Why film can be the most economical way to shoot today

F

frankoferko

Active member
Hello there, good DVX people, so I have been working with standard 8 and Super 8 film first, then 16mm and Super 16 film cameras using both reversal and negative stock, and a little bit with good old 4-perforation 35mm Arriflex.

For the film stock, used anywhere from 25 ASA (13 DIN) ultra low sensitivy color reversal stock to 90 ASA 16mm negative, all the way to the current crop of 500 ASA Eastman and Fujicolor stocks that can be easily pushed 2x stops in processing. Also used East German ORWO, Italian Ferraniacolor, USSR Sochicolor, both West German and East German Agfacolor film stocks, and not long ago even used some of the Soviet stocks that is still being mfr'd today at one small place in Russia.

I am involved in film production for television, and came to the realization recently that until the digital camera/camcorder solidifies in maybe 5 to 10 years, it is still a lot more sensible and economical to shoot on film. Why?

1. When you shoot on film, you will not need to shoot 200 hours of material for a dramatic feature that will be cut down to 100 minutes. In fat, since you are paying for the film stock whether the take is good or bad, you are going to be much more careful. We usually shoot 8-10 hours for a 100 minute finished show, so that is a pretty decent shooting ratio.

2. We use Super 16 gauge because it transfer very well by a Lasergraphics 2K scan. In fact, I just had some 18-years old negative scanned in again at 3K resolution, wanted to see the difference. Well, due to the great new scanning technology, the 3K scan from S16 really looked great in 3K. It kicked over to 4K using the Cineform Studio Premium very nicely. So, even though we shot the stuff 18 years ago -- now, if I wanted to, I could re-can the footage (edited neg roll) at 3K resolution, and then with a very mild Cineform 4K upscaling, will have a 4K DI variant ready for 4K distribution.

If you had shot the stuff on video tape 18 years ago, you probably could not derive a decent quality 4K resolution video master from it today, I suspect.

3. Optics for film cameras are the best made out there, bar none. And they do not have to be brand new, either. Legacy lenses are great, well up to an extent. Great thing on shooting on film and the scanning in right away for a DI workflow is that you are enjoying the tremendous benefits of having your master-master on film -- yet benefiting from all the great advances of digital post production and mastering.

4. Film laboratories have seen a drop in business, so they will treat you very nicely as a customer, and cut you a great price. Same thing with the folks doing scanning (usually the same facility that develops the footage).

5. When it comes time to sell your show, you can always state that it was "SHOOT ON FILM" -- that still means something. After all, I never heard of anyone shooting with a film camera because they claim they want to achieve that "coveted video look."

There are many more reasons, but this should get the ball rolling.

Regarding the GAUGES/FORMATS:

If I could go back in time, I would not have shot anything on regular 8mm, and probably extremely little on Super 8. I had some of my 35-40 years old material scanned recently, and even with all the post production/restoration massaging, the old film stock of that size is just not cutting it today for anything else but that good old home movies look. Also scanned in my 16mm footage -- looking great at 1600 x 1200 and 1920 x 1080.

I am not recommending shooting anything on regular 16mm today, either, due to the non wide screen aspect ratio. So, it is either Super 16 at 1.66:1 or else Ultra 16 at 1.85:1 AR. As I never shut Ultra 16, so I cannot comment on it much.

The only 35mm type that can be economically used as compared to S16 is 2-perf 35mm. At present time, I only know the Aaton Penelope that shoots reliable 2-perf 35. But if you had watched the movie "The Fighter," you'll know that the image quality is not all that much better with 2-perf 35 than with S16. it is only to be used when you are shooting in 2.35/2.39:1 AR Scope (we never do).

http://www.aaton.com/products/film/penelope/index.php

For S16 work, I would recommend renting the latest models from Aaton or Arri -- the Xtera or the 416.

http://www.aaton.com/products/film/xtera/index.php

http://www.arri.com/camera/film_cameras/16_mm_film/arriflex_416416_plus.html

Regarding the CAMERA FRAME RATE:

If I could go back in time, I would not have shot anything using the standard 8mm film's 16 fps and Super 8's 18 fps frame rate. Instead, I would have shot everything at 24 fps. As it happens, I did shoot some 8mm at 24 fps, and of course all of my 16mm stock was acquired at 24 fps, fortunately.
 
1. This is also personal shooting style. I worked on a short about a year ago where my scheduled only allowed for exactly enough time to get the shots we needed, and the location tended to get windy and rainy without warning. It rained about ten minutes after the last take. I shot almost no coverage, recorded multiple takes only when necessary and ended up with the same ratio I probably would get on film. Though I do see the point.

2. That seems like a good argument, depending on the project. I would question how much that would cost today compared to renting a high end digital camera, but I don't know the answer. This doesn't seem totally relevent for today's needs and resources.

