Jon O'Brien Posted February 18 Posted February 18 The "Capitalist" claim is the most dishonest and self-deceiving one I've ever come across by the way. You don't like your situation, or that someone has something you don't have and that you want, and so you cry capitalist. The last vestiges of oppression from a dying capitalism, with its ageing, sad, tired adherents. Sheesh. That takes the cake. What a crock. Go take a Bex, make a cup of tea, and lie down for a bit.
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 18 Premium Member Posted February 18 There is nothing wrong with making mediocre commercial slop but it is wrong to call it "art" and pretend it is somehow exactly similar than real self expression one pours one's heart and soul in. If one needs to make mediocre slop to pay bills then one does that. But it is an indicator of extreme cultural degradation if people have this midset that nothing else than the slop can be made because the slop pays the bills so anything else is waste. Bragging about gear is of course another issue. So one says that only slop can be made and at the same time wastes 50k on camera kit which is not really needed for that slop making. One could instead spend 10k or 15k on gear and then spend the rest on making tons of slop, or alternatively have 35k or 40k left to make real arts stuff. If the end result is incredible instead of the meh result the slop attitude gets, then one would still get the job with the 10k or 15k kit. People are like compensating for bad script and lack of vision and lack of courage to make radical unique storytelling choices and the set becomes just another cine gear expo where one shows off cool expensive gear to somehow try to look super professional. Putting on Arri or Panavision baseball caps and everything. I am composing and recording music for my documentary projects at the moment and having very basic gear. Zoom recorders, basic condenser mics, nothing fancy. I could have afforded Neumann mic or two if wanting to show off but went with NT1 and AT2031 and similar very basic stuff. The instruments are very basic models too. I think the most expensive guitar cost like 200 euros or so. And recording at home, not in a cool well known studio. The results are still great. It is because I do care, I don't have any reason to make mediocre slop or use AI for anything and I don't need to follow the artificial made up "rules" people are confined with if they want to "look professional". The videographer attitude would be to buy the most expensive most drooled-after Neumann or other high end microphone, then having no money to buy any musical instruments to play and resort to using AI to make some slop mediocre music to get something usable. The expensive gear was just a smokescreen for the sweatshop really used to make the end product. Grab the cash and run before they realize it was some AI drawing you claimed to have spent 200 hours making by hand... 3
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 18 Premium Member Posted February 18 (edited) 21 hours 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. Yea, I feel today things are shifting fast, the more I talk to people about the price increases of raw stock and now it appears a lot of labs are upping their processing/scanning costs as well, more and more clients simply can't afford to shoot film. I feel if you're a one man band and you control the budget, then eh... it's a bit different. Being a commercial DP, I'm kinda stuck to what others need from me and I have seen film precipitously decline in the commercial world outside of the larger productions who can afford 35mm and 65mm. I actually had two XTR Prod's setup for feature work for two years and never once even sat down for a meeting about shooting on film during that time. They all wanted digital and I simply didn't have a camera, so I bit the bullet after waiting for a decade and bought an URSA Cine 12k. Where it may not be "the best" camera, man when it works, the images are absolutely outstanding. That's all clients care about, they just want the finished product to look awesome and getting bookings with the 12k has been easy. 21 hours ago, Thomas Beach said: 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'm still a film snob, probably more so than some of the people on here think. However, in the last two years I learned some lessons I didn't want to learn that made me finally think harder about digital. It all hit like a ton of bricks when we did a huge all-analog shoot last winter for a client on medium format and our 'A' roll didn't come out. So we basically had nothing to show but some BTS iPhone pictures and stuff that had no real bearing on what the client wanted. It was embarrassing, because we had so much promise and when you fail to proof of concept something for a client, you're screwed. Then our 35mm cameras one by one shit the bed, first it was an unfixable meter issue in one body, then our "A" Canon EOS-1 body failed in a way that we haven't been able to fix. So this winter we are back to do another shoot and it's our first all-digital stills/video shoot. The results have been perfect, zero