David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
How many completed projects do you have that were shot on film? When was your last completed project that was shot on film? What film cameras have you shot with? When are you shooting your next project on film?
Have people forgotten what film looks like?
- Thread starter Matthew W Phillips
- Start date
How many completed projects do you have that were shot on film? When was your last completed project that was shot on film? What film cameras have you shot with? When are you shooting your next project on film?
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
You might want to call my agent and schedule an interview if you want that much information.
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
The same "ppl" who granted celebrity upon Kim Kardashian?
To Matthew's point-
As filmmakers, I want to believe that you all look forward to the day that film is an option (financially).
Digital is the new indie 16mm, or at least should be. It's one possible skeleton key to the kingdom; but once inside her gates, I'd hope you'd keep (reconnect with?) some sense of loyalty to the medium of cinema.
Sure many A/B-listers shoot on digital. They are following in Uncle George's off-track footsteps...
Last edited:
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I spent part of last night looking at a vimeo channel for 16mm films. I definitely liked the look of some of them even better than some major releases on film, because they hadn't been so "digitized". Maybe we are seeing a blur between film and digital because of what happens post shoot on a lot of modern movies. Many of them are aggressively massaged and filled in with CGI so instead of looking like film, they appear to our eyes in a different way. The same happens in the audio world and music....the artists might initially record on beautiful analog boards to tape- only to have the whole record compressed and mixed to oblivion.
Strictly speaking lower budget level here-I think many would shoot film if they thought the benefits of doing so would outweigh the inefficient workflow and cost (compared to digital) *Someone brought up 2 inch tape in music - for small budgets even that is easier than the post part of the film process - because all ya gotta do is run from the analog outs to the ins on a mastering CD deck and bam- you're digital for sharing. With film...not so much.
* I get the analogy and it's a good one- I know first hand. I can now record 24 tracks at 24 bit quality and master in super cd for under $2000 bucks. Digital is just far more reliable and gets out of my way so I can record my music. (not on a computer btw- digital workstation stand alone)
Strictly speaking lower budget level here-I think many would shoot film if they thought the benefits of doing so would outweigh the inefficient workflow and cost (compared to digital) *Someone brought up 2 inch tape in music - for small budgets even that is easier than the post part of the film process - because all ya gotta do is run from the analog outs to the ins on a mastering CD deck and bam- you're digital for sharing. With film...not so much.
* I get the analogy and it's a good one- I know first hand. I can now record 24 tracks at 24 bit quality and master in super cd for under $2000 bucks. Digital is just far more reliable and gets out of my way so I can record my music. (not on a computer btw- digital workstation stand alone)
Nope. Not really a valid point though, unless you plan to only cater to your immediate friends and family, and for people who strive to create something, that's almost an anathema. So you have to take the good with the bad.
GrahamH
Well-known member
The same way we are seeing successful still photographers rush to reconnect with their sense of loyalty to o canisters of 35mm film?
hscully
Veteran
+1 Sensible and correct. That is the term that correctly describes the lingering nostalgia... fetishism. Well done. Thanks
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
I can't speak to the state of still photography. Maybe in my next life I'll dedicate thirty-some odd years to its legacy/appreciation instead of cinema's...
hscully
Veteran
Nope. I emphatically do not "look forward" to shooting film. If I did it, would be an educational exercise or a nostalgic hobby to experience archaic techniques, as if taking a horse back riding lesson. But would not trade my car for a horse.
I understand people who have developed skills and produced work with film that lament it's passing. I read American Cinematographer. I get that. It is passing, just like vinyl records and videotape and equine personal transporation.
I "look foward" to shooting better and better cinema aquired and projected in glorious digital.