3. Adapters can get almost any lens you want onto a digital camera of some kind.

4. True, though kind of sad for people who spent many years getting that expertise.

5. Also true. This is the only point you've made that I think is strongly worth considering. Marketing matters, and perceived value is an extremely important concept. It does depend on your audience. Some people will respond better knowing you used an HDSLR rather than anything else, whereas a very large number of (mostly not film educated) arthouse types will flock to anyone who shoots film over the alternatives. You have to know your market for every decision, because every decision and every step on a project is marketing related.

I'm not trying to argumentative here, and I totally support people using film. Personally, I always found it to be much more fun than digital, but I can't really qualify what that means or how it helps the project. There is a nice look that it brings as well, but if that look is nice or not depends entirely on what is appropriate for any particular project.
 
1. You can have the same exact shooting ratio using SDXC cards than if you are shooting on 65mm film negatives.... but based on recent historical experience, that is hardly ever the case. In fact, I would say that historically digital shooters are over-covering absolutely everything, primarily since the media they use and the post processing of it once it is out of the camera is totally dirt cheap compared to film based acquisition. Also, film cameras usually do not have a "DELETE LAST CLIP" button on them unfortunately.

2. When it comes to renting camera body and accessories and shooting with a high-end digital camera today versus film, if you check the rental rates in NYC, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, LA, etc. with Panavision, Abel Cine, Band Pro, etc, you will find that a high-end digital film camera will cost you about 4x as much to rent as a 35mm motion picture film camera, and about 5-6 times as much as a Super 16 film camera rental would come to. lenses will be about the same for S35 digital or 35 film, whereas lenses for S16 will be markedly less pricey. Now, for those shooter for whom money is absolutely no object and the cost of acquisition or rental is a a non-issue, I would say go right ahead, forget the film route and use nothing but Panavision Genesis, Sony CineAlta F65, and Arri Alexa Blue. Or at the very least with a Red Epic. They may be pricey, but they are definitely chic with the in-crowd.

3. You can adapt the bottom of a soda water bottle to any camera's front-side with an adapter, that is true.... however, probably a good 95 percent of these forced adaptions of one type of lens to a different type of camera for which the lens was actually designed for make very little sense optically.

4. No worries for the lab people, post production in general is blooming, and there are still probably tens of millions of meters of exposed and edited motion picture film to be scanned in and restored in this world.

5. I am not following you here at all, Cassius. Personally, I do not make stuff for markets or even directly for the whims of a particular audience, let alone festivals, I merely meant to say that when you make something TO BE SOLD, then YOUR BUYER is the one who may be impressed a tad if you had originated on film. Of course, since it is rather rare that film shooters try to achieve a distinct "video look," whereas many videographers top this day are still aiming for that still coveted "film look," I would say you as the maker/producer of the show will have a very much easier time in selling a film-originated show, merely because it will look so much better than anything you could have recorded digitally.

I never considered shooting on film to be fun, in fact it can be darn right difficult. I also think that probably within 5 to 10 years, the quality of the footage that a digital camera/camcorder can record will start to achieve the level of motion picture film stock. One main reason for this will be that whereas film stock and emulsion is not really developed all that much any more by Eastman and Fuji for better and better emulsions, there is always something new being developed in the digital domain. Eventually, they will catch up to film, I am almost dead certain about that now.
 
frankoferko said:
1. When you shoot on film, you will not need to shoot 200 hours of material for a dramatic feature that will be cut down to 100 minutes. In fat, since you are paying for the film stock whether the take is good or bad, you are going to be much more careful. We usually shoot 8-10 hours for a 100 minute finished show, so that is a pretty decent shooting ratio.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with shooting on film or digital. John Ford was famous for rarely shooting more than 2 takes (and not always shooting the second take). Stanley Kubrick famously shot dozens of takes. Charlie Chaplin worked out gags, character, story by shooting miles of film. Mack Sennett loathed any wasted penny, especially if it was shot on an extra foot of film. Both shot film, digital didn't exist for them.

You want to see a really economical film maker? Shoot with a director who was trained by the Soviets. They were in the habit of not shooting anything that was not expected to wind up in the final release. Good quality film was just to expensive to waste on coverage, and those habits continue to come down to Russian film makers today.

Some film makers just don't want a lot of extra stuff to fret over. Some film makers just want to have a lot of options. Some film makers don't see the need to wear their cast & crew down or waste time/effort/money if they don't have to. Some film makers just want to give their cast & crew another chance to do it better.

frankoferko said:
3. Optics for film cameras are the best made out there, bar none. And they do not have to be brand new, either. Legacy lenses are great, well up to an extent. Great thing on shooting on film and the scanning in right away for a DI workflow is that you are enjoying the tremendous benefits of having your master-master on film -- yet benefiting from all the great advances of digital post production and mastering.
Click to expand...