issues. Do they look like film? Not really, our Canon R5 doesn't have great DR, nor do I really appreciate the color pallet, it's a bit cold for me. However, when we fix up the pictures and throw them on the clients socials, nobody will know. Hopefully the client will re-think things and we can get work from them in the future. The adjustment to shooting on digital was pretty massive, I still hate working with the R5, it's a garbage camera to use compared to the EOS-1. Heck, the URSA Cine too, all the buttons are so easy to press by accident, I'm constantly getting the camera into modes it shouldn't be in, plus with a zoom lens, its bigger and heavier than my XTR Prod, so for me 16mm is still king in that doc world and I can't wait to break out the Prod later this week. When you shoot 16mm it instantly looks great, but with the URSA Cine, it takes some tweaking in post to dial in, but once you're there, especially with Genesis, man it just works. So I think in the long run, ya need both really. It's about having a solid film kit for your own work (we have 3 commercial film packages) and a good digital package to fill in those gaps when you can't shoot film. Where I would personally wait to see what BMD brings to the table this April at NAB, I do think they have finally reached their pinnacle. They finally make a competitive package with a workflow that seemingly integrates into professionalism in a way they haven't achieved as of yet. This is from my first personal production shoot with the URSA Cine 12k yesterday, I was pretty chuff with the results. (Mind the purple sky, seems to be an issue with stills exports from Resolve without a grading monitor present) Edited February 18 by Tyler Purcell 2
Jon O'Brien Posted February 18 Posted February 18 13 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said: There is nothing wrong with making mediocre commercial slop but it is wrong to call it "art" and pretend it is somehow exactly similar than real self expression one pours one's heart and soul in. If one needs to make mediocre slop to pay bills then one does that. But it is an indicator of extreme cultural degradation if people have this midset that nothing else than the slop can be made because the slop pays the bills so anything else is waste. Bragging about gear is of course another issue. So one says that only slop can be made and at the same time wastes 50k on camera kit which is not really needed for that slop making. One could instead spend 10k or 15k on gear and then spend the rest on making tons of slop, or alternatively have 35k or 40k left to make real arts stuff. If the end result is incredible instead of the meh result the slop attitude gets, then one would still get the job with the 10k or 15k kit. People are like compensating for bad script and lack of vision and lack of courage to make radical unique storytelling choices and the set becomes just another cine gear expo where one shows off cool expensive gear to somehow try to look super professional. Putting on Arri or Panavision baseball caps and everything. I am composing and recording music for my documentary projects at the moment and having very basic gear. Zoom recorders, basic condenser mics, nothing fancy. I could have afforded Neumann mic or two if wanting to show off but went with NT1 and AT2031 and similar very basic stuff. The instruments are very basic models too. I think the most expensive guitar cost like 200 euros or so. And recording at home, not in a cool well known studio. The results are still great. It is because I do care, I don't have any reason to make mediocre slop or use AI for anything and I don't need to follow the artificial made up "rules" people are confined with if they want to "look professional". The videographer attitude would be to buy the most expensive most drooled-after Neumann or other high end microphone, then having no money to buy any musical instruments to play and resort to using AI to make some slop mediocre music to get something usable. The expensive gear was just a smokescreen for the sweatshop really used to make the end product. Grab the cash and run before they realize it was some AI drawing you claimed to have spent 200 hours making by hand... Nailed it 1
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 19 Premium Member Posted February 19 On 2/17/2026 at 1:58 AM, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: So If multiple people disagreed with you on this forum you'd change your mind? Are you seriously placing that as an adult argument? Change my mind on what? That digital cinema can be made to look good? That film is becoming too expensive for consumers and they're being forced to shift away from film, against their will? That the craft of cinema isn't dying because of the switch to digital cinema, if anything it's expanding? That lower-end clients are moving away from film slowly because budgets are being tightened? Are these statements false somehow? On 2/17/2026 at 1:58 AM, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: 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. The only relevant part is surviving. The rest is all in your head.
