Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted February 8 Posted February 8 (edited) They got the film; you just need the $$. Where are you with film in your work? If you work in digital and film, what percentage of each comprises your work? Here is a PDF snapshot survey of B&H's 16mm inventory made on 2.8.2026. (1 film is not on PDF) Survey of 16mm Movie Film B&H Photo D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive <><><><> 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 Edited February 8 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted February 8 Premium Member Posted February 8 (edited) I think we've been through that topic alot in this forum. It's pretty clear that some here think we are toast, Kodak will inevitably fold, Orwo is not big or streamlined enough to the level of Kodak and the Blackmagic 36 thousand "K" is a necessary investment, plus A.I is the future - There will be a slowdown and economic crisis and all film will end because there is no point in anything anymore, plus it's just hipsters, PTA and Nolan only liking it anyway. So, we shall be drowning as the orchestra will play a rendition of the Macarena to cheer us up on the demise of film I speak in jest of course... Edited February 8 by Aristeidis Tyropolis 2
Jon O'Brien Posted February 9 Posted February 9 (edited) I'm more determined than ever to shoot on film. I've got a short film coming up I'm filming this year, in 16mm. I found one of the main locations about a week ago, a small unpainted wooden cabin in a rural area, and the owner is very happy for us to film there. I have two potential actors lined up, both are family members of friends. I have the gear. Just need some props, wardrobe, and a couple more locations. Then I can seriously think of setting a date for filming this thing. If it doesn't work out well enough I will remake the short film until it's good enough to submit to film festivals. In Queensland where I live there is very little awareness of filming on celluloid (yes, it's not an accurate name, but it's a good name that quickly clears up what I'm talking about when I talk about "filming on film"). Yet again recently I made some posts on Australian FB filmmaking groups. If anyone at all ever comments it's usually someone chiming in to say that film is "elitist" or for "rich boys" or it's for "amateurs." Those are deceptive comments that are untrue, and which have done much damage to the film industry by enforcing a patently stupid digital-only attitude amongst 'cine'matographers. I always return fire on such BS comments. If you can't afford film, okay, fair enough, you are poor, accept it. It happens. I notice though that the filmmakers who cry poor, and say that they can't afford film, always seem to have expensive digital cameras. If you can film on film, and you want to do it, just shut up and do it. But don't try and tell me that film is finished, or something that only amateurs use. That's just total garbage. Edited February 9 by Jon O'Brien 3
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 9 Premium Member Posted February 9 (edited) 6 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: It's pretty clear that some here think we are toast, Kodak will inevitably fold, I mean, they need to come up with just north of 170M in cash to pay a debt that's coming due in May 2026. They already have 300k of it + a bit of savings, but they are down around 170M. I have a feeling they will be "restructure" the debt momentarily, which would require them to file for some sort of government protection like chapter 7. This is a common method for healthy companies (which Kodak is quickly becoming) and it works well, but it also will tank their stock. So they are praying for a miracle, where one of their other side hustles (pharmaceutical) helps pay the debt off quickly, but the likelihood they'll have the money needed by the deadline is pretty slim. Will they go out of business? No way, they have way too much momentum, however considering they are mostly a business to business company, to tighten the reigns a bit, they could raise the price of film so consumers are priced entirely out. Will this affect multi-million dollar studio films? Of course not, in fact if anything the high end is now dead focused on film. We are seeing that with how many new productions are being shot on film and how in the last year, we've been inundated with higher end rental houses looking for mods, parts and general maintenance of their cameras. 6 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Orwo is not big or streamlined enough to the level of Kodak I mean they charge more than Kodak does per foot, for emulsion that isn't even coated or perforated properly. 6 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: and the Blackmagic 36 thousand "K" is a necessary investment For filmmakers, we are actually stuck between a rock in a hard place. We all want to shoot film, but the total amount of clients willing to allow it, for whatever reason, causes financial strain. You may get a client who will do film, if they don't have to pay for the film aspect. You may get a client who will do film if there is a digital backup. You also may get a client who will do film, but only shoot a much smaller project than originally planned. Then you may get a client who budgeted for film from day one and you get a green light. The latter of which is becoming more and more rare. Most clients don't know much about it outside of asking for a particular look. Once you talk numbers, many DP's are covering the "film" aspect out of their own pay, maybe splitting the raw stock and the processing/scanning for instance. I work with a lot of really great cinematographers who travel the world doing pretty decent sized projects. What I've learned from them, is that putting film through their cameras has become a chore, it's not that clients refuse, it's that clients budgets are constrained more than ever. We are seeing the first hiccups in the system and as time goes on, it will get worse and worse. This is why we're seeing more and more people wanting to sell their high end film cameras in exchange for possibly a smaller/cheaper package. This way, they can shoot film for themselves, but rent cameras for those bigger shows. This is actually smart, and it gives some owner/operators some cash up front AND they can put that money directly into cameras that WILL make them money. Alexa Mini's right now are tanking in value, so many guys are swooping in and that camera will absolutely get ya gigs so you can pay bills. This conversation is also directly connected to the flyaway of production and the fact, it's become harder and harder to even feed yourself these days. To be honest, most of the people