Anyone thinking of going digital and giving up on 16mm film...or vice versa?

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

And this is kind of my point as well Aapo. 

Alice Rohrwacher shot "Happy as Lazaro" in:

N16, S16, 35mm

She was aiming for a shift in tone and aesthetic I believe within scene changes, but beyond that why should anyone rush to point the "irrationality" of those decisions? 

I really like how she embraces the variability and fragility of film shooting while by no means enjoying Hollywood mega-budgets.

As per Aapo's paradigm, shouldn't we be judging Brian May's guitar too then? Clearly he could use something better, instead of his father's attempt at a musical instrument.

 

[Jon O'Brien]

On 2/14/2026 at 11:43 AM, 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. 

To the first sentence: Yes, but only in very unusual and less than ideal situations. I guess you could argue that sailor's scrimshaw is an example. What if the medium's not so good? What you say here goes against what I've observed. I know a lot of artists. They are very specific about what medium they wish to work in, for a particular work. Quite specific actually, if they have a choice. What you are describing is some kind of alternate universe I have no experience with. How fascinating.

The best medium for storytelling is by mouth, around a fire. Other than that, it's always not so much the story but how it's told. Star Wars is a fine example.

Edited February 15 by Jon O'Brien

[Robin Phillips]

I'll just say this as one of the members here with too many film cameras, its hard to get producers to be willing to shoot film. even the extra 10s of thousands it takes to shoot 16 can buy another recognizable name or in some cases another day or two. And the movies that use to cost 20m, you're lucky to get maybe 5 or 7 now? And the 1m feature of 10 years ago can cost nearly 3m to pull off now. A 1m feature is more like a 500k feature (or less) from then. 

I could rattle off all the reasons big and small I think film is worth it. And I can go on for a while. But for the purists, and I consider myself one, its worth being aware that filmmakers wanting to shoot film are facing different forces and different stress points that makes the business proposition of originating on film more of an up hill battle than it use to be. At feature film scale you need some combination heat, talent pressure, lead producer or EP buy in to offset these forces. Or you need to be self financing. 

[Jon O'Brien]

Well, shooting on film just isn't needed for a lot of feature movies. But for some movies, it's going to make a huge difference to the quality. It takes discernment to be able to say whether film is needed for a certain project. In general, film suits period era pictures and gritty modern genres, sort of like modern versions of Dirty Harry and The French Connection type films. Westerns too, and 'outback' period era films, as in Australia. I'd be happy to see them made again. Possibly grungy dystopia films set in the future, things like modern movies in the spirit of Soylent Green, or even Alien (1979). Film is just a necessity for a certain quality and by that I mean both overall production value but also artistic quality.

And big blockbusters or similar, like James Bond, and Star Wars, just look and feel better shot on film. And of course those productions don't worry about film cost.

But, for a lot of feature movies, and just about all of TV, it's just business as usual, shoot it on digital.

Edited February 15 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

I forgot to add, warm and glowing feel-good movies like modern versions of something similar to An Affair to Remember, such as Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail, need to be filmed on film. Digital just can't get that warm, fuzzy feeling. Not on the big screen, in the theatre.

[Jon O'Brien]

And horror films are better on film. No question of that. Just watch, again, the first half (before it gets crazy) of Evil Dead, shot on 16mm. Only film can create that atmosphere. Digital just totally sucks at that.

[Jon O'Brien]

You see? We desperately need film back. It MUST come back. Or the film industry is cactus.

A rising tide lifts all boats ....

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

9 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

its worth being aware that filmmakers wanting to shoot film are facing different forces and different stress points that makes the business proposition of originating on film more of an up hill battle than it use to be. At feature film scale you need some combination heat, talent pressure, lead producer or EP buy in to offset these forces. Or you need to be self financing. 

Absolutely, it has been stated many times over, that for the vast majority of productions out there, especially ones that following classic themes of "boy meets girl" etc. - there isn't really much to gain using film - I wish though that lighting in general didn't take such a nose dive in productions nowadays including these types of films.