Karim D. Ghantous Posted February 19 Posted February 19 We might see a reversion to the old system: big budget productions will shoot film and everyone else is going to shoot digital. Those old Red Epic 5K sensors are still darned good, and they are dirt cheap. Projects with very small budgets may prefer an old Epic to a new Sony FX. They are about the same price. 1
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted February 19 Premium Member Posted February 19 4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Change my mind on what? That digital cinema can be made to look good? That film is becoming too expensive for consumers and they're being forced to shift away from film, against their will? That the craft of cinema isn't dying because of the switch to digital cinema, if anything it's expanding? That lower-end clients are moving away from film slowly because budgets are being tightened? Are these statements false somehow? I will rephrase: Do you base the validity of your statements based on whether people on this forum agree with you? The rest of your paragraph are not questions - they are rephrased statements that are in some cases a matter of opinion and/or context and in others only partially true. I am personally the very definition of a lower end client, and have actually found film to be more price accessible recently through discounts at Wittner but also in other places in the past, I accumulate film stock slowly and at opportune times as I suspect do a lot of people on the same boat as I - who as you said, need to work for a living. Most European film labs like Andec, Silbersalz, Haghe Film and others are super busy (and back-logged) but still take the time to talk and help when/where they can to small-time individuals like me and others. If I compare this attitude to a period of say 2004 - 2013 - (earlier for sure as well) , it's literally night and day - these places had zero relationships with private individuals and would not even consider developing/scanning a single 400' reel. From where I am sitting and the talks I sometime have with these people - we are in a very good spot in terms of film productions (including commercial work) at least in Europe and the sector is growing in good health. In my opinion (and it's just opinion) the proliferation of digital cinema inadvertently (or deliberately) converted many cinematographers to think like a computer geek, obsessing over the minutiae of this and that digital workflow and camera sensors vs. really focusing on lighting mood and immersion which kind of explains the let's-cater-to-the VFX-and-post-people grey slush mud we see today in today's productions. I will quote two statements (American Cinematographer) by the late and absolutely awesome Robby Müller on "Paris Texas (movie snap above) "When I get a camera from a camera rental the first thing I do is let them take off all the toys.” Having tried this system on one film he says, “I’m sure it’s sometimes very useful, but I mostly didn’t need it at all and it was only a burden — all those extra cables restricting your movements. What disturbed me very much was that people on the set were not concentrating anymore.They were standing behind the monitor as if it were happening there and not on the set." ....And that was 1985 - I am sure that PTA came to the same realization as others today. Second: “There was not enough time, not enough money and we only had enough negative to complete the scene and no money to buy more. The last shot was also our last roll.” The last scene between Travis and Jane ends with an arduous and emotional eight-minute single-take monologue by Nastassia Kinski. There was one 1,000’ roll of negative left and no possibility of shooting again at that location" This is Palme D’Or Cannes film festival-awarded film and the makers were willing to take that risk. So why shouldn't we? 1
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted February 19 Premium Member Posted February 19 Technician here. Before being able to expose 16-mm. film successfully we need correctly cut stock. I have had a camera returning a week ago with two snippets of raw stock in it, one a piece perforated on both sides, one single-side perforated. The client claimed malfunction of the camera with the 1-r. stock but faultless transport of the 2-r. Measurements. The 2-r. film sample was too wide, namely 16,015 mm. ISO 69, 16 mm motion-picture raw stock film – cutting and perforating dimensions, says: in no case should equipment fail to accomodate a film width of 16,00 mm (0.630 in). Obviously no problem. The 1-r. sample had 15,94 mm which is within tolerance. Yet, why would it not be advanced well by the claw? The client stated that in one place where he shot, relative humidity was 90 percent. In an other it was 70 percent. Clearly the emulsion overcoat had become sticky, not the soot-blackened back gelatine. It’s a Kodak Vision 3 color negative stock. The 2-r. is Fomapan R. Conclusion: Kodak must have gotten sloppy with the viscosity-hardening balance of the top coating. This has to do with the undermost and the uppermost layers pulling along the whole viscous package. Digital or film, at least for me, has to do with technics. The main difference between the two, some may remember my statements, is that here we have objects, tangible materials, and us treating them. It’s a craft. There you deal with computer technology, image and sound are immaterial. Only data. I am 64. Haven’t been in a cinema since 2003. I am not attracted by television or computer imagery. For me cinema is film, projected. Also 16 mm. We better discuss what really matters. Art comes much, much later, if at all.