I process and scan for, are doing personal projects on film. This trend is expanding greatly, people still want to shoot it, but the clients who pay the bills clearly don't. 6 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: There will be a slowdown and economic crisis and all film will end because there is no point in anything anymore, I mean, the economic crisis is here. You probably are pretty protected where you live, but state side where Kodak is, things are looking very grim. The weakness of the US dollar is honestly a benefit for you guys, raw stock pricing is actually probably stagnant due to the strong Euro. 6 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: plus it's just hipsters, PTA and Nolan only liking it anyway. I would say most of our non-commercial clients are hipsters yep. We nerd out about cameras, records, tube equipment, old cars, film projection, analog video cameras, etc. Heck, we just had a nerd out afternoon few days ago, when a bunch of people came to pickup and drop off at the same time, it was like 7 people all in my patio talking about their analog life. Heck, I'm even dragged into helping people with their flatbeds and editing on film, that's as hipster as it gets. Nothing wrong with it, I think we're all hipsters in the long run anyway and I have a lot of analog knowledge to give them. How many places can you go where there is a 35mm projector setup and a decent all-analog Hi-Fi with audiophile pressings ready to go? 6 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: So, we shall be drowning as the orchestra will play a rendition of the Macarena to cheer us up on the demise of film I mean, shooting film is no longer a specialty, it has been entirely demystified and made public, mainly due to social media and YouTube videos, along with so many commercial productions being projected on film again. Once anyone could own a commercial 16mm or 35mm camera, projector/film scanner, day by day the uniqueness of that ownership started to fade. You join the communities, you shoot stuff with friends, you realize that everyone around you is shooting and you're now after something they aren't doing. Once you achieve those goals, there really isn't much else to do. Ok now you're going to shoot other peoples projects, but maybe they can't afford film, maybe you can't afford to make those bigger projects on film either. Currently we are seeing a huge explosion in the analog video world; VHS, Betacam, 3/4", Hi-8, etc. Filmmakers are looking for that unique angle, that new speciality they can dial in and use for their own productions that make things stand out. Where film seems to be that medium in the last decade, it's slowly shifting because of the cost, because of the technical issues, because of the delays in viewing etc. These kids who grew up in the early 2000's and are finally becoming adults, they may have a still film camera or an instamax, they may have some super 8 or 16mm experience as well, but when it comes down to their investment, what they love to just play with, it's someones throw away DV camcorder, the stuff I literally couldn't give away 20 years ago. Businesses like ours are what keeps the format alive and I'm happy to do my part, it's the only thing I can do. We have a successful Youtube Channel, we have a successful technical Instagram as well, we shoot film all the time and post our experiences to the public. Honestly, if I wasn't;t 100% into this, I would make WAY more money getting another engineering job. I could move back into a smaller facility, save money and forget I was even involved. However, that's not me and nobody is going to stop me from helping others with their film cameras. For a while, we were shooting super 8 on a regular basis, shooting our life in California because we were thinking about moving. However, that all stopped because the local labs were jacking me around with inconsistent quality and price hikes that only affected people who scanned outside of their facilities. Switching over to 16mm for that project and shooting style is just impossible because the cameras are so much bigger and I can't easily carry them around in your hand on a wrist strap. If the results were good, if the carts didn't jam all the time, if the pricing didn't skyrocket, I'd still be shooting super 8 today. Now with AHU, we're struggling with client issues all the time, it's just madness and inconsistencies across the board. I'm scared to even shoot with the stuff personally. Once I burn through the boxes of older film I have, I just hope by then the AHU formula has matured to the point where problems don't exist. Yea, I think it's ok to speak the truth and have reservations about the future. Being honest about what's going on, isn't the same thing about cheering on a demise. Edited February 9 by Tyler Purcell 2
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 9 Premium Member Posted February 9 40 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said: In Queensland where I live there is very little awareness of filming on celluloid (yes, it's not an accurate name, but it's a good name that quickly clears up what I'm talking about when I talk about "filming on film"). Yet again recently I made some posts on Australian FB filmmaking groups. If anyone at all ever comments it's usually someone chiming in to say that film is "elitist" or for "rich boys" or it's for "amateurs." Those are deceptive comments that are untrue, and which have done much damage to the film industry by enforcing a patently stupid digital-only attitude amongst 'cine'matographers. I always return fire on such BS comments. If you can't afford film, okay, fair enough, you are poor, accept it. It happens. I notice though that the filmmakers who cry poor, and say that they can't afford film, always seem to have expensive digital cameras. If you can film on film, and you want to do it, just shut up and do it. But don't try and tell me that film is finished, or something that only amateurs use. That's just total garbage. This attitude is common place, even in the United States. The worst is when you show them how beautiful the finished pieces are, they always bitch about something. They have to exclaim how wonderful their A7SIV is with its fancy IBIS and autofocus. Rightly so, for certain applications that kit may work well. I wish I had AF for my YouTube videos, but everything is manual with my digital kits. To be fair, my entire URSA Cine 12k, with 4 3700Mb/s Gen 4 cards (which are $500 each new), 6 brand new 28V batteries and 4 way charger, 4 Zeiss CP.2 primes, 70-250 PL cinema zoom lens, wireless follow focus with 3 motors and handles, full modern wireless video system with batteries, tripod, foldaway matte box, 32 bit 6 channel audio