Last edited:
stefancolson
Well-known member
Nobody is putting you down, saying that film is a bad format, or demanding that you be labeled as anything for your choice of medium. I'm pretty tired of being referred to as the "good enough" generation, or any number of other dismissive, patronizing things for shooting on what I want. What you see as settling for an inferior medium, I see as a choice that allows me to spend my money on-screen instead of in the camera, allows me more takes and experimentation with my blocking and camera movement, and grants instant feedback on set, which allows better decision making and adaptation. I shudder at all of the times I would have settled for "good enough" performances had I been limited by a canister of film in my camera. Or all of the personal projects and practice I wouldn't have been able to afford without the tools we have today. How many more years would it take to build my skills as a cinematographer were I limited to analog technology.
Just because film is becoming irrelevant to modern production doesn't mean that anyone is criticizing you or the format. It's going away because of convenience. If budgets and time were unlimited, then many, many more of us would shoot film. Our decisions are based on pragmatism and the budgetary/workflow constraints that we all are bound by.
If your identity as a creative professional is wrapped up in people respecting you for the camera or format you choose, then you have a lot of learning to do. I (and the people I know and work with) respect those with integrity who are devoted to their art and who produce stunning images and tell stories well. Good work is good work, regardless of what it's shot on.
As for your playing the part of the victim: You were the guy name-calling, telling us that digital cinema is a "race to the bottom", called us "too cheap or too lazy" to shoot film, claimed that others subjective opinions were wrong because you disagree. And this "elite format" that you keep talking about is one that you haven't even ever worked with. I'm all for a discussion, but you seem to be interpreting a calm, rational discussion about inanimate objects as a series of personal attacks. Relax, we're all friends here with the same passion, nobody is calling anyone else out or trying to put anyone down.
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
Im confused? Are you saying Im lying about working with film or that film is not an elite format? Please clarify.
Ive read much of this thread and I am getting the gist of what's going on. The digital enthusiasts are divided into two camps, it seems:
1) We like film but cant afford it. This camp respects the institution of film and would shoot on it if they could do so without interrupting other aspects of their budget. Fair enough. However, i will say that Ive been on many sets that shot digitally (low end) and foregone important things like lighting because that "Wasnt in the budget either." Maybe the day will come when people wont properly light anymore because digital handles low light?
2) Those, like you, who shoot digital because you prefer it. Despite the fact that I disagree with you, I respect this position. Its a "gonads out" perspective that is unapologetic and shows that you seek what you want and go after it, no questions asked. That's how I feel about film and its how everyone should feel about the medium they shoot and all of the work they do.
Yes, I would like to think we are all friends here. But even friends have disputes with no compromise. I hope digital continues to improve. I hope that film lasts along with it as an alternative because I believe competition makes things better.
One last point though that people forget...digital as seen as this fast moving technology and film is seen as some ancient beast that hasnt changed in over 100 years. This is not true and the modern stocks within the last few years have made HUGE improvements. Super 8 is the new 16, S16 is practically like 35 was, and 35...wow, just wow. 50D and 250D are amazing as are all of the V3 stocks. Just wanted to throw in that stocks have improved as well.
stefancolson
Well-known member
I meant 35mm which you said you hadn't had a chance to work with. I probably shouldn't have said that, it didn't really add anything and was an uncalled for jab. Sorry about that. I have to remind myself that not everyone enjoys heated debate. I certainly never meant to say that I thought you were wrong, I sometimes just get argumentative for its own sake and probably came off harsher than intended. Nor did I intend to suggest any lack of respect for the history of film-making (the overwhelming majority of which is celluloid) and those that have mastered the craft. If digital tools weren't what they were today, I know I'd be here defending my preference of stock.
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
No worries. I wasnt offended, I was just confused. But youre right, I havent worked witht he gold standard. I want to but the transition from 16 to 35 is a bigger leap than I first realized. Largely because I like to own my own gear, not just rent. So it takes a bigger, more expensive camera, bigger more expensive lenses, a much bigger and MUCH more expensive tripod. But film is not much different than digital now in that regard. If you cant afford an Epic, maybe some shoot Scarlet instead? Cant afford 5D, shoot t3i? Some even shoot D21 if not an Alexa? So I guess Im stuck with 16mm for now.
