Democratization of cinema?

[Jon O'Brien]

Did the idea of democratization of cinema turn, over time, into a stick to whack film with?

It's great if filmmakers like film, or are 'for' film, or at least think film is really nice but they actually shoot digital themselves for whatever reason.

But what if you encounter people, and sometimes filmmaking groups, that, well, I can't really say it any other way, are anti-film?

They don't like the stuff. They only want digital filmmaking to exist.

Has anyone encountered this? You see it when someone reacts negatively when the topic of shooting on film is raised. "Film is undemocratic. It's elitist."

Yes, some people say that. I got told that, again, the other day. This is art we're talking about. Oils and brushes are elitist, but airbrushes are for one and all??

It's a mediocracy.

[Simon Wyss]

Maybe you’re paying too much attention to what’s being said. Look what’s being done, that is fruitfuller. More fruitful

If someone exposes film with an Eyemo, a tripod, and some accessory out in the wilderness or without tripod amidst people at a street rally, there is nothing elitist about it. Even less elitist is to develop in spiral reels, print, project. Those who look down on filmers are simply jealous. We have a forum member making home movies with an Arriflex 235, nothing elitist about it. Let the malicious tongues alone. As someone had coined once: come to where the flavor is.

[Max Field]

I am pro-film look. Film look really shines when stuffing the image with extreme highlights or color. If we are able to digitally emulate that 1:1 then I don't mind celluloid film disappearing forever. Problem is there are very tiny aspects of this that we are a ways away on.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

If celluloid disappears -assuming we get the same look (I seriously doubt it) , we will still lose a way of creating art, by virtue of being patient with your takes, making every shot count and having a well oiled crew supporting this creation, this alone creates different movies, even without the look.

Over the centuries the introduction of automation and/or simplification was accompanied with the loss of the artisan methodology and by extension the loss of cultural heritage.

Look at the glass artisans in Italy and other places - and how much they are revered - yes you can automate all that, but it's really not the same.

One of the best types of bread at the moment are really variations of the sourdough, which basically means following a really old methodology, guess which bakeries make the most dough? (Pun also intended)

Yes, we can be cynics, all whataboutists and talk about the end of the horse and the car, and the manure that used to be on the streets of Manhattan before the Model T, but not all things are created equally.

I maintain that what Eastman Kodak makes in their factories is a significant cultural monument in motion (pun intended).

In the meantime the digital disruptors are being disrupted by AI.

Edited October 15 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Tyler Purcell]

Yes, nearly every group outside of film-specific groups, treats film like it's an elitist money grab. That you're shooting on film because you drive a Bentley and live in a multi-million dollar mansion in the Hollywood hills, snubbing "the little guy" when they shoot on their digital cameras. 

In the end, I think it's mostly jealousy which causes them to get so upset. 

I work with a lot of young filmmakers who have purchased their first motion picture film camera, having shot digital their entire life up to that point. I generally go through the cameras with them and help get them configured to be used properly. So the interest is there, but I feel many bite the bullet without understanding the direct cost, as if they got the camera to "join the club" only. They'll shoot lots of social media content about one little project they shot on film and utilize that for months maybe years. Reality is, those filmmakers never leave digital behind, they just got film in order to help market themselves and learn a new skill. For sure a good thing, but at the same time, it seems slightly disingenuous. 

[Jon O'Brien]

Yes, in the meantime, things aren't looking quite so rosy for total digital creation. Question marks everywhere.

It's the digital revolution, back again, with an interesting twist. Ask not for whom it comes.

 

 

Edited October 16 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

Some news that's not really surprising, but good news anyway:

https://ymcinema.com/2025/10/19/oscars-2026-film-cameras-vs-digital/?fbclid=IwY2xjawNiV59leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHgXsmJ7lIycVfQxPIRJFOF21brgvGi3fItjrQv_yn9dvbvqYPOPRcDop6Hhb_aem_d7SJhhPfJIufnS9mBW-HIg

This development makes sense to me. Either shoot the thing on film or just use a tiny little digital camera. Well, if you want to use a big chunky digital camera go for it but soon there won't be much difference between a phone camera and a big digital 'cinema' camera. The digital revolution like all revolutions is now starting to eat its own. So get out of digital as much as you can. As Simon said, go to where the flavor is.