For the filmmakers really looking toward the cinephile and eclectic audience there's zero reason to compromise - these are not made to sell as many tickets you can, they are made to express an artistic purpose - as such, many of these productions accumulate film stock at strategic times and can get good rates on development/scanning (in Europe at least) depending.

There's alot of support from a variety of institutions across the continent to support such efforts, and in reality its these type of films (across the world) that are the real "engine" of the medium in my opinion.

[Tyler Purcell]

On 2/14/2026 at 1:59 PM, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

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.

I mean, Samsara was finished in 8k, so they already have the elements. All they need to do is get to a DI suite, do a new grade and find a distributor, like Criterion who can put out something that cinephiles would enjoy. Seeing as it's been 15 years since its release and nobody has even put forward a rumor about a future release, it does show it's probably never going to happen. We have movies going back to the 50's that have a far better treatment, with way less consumer interest. 

On 2/14/2026 at 1:59 PM, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I'm sure the creators did not expect a smash box office opening weekend but the movie will hold its own across the decades.

The creators are also human beings, they also need to feed themselves. That's one thing you simply can't comprehend. 

On 2/14/2026 at 1:59 PM, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

First one is still alive, so hell no, for the second that is at best a non-realistic projection on your part.

I think you'd be very surprised. With a bit and a robotic arm, you can shape granite much easier and then do the clean up work by hand. This is how most modern artists do it today. 

[Tyler Purcell]

On 2/14/2026 at 6:59 PM, Jon O'Brien said:

To the first sentence: Yes, but only in very unusual and less than ideal situations. I guess you could argue that sailor's scrimshaw is an example. What if the medium's not so good? What you say here goes against what I've observed. I know a lot of artists. They are very specific about what medium they wish to work in, for a particular work. Quite specific actually, if they have a choice. What you are describing is some kind of alternate universe I have no experience with. How fascinating.

I know guys who can play drums, guitar, violin and hop on their personal grand piano and make it sing, composing in their head on the fly. Same guy will go home and weld sculptures from junk yard scraps that look like they were mass produced, absolute flawless. He uses CAD and make metal laced filament to create 3D printed metal structures. Then for fun, he's disappeared for 4 months straight to be in a play or and direct a few feature films on the side, piloting his own crappy helicopter to and from production. Until you meet these people, it seems foreign. Out here in La La land, these guys are everywhere. Go to a random beach in summer at 6am and they're on their surfboard, driving a 1968 VW bus that they restored themselves and installed a home made electric drivetrain. Oh they also made their own clothing. Now thats an artist. 

Edited February 16 by Tyler Purcell

[Jon O'Brien]

29 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The creators ... also need to feed themselves.

I don't know about where you live, but where I live I'd have to say videography and digital cinematography would have to be about the last thing I would choose to feed myself. In the real world everyone in filmmaking has to have a real job they do during the week. Unless they can get hired on a big film or series. Or, unless they are a highly paid 'influencer' Youtube video maker. Yuck. How many achieve making a true living from actual filmmaking? Not many. No, I don't get what you go on about a lot of the time.

Edited February 16 by Jon O'Brien

[Tyler Purcell]

14 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

There's alot of support from a variety of institutions across the continent to support such efforts, and in reality its these type of films (across the world) that are the real "engine" of the medium in my opinion.

Not in the United States and the EU is tightening their reigns as well. You're talking about programs that fund a hand full of projects a year focused on the culture of those countries, not just some random nonsense an art-house director throws at the screen. 

14 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

For the filmmakers really looking toward the cinephile and eclectic audience there's zero reason to compromise - these are not made to sell as many tickets you can, they are made to express an artistic purpose - as such, many of these productions accumulate film stock at strategic times and can get good rates on development/scanning (in Europe at least) depending.

So where is your movie then?

[Tyler Purcell]

Just now, Jon O'Brien said:

I don't know about where you live, but where I live I'd have to say videography and digital cinematography would have to be about the last thing I would choose to feed myself. In the real world everyone in filmmaking has to have a real job they do during the week. Unless they can get hired on a big film. How many achieve that? No, I don't get what you go on about a lot of the time.