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 19 Premium Member Posted February 19 1 hour ago, Simon Wyss said: Technician here. Before being able to expose 16-mm. film successfully we need correctly cut stock. I have had a camera returning a week ago with two snippets of raw stock in it, one a piece perforated on both sides, one single-side perforated. The client claimed malfunction of the camera with the 1-r. stock but faultless transport of the 2-r. Measurements. The 2-r. film sample was too wide, namely 16,015 mm. ISO 69, 16 mm motion-picture raw stock film – cutting and perforating dimensions, says: in no case should equipment fail to accomodate a film width of 16,00 mm (0.630 in). Obviously no problem. The 1-r. sample had 15,94 mm which is within tolerance. Yet, why would it not be advanced well by the claw? The client stated that in one place where he shot, relative humidity was 90 percent. In an other it was 70 percent. Clearly the emulsion overcoat had become sticky, not the soot-blackened back gelatine. It’s a Kodak Vision 3 color negative stock. The 2-r. is Fomapan R. Conclusion: Kodak must have gotten sloppy with the viscosity-hardening balance of the top coating. This has to do with the undermost and the uppermost layers pulling along the whole viscous package. Digital or film, at least for me, has to do with technics. The main difference between the two, some may remember my statements, is that here we have objects, tangible materials, and us treating them. It’s a craft. There you deal with computer technology, image and sound are immaterial. Only data. I am 64. Haven’t been in a cinema since 2003. I am not attracted by television or computer imagery. For me cinema is film, projected. Also 16 mm. We better discuss what really matters. Art comes much, much later, if at all. I would totally expect Fomapan to have tolerances all over the place as even my projector sounds different with it and it had lower stability on our ACL shoot. but it is surprising Kodak messes up with negative stock. They do know better and have no need to cut corners because they set the pricing by being the market leader. The balance is important yes and it can be surprisingly small details at times which do matter a lot. For example on the 10-speed motor I installed on a forum member's K3 there was a tiny invisible soldering joint issue on one small 1206 resistor on the mainboard. The -12C° weather I exposed the camera to revealed the issue, the resistor shrunk maybe like one tenth of thousand of a millimeter and temporarily lost connection and the motor started behaving weirdly. I solder these really carefully and manually inspect every joint like 20 times but this was totally invisible microscopic fault which was only exposed by the huge temperature change. If it cannot be detected it cannot be repaired. People get annoyed when it takes so long for me to get stuff built and shipped but it is partially this why it takes so long. Every freaking small detail needs to be manually checked a million times if you want the device to be reliable. Otherwise it would be just like that Ursa Mini G2 which I have talked about many times, the one which came to the set in factory package totally new and did not even turn on and had to be sent immediately back. They did not even bother to check that the camera would turn on before shipping it to the customer. 1
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 19 Premium Member Posted February 19 3 hours ago, Simon Wyss said: Measurements. The 2-r. film sample was too wide, namely 16,015 mm. ISO 69, 16 mm motion-picture raw stock film – cutting and perforating dimensions, says: in no case should equipment fail to accomodate a film width of 16,00 mm (0.630 in). Obviously no problem. The 1-r. sample had 15,94 mm which is within tolerance. Yet, why would it not be advanced well by the claw? The client stated that in one place where he shot, relative humidity was 90 percent. In an other it was 70 percent. Clearly the emulsion overcoat had become sticky, not the soot-blackened back gelatine. It’s a Kodak Vision 3 color negative stock. The 2-r. is Fomapan R. Conclusion: Kodak must have gotten sloppy with the viscosity-hardening balance of the top coating. This has to do with the undermost and the uppermost layers pulling along the whole viscous package. Its worse then that, the perforations deflect as well on the new AHU stock, something they did not do with the Remjet film. On the Aaton cameras, where the top of the pulldown stroke, the claw literally slides on the perforation as it goes into the hole for the next pulldown cycle. So what's happening is that as this pulldown claw is going into the perforation, it's deflecting the perf, which means sometimes, it skips if the penetration isn't deep enough and the edge rails of the pulldown area pressure plate, aren't stuff enough. It's not like a conventional camera, there is no gap between the pulldown area pressure plate and the gate. It needs to hold that film tight. So we're seeing lots of "loud cameras" with normal penetration numbers, requiring MORE penetration, to get the pull-down to not skip a perf. The cameras are louder as a consequence. This problem really only affects the single pulldown 16mm and 35mm cameras from Aaton. The Arri's suffer from more scratching issues than anything else. I will have to do some perforation measuring, thanks for the heads up. 3 hours ago, Simon Wyss said: I am 64. Haven’t been in a cinema since 2003. I am not attracted by television or computer imagery. For me cinema is film, projected. Also 16 mm. Dang that's too bad, we have such wonderful film prints of modern movies these days.