My next project had the option of shooting 35 for a short or shooting S16 for feature. As much as i want to shoot 35, Id take the feature anyday. At least then I have a film that is far more marketable. I know some still luck out with the short/fest route, It hasnt worked so well for me in the past. I get some viewers, some talk, but no deal. Im still in the phase of funding my own work.
I guess in the end we are all brethren in this industry and we should support one another. I started on this forum back in the early-mid 2000s before I made cine.com my mainstay. I still come back and scour the forum to see how some of the old regulars are doing. Despite not agreeing with them on many points (switching to film back then is what made me leave, because many gave me a hard time about it) I still get a smile on my face when I read that someone acquired distribution or some level of success. I love the low budget spirit that many people have. I love how people on this forum dont make excuses or feel they need bloated budgets but just go shoot. I guess I stand in the middle of the road. I dont go all out and feel I need a practically union shoot but I also dont feel comfortable with a project unless I have a certain base level of funding (still pretty low though)
Arthur Love
Member
One thing digital is doing for film is driving costs way down. I can get short ends in 35mm for $0.10/foot, for fresh I can probably negotiate a 1 buy/1 for free with Kodak. Process that for $0.07 a foot. Plus I was able to get a IIC (Kubrik's personal favorite) for less than a 5D. A few years ago this would have been madness. I think at this point though if film can manage to stick it out and settle into these prices, it should survive. How many more people at this point will decide to switch from film to digital? Most of that has already happened. If these prices can hold out, some people may even decide to give film a try. We're at film's lowest point, but if it can stick it out for the next couple years and stabilize itself, I think that it would manage to stay around for the foreseeable future.
I like digital, I love film. If digital is the only option, fine, I'll still shoot because acquisition format is not the most important part of cinematography to me, but I will be truly saddened if film is one day not an option.
I like digital, I love film. If digital is the only option, fine, I'll still shoot because acquisition format is not the most important part of cinematography to me, but I will be truly saddened if film is one day not an option.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I do agree that for a person with the resources available, the cost of used high quality models of film cameras are now sickeningly cheap. I have seen basic Arri S16 SRII packages (Camera body, a couple of 400 foot mags and a couple of batteries, plus, sometimes other doo-dads like extension eyepieces and road cases) around the $5K range (Sometimes less), S16 SRIII basic packages for around $5K-$10K. I have seen Arri BL 1 and BL II (35mm) basic packages for under $10K, sometimes. A good Arri BL IV package, with lots of goodies, can definitely be had for under $20K, maybe very much under. Now these packages never have lenses as part of package prices that low (That I have seen), so that would be an issue to deal with. Aaton S16 basic packages seem to still be hovering around $10K or much more (Especially for XTR Prods). But, still no lenses, usually. I would really, really like to have a S16 Arri SRIII package (Shoot, or even a S16 SRII package). I love the SRs and shot a good bit with them. I think that having one would be a plus, but at this time, putting out even the kind of money that they are going for now would be a huge gamble. I can see ending up in a situation where a buying a high end used film camera could end up nickle and dimeing me to death and I just can't do it. If that is not something that you are concerned with, or you can deal with it, then &%$# it, go for it.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I had a solid 25 years of shooting film up to my (to date) last job with it, additional unit on "Act of Valor" (tellingly, it was a day split between 35mm Panavision and 5D...!). I've accepted the fact that I may never shoot film again. While I may indulge in nostalgia on the odd occasion, it has less to do with the image quality than the LIFESTYLE of shooting film.
Film was a mature medium that didn't have perplexing menus or software bugs or boot-up times or cables back to the village. It required a certain discipline, a set of rituals that simply had to be observed on set. You rehearsed so as not to waste film, you cut when a take was done, you had time to make adjustments during re-loads. On many jobs now, once the camera rolls it stays rolling between takes, often arbitrarily. While I understand in theory that the director and actors can keep the momentum going where it used to get punctuated by slates, many times it wouldn't make any difference to just cut the damn camera once in a while. The progress of digital is, as I mentioned in another recent thread, slowly eroding the control that a DP once had on set and that's just a shame. While it's now possible to expose a night exterior under streetlamps, is the placement of those lamps actually desirable? Just because you can have 10 camera bodies on a show because they are so cheap, are there 10 operators available who share a common vision and aesthetic that serves the final product? So many questions and scenarios have arisen since digital's emergence.