Ever since I was a kid, shooting with a super 8 camera at 9 years of age, I knew I wanted to work in Hollywood. I started working in the industry when I was 13 and my first industry paycheck came at the age of 15. I quit a perfectly good job in Boston after college and moved to Hollywood, because even though I was a small fish, I just knew I'd eventually be successful and I have been. My work has been seen at Berlin and Venice film festivals to standing ovations. The films I've shot, edited and co-produced, have had limited theatrical releases, streaming releases, even physical media releases. 

This is what I do,  I don't wake up a 5:30 am in the morning, go outside in negative 10 degree weather and spend 17 hours straight slogging a 30+ LB kit around with a minimal crew for fun. I do it because it's a skill that I've been building for 40 years, ever since I grabbed that first super 8 camera and made my first home movie. 

You're right, not very many people achieve it, but I sacrificed everything to be here, including relationships and home ownership, in the end, my skills and the art I create was worth it all. 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

9 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The creators are also human beings, they also need to feed themselves. That's one thing you simply can't comprehend. 

The fact that you constantly project what their intention was and how they make money is what is completely out of your comprehension zone, that's alongside the fact you present yourself as the sole person that needs to pay bills.

8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Not in the United States and the EU is tightening their reigns as well. You're talking about programs that fund a hand full of projects a year focused on the culture of those countries, not just some random nonsense an art-house director throws at the screen

You have zero understanding or experience in European film funding and you live/work in the United States.

As for the "random nonsense" blanket statement , it is indicative of your sensitivities. I'm sure if Mr. Cassavetes been alive starting his career today, he'd be taking all of your advice at heart and forget about all that "arthouse" stuff.

8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So where is your movie then?

I never once in this thread mentioned and/or promoted personal projects, endeavors, struggles, personal stories, travels, or otherwise.

But you seem to make every single thread about yourself, your experiences, your equipment and your beliefs - also the guys you know are the "true artists" - renaissance-package-and-all and they all live for the most part in L.A.

The issue is that while you are right in certain areas within your knowledge space, you pivot so much in strawman arguments to prove irrelevant points, personal stories and (overly verbose) analyses that provide zero insight to anything while of course being unable to see yourself being wrong or at least off by a bit in almost anything.

That's paired with the fact you barely care to really comprehend what others are trying to convey.

[Jon O'Brien]

10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Ever since I was a kid, shooting with a super 8 camera at 9 years of age, I knew I wanted to work in Hollywood. I started working in the industry when I was 13 and my first industry paycheck came at the age of 15. I quit a perfectly good job in Boston after college and moved to Hollywood, because even though I was a small fish, I just knew I'd eventually be successful and I have been. My work has been seen at Berlin and Venice film festivals to standing ovations. The films I've shot, edited and co-produced, have had limited theatrical releases, streaming releases, even physical media releases. 

This is what I do,  I don't wake up a 5:30 am in the morning, go outside in negative 10 degree weather and spend 17 hours straight slogging a 30+ LB kit around with a minimal crew for fun. I do it because it's a skill that I've been building for 40 years, ever since I grabbed that first super 8 camera and made my first home movie. 

You're right, not very many people achieve it, but I sacrificed everything to be here, including relationships and home ownership, in the end, my skills and the art I create was worth it all. 

Okay, but we've gone from you being someone who continues to have ongoing and enormously frustrating problems with shooting on film, to later becoming a film camera repair expert (while most of the time being exceedingly gloomy about the prospects of film), and then deciding to somewhat ditch film and go back to videography and digital cameras because film has too many problems, and then at times apparently backflipping and making out that you are indeed very pro-film after all, and now you say you have achieved great successes and received standing ovations for your film work. It's impressive, and I'm not doubting what you say. Fair enough. You certainly seem to put in the work. Well done!