Edited October 19 by Jon O'Brien

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Some news that's not really surprising, but good news anyway:

Yea it's a good year for film. 

[Hannes Famira]

For those of you interested in the post capabilities in emulating film look etc there are interesting conversations going on in the Lift Gamma Gain forum: https://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/data-based-emulation-of-long-discontinued-film-stocks.19549/

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

On 10/15/2025 at 10:28 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

I work with a lot of young filmmakers who have purchased their first motion picture film camera, having shot digital their entire life up to that point.

I was one of these people - started of with the HVX-200 and mostly bigger camera rentals afterwards and finally with the A7S + 4K recorder and the Fuji XT-3 for my own stuff.

For stills I started switching mostly back to film about 10 years ago, but now fully switched, other than some favours for friends here and there.

I started with 16mm this year and I don't want to shoot digital video ever again, unless for some favours again and I am selling my A7s + E mount lenses. 

Either you do it, or you don't. 

On a different tangent there's a Steven Yedlin page on film vs digital  (DP of "Knifes Out") with a (seemingly) quantitative approach that irks me to death on the levels of wrong his methodology has, in light of the fact that he's quite competent as a person (which makes it even more problematic).

And I hugely respect Mr. Deakins - despite not necessarily agreeing with all his positions - for not favouring "emulations" or "vintageness" - because  a) why would you? and b) Why don't you shoot film then, it's not like data is cheaper!

 

 

 

 

 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

2 hours ago, Hannes Famira said:

For those of you interested in the post capabilities in emulating film look etc there are interesting conversations going on in the Lift Gamma Gain forum: https://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/data-based-emulation-of-long-discontinued-film-stocks.19549/

Of course not a single moving image

They all (ok, ok not all) sit around all day talking LUTs -- there's another thread were a guy shows an admittedly impressive color matching algo/approach he made up, grew bored after the nth page, it's all synthetic - yea, we all utilize the niceness of digital tools, we love our Resolves and FocusRite calibrated monitors and fast Ethernet, blah blah - but it like one big geekfest, with the ultimate goal being control on the image, emulation, emulation and reproduction and emulation of reproduction.

It's never about interpretation, which is what an artist does.

[Tyler Purcell]

26 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Either you do it, or you don't. 

Until you don't get back anything due to a lab, film or camera/lens issue after spending thousands of dollars. 

That's why Deakins gave up film, amongst other things related to inconsistencies. 

I'm as big of a film guy as you can get, it is my entire life. However, I understand why if there is money on the line, it can be risky. 

It depends on what you shoot, if you're doing "art" then sure, film is perfect. If you're out there to capture a moment in real time, that may only exist once and you care about the finished result, then it's challenging. 

We have done plenty of film-only shoots, but we switched to hybrid in 2022 and got WAY better results. We did a single all-film shoot this winter and one roll didn't come out at all, nothing on it. So we lost the critical "A" roll from the shoot. Was it worth spending thousands of dollars on a film only shoot for the street cred, just to not get anything?  It's problems like that, which make it challenging for ALL experienced photographers and filmmakers. 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

15 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Until you don't get back anything due to a lab, film or camera/lens issue after spending thousands of dollars. 

I know and I've already had this happen during the testing phase (three times) - all my fault really due to ignorance - I wouldn't blame someone shooting digital for the consistency, intrinsic look, or necessity - it's the constant and persistent obsession with emulation and sour grapes attitude toward film that irks me.

I think Deakins really prefers the digital look, it's his choice, he wants to see what the eyes can see (not sure how I can interpret that).