kit, mic's, DJI Mic 3 AND brand new DJI Mavic Pro 4 drone, cost around what a used XTR Prod with 3 magazines and HD tap does. One more piece of math that people hate to admit; a single 2TB card in 12k, 12:1 ratio is around 2hrs in the BMD camera. So that's 6 rolls of 2400ft of film. When you do the math, it's close to $3k to buy the raw stock, process, prep and scan. Then you have physical film storage, which adds up fast if you're shooting a lot. My full size double door black cabinet is entirely full of film, each pizza box has 2 1200ft rolls in it OR 35mm. I will have to pay for archival storage shortly, which is something I'm dreading. Meanwhile, those 20 or 30hrs of film I have, fits nicely on a little QNAP Raid 5 AND backed up to cloud storage as well. I pay a small fee, ($389) per year to have it safe forever. House burns down? No problem, everything is online. That's pretty incredible if you think about it, something film can't achieve unless you pay three or four times more money for an archive. So yea, I get why people denounce film and it's funny to argue semantics because for the most part, those digital shooters don't even try to create beautiful imagery, they're just out shooting whatever. That's why I invested in a big digital camera and not a small one, I wanted the same limitations as a film camera, only without the cost of film which allows me to fill 4 2TB cards on a given shoot day, rather than run out of film and money. When doing documentary work, this is a game changer. For narrative, not as much frankly. 3
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 9 Premium Member Posted February 9 (edited) I see the film camera use as completely different pov to the same story which is tried to be told. It cannot be replicated with digital nor needs to. Emulation is not the same either. It is like oil paint vs acrylic, both can create nice results but the interpretation is different. I prefer shooting both film and digital on same projects ever interchangeably like changing lenses. Or like on the Saturday test shoot where I shot the sunset material on b/w Foma on Krasnogorsk and then switched to gh5s when the film ran out and shot as long as the camera could see anything. I think it is much better to make something truly special and interesting than to try to mimic the dull old times approach which was like "this type of scene MUST be lit that way because it is the tradition. And one cannot use different lens kit or change film stock in the middle of the shoot or mix film formats, that will show in the final result and some viewer may get distracted". Well yes absolutely we want them to see it is different look and it is a benefit not a fault! If people want slick and dull and boring invisible cinematography they are free to grab the nearest video camera and go learn to write some brilliant dialogue because that is the only thing which even COULD be interesting in that movie anymore once all the experimentation and visual expression was forbidden for being "too extreme and someone might notice" 😱 Edited February 9 by Aapo Lettinen 3
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 9 Premium Member Posted February 9 Just loaded some super expired Vivid250d to my Konvas1m, will make a similar shoot with it next! Testing how the 4-speed motor can run 35mm camera in cold. Experimentation and bold creative choices. Make something interesting even if you can't fully control all the tiny details. It will still be much better than the safe-plaid copycat project which is designed to impress by the "professional working methods" and gear but is in practice just some Alexa or Venice test with some mandatory boy-meets-girl story forcibly developed to justify showing off cool video gear 😁 1
Jon O'Brien Posted February 9 Posted February 9 9 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said: ... It will still be much better than the safe-plaid copycat project which is designed to impress by the "professional working methods" and gear but is in practice just some Alexa or Venice test ... Where I live the "professional working methods" and gear in copycat projects is some young dude who does showreels of surf shots, action shots of people swooping past in some kind of surfboard in the sea, with the obligatory drone shots. Everyone falls for it everytime, and lines up salivating, wanting to recruit this new "cinematographer" for their project. Yeah, great, ... if you just want endless videography style shots. What if you want to shoot an actual narrative movie? Mr cool beachy dude with all the video gear wouldn't know where to start. But there you go. People just luuuuuuurrrrvvve videography. 1
Gerard Dalton Posted February 12 Posted February 12 People will never stop loving film and old film cameras. And they will somehow find a way to pay for film, even if they’re broke (just like I did). Not saying it’s smart but not many expensive hobbies are. Plus the purists in filmmaking will never stop using film plus people are still making new film cameras right? So film can’t be headed towards a demise. we won’t let it. 1
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 12 Premium Member Posted February 12 3 hours ago, Gerard Dalton said: Plus the purists in filmmaking will never stop using film Yea but everyone's budgets are being cut, you can be a purist all ya want, but someone has to pay the bills. Where I don't think this has any bearing on the stills world, it has a huge bearing on the motion picture world. 3 hours ago, Gerard Dalton said: plus people are still making new film cameras right? So film can’t be headed towards a demise. There are 2 new still cameras and of course that grossly expensive Kodak super 8 camera, which has no real bearing on anything. There are a few cool new 16mm camera designs, but I don't know off anything is coming out anytime soon. 1
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted February 13 Author Posted February 13 On 2/8/2026 at 1:58 PM, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: I think we've been through that topic alot in this forum. It's pretty clear that some here think we are toast, Kodak will inevitably fold, Orwo is not big or streamlined enough to the level of Kodak and the Blackmagic 36 thousand "K" is a necessary investment, plus A.I is the future - There will be a slowdown and economic crisis and all film will end because there is no point in anything anymore, plus it's just hipsters, PTA and Nolan only liking it anyway. So, we shall be drowning as the orchestra will play a rendition of the Macarena to cheer us up on the demise of film I speak in jest of course... No, not about the demise of film. Fillm will be with us for a long time. Just wondering where everyone is at with film.