Edited February 16 by Jon O'Brien

[Mark Dunn]

Like Tyler I would love to shoot film every time.

Like him I look at making a short (in my  case, a Steenbeck demo for a client, or back in lockdown, a remote hello to my lodge members) and decide not to spend £500 on the materials for a 5-minute film. 

I'd still like to, but hey.

Meanwhile the Steenbeck will be out next week on a BBC drama rental and I'll have £2500 coming in. You don't have to be in the film business to shoot the stuff. And you'll always need a machine of some sort to look at it.

[Brandon Paterno]

ahh, finally -- ill have a large late-stage capitalism burger with a side of spectacle fries. and extra justification of its existence too please 🙂

[Jon O'Brien]

Oh no. Politics. So we just all shoot on digital and everything will be right with the world. Is that it in a nutshell?

 

[Tyler Purcell]

12 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Okay, but we've gone from you being someone who continues to have ongoing and enormously frustrating problems with shooting on film, to later becoming a film camera repair expert (while most of the time being exceedingly gloomy about the prospects of film), and then deciding to somewhat ditch film and go back to videography and digital cameras because film has too many problems, and then at times apparently backflipping and making out that you are indeed very pro-film after all, and now you say you have achieved great successes and received standing ovations for your film work. It's impressive, and I'm not doubting what you say. Fair enough. You certainly seem to put in the work. Well done!

So you can't love something and at the same time, point out its flaws? Nobody is backflipping, you can check out my social media and my business. I simply opened up my abilities to work more on set by purchasing a digital package. The cool thing is, most of the accessories I bought, work on my film camera great! 

Edited February 17 by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

15 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

The fact that you constantly project what their intention was and how they make money is what is completely out of your comprehension zone, that's alongside the fact you present yourself as the sole person that needs to pay bills.

Whose intention? Who do you think I'm talking about? I'm not referring to anyone, zero people. I'm simply making a generic statement based on facts; Artists also need to pay their bills.

Within the framework of; shooting digitally and being paid or rejecting work because the client can't afford to shoot film. Getting the shot or missing it because there was some sort of glitch/issue that prevented you from delivering. Actually creating rather than waiting. 

15 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

You have zero understanding or experience in European film funding and you live/work in the United States.

I have co-produced two projects co-funded between EFF, CineEuro and WCF. Both projects got green lit through Creative Europe, but our liaison in the committee died suddenly right before covid and since then, we have been trying to restart the projects with a new person. The filmmaker is a French citizen who lives in the United States, she just doesn't have the money to keep going back and forward for the meetings. 

15 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

As for the "random nonsense" blanket statement , it is indicative of your sensitivities. I'm sure if Mr. Cassavetes been alive starting his career today, he'd be taking all of your advice at heart and forget about all that "arthouse" stuff.

Cassavetes was born into the industry and worked for the studios his entire life. He never was a struggling filmmaker. I can't even fathom why you would bring up someone who made films for 20 years and died in 1989. The industry changed dramatically in the 2000's and again after covid. There is nothing about the old pre-1990's industry left. 

15 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I never once in this thread mentioned and/or promoted personal projects, endeavors, struggles, personal stories, travels, or otherwise.

So what skin do you have in the game? 

15 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

But you seem to make every single thread about yourself, your experiences, your equipment and your beliefs. 

Yep, that's what forums are for. People ask questions and then other people respond with their experiences. That's what this entire group is for. Otherwise, there is zero value. 

15 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

also the guys you know are the "true artists" - renaissance-package-and-all and they all live for the most part in L.A.

Most of them are nomads, they come and go. They don't all live in LA full-time, but many choose to be here rather than wherever they are from on long term visa's. Plus, when you provide a service that only 7 other guys on the planet can do, you meet some very cool people. 

15 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

The issue is that while you are right in certain areas within your knowledge space, you pivot so much in strawman arguments to prove irrelevant points, personal stories and (overly verbose) analyses that provide zero insight to anything while of course being unable to see yourself being wrong or at least off by a bit in almost anything.