Between 2002-2013 roughly almost all BBC documentaries on wildlife and science which where or course digitally shot on a range from Digibeta/DVC-PRO to HDCAM had a certain look that I really loved and it wasn't just the color correction, kind of miss that era really - maybe it was because it wasn't that sharp, I need to find an example...

Edited October 20 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Jon O'Brien]

3 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I know and I've already had this happen during the testing phase (three times) - all my fault really due to ignorance - I wouldn't blame someone shooting digital for the consistency, intrinsic look, or necessity - it's the constant and persistent obsession with emulation and sour grapes attitude toward film that irks me.

I think Deakins really prefers the digital look, it's his choice, he wants to see what the eyes can see (not sure how I can interpret that).

Between 2002-2013 roughly almost all BBC documentaries on wildlife and science which where or course digitally shot on a range from Digibeta/DVC-PRO to HDCAM had a certain look that I really loved and it wasn't just the color correction, kind of miss that era really - maybe it was because it wasn't that sharp, I need to find an example...

If that's the situation with Mr Deakins, well, my respect for him has really gone up. If you like video, own your video look and vibe. Revel in it. Embrace it. Be artistically honest. Stop trying to kid yourself you shoot on film. Because, baby, if you've got a video camera, what you do is video.

Suck it up princesses. 

If you shoot with a video camera, you make videos. You are a videographer.

If you use an Alexa 35 or a Venice or a BM 12K or 17K, doesn't matter what, you are a videomaker. Your footage is video. That's exactly what Bladerunner 2049 looks and feels like. A video.

Be happy about it!

Film shooters are happy with what they do, so take a leaf out of their book. We would never, ever, attempt to make our film footage look like video footage.

Edited October 20 by Jon O'Brien

[Tyler Purcell]

4 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I know and I've already had this happen during the testing phase (three times) - all my fault really due to ignorance - I wouldn't blame someone shooting digital for the consistency, intrinsic look, or necessity - it's the constant and persistent obsession with emulation and sour grapes attitude toward film that irks me.

Take a look at most of the stuff you see shot on film posted on social media, YouTube and Vimeo. For the most part, it's camera tests, music videos, very short narrative adjacent and some raw B-Roll. In fact, a lot of those videos are emulator videos as well, people shooting digital and converting to a "film look" to garnish views. 

So what are people actually after? 

I think, it's more of turning their posts and henceforth other peoples phone's screen into something that looks "filmic". What does that even mean? Dirty, shaky, vibrant and square frame? That's all I see from people who post stuff. 

When people post clean, perfectly shot, well assembled, stories shot on motion picture film, they get zero traction. None. I have so many friends who have outstanding productions shot on film and nobody actually cares in the long run. It might make you feel better internally, like you climbed 2 or 3 mountains instead of one, but in the end, it's a novelty for the rest of the world. 

I feel that a lot doing documentary work on film, I run into random people all the time who see my kit and are blown away Kodak is still in business. I'd say out of the people I've met, even the film stills guys, the vast majority don't even know motion picture film is still made, let alone the costs of shooting on film. 

This is why the road is parlous, it's not as straightforward as "Oh film looks better" because reality is, I don't think people even know what the film look is anymore, they're so hammered by fake looks, the Kodachrome emulators and such, it's diluted the actual meaning of film. It's almost like, the look has been hijacked and it's just a plugin, which degrades the work of people actually shooting on film. Unless you have that "shot with Kodak film" logo as the first shot of your project, most people won't even know. They'll find it "dull" compared to the overly saturated fake film look emulators. 

You can't blame artists for shooting digitally because they have no choice, if you knew how much I spent on my stupid train films, you'd blow a fuse. Heck, I have a feature length documentary that is also 100% shot on film (35 and 16mm) that I haven't finished shooting yet as well. I may be in my mid 50's before anything is done, but these projects are passion films. They are not logical, there is no reason for any of them to be made, but they make me happy I guess. That's in my opinion, where film is today; it's not about the audience, it's simply about the creative's own internal philosophy. 