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted February 13 Author Posted February 13 On 2/8/2026 at 8:43 PM, Tyler Purcell said: I mean, they need to come up with just north of 170M in cash to pay a debt that's coming due in May 2026. They already have 300k of it + a bit of savings, but they are down around 170M. I have a feeling they will be "restructure" the debt momentarily, which would require them to file for some sort of government protection like chapter 7. This is a common method for healthy companies (which Kodak is quickly becoming) and it works well, but it also will tank their stock. So they are praying for a miracle, where one of their other side hustles (pharmaceutical) helps pay the debt off quickly, but the likelihood they'll have the money needed by the deadline is pretty slim. Will they go out of business? No way, they have way too much momentum, however considering they are mostly a business to business company, to tighten the reigns a bit, they could raise the price of film so consumers are priced entirely out. Will this affect multi-million dollar studio films? Of course not, in fact if anything the high end is now dead focused on film. We are seeing that with how many new productions are being shot on film and how in the last year, we've been inundated with higher end rental houses looking for mods, parts and general maintenance of their cameras. I mean they charge more than Kodak does per foot, for emulsion that isn't even coated or perforated properly. For filmmakers, we are actually stuck between a rock in a hard place. We all want to shoot film, but the total amount of clients willing to allow it, for whatever reason, causes financial strain. You may get a client who will do film, if they don't have to pay for the film aspect. You may get a client who will do film if there is a digital backup. You also may get a client who will do film, but only shoot a much smaller project than originally planned. Then you may get a client who budgeted for film from day one and you get a green light. The latter of which is becoming more and more rare. Most clients don't know much about it outside of asking for a particular look. Once you talk numbers, many DP's are covering the "film" aspect out of their own pay, maybe splitting the raw stock and the processing/scanning for instance. I work with a lot of really great cinematographers who travel the world doing pretty decent sized projects. What I've learned from them, is that putting film through their cameras has become a chore, it's not that clients refuse, it's that clients budgets are constrained more than ever. We are seeing the first hiccups in the system and as time goes on, it will get worse and worse. This is why we're seeing more and more people wanting to sell their high end film cameras in exchange for possibly a smaller/cheaper package. This way, they can shoot film for themselves, but rent cameras for those bigger shows. This is actually smart, and it gives some owner/operators some cash up front AND they can put that money directly into cameras that WILL make them money. Alexa Mini's right now are tanking in value, so many guys are swooping in and that camera will absolutely get ya gigs so you can pay bills. This conversation is also directly connected to the flyaway of production and the fact, it's become harder and harder to even feed yourself these days. To be honest, most of the people I process and scan for, are doing personal projects on film. This trend is expanding greatly, people still want to shoot it, but the clients who pay the bills clearly don't. I mean, the economic crisis is here. You probably are pretty protected where you live, but state side where Kodak is, things are looking very grim. The weakness of the US dollar is honestly a benefit for you guys, raw stock pricing is actually probably stagnant due to the strong Euro. I would say most of our non-commercial clients are hipsters yep. We nerd out about cameras, records, tube equipment, old cars, film projection, analog video cameras, etc. Heck, we just had a nerd out afternoon few days ago, when a bunch of people came to pickup and drop off at the same time, it was like 7 people all in my patio talking about their analog life. Heck, I'm even dragged into helping people with their flatbeds and editing on film, that's as hipster as it gets. Nothing wrong with it, I think we're all hipsters in the long run anyway and I have a lot of analog knowledge to give them. How many places can you go where there is a 35mm projector setup and a decent all-analog Hi-Fi with audiophile pressings ready to go? I mean, shooting film is no longer a specialty, it has been entirely demystified and made public, mainly due to social media and YouTube videos, along with so many commercial productions being projected on film again. Once anyone could own a commercial 16mm or 35mm camera, projector/film scanner, day by day the uniqueness of that ownership started to fade. You join the communities, you shoot stuff with friends, you realize that everyone around you is shooting and you're now after something they aren't doing. Once you achieve those goals, there really isn't much else to do. Ok now you're going to shoot other peoples projects, but maybe they can't afford film, maybe you can't afford to make those bigger projects on film either. Currently we are seeing a huge explosion in the analog video world; VHS, Betacam, 3/4", Hi-8, etc. Filmmakers are looking for that unique angle, that new speciality they can dial in and use for their own productions that make things stand out. Where film seems to be that medium in the last decade, it's slowly shifting because of the cost, because of the technical issues, because of the delays in viewing etc. These kids who grew up in the early 2000's and are finally becoming adults, they may have a still film camera or an instamax, they may have some super 8 or 16mm experience as well, but when it comes down to their investment, what they love to just play with, it's someones throw away DV camcorder, the stuff I literally couldn't give away 20 years ago. Businesses like ours are what keeps the format alive and I'm happy to do my part, it's the only thing I can do. We have a successful Youtube Channel, we have a successful technical Instagram as well, we shoot film all the time and post our experiences to the public. Honestly, if I wasn't;t 100% into this, I would make WAY more money getting another engineering job. I could move back into a smaller facility, save money and forget I was even involved. However, that's not me and nobody is going to stop me from helping others with their film cameras. For a while, we were shooting super 8 on a regular basis, shooting our life in California because we were thinking about moving. However, that all stopped because the local labs were jacking me around with inconsistent quality and price hikes that only affected people who scanned outside of their facilities. Switching over to 16mm for that project and shooting style is just impossible because the cameras are so much bigger and I can't easily carry them around in your hand on a wrist strap. If the results were good, if the carts didn't jam all the time, if the pricing didn't skyrocket, I'd still be shooting super 8 today. Now with AHU, we're struggling with client issues all the time, it's just madness and inconsistencies across the board. I'm scared to even shoot with the stuff personally. Once I burn through the boxes of older film I have, I just hope by then the AHU formula has matured to the point where problems don't exist. Yea, I think it's ok to speak the truth and have reservations about the future. Being honest about what's going on, isn't the same thing about cheering on a demise. On your projects, what would you estimate the difference in cost is between film and digital? Say per minute or hour of production cost? Is it that big a deal for larger projects? I was more interested in how the small time 16mm shooter is doing.
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted February 13 Author Posted February 13 On 2/8/2026 at 8:17 PM, Jon O'Brien said: I'm more determined than ever to shoot on film. I've got a short film coming up I'm filming this year, in 16mm. I found one of the main locations about a week ago, a small unpainted wooden cabin in a rural area, and the owner is very happy for us to film there. I have two potential actors lined up, both are family members of friends. I have the gear. Just need some props, wardrobe, and a couple more locations. Then I can seriously think of setting a date for filming this thing. If it doesn't work out well enough I will remake the short film until it's good enough to submit to film festivals. In Queensland where I live there is very little awareness of filming on celluloid (yes, it's not an accurate name, but it's a good name that quickly clears up what I'm talking about when I talk about "filming on film"). Yet again recently I made some posts on Australian FB filmmaking groups. If anyone at all ever comments it's usually someone chiming in to say that film is "elitist" or for "rich boys" or it's for "amateurs." Those are deceptive comments that are untrue, and which have done much damage to the film industry by enforcing a patently stupid digital-only attitude amongst 'cine'matographers. I always return fire on such BS comments. If you can't afford film, okay, fair enough, you are poor, accept it. It happens. I notice though that the filmmakers who cry poor, and say that they can't afford film, always seem to have expensive digital cameras. If you can film on film, and you want to do it, just shut up and do it. But don't try and tell me that film is finished, or something that only amateurs use. That's just total garbage. I think there are aspects of rich boys, elitists and amateurs in film shooting. But definitely not for all film shooters. Depends on what you produce, seriousness, etc. Also depends on if your project would be better served by digital than film, but you force things from ego. When I see any of the work here on film, I generally never think rich boys, elitists and amateurs. Unless they truly are amateurs and do poor work while learning the ropes. We all have to learn about a thing before we can produce good work. I was just interested in how members were doing budget wise and with the ease of production with digital over film. I don't keep up with still cameras much nowadays. But I got an email a while back about a digital camera that mimics shooting film. It makes it harder on the photographer as it takes away some of the advantages of digital. Here... The Fujifilm X-Half ($849.99) is a specialized digital camera designed to emulate the tactile, limited experience of shooting with analog film. Key features include a mechanical lever to "advance" film, a "Film Camera Mode" that disables the rear screen for reviewing photos, and mandatory 36 or 72-exposure "rolls" that must be "developed" via a smartphone app. Personally, speaking I would not want the advantages of digital taken away to make things more film-like. I'd say that is for rich boys, elitists and amateurs. Shoot film or shoot digital, but don't screw around like that.