Yes, I miss the thrill of seeing dailies and eventual theatrical projection of glorious 35mm (my first feature in the 90's screened exactly once to a full house and then disappeared into obscurity--but what an exciting night!). I don't miss the fear of getting that lab report indicating scratches or flares, or ripped perfs, or the dreaded hair in the gate after the perfect keeper take. You took the good with the bad. If it were simply an orange replacing an apple, which I am starting to feel is the case with the image quality of the current generation of cameras particularly the Alexa, I wouldn't sweat it. But as to the erosion of the cinematographer's role that is tied to the ever-advancing technology and evolving economics of the industry--bummer, dude. Bummer.
Film was a mature medium that didn't have perplexing menus or software bugs or boot-up times or cables back to the village. It required a certain discipline, a set of rituals that simply had to be observed on set. You rehearsed so as not to waste film, you cut when a take was done, you had time to make adjustments during re-loads. On many jobs now, once the camera rolls it stays rolling between takes, often arbitrarily. While I understand in theory that the director and actors can keep the momentum going where it used to get punctuated by slates, many times it wouldn't make any difference to just cut the damn camera once in a while. The progress of digital is, as I mentioned in another recent thread, slowly eroding the control that a DP once had on set and that's just a shame. While it's now possible to expose a night exterior under streetlamps, is the placement of those lamps actually desirable? Just because you can have 10 camera bodies on a show because they are so cheap, are there 10 operators available who share a common vision and aesthetic that serves the final product? So many questions and scenarios have arisen since digital's emergence.
Yes, I miss the thrill of seeing dailies and eventual theatrical projection of glorious 35mm (my first feature in the 90's screened exactly once to a full house and then disappeared into obscurity--but what an exciting night!). I don't miss the fear of getting that lab report indicating scratches or flares, or ripped perfs, or the dreaded hair in the gate after the perfect keeper take. You took the good with the bad. If it were simply an orange replacing an apple, which I am starting to feel is the case with the image quality of the current generation of cameras particularly the Alexa, I wouldn't sweat it. But as to the erosion of the cinematographer's role that is tied to the ever-advancing technology and evolving economics of the industry--bummer, dude. Bummer.
Arthur Love
Member
The nice thing about lenses is that good PL mount lenses obviously can work with just about any camera out there, so they're a good investment. I already had a zoom and a small russian 35mm prime.
As for prices for cameras, you can get a sync sound monster of a camera for under 5K. Just check out this BL4 package that just sold on the bay.
As for prices for cameras, you can get a sync sound monster of a camera for under 5K. Just check out this BL4 package that just sold on the bay.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Wow, that is sickening. I have never seen a package like that sell for that little. Yes, PL mounts lenses are a great investment, but a set of cinema primes are not going to go for a price like that camera. I still think that investing in a camera package like that is a big gamble. It went for that low of a price for a reason. Supply and demand, ya know.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
"monster of a camera"--you got that right. Close to 40lbs in stripped down mode.
http://www.charlespapert.net/Archive/POVAd-BL4.html
http://www.charlespapert.net/Archive/POVAd-BL4.html
Matthew W Phillips
Active member
Its funny that you should link that package because I was going to buy it when I was still considering making a short instead of a feature. Although it is a great deal, I asked the seller if it came with a battery belt and it doesnt. Kindof wish it had. Also, i was a little weirded out by the auction because he bought that package less than a month ago from Visual Products who had it up before. He actually paid more than his current starting bid? However, I know Visual Products has good stuff so unless dude jacked the camera, it is a good buy.