Have people forgotten what film looks like?

Not trying to bash anybody here, or put down your format of choice, but when I was shooting film, 8mm was roughly the equivalent of say VHS, and what people who couldn't afford 16mm used to shoot their home movies on. 16mm was the format of choice for TV stations to shoot news stories on and for low cost documentaries and distribution. 35mm was the professional format of choice, and it wasn't until the cost of 35mm started to climb and the grain structure on 16mm improved that 16mm was really incorporated in scenarios where 35mm had been used exclusively. As far as the prices on film cameras now, I was one of the lucky ones who sold his film gear back when it was still worth something. Most of it to a film student who had just graduated and had borrowed a huge amount of money from her parents to buy most of my 16mm gear, as my 35mm gear was out of her price range. I kept a Bolex as a desk piece, but I'm really glad I sold when I did seeing how low the prices have fallen on an Arri 35BL, or any film camera for that matter. As far as the look of film goes, yes it can capture magical images. But truth be told I also shot some truly crappy images on film as well. As with any camera, film or digital, the limiting factor to capturing these magical images is directly tied to the talent of the people using the camera.

Thanks for letting an old guy ramble!

Dave
 
David W. Jones said:
As with any camera, film or digital, the limiting factor to capturing these magical images is directly tied to the talent of the people using the camera.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Granted, 35mm has been the "gold" standard for such a long time. And, granted, there are plenty of pieces touted as "cinematic" that don't exactly look like it to me. But let's not fall into the logical error of, "Samples provided on DVXUser don't look like film, therefore digital will never look like film." You can make 35mm film look just like digital, and vice versa. You probably see examples of each every single day, and yet don't realize it.
 
David W. Jones said:
Not trying to bash anybody here, or put down your format of choice, but when I was shooting film, 8mm was roughly the equivalent of say VHS, and what people who couldn't afford 16mm used to shoot their home movies on. 16mm was the format of choice for TV stations to shoot news stories on and for low cost documentaries and distribution. 35mm was the professional format of choice, and it wasn't until the cost of 35mm started to climb and the grain structure on 16mm improved that 16mm was really incorporated in scenarios where 35mm had been used exclusively. As far as the prices on film cameras now, I was one of the lucky ones who sold his film gear back when it was still worth something. Most of it to a film student who had just graduated and had borrowed a huge amount of money from her parents to buy most of my 16mm gear, as my 35mm gear was out of her price range. I kept a Bolex as a desk piece, but I'm really glad I sold when I did seeing how low the prices have fallen on an Arri 35BL, or any film camera for that matter. As far as the look of film goes, yes it can capture magical images. But truth be told I also shot some truly crappy images on film as well. As with any camera, film or digital, the limiting factor to capturing these magical images is directly tied to the talent of the people using the camera.

Thanks for letting an old guy ramble!

Dave
Click to expand...

Thank you Dave....well said.

Coming from an audio background (and being one of the older guys here), it's too bad you have to process film before you can see it. I can track to a digital format, but can run everything through a beautiful 2" 16-track analog tape deck to get that great 'tape compression' sound & feel. It's the best of both worlds!

I started making films on 8mm....then 16mm...razorblade editing and all. Love the look of film & love the look of digital too...in more then a few cases, I've seen a digital production look more like film then film does. (IMHO) To each their own.

Happy New Year everyone!
 
ZazaCast said:
Thank you Dave....well said.

Coming from an audio background (and being one of the older guys here), it's too bad you have to process film before you can see it. I can track to a digital format, but can run everything through a beautiful 2" 16-track analog tape deck to get that great 'tape compression' sound & feel. It's the best of both worlds!

I started making films on 8mm....then 16mm...razorblade editing and all. Love the look of film & love the look of digital too...in more then a few cases, I've seen a digital production look more like film then film does. (IMHO) To each their own.

Happy New Year everyone!
Click to expand...

I have had a varied career. I originally started in audio many years ago as well, working as a DJ in top 10 markets, as a front of house mixer for concerts, an A1 for live TV shows, as well as a field mixer for films. On the visual side I started as an intern at Universal, then as a third AC feeding Mitchell cameras, then a second unit camera operator. Nowadays the majority of my work is narration and voiceover work at a national level, shooting local and regional TV spots, and the occasional audio post work on select documentaries and indie films. By the way, I still have an old Studder tape deck sitting around my studio!

All the Best!

Dave
 
Well, we've certainly forgotten what film looks like OPTICALLY printed from a negative. Everything goes through the DI pipeline, with all it's digital manipulations, which compared with my rapidly fading memory of Film printed optically and projected, is quite a "digital" look since the original negative is DI scanned by CCD sensors.