 

 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

Art can exist in all forms, as long as there is sincerety and something to be communicated in a certain aesthetic "vessel" and is executed with 'pathos' and artistry, it should be celebrated.

If you shoot film to get traction, I believe you're in the wrong kind of game, if it's some sort of mountain to climb - well the mountain will be climbed and then you'll go back down having done so, so basically you'll feel empty.

As with everything really, If it's something that actually defines how you want things to look, if you have something you want to create for professional or personal reasons despite what people think and not because, then you're on the right track to enjoy the process and suffer it's drawbacks

It's not just film that people can't ascertain, the average person wouldn't be able to tell a relatively obvious synthetic orchestra synth vs the real thing, it has always been that way, so one should not worry and passively expect discerning eyes, that's a fool's errand - half (and more) of the people in ad agencies out there can't tell ProRes 2K footage from heavily compressed SD H264 on 3Mbit variable rate.

 

[Jon O'Brien]

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Art can exist in all forms, as long as there is sincerety and something to be communicated in a certain aesthetic "vessel" and is executed with 'pathos' and artistry, it should be celebrated.

If you shoot film to get traction, I believe you're in the wrong kind of game, if it's some sort of mountain to climb - well the mountain will be climbed and then you'll go back down having done so, so basically you'll feel empty.

As with everything really, If it's something that actually defines how you want things to look, if you have something you want to create for professional or personal reasons despite what people think and not because, then you're on the right track to enjoy the process and suffer it's drawbacks

It's not just film that people can't ascertain, the average person wouldn't be able to tell a relatively obvious synthetic orchestra synth vs the real thing, it has always been that way, so one should not worry and passively expect discerning eyes, that's a fool's errand - half (and more) of the people in ad agencies out there can't tell ProRes 2K footage from heavily compressed SD H264 on 3Mbit variable rate.

 

Exactly so. I agree.

[Jon O'Brien]

7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

When people post clean, perfectly shot, well assembled, stories shot on motion picture film, they get zero traction. None. I have so many friends who have outstanding productions shot on film and nobody actually cares in the long run. It might make you feel better internally, like you climbed 2 or 3 mountains instead of one, but in the end, it's a novelty for the rest of the world. 

I feel that a lot doing documentary work on film, I run into random people all the time who see my kit and are blown away Kodak is still in business. I'd say out of the people I've met, even the film stills guys, the vast majority don't even know motion picture film is still made, let alone the costs of shooting on film. 

This is why the road is parlous, it's not as straightforward as "Oh film looks better" because reality is, I don't think people even know what the film look is anymore, they're so hammered by fake looks, the Kodachrome emulators and such, it's diluted the actual meaning of film. It's almost like, the look has been hijacked and it's just a plugin, which degrades the work of people actually shooting on film. Unless you have that "shot with Kodak film" logo as the first shot of your project, most people won't even know. They'll find it "dull" compared to the overly saturated fake film look emulators. 

You can't blame artists for shooting digitally...
 

Very true. Look, I'm just convinced I'm right about what I go on about. But if you're right, and I'm wrong, I think the film industry is basically finished. Sure it might dribble on for a bit, the way musicals in regional towns do, but not anything like it once was.

The big glitzy, digitally-shot extravaganzas, do they make a lot of money? Maybe some of them do. I'd actually love to know what makes the more money in big-budget movies, film or digital, in the last 5 years.

I certainly don't blame anyone for shooting digitally. I do it myself, but I'm of the opinion as you know that for narrative that film is more entertaining to sit and look at, at least for the minority sitting in the theatre that are actually discerning and have an artistic soul.

[Jon O'Brien]

I still think cinema will bounce back, and that film will play an increasingly important part in that resurgence. I don't think the future belongs to digital. It belongs to both film and digital.

[Simon Wyss]

Do you think museum curators will bounce back to something like rear projection on a damp fabric, brutally flickering, hand-cranked, in the 4-to-5 aspect?