Mark Dunn Posted February 13 Posted February 13 9 minutes ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said: The Fujifilm X-Half ($849.99) is a specialized digital camera designed to emulate the tactile, limited experience of shooting with analog film. Key features include a mechanical lever to "advance" film, a "Film Camera Mode" that disables the rear screen for reviewing photos, and mandatory 36 or 72-exposure "rolls" that must be "developed" via a smartphone app. Hipster gimmick. 1
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 13 Premium Member Posted February 13 I used to think Krasnogorsks being hipster cameras but on the last week's test shoot I found lots of good uses for a crystal modified one so it is not so black and white. The overly expensive K3 modifications generally are hipster products though. For example the "k4" which cost 5000 bucks having no advantage over anything. That is the exact reason why I designed my K3 crystal mods to be as affordable as possible. No bluetooth control but if it is 500 bucks for the cheapest model then it is entirely different universe compared to those russian 5k costing scam cameras😅 2
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 13 Premium Member Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said: On your projects, what would you estimate the difference in cost is between film and digital? Say per minute or hour of production cost? Is it that big a deal for larger projects? I was more interested in how the small time 16mm shooter is doing. Well, for my documentary projects, we have a very low shooting ratio, closer to that of a low-end narrative film. So the costs aren't that much to shoot on 16mm, which is why I've been able to get away with shooting so much on 16mm. I have been working on 100% 16mm sourced documentary films for a decade now and I'd say my ratio is between 5:1 and 20:1 depending on the scenes. Switching to digital will save me around $3k per shoot, which is about how much the raw stock and processing costs per shoot, seeing as we can scan ourselves. So that would be around $6 - $9k a year of savings, if you flatline storage as being the same for film and digital cinema. However for people who are paying for scanning, the price would be a lot more, so more savings if you shoot digital. When you look at home movie people, maybe shooting super 8 or using their Phone, there is no contest. Currently, Super 8 is around $118 for a 50ft cartridge of color negative, processing and 4k scan. So at 24fps, that's $47 per minute. That's a pretty big number for a consumer and when you look at 16mm which for 100ft, is around the same amount of run time, it's $140 dollars, so you get way higher quality for a few dollars more. This obviously is a high number and a high res scan, but it's what companies who are selling raw stock, processing and scanning services are charging. For contrast, the cost of getting a great 16mm camera package together, with lenses, support, HD video assist, wireless video, follow focus, the whole 9 yards, you will probably be around $25 - $30k and you can't do anything with it unless you give it $440 dollars, which is the average price for 400ft of raw stock, processing and 4k scan for 11 minutes. It basically sits in a box otherwise. You could rent it, but now you're wearing out the parts which are impossible to get. So it REALLY sits around unless you're somehow actively shooting film for clients and making some of that investment back. With a good digital package, you'll spend the same amount of money, but you can use it all the time. Mine is a permanent fixture in my office, on sticks, with a battery because we're constantly shooting stuff. Having that at your fingertips is a game changer, it really is. This is why people moved away from film back in the 90's, because even though ENG cameras were of much lower quality than 16mm, in the end what always wins out is the ease of use vs money. Especially when doing ENG/Documentary style work, you're always wanting to make sure you got the shot and doing that on film, is very challenging unless you have lab right next to your operation. For larger projects like feature length narratives on 16mm, 90 minute scripts, 10:1 shooting ratio, the "film" aspect is around $50k. So basically peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Not only that, but Kodak will give a bigger show like that a discounted rate and may even offer discounted processing and scanning at their facilities. It's when you move up to 3 perf 35mm and the same length script and ratio is closer to $200k, that's when the breaks start to get pushed on film. Again, not actually a problem for a well budgeted production, but imagine you aren't near a lab or you don't have the money for re-shoots. Are you going to risk shooting critical dialog scenes on film in unusual one-off sets just to find out there is a lab problem or your focus puller didn't nail focus? 1
Giray Izcan Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said: On your projects, what would you estimate the difference in cost is between film and digital? Say per minute or hour of production cost? Is it that big a deal for larger projects? I was more interested in how the small time 16mm shooter is doing. 1000ft per page(double it for a page with heavy dialog) when everything said and done, from purchasing the stock to all the lab expenses comes up to 1500-2k.. roughly half that for super 16.. now imagine shooting a 10-15 page script.. that's 7500-15k(16 and 35 respectively) just for film related expenses.. That could be your whole budget with cast, crew and locations on digital.