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 19 Premium Member Posted February 19 7 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: I will rephrase: Do you base the validity of your statements based on whether people on this forum agree with you? Validity is directly connected to qualified people. If someone who is qualified says something based on long-term experience which contradicts what I say, I will either learn from that and/or try to engage in a conversation which may lead to a mutual agreement based on different experiences. 7 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: I am personally the very definition of a lower end client, and have actually found film to be more price accessible recently through discounts at Wittner but also in other places in the past, I accumulate film stock slowly and at opportune times as I suspect do a lot of people on the same boat as I - who as you said, need to work for a living. When I've ordered from ORWO (which is the Wolfen film Wittner sells) it's actually more price per foot than Kodak. So maybe they just charge more for the import fees? My Euro friends haven't complained about buying Kodak film there before, they don't buy it in the US and ship it over either. With the Euro stronger than the US dollar right now, you'd think people would be buying direct from the states and getting a better deal. Buying little ends here and there, leads to inconsistencies during a production. So unless you're shooting home movies, it's really not a good idea. It's really bad with 35mm because 400ft doesn't cover much time. With 11 minutes of 16mm, you can sometimes use mixed batches especially if they are the same age. We always buy in bulk from Kodak to keep batch numbers consistent, which is why our results sometimes surprise people. 7 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Most European film labs like Andec, Silbersalz, Haghe Film and others are super busy (and back-logged) but still take the time to talk and help when/where they can to small-time individuals like me and others. Yea, usually labs are pretty cool. I think the newer run labs understand the consumer aspect like super 8 and the onsie twosie 16mm client, they can up-charge considerably for. Andec for instance is 1.30 euros per meter for processing and prep for telecine. When I do the math from Meters to feet and euro's to dollar, I get $.51 cents per foot for processing and prep for telecine. That is not a sustainable price for any filmmaker and around 3x more than even the most expensive labs in the Untied States. Even Cinelab London is WAY cheaper. I'm certain the pricing goes down with quantity, but if that's their advertised pricing, that's what a 100ft daylight spool 16mm customer is paying. Interesting Andec hasn't raised their prices on Kodak film yet, they must have not gotten their new bill from Kodak yet! Few of my reseller friends got the film but the bill shocked them. 7 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: If I compare this attitude to a period of say 2004 - 2013 - (earlier for sure as well) , it's literally night and day - these places had zero relationships with private individuals and would not even consider developing/scanning a single 400' reel. I started shooting 16mm in the 90s and the smaller labs were copasetic and welcoming of lower budget productions in the states. I think that feeling has now spread to the bigger labs today. Even with Fotokem, the biggest lab in the world, the most trivial 100ft camera test roll, they are generally on top of like it's a big commercial job. Without them in my back yard, I would never be shooting film. 7 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: From where I am sitting and the talks I sometime have with these people - we are in a very good spot in terms of film productions (including commercial work) at least in Europe and the sector is growing in good health. The growth for consumer stuff has flatlined. We are seeing clients who have been waiting patiently to get cameras, finally shoot film but find out it's too expensive to do much shooting per year. Producers who got their shows green lit a while back and are finally in production, which is why we see so many bigger commercial shows in production. Yet stuff slightly smaller productions are shifting away from film quite fast honestly. Film curious people who are shooting a few still rolls a year, seem to be expanding slowly, but they won't keep the labs a float. I feel as the global instability continues, the people who "would be" film shooters, will simply back off that expense. Currently, we haven't hit that point, but it's coming and it will be hard felt in all aspects as companies like Kodak will continue to raise prices due to slower sales, which leads to less shooting and even slower sales. This has happened in so many industries, but film has stayed strong due to the bigger shows and they do not care about how much it costs. 7 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: In my opinion (and it's just opinion) the proliferation of digital cinema inadvertently (or deliberately) converted many cinematographers to think like a computer geