Is AI the future of film making?

Jon O'Brien · October 19

7 minutes ago, Edith blazek said:

Except, a lot of analog cinematography arguably looks not too dissimilar to digital, anyways, which would point to the culprit being their common factor, that being color grading.

Hire an artist cinematographer and make sure they get to do all the work on the images in post. It's actually very little work in post. Film treated properly, by an artist, looks and feels nothing like video on the big screen. Hire the best people. No problem if you do that.

Tyler Purcell · October 19

24 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I totally understand concerns about spending money, but whenever I raise the topic of increasing quality in Australian movies by shooting on film I get told by producers that "It costs a lot."

There are plenty of great movies shot digitally, that look like film, that don't have any issues due to great stories.

The problem isn't film v digital, the problem is simply caring. If you want your digital movie to look analog, then you have to shoot it in an analog old school way. I've done it successfully with my URSA Cine 12k, looks great! Using printer light grading only and film emulators, you can achieve a very nice look with a drop of a single plugin, takes no time at all.

It's not just the grading, it's also the lighting, lensing, camera movement and use of VFX, which makes the digital shows look so far away from reality. That is a choice they made early on and has really nothing in my opinion to do with the camera body at all. I don't feel the camera original source being 35mm actually means anything if 90% of the film is visual effect shots.

In the end, what we're all after is good stories, made by artists, that are properly lit, properly graded and lack the "squeaky clean" nature of most digital cinematography.

Jon O'Brien · October 19

8 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The problem isn't film v digital, the problem is simply caring. If you want your digital movie to look analog, then you have to shoot it in an analog old school way. .

Yes that would help a lot. But I argue that a percentage of films shot on film help an industry as a whole. If it's all digital it just amounts to a video industry.

Regarding old school, I see so many 'cinematographers' shooting with handheld cameras, or variations on that theme. all the time. Every shot. Every scene. Too lazy to carry and set up a tripod. Lazy filmmaking lowers the quality. Use a tripod! At least half of the time.

Lazy filmmaking: actors just talk to each other. Endless dialogue. The camera operator walks around, with handheld camera or with an easyrig. Boring!!! Boring films.

Edited October 19 by Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien · October 19

And no attempt to learn classic filmmaking, or to be inspired by the cinematography from the past. Just lazy-Joe's iPhone school of boring filmmaking, but with an Alexa 35 on some kind of stick or wire. Low. Quality.

Tyler Purcell · October 19

6 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Yes that would help a lot. But I argue that a percentage of films shot on film help an industry as a whole. If it's all digital it just amounts to a video industry.

Reality is nearly all of the movies shot on film, don't do any post on film. So they're "video" from the moment the film scans are done. They don't cut the negative or even store it properly post edit. I have been to the vaults in California full of camera originals, everything shot on film in the last 40 years and it's all just sitting in a non-climate controlled warehouse in Inglewood. The only thing we will ever see, is the digital file.

I just got the Wes Anderson box set, paid nearly $400 for it because it was 10 of his movies in 4k for the first time. Guess what, the DI films (2004 onward) they were 2k upscaled digital files. No original film scans, just the original 20 year old scans upscaled. That is the future of 95% of movies shot on film today. Nobody is going back to the original negatives, scanning the selects and then restoring the film. If the negative isn't cut, the film elements will never be used. This is why BluRay's of films older than the early 2000's are so good, but nearly all the movies from that time period to nearly present day, are horrible up scales like "Amelie" one of my favorite films, which has one of the worst restorations in history.

Film projection is in a little resurgence, but it's temporary. Repertory theaters will be the last place to play film and that day is coming fast due to bigger theaters moving over to LED. Once they figure out perforated OLED screens, it's over. Then it will just be like being at home watching a BluRay, just what everyone wants right?

6 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Regarding old school, I see so many 'cinematographers' shooting with handheld cameras, or variations on that theme. all the time. Every shot. Every scene. Too lazy to carry and set up a tripod. Lazy filmmaking lowers the quality. Use a tripod! At least half of the time.

Gimbal is the new toy, that's what nearly everything apparently is being shot with these days.