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted February 13 Premium Member Posted February 13 So...let me get this straight: Shooting with film is not practical, or economical, it's expensive, takes up too much from the production budget, blah blah. So I'll take an extreme example from "Samsara" below: That person is literally spreading colored "dust" to create a work of art. There is literally no SINGLE practical reason to do it this way. The medium IS an inextricable component of art and is what comprises the human nature as it pertains to artistic expression among other things - no matter how many ways one tries to couple economics, practicalities and the hard nature of business. So, it is really, really, really not a matter of how much and how many feet of film one would burn in development and scanning, as artistic expression is an optional human endeavor and is as such, always constrained in one thing or another, the variables and trade-offs are completely up to the individual(s) making those choices. Thus, placing medium practicalities above what one wishes to use in their work is against human artistic nature and the minutes/per dollar an utterly irrelevant concept - i.e., The minutes of footage a digital camera can hold onto a card or external storage medium, mean nothing if the footage doesn't look and the process doesn't work the way one meant to - similar to that guy spreading dust here. 3
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 14 Premium Member Posted February 14 2 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: The medium IS an inextricable component of art and is what comprises the human nature as it pertains to artistic expression among other things - no matter how many ways one tries to couple economics, practicalities and the hard nature of business. True artists don't need a particular medium to work, you put them in front of a tool, they will make art. If you're a storyteller and you want people to know about your story, adopting the mediums that best allow wide proliferation are actually the best. 2 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: The minutes of footage a digital camera can hold onto a card or external storage medium, mean nothing if the footage doesn't look and the process doesn't work the way one meant to - similar to that guy spreading dust here. Fortunately Ron showed up with his big camera to capture this very analog artistic method. However, without the digitization and digital distribution of that film, billons of people wouldn't know the movie even existed, nor the artists within. So the benefits of capitalizing on modern workflows/mediums is pretty important.
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 14 Premium Member Posted February 14 I have never shot any drama film or even part of it on real film. They always complained about price or inability to shoot trillion takes and improvised stuff. Ended up with 100% video origination. Arts stuff and documentaries allow mixing formats easily so using film is the perfect choice on some scenes. On narrative stuff people have this mindset that cinematography must always stay invisible so they intentionally block out any film use 1
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted February 14 Premium Member Posted February 14 8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: True artists don't need a particular medium to work, you put them in front of a tool, they will make art. If you're a storyteller and you want people to know about your story, adopting the mediums that best allow wide proliferation are actually the best. True artists... So, should I call Banksy and tell him to switch to TikTok? Who needs those freaking murals anyway.... I'm sure Michelangelo would've switched to Procreate on an iPad and posted to Instagram in a jiff. 8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Fortunately Ron showed up with his big camera to capture this very analog artistic method. However, without the digitization and digital distribution of that film, billons of people wouldn't know the movie even existed, nor the artists within. This has nothing to do with anything - that artist would've used that medium regardless of whether that big "inefficient" 65mm Panavision film camera was there.
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 14 Premium Member Posted February 14 6 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: True artists... So, should I call Banksy and tell him to switch to TikTok? Who needs those freaking murals anyway.... I'm sure Michelangelo would've switched to Procreate on an iPad and posted to Instagram in a jiff. If you showed any of those guys the modern tools we have today, they'd be all over it. Imagine DaVinci being able to design via CAD? Come on. 6 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: This has nothing to do with anything - that artist would've used that medium regardless of whether that big "inefficient" 65mm Panavision film camera was there. Right, but nobody on the planet would know that artist existed without being captured and displayed on your home TV. That particular movie didn't have a big wide theatrical release, it was really on home video only. So what is the benefit of it being captured on film when the only release is a 1080p 8 bit 4:2:0 18 - 20Mbps BluRay? They didn't even make a 4k DCP? 1
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 14 Premium Member Posted February 14 11 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said: I have never shot any drama film or even part of it on real film. They always complained about price or inability to shoot trillion takes and improvised stuff. Ended up with 100% video origination. I've done a few, including being cinematographer on two narrative features on 16mm. I think with narrative it's even harder because of that, people want to do improvisation and suddenly you need longer rolls. 