Give me a break. Your pendntic and pretentious walls of text about feelings, have little to no bearing on anything within the framework of cinematography. At least I'm grounded in reality, living and working in the hub of western cinema. 

15 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

That's paired with the fact you barely care to really comprehend what others are trying to convey.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of people on this very thread who agree with me. 

Edited February 17 by Tyler Purcell

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I have co-produced two projects co-funded between EFF, CineEuro and WCF. Both projects got green lit through Creative Europe, but our liaison in the committee died suddenly right before covid and since then, we have been trying to restart the projects with a new person. The filmmaker is a French citizen who lives in the United States, she just doesn't have the money to keep going back and forward for the meetings. 

So zero.

The ignorant statement about which kinds of movies are actually funded in Europe, would have been easily addressed with a simple Google search, but you didn't even bother to look at movie lineups over the years and what they are about - hint: they are not about local culture only.

5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Cassavetes was born into the industry and worked for the studios his entire life. He never was a struggling filmmaker. I can't even fathom why you would bring up someone who made films for 20 years and died in 1989. The industry changed dramatically in the 2000's and again after covid. There is nothing about the old pre-1990's industry left. 

This thread isn't about who and how people survive in this business - but you'd still dismiss his work as nonsense regardless.

5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Give me a break. Your pendntic and pretentious walls of text about feelings, have little to no bearing on anything within the framework of cinematography. At least I'm grounded in reality, living and working in the hub of western cinema. 

And that's all there is to know about your sensitivities toward the craft, also your endless confusion on how to formulate arguments.

5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So what skin do you have in the game? 

Pivoting again? Want to have a discussion about who survives on what by what? What's this have to do with anything?

 

5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Meanwhile, there are plenty of people on this very thread who agree with me. 

So If multiple people disagreed with you on this forum you'd change your mind? Are you seriously placing that as an adult argument?

You don't have the sole perspective on cinema or film making, they are multiple ones out there - the endless confusion of survival techniques which the vast majority of the world needs to deal with (including me of course and most of us here) is completely irrelevant.

 

[Thomas Beach]

I have read every word in this thread, mostly with great interest. And I appreciate and respect all who contributed as there are many interesting POV's to consider. Especially for someone who is working daily on his first indie feature for production by Fall, 2026, something I've been working toward for more than 30 years. 

Just to be transparent, I have never DP'd anything. I am a 30+ year semi-retired sound mixer with almost thirty feature films and the ubiquitous hundreds upon hundreds of commercial/corporate/political projects during my career -- just to provide some grounding regarding my industry b.g.

I have also been a screenwriter for as many years having self-produced five shorts, and been twice produced, externally with my own projects shot on 16/Ultra 16 with my Eclair NPR package and prized Angenieux 9.5-57 lens.

A year ago, after doing my own detailed budget for film v digital, I had concluded that it simply made more sense to buy a BMD Ursa Cine and accessories and rent lenses as opposed to shooting on S16/U16.  As such, I decided to wait another year and shoot film. It's where I come from creatively and I just couldn't convince myself to shoot digitally, regardless of the likely released, digital format. 

I've gleaned a lot from this and other threads on the subject; the positives and the negatives of shooting film. And while I would have to admit to being a film snob, I have complete respect for the digital format and those who choose that medium. And despite the real risks and possible pitfalls of film, I just can't see myself standing behind a digital camera on-set. Moreover, the intense focus on a myriad of issues such as shooting ratio limitations (a meager 6:1), careful talent selection to name but a few, for myself, ultimately becomes the strength of the project, assuming due diligence in pre-pro, which I am committed to. 

I look forward to any/all comments, positive or negative. And I look forward to reading more from DP's here as I value your experience.

Edited February 17 by Thomas Beach

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

8 minutes ago, Thomas Beach said:

A year ago, after doing my own detailed budget for film v digital, I had concluded that it simply made more sense to buy a BMD Ursa Cine and accessories and rent lenses as opposed to shooting on S16/U16.  As such, I decided to wait another year and shoot film. It's where I come from creatively and I just couldn't convince myself to shoot digitally, regardless of the likely released, digital format. 