I don't think it's laziness, it's just the new fad. Like steadicam's were for along time. I got tired of that fad, then got my own and fell in love with them. I shot a lot on steadicam with my film cameras, it's a great tool. It's really just down to the look you're after. I still prefer dolly and crane/jib arms for most shots. It's just impossible in some locations to use them, so the only real way around that is hand held or gimbal. People ask me all the time if they can put their film cameras on gimbals.

6 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Lazy filmmaking: actors just talk to each other. Endless dialogue. The camera operator walks around, with handheld camera or with an easyrig. Boring!!! Boring films.

Yea, that doesn't sound like a good time. lol

Mark Dunn · October 19

5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

They don't cut the negative or even store it properly post edit. I

On a music video recently (I played "tech looking at film on a light box in the Steenbeck room") they actually had me running the neg from an earlier shoot on the Steenbeck.😱 I was taught that you don't run neg on anything except a printer.

These young chaps (late 30s?) had already scanned it so it didn't have any significance for them per se.

Still a treat to be on a 16mm. shoot though. Took me a coupla seconds to recognise the 416 through all the wires.

Edited October 19 by Mark Dunn

Tyler Purcell · October 19

7 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:

These young chaps (late 30s?) had already scanned it so it didn't have any significance for them per se.

Especially on a music video.

I have no idea how many projects of raw material we have on storage here from customers who never picked it up. At least 50 pizza boxes, maybe more. I haven't counted in a while.

In the end, the only people who seem to care about their negatives are the guys doing features. They tend to pick it up when we're done scanning. But for smaller things, like one or two rolls, nobody seems to care.

Heck, I have 2 huge home movie restoration jobs in multiple boxes (8mm/S8mm) and the clients don't want the original film. I have asked them and they keep pushing it off. Kinda sad.

Jon O'Brien · October 19

17 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Reality is nearly all of the movies shot on film, don't do any post on film. So they're "video" from the moment the film scans are done.

Doesn't matter if the thing turns into a video if it was first shot on film. It still looks just like film if the right person does the post work on it. The thing is, do we want to save movies? Who cares what most people in the industry do? I couldn't care less. All I know is that cinema is dying and almost no one I speak to has any idea why. I keep getting told that it doesn't matter what you shoot the movie on but that is wrong. It does matter. Casablanca, Gladiator, Bladerunner, Alien, Picnic at Hanging Rock, The Man from Snowy River, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Lighthouse, Far from the Madding Crowd, Once Upon a Time in the West, The French Connection, La la Land, Maria, The Elephant Man, Ryan's Daughter, ... none of these would have been as good if they'd been shot as videos.

Jon O'Brien · October 19

I get it that people are in love with video. Yeah, they love it. But it's a different thing. Digital will never be able to shake that video feel. Deal with it.

Tyler Purcell · October 19

28 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

All I know is that cinema is dying and almost no one I speak to has any idea why.

I mean it's down to the filmmaking process and the storytelling.

Is "Skyfall" worse than the other bond films because it was shot on digital? How about "Roma", "Birdman", "Sicario", "1917" and "Joker"? You can make good movies on digital cinema, I would argue the work Greg Fraser did on Dune 2 was exceptional. There are hundreds of great movies made on digital cinema, films we will look back on like the list you made and they will withstand the test of time.

Jon O'Brien · October 20

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Is "Skyfall" worse than the other bond films because it was shot on digital? How about "Roma", "Birdman", "Sicario", "1917" and "Joker"? You can make good movies on digital cinema, I would argue the work Greg Fraser did on Dune 2 was exceptional. There are hundreds of great movies made on digital cinema, films we will look back on like the list you made and they will withstand the test of time.

Skyfall was good. I've always said you can make good movies on digital cinema. I wonder though how much work had to be spent on Skyfall in post to make it look good. I also wonder why they went back to film for the next two (or was it three) since most people in the audience wouldn't know or care. Is it because of the prestige or elitism of film? Easier to use to get a certain look and feel (or 'vibe') onscreen? Digital is fine ... I keep saying that. For some reason some seem to think I want to go back to 100% film, which of course will never happen. I think directors, producers, investors and cinematographers, specifically, need to realise that film for many projects is the much better choice. That's it. It's so obviously true. And AI won't save the movies, that's for sure.

Tyler Purcell · October 20

1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I think directors, producers, investors and cinematographers, specifically, need to realise that film for many projects is the much better choice. That's it. It's so obviously true. And AI won't save the movies, that's for sure.

I honestly don't think it matters if it's just going to be de-noised, re-grained and presented on digital only. The amount of post manipulation ruins any movie shot on film anyway.

Mark Dunn · October 20

14 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Especially on a music video.

I have no idea how many projects of raw material we have on storage here from customers who never picked it up. At least 50 pizza boxes, maybe more. I haven't counted in a while.

In the end, the only people who seem to care about their negatives are the guys doing features. They tend to pick it up when we're done scanning. But for smaller things, like one or two rolls, nobody seems to care.

Heck, I have 2 huge home movie restoration jobs in multiple boxes (8mm/S8mm) and the clients don't want the original film. I have asked them and they keep pushing it off. Kinda sad.

Fortunately it was a MOS shoot or they would have recorded my squeaks of anguish as I cut 😱and spliced 😩OCN.

At least being so fresh and unshrunk it ran nice and quiet on the Steenbeck. The older stuff can rattle a bit.

Edited October 20 by Mark Dunn

Tyler Purcell · October 20

9 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:

Fortunately it was a MOS shoot or they would have recorded my squeaks of anguish as I cut 😱and spliced 😩OCN.

OH NO! 😞

Jon O'Brien · October 20

22 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The amount of post manipulation ruins any movie shot on film anyway.

The "it doesn't matter" attitude. It really does matter.

If you want a real film look, and you shoot on film, it's 100 % possible to easily get this look for any movie.

I could get a look for a digitally scanned film-shot movie that would be so close to film projection it would be stunning.

And anyone else could get this too *if they cared*!

The correct thing to say, the truth in other words, is that the amount of post manipulation ruins *some* movies shot on film.

Because ultimately one can only assume the final look reflects the taste of the director.

Jon O'Brien · October 20

Rembember, again, what we're trying to do. We're trying to get away from digital. The digital look. The digital work flow. Bring real filmmaking back into filmmaking. Making movies as much as possible in-camera instead of on-screen.

That's easily doable.

Don't give up and say "the industry doesn't do it that way anymore."

Well, who cares what 'the industry' does anymore? Cause it's failing.

Tyler Purcell · October 21

44 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Well, who cares what 'the industry' does anymore? Cause it's failing.

But the industry is failing due to lack of originality.

Originality is risky for distributors, unless it comes at SUCH A LOW COST, it's impossible for it to fail.

So you see a lot of very "original" low budget films, because in that space it's easier and they can't afford to pay for top actors, production value or for the matter, film. So many of those movies go by the wayside, even though they're clever and well made.

This year, the US market had one successful high budget original film that was produced by a studio AND made a lot of money; Sinners. It was purposely shot 2 stops under exposed and looks horrible in the theaters on film prints. Suddenly the whole concept of film > film release, failed spectacularly. "One Battle After Another" is going to be a financial failure for Warner, even though it will probably win most of the awards in 2026. Now Warner will be more risk adverse on their next big "original" film.

I still think the studios funding smaller productions, (sub $10M budgets) makes WAY more sense. Then if the film is really good, they can choose to market heavily or not. When they have $150M invested, they have to market, which means the total amount spent is 2 - 3x the budget.

So yea, I don't think the problems in the industry today have much if anything to do with acquisition and distribution.

Karim D. Ghantous · October 21

IMHO, digital doesn't need to look like film. Those old Red Epic cameras produce a wonderful image. No need for special LUTs, nevermind the grain overlays.

I don't do anything to my RAW photo files except corrections (vignetting, exposure, etc.). I don't feel the need to do anything else. Why would I? What's the point? If it looks good, it looks good.

My favourite capture medium in terms of native look is Portra 800, FWIW.

Jon O'Brien · October 21

5 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

IMHO, digital doesn't need to look like film. Those old Red Epic cameras produce a wonderful image. No need for special LUTs, nevermind the grain overlays.

I don't do anything to my RAW photo files except corrections (vignetting, exposure, etc.). I don't feel the need to do anything else. Why would I? What's the point? If it looks good, it looks good.

My favourite capture medium in terms of native look is Portra 800, FWIW.

I actually applaud your attitude about the look of digital. If people love it, and if audiences love it, then great.

