is easily detectable as very sub-par by the audience, and lack the features necessary for making a movie. The Ferrari analogy is a good one for film, because they are both luxury items with cachet and performance far beyond their utility. There aren't many businesses that employ fleets of Ferraris.

Of course someone will continue to make film. You can still buy 2" tape too. Film isn't dead, it's just increasingly irrelevant. And digital cameras are getting very close to replicating the positive aspects of film. Obviously the grain isn't there and there is still a big difference as digital reaches clipping, but the dynamic range, color reproduction, and resolution are all reaching parity. What I've noticed is similar to what has happened with vinyl (and analog in general) fetishism: at some point along the way the defects of a medium become a part of the appeal. What started as people missing the warmth and less aggressive mastering of vinyl releases as compared to CDs turned into pining for clicks and pops, and nostalgia over a lack of modern transport controls.
 
stefancolson said:
Film isn't dead, it's just increasingly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Why is it so important to you which format one shoots on? For so long, digital shooters have cried for respect for their film shooting brethren and has been somewhat vindicated in recent days with the Alexa especially. But you are not content with respect, you demand that everyone shoot digital or be labeled as shooting on an "irrelevant" format. Film is as irrelevant to visual images as Latin is to language. Latin might be "Dead" but it has shaped everything you know. Its roots are in all of your chosen languages, and you cannot escape it. I can respect those who shoot digital but I will be damned if I will be put down for shooting on an elite format just because I value the medium more than certain others on this board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top