That was the technics of the Cinématographe Lumière in December 1895.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

44 minutes ago, Simon Wyss said:

Do you think museum curators will bounce back to something like rear projection on a damp fabric, brutally flickering, hand-cranked, in the 4-to-5 aspect?

That was the technics of the Cinématographe Lumière in December 1895.

Not all things are created equal, film will co-exist, some people will reject all long and shorter form media in general, in favour of AI slop and the 10 second brain rot, to their own personal detriment and others won't.

The golden era of Cinema as it was up to the mid 00s, is gone for good unfortunately, But the connaisseur, the curious, the sensitive, the ones looking for truth, the ones interested in the movie the documentary, the elaborate TV show (see Succession), will continue to be served by old and new material.

[Simon Wyss]

Do you know what the difference is between a film production and videomaking? Work, labour

You have to do something physically yourself, if you want to establish a negative. Just to load a camera, magazines, rewind the exposed stock and feel over its edges before the processing is unknown in videography. I can leave out everything else until a print is at hand. Then a person will lace up projectors and take care all around the booth, focus, do change-overs. Video and computer imagery are poor in the human factor (know Max Factor?). It’s okay for glimpses at something but cinema lets you feel humans work.

That the attention span is short today I get.

[Aapo Lettinen]

I'ts a slippery slope really.

If you are fine with CGI instead of practical effects,

Then it is fine to shoot partially on digital instead of fully on film,

If that is fine, then it is surely OK to use film emulation on digital footage too,

But then it is surely fine to use film emulation on digital and replace film entirely because you don't care about the artistic process, only about the end result,

Because that is fine and artistic process is not important, then why not let AI help a little bit with the oh-so-tough-to-think-with-my-brain-would-rather-watch-sh*t-on-Netflix  stuff? Much nicer to sit on ones a*s until it is flat than to try to do the hard thinking stuff! How could I just grab the money without doing any of the super hard arts stuff?

That was perfectly fine so now you are letting AI to generate the idea for the short film and AI writes the sh*tty scrip too and the footage is AI generated and it is put straight to tubi where AI is watching it to make more sh*tty content later on.

Cheap lazy slop has no value. The value of the real film is in the creative process. The end result is not important, the process is.

Video is technically better. It just does not have soul. Works on stupid Marvel stuff but may not be best for drama or arts stuff

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

OP... sometime people attach themselves to a person, place or thing and it becomes part of their ego. 

People define themselves by their enemy; beatniks vs squares as an example. ~ Alan Watts

Personally, I don't care one way or another...as long as the project does not suffer over ego. But you see people forcing things all time to satisfy their ego. 

Back when I was making the transition from film to digital, I ran into snobbery in the area of black and white vs color still photography. Ernst Hass sums things up nicely on this subject …

“There are black and white snobs, as well as colour snobs. Because of their inability to use both well, they act on the defensive and create camps. We should never judge a photographer by what film he uses- only by how he uses it.”

My own opinion is film is dying or will be pretty stagnant. Sure, we still got people doing wet plate collodion, but it is not ever going to be a serious way to record history; unless the politicians destroy the world and we are back in the stone age someday. I tell you the same thing I told the still photographers. Shoot what you like. No film or digital police going to stop you...yet.

<><><><>

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

On 10/21/2025 at 10:14 AM, Simon Wyss said:

Do you know what the difference is between a film production and videomaking? Work, labour

 

Pre-Production, Production and Post-Production with Digital vs Film is pretty much identical. One could argue the production side is more complicated with digital due to the calibrated video villages, instant playback, custom LUT's, DIT workstations and media wrangling, all things unnecessary for film. Assistants still drop off dailies to the lab with film or digital. The lab still does the processing, from Raw to Proxy or from film to Proxy scan. Nobody on the production notices any difference. Synched dailies return the next day in the identical way they would on digital or film acquisition. Even if you were doing film prints, the grading would be done the same between film and digital. The only difference is that they'd record a IN or OCN and then strike a print for testing. Doubtful anyone from the production would be present to see the answer prints, but maybe? In the end, everyone would gather for a screening, on digital or film, does not make a lick of difference when it's in the same theater. A good digital projection vs film projection should be nearly identical if the post was done properly on digital. 