I bloody hate the look, and literally couldn't stand the look of The Hobbit movies, shot on a RED. I go through life hoping to meet (in real life) others who adore the film look. Because, man, where I am, it feels like film died a long and drawn out death a long, long, long, long time ago. It's all video here, up here in Qld, from festival, to screen organisation, to local friends who do filmmaking for a hobby on the weekends. I am the last man of film where I am. It's not about money. They honestly are in love with video and have eyes and ears for nothing else.

Edited October 21 by Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien · October 21

22 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

But the industry is failing due to lack of originality ...

I don't think originality or lack of it is the problem. The best stories told are as old as the hills, literally. It's the little variations on well-told stories that make those stories continually entertaining for new generations down through the ages. Star Wars: a nobody farmboy who everyone in his local town thinks is a total dropkick turns out to be the son of the region's major political and military leader. Off he goes on his adventures and ends up contronting his dad in an epic battle. That is such a simple and obvious story.

It's how we tell stories that's the critical thing. The stories themselves aren't original. That's the reality that shocks and depresses young people who want to forge new and exciting careers based on being original, but they're chasing something that can't be. The more timeless the story, the more it's been told before. Young filmmakers keep saying to each other "only the story is important." That's rubbish. It's how you tell the story. Each story becomes different because of the characters involved. That's the humanity of filmmaking.

My view is just make what you want to make. Don't try to be original. If you do that in art you won't fail to make something original, or that has your own personal stamp on it, because it's sincere ... it's a part of you. You didn't try to make something to please someone else or to prove a point. Conversely, in my opinion, many people really try to be original and fail. Just do what you like and something original will result, if you are good at what you do.

Jon O'Brien · October 21

It's the same with things like camera style, or what you do with the camera beyond pressing 'run' or 'record'.

Camera operators want to be 'original.' So they put in suave moves. Steadicam, crane, things on long automated arms swirling around. It's boring! In food it's like too much cornstarch or whatever condiment added.

Do less! Look at old movies.

Karim D. Ghantous · October 22

3 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Do less! Look at old movies.

Hitchcock was disciplined with the camera, particularly in Psycho.

Jon O'Brien · October 22

Wonderful, wonderful cinematography in Psycho. Love it! I especially love those scenes when she's driving in the car, and of course many other memorable bits. Love that Bates Motel sign as it comes into view past the windscreen wipers and the rain. Fantastic movie that blows anything in the last 10 years at the cinema totally out of the water.

Tyler Purcell · October 22

7 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

It's how we tell stories that's the critical thing.

Correct, that's what I mean by originality. It's the whole picture from cast to locations, from music composition to cinematography, it all plays a role.

You have to trail-blaze in every department, you can't do what everyone else is doing within the framework of the genre/story/characters and even budgets. To make your product stand out, it has to be thought out.

7 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

My view is just make what you want to make. Don't try to be original. If you do that in art you won't fail to make something original, or that has your own personal stamp on it, because it's sincere ... it's a part of you. You didn't try to make something to please someone else or to prove a point. Conversely, in my opinion, many people really try to be original and fail. Just do what you like and something original will result, if you are good at what you do.

Depends on what you're making.

If it's for you, then there is no discussion, do whatever you want. Some of the best art is made this way, but very little of it is available to the public. So it really depends on what you're after honestly. If the idea is to become a successful filmmaker with real eyes on your content, then it is about risk taking and jumping off some pretty high cliffs in order to create something actually original for a purpose. Maybe it's a controversial subject or character. Maybe your interpretation of the material is radically different and deserves the time/effort. In the end, most of us just want our art seen, we want people to enjoy what we labor for. If it's locked up in some far away place or unwatchable due to some unique method of viewing, then it's really just for artist and not the public. I guess making that decision up front, is part of the creative process. I can't imagine spending time and money on creating something and not making it public.

Edited October 22 by Tyler Purcell

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. · October 28

OP...

Same way digital killed film. AI will kill digital production, at least to some degree. The only question is the amount that is under the axe.

I have YouTube on 5 to 8 hours a day. I generally don't watch it, I listen to it like podcasts. AI had already made a big difference in the content there. Some channels just type up or have AI type up a script and AI makes a video to match it.

AI short

AI%20on%20YouTube%20D.D.Teoli%20Jr.%20A.