You can use these same lenses on modern digital cinema cameras. A digital Arri, Phantom, Red, Sony, etc with a PL mount will use the same lenses as a film Aaton, Arri, Panavision, etc with a PL mount. As others have mentioned, there are adapters to take most any camera to most any lens. You could probably adapt any Super 16 lens to, say, a Black Magic Pocket Cinema camera without very much effort or additional expense. Or you can use the P+S Technik digital magazine on your Arri SR and convert the camera itself from Super 16 film to Super 16 digital.

frankoferko said:
4. Film laboratories have seen a drop in business, so they will treat you very nicely as a customer, and cut you a great price. Same thing with the folks doing scanning (usually the same facility that develops the footage).
Click to expand...

Some labs always had good pricing. Some labs always had great service. Some labs have never had either. Most of them are now out of business, regardless of their pricing or service. Those labs that remain seem to me to have the same pricing & service policies that they always had.

frankoferko said:
5. When it comes time to sell your show, you can always state that it was "SHOOT ON FILM" -- that still means something. After all, I never heard of anyone shooting with a film camera because they claim they want to achieve that "coveted video look."
Click to expand...

Nobody who matters really cares how you shot it. They only care about the market value and the quality of the end result. Nobody will buy a crappy show just because it was shot on film. Nobody will refuse a great show just because it wasn't. And the audience, the people who really matter, they don't care at all.

Would you see or not see the "Amour" or "Beasts of the Southern Wild" or "Avatar" or "Iron Man 3" simply because it's shot on film or digital? Because is't shot on Kodak or Fuji film? Because it's shot on Red or Arri digital? Funny, I wouldn't either.

Many will grudgingly pay an extra $2 or $3 to see the film in 3D or Imax, but many will not. Hardly anyone will pay extra to see it projected on scratched, dirty, faded, film (because your beautiful, shimmering, pristine print will start to accumulate scratches, dirt and fade the first time you project it, but your DCP won't ever get scratched, dirty or fade).

I can't believe that any film maker wants me to watch their baby on a scratched, dirty, faded print. I've seen some beautiful restorations on great digital projection, I can only imagine that these long dead film auteurs would have demanded digital projection if it had been an option for distribution in the 1920s or 1940s. Old school film makers like Robert Altman and Sidney Lumet were very happy to shoot their last films digitally.

In the last couple of years, I've seen films like "Intolerance", "Wings", "Lawrence of Arabia", "2001" and "The Godfather" in beautiful DCPs. I can't imagine that if Griffith, Wellman, Lean, Kubrick or Coppola had the option to distribute their films on DCP or film that any of them would choose film.

Film makers like Michael Mann, Robert Altman, George Lucas and Sidney Lumet embraced digital. Film makers like Spielberg, Allen, Anderson and Tarantino still
embrace film. Who cares? The quality of the end result is based on the quality of the story telling, not on the medium of digital or film.
 
it'll be interesting to see when these debates finally drift into the past.

in lieu of beating dead horses, my take is quite brief:


- If you have the resources, whether they be cost, time, crew, etc..., then film is always worth considering, because with the proper resources, it can look of course fantastic.

- If you have fewer than ideal resources, then digital, is far easier to get a great look from with those fewer resources.


and just a for instance... i'm working on a ultra low, director's paying with credit card debt kind of feature. it's also a Noir, shot mostly at night, with many exteriors. being ULB, proper resources are not at our disposal, just my beloved canon C100, which helps in the light department, pretty much making this project possible. Kicker? this director HATES any sort of narrow DOF, making superspeed lenses, not an option. I can't imagine pulling this off with any other sensor/film that can make it work with measley battery powered led lights on the run.
 
I am always impressed with clips shot on Film in a cinematographer's / filmmaker's reel. Besides the great quality, it kind of gives me the impression that this is someone who really knows filmmaking, and not some kid who just got a 5D for Xmas.
 
EDV said:
I am always impressed with clips shot on Film in a cinematographer's / filmmaker's reel. Besides the great quality, it kind of gives me the impression that this is someone who really knows filmmaking, and not some kid who just got a 5D for Xmas.
Click to expand...

Just as much crap has been shot on film as digital.
 
Just as much crap has been shot on film as digital.
Click to expand...
arniepix said:
If not more. It's been around for well over a century, after all.
Click to expand...
The creation of content in the digital age is quickly eclipsing all the content created through the entire analog age. I think we've already hit the tipping point with digital photos and videos. That's not to say the content is any better, but there is definitely way more of it being made every day now.
 
For a long time, Film used to be the medium of professionals, sophisticated amateurs, or rich people. Today, anyone with an iphone or a DSLR can "fool around" with moving images. A huge boom for independent filmmaking, along with a deluge of inferior content.
 
EDV said:
For a long time, Film used to be the medium of professionals, sophisticated amateurs, or rich people.
Click to expand...

No, film was what everybody used!
From big screen movies, to TV news footage, to home movies.

Remember at one time there were no portable video cameras that normal folks could buy.

I guess I'm showing my age here, as my first camera was a Quaker Oatmeal box pinhole camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top