3 perf 35mm is kinda perfect for that, good aspect ratio and 15min loads with 1000ft. With "Joker" they were going to shoot on 35mm, but Joaquin phoenix took around 10 minutes to get into charter and really push out a good take. So in testing, they found the camera would roll out way too fast, so they moved to digital at the very last second and did 70mm prints, it looks great. Not only that, but they shot with the Alexa LF, with fast lenses and that bokeh is just beautiful, they would have never gotten that look on 35mm. 11 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said: Arts stuff and documentaries allow mixing formats easily so using film is the perfect choice on some scenes. I'm a purist when it comes to the doc stuff, I generally shoot all of my stills and graphics on film. The only thing we have been integrating recently are done shots, but we will record the final ones out to 16mm and cut them into the string. Our interviews are also on film, so that helps with the congruency. Where I can make digital trick most people to think it's film, especially with YouTube distribution, I think there is a certain level of joy that comes from knowing that we're doing nearly everything in camera. I would love to eventually build a drone and a custom film camera to fly. That is my long-term goal in the coming years. Funny enough, I'm literally about to leave for my first big doc shoot hybrid. It's for an all-new project, but it will be the first time we mix digital with film and not attempt to make the digital mimic film at all. We'll see how it goes, but suffice to say, my film camera package is 2 boxes, my digital package is 6. LOL 11 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said: On narrative stuff people have this mindset that cinematography must always stay invisible so they intentionally block out any film use I put story, actors, art direction and blocking before cinematography. If there is nothing worth capturing, then what's the point of film? When we did my last 35mm short "Love, Frog" we'd really work on finding all of those first before even setting up a single light or for that matter a camera. If the location didn't work, we'd just try something else. The cinematography is how the viewers see the film, but if there is nothing worth seeing, even the best DP's will find it hard to make things worth watching. Shooting the movie on film was more of a necessity because at the time, I didn't own a digital package, nor did I really want to spend money on renting one. It made far more sense to use the equipment I owned and borrow the few bits I needed like the Cooke 20-100 zoom and a high speed camera, rather than shooting digital. The added cost of short ends at .25/ft, the processing and a friend who scanned all 13k feet for $1500 bux, seemed worth it in the long run. I'm not giving up tho, I'm already collecting film for my next 35mm short narrative. I've got a friend with a Penelope who is going to partake in the cinematography aspect. I've got a friend to help with the scanning. I just need to finish the script and get it where I need it to be and the pieces will drop into place quickly after that. Simple story, but artistically complicated to make with a lot of moving pieces and locations, along with art design that will be critical to shaping the look. How we capture the frame, will still be way down the list on importance, as it will be storyboarded and the goal of the cinematographer will be to basically copy the storyboards and frankly, it'll be super easy due to the all the prep work. I have to shoot it on 35mm because I feel my last film was a failure story/acting wise and I need to try again in a similar method, this time without the constraints of someone else being the writer/producer, this time I will be the writer/director/producer and do a bit more of the legwork with a line producer in toe. Hand off the cinematography to a friend and viola, we should be good to roll. Hopefully I can bang it out before 2027, which is an important year for me, marking the 25th anniversary of being in California and of completing my first short narrative on 16mm. I have a documentary we will be producing during the production (probably BTS on 16mm and digital interviews) which will be mixed with older footage to make this 25 year journey seem complete, it'll be a fun project. 1
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted February 14 Premium Member Posted February 14 3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: . That particular movie didn't have a big wide theatrical release, it was really on home video only. So what is the benefit of it being captured on film when the only release is a 1080p 8 bit 4:2:0 18 - 20Mbps BluRay? They didn't even make a 4k DCP? That's your own opinion. I expect an even better 4k release to occur at some point, but the material shows it's origin quite nicely. How it was initially released is besides the point, it is revered and shown globally in special events and universities and it will be studied till the end of time. I'm sure the creators did not expect a smash box office opening weekend but the movie will hold its own across the decades. 3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: If you showed any of those guys the modern tools we have today, they'd be all over it. First one is still alive, so hell no, for the second that is at best a non-realistic projection on your part.
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 14 Premium Member Posted February 14 I think there is three kinds of people here...if comparing to the music world. those who only listen to the lyrics and say the music itself does not matter as long as the lyrics tell the same story because the music piece is the same if the story is the same. Kind of text-only based approach to storytelling. Those who listen both the lyrics and composition but think it can be played with different instrument without affecting anything as long as the notes are the same. They kind of think that certain notes always translate directly to certain feelings. Kind of rules-based approach to storytelling claiming that everything is interpreted through the same cultural translation filter and thus one always have to tell a story the same way. Those who are picking up nuances and details so well that the color of the sound is extremely important. One cannot change the instruments or even the persons playing them nor the singer without the whole music piece changing to completely different one. The lyrics are not actually the most important aspect because 95% of the story is told by the raw emotion of the music itself. People like this often listen to foreign music which they don't understand a single word of the lyrics and still kind of understand it fully on subconscious level. I don't say there is anything particularly wrong at forcing all culture through the same filter to make it "easy to interpret as the rules are always the same" but I am completely fed up people doing that on independent and arts stuff. It is completely unnecessary and strictly speaking waste of resources to make more of the same commercial-style slop on limited indie resources. One could make something new, look outside the box. Still 99.99% of people choose to just copy the same storytelling "rules" everyone else uses. Thus making more of the same slop, only cheaper. Makes no sense to me. It is like the sound designer joke where the experienced designer teaches that "when you see a cow you always hear moo" 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now