So the film you see in theatres isn't the film prints of yesteryear. And that optical film print look is most certainly Forgotten and quite dead. Even if you see a 35mm film print of say, SKYFALL, it's basically recorded out by Arri or MDM film shoot cameras from digital sources that have gone through the DI colorists.
 
Doctor Wu said:
So the film you see in theatres isn't the film prints of yesteryear. And that optical film print look is most certainly Forgotten and quite dead. Even if you see a 35mm film print of say, SKYFALL, it's basically recorded out by Arri or MDM film shoot cameras from digital sources that have gone through the DI colorists.
Click to expand...

Odd choice of a movie to use as an example, as Skyfall was completely digital in its production chain.
 
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...

The interesting thing about all of this is how many people actually know what developed film even looks like, when by the time they see a completed film it has undergone grading, cc and possibly other enhancements.

I doubt that many even know what "real film" looks like. So people talk about how the 5D, BMC, [insert other camera here] looks like film I think what they really mean is the ability to emulate a finished film that has going through post-production process.

My 2 cents.
 
maranfilms said:
Mathew, in one breath you make snarky comments to the poster, then two pages later, you do the exact same thing. It's one thing to debate, but another to throw out rude comments. It may be late, but that's no excuse to contradict yourself.

I can't see how anyone would get irritated by someone saying their digital footage looks like film, honestly, who gives a rats ass what people say.

I have a serious question, Are you a first year film student?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I made the same error?

Nonetheless, no, I am not a first year film student. I am ironically a computer science grad student. I might actually understand digital technology better than you do. I respect digital technology for the advances it has made to our modern world and I understand the low level implementations of it. Perhaps its because I understand it, as well as some EE, that I see its shortcomings. So I guess its true that assuming does make asses out of you and me ;)
 
Gary Huff said:
From my experience with computer science degree individuals, that's not exactly a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...

So now you disparage computer science grad students? Wow, you have some ego. I also minored in EE so I assume that accounts for something but I doubt you think so. I realize that anything I say has no meaning here and its a cult of fanboyism, not unlike REDuser. Now I realize why cine.com was my mainstay...not many fanboys there.
 
This book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Silicon-Eye-Swashbucklers-Innovation/dp/0393328414

Talks about the invention of this sensor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_X-Pro1

"The "X-Trans" CMOS sensor uses an irregular pattern of pixels (similar to that found on Silver halide film) in order to reduce moiré without the need for an AA filter."

I hate to think that there are only a couple engineers in the world, but did Canon base the C300 sensor on this technology? People talk about the grain or noise being organic? Odd...
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
So now you disparage computer science grad students? Wow, you have some ego. I also minored in EE so I assume that accounts for something but I doubt you think so. I realize that anything I say has no meaning here and its a cult of fanboyism, not unlike REDuser. Now I realize why cine.com was my mainstay...not many fanboys there.
Click to expand...

Fanboys? What on earth are you talking about...there are so many different opinions here. Some shoot Sony, some shoot Panasonic, some shoot Red, some shoot DSLR, some shoot narrative, some shoot docs, some shoot commercials and some shoot videos. From small chip cams to large sensor cams, a lot of good information, lively discussions, and yes different opinions...you are way off base on this one.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
Philip, I noticed on your profile that you teach? Thats funny because I recall an old saying "those that can do, those that cant teach."
Click to expand...

Very grown-up of you, Matthew. Now you're just name-calling and bragging. That totally helps make your case for you. Works every time.
 
Last edited:
Why do people conflate squeezed orange juice with concentrate; tears of joy and tears of happiness; dvds with blu-rays; records with mp3's; bittorrent and piracy?

Seriously... this is the oddest question ever, makes no sense to me.

Part of being a human being is inferring from your environment qualitative similarities. Who, when they ascribe to digital footage as having the quality "film look", intends on the most fundamental level that they are in some way equal?
Answer: No one.

People will abstract a quality, such as DOF, grain, DR or anything else which reminds them of film, and label digital footage as having the "film look", when comparatively they match on one or more levels. You are taking random empirical observations from others and contorting them into something they're not. Film may be the ideal or platonic form, from which the film look derives, but lesser forms- digital video, still carry enough similarities to justify the association.
 
Gary Huff said:
Very grown-up of you, Matthew. Now you're just name-calling and bragging. That totally helps make your case for you. Works every time.
Click to expand...

Are you serious bro? He makes a remark about EEs making pizzas and Im the one sarcastically being "grown up."

Im done with this thread. Good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top