So no, for actual real production, there really isn't any difference from the perspective of the crew, cast or production company. 

On 10/21/2025 at 10:14 AM, Simon Wyss said:

You have to do something physically yourself, if you want to establish a negative. Just to load a camera, magazines, rewind the exposed stock and feel over its edges before the processing is unknown in videography. I can leave out everything else until a print is at hand. Then a person will lace up projectors and take care all around the booth, focus, do change-overs. Video and computer imagery are poor in the human factor (know Max Factor?). It’s okay for glimpses at something but cinema lets you feel humans work.

Are you processing your own motion picture film at home? I bet 90% of filmmakers who shoot on motion picture film haven't ever been to the lab, most probably haven't even spliced film or rewound it before. Outside of a loader and potentially camera assistant, what crew positions actually touch the negative? If I didn't own a post lab, I would never see my negatives outside of the few seconds of loading and unloading. Most people don't even care they exist, I have over 50 pizza boxes sitting from years of scanning other peoples work, they don't care or want them. 

Where contact prints are undoubtedly the purest form of analog cinema one can achieve today, the modern film stocks aren't anything like the older ones and it's very hard to achieve a decent fully-analog finish retaining the quality of the older negative and print stocks from the past. Lifted and muddy blacks are part of the issue, the other is just color balance, it's just not the same as the older stocks. If you watch any direct analog film today like "One Battle After Another", there are huge color shifts in the film, because the timer was focused on faces, but the backgrounds skewed heavily one way or another. Part of this is how the film was shot, using a lot of natural lighting and simply augmenting when possible. The IMAX prints exacerbated the issue, being even more off, white wasn't white, it was yellow for the vast majority of the film. I guarantee you the UHD BluRay will be flawless, like it was with another film that had horrible prints; "Sinners". 

So yes, the analog workflow is super cool, I love it. I have a bunch of 35mm contact prints I show people, they're enthralled. However, I feel in the modern era where things have dramatically changed with the materials used, it's hard to justify projecting something that does not look exactly like your vision. I would be pissed if I were PTA watching those IMAX prints of "One Battle After Another", I'd give them a failing grade and send the lab guys back to try again. You have to make that judgment call; is it more important to be all-analog, or simply have a print? An Arri Laser 4k record out to IN stock or CRT record to negative, these will be flawless, one light contact prints can be made from them and you won't have any issues. Not only that, but with the DI records, you can get much deeper blacks and retain more detail to boot. Film projection CAN look amazing when done properly, but there are so many variables, unless you have fingers on every single point and have a lot of money to blow doing answer prints, you probably won't nail it. 

But... if you are doing a record out, why bother shooting on film to begin with? There are so many great digitally acquired films with wonderful prints; "Joker", "Dune 2" "The Holdovers" all shot on film with stellar large format or 35mm prints. I think Steve Yedlin played a little game with the print of "Knives Out" doing a few cool things with the material to make it look even more like an analog film print. Older films like "North By Northwest" and "Lawerence of Arabia" look stellar on their DI treated film outs. Both heavily manipulated digitally, but nobody noticing on screen. It's incredible when AI tools and visual effects sneak into restorations and nobody even bats an eye.

We are just very lucky to have two (sometimes 3) 15P IMAX theaters, a few 5 perf 70mm theaters, 35mm and now VistaVision in Los Angeles. When you watch a lot of prints, (the only reason I go to the theaters) then you kinda see what's going on. I also have a decent HDR 4k TV and re-watch stuff I saw on prints at home, which again, generally looks a lot better over-all. 

Edited October 23 by Tyler Purcell