I like this perspective alot - there's literally no universe where digital doesn't make more "sense" when you put the numbers down - that's a fact.

But it isn't really a numbers game when you care about this specific medium so much and it's not work for someone else/commercial etc. 

I've shot numerous things in digital including in really good equipment - but it was only because shooting on film was never a choice, not because I didn't really prefer it - no camera technology I've seen till this day has changed that.

I feel the same about the risks too.

So, I will use the words of the much more competent than I will ever strive to be, Alice Rohrwacher again - because I respect her work alot and who is a relatively "newer" addition into the film world - but, with very successful movies in her background already:

 

"...The thing which I love most about working with film is that you work 
trying your best but you're unable to see what you've made, therefore 
we need to try our best, but the results are always part of a variable
which is then given back to us, it's a destiny, part of life, chance..."

(only found the video on TikTok sorry)

She isn't saying something that is new in the strict sense - but some truths need a bit of "reminding" and I think she did it with real honesty here.

 

[Jon O'Brien]

So many want to shoot film and can't afford to. It sucks. But there's another side to the coin. I've read and heard for years comments by those who are simply jealous, and who secretly would love to film on film, that shooting on film is:

Elitist, undemocratic, self-indulgent, capitalist, just wanting to stand out from the crowd but nothing to do with talent or hard work, totally unnecessary/meaningless, a waste of budget money that could be spent on bigger name actors etc, something old men do, just an 'old man shouting at the clouds' thing (let's pretend that young people never need to vent their exasperation, too, haha), a rich boy's thing, a hipsterist dalliance, environmentally unfriendly, a hobby, an amateur thing, it goes on. I've also been told that professionals need to shoot on expensive digital cameras because they are "busy working professionals" (that make ridiculous low-brow, low-quality, low-taste Youtube videos but get money for doing it. Frankly I'd much rather drive a bus).

It's all just dumb words, some of it trying to hide a frustration, and some of it a sincere belief that digital videography is 'better'-- but it's effective at turning people's attention away from the possibility of shooting their short film on film. After all, for the right project, I've said several times that I will work for free and perhaps even contribute some money towards film stock etc if it means I can get some good footage I can put into a showreel. In all these years, I've only just now received an enquiry about a possible short film shoot. 

I was amazed the other day when I read a pro-film person on an Australian filmmaker's page on FB, when he eventually lost patience with yet another digital videography social justice evangelist and told him outright: "You just sound poor." And yet these digital videography proselytisers always have expensive digital 'cinema' cameras. The fact is that the priorities of these digital die-hards lie elsewhere. They will not make sacrifices to shoot on film. That's a decision they made, and that they continue to make. They have to own up to that. And then they complain and whinge that they can't also experiment with film because it's too expensive. Well, what do you expect, you nailed your shingle up as a videographer and you invested in that. What do you expect?

Man up, and be who you claim to be. If you're a video person, embrace it. Stop trying to emulate film by the way, it never looks like the real thing. It looks like what a videographer *thinks* film looks like. Do you make videos or don't you? You don't like the video look, huh? Well why are you making that your life?

No sacrifice for film, equals no film footage.

 

 

 

[Jon O'Brien]

2 hours ago, Thomas Beach said:

I have complete respect for the digital format and those who choose that medium. And despite the real risks and possible pitfalls of film, I just can't see myself standing behind a digital camera on-set.

I wish that respect was mutual but many video die-hards are openly anti-film I've found. I suspect they are jealous. They need to man up, and do something different with their lives if they're not happy deep down with what they're doing.

Yes, I can't see myself standing behind a digital camera on-set or on location any more. I started with film and I'm going to stay with it now. I've nailed my shingle on the wall as a celluloid film shooter. It's what I do.

Video shooters out there, love what you do. Don't kid yourselves that you get a film look and vibe, because, frankly, you do not.

Edited February 17 by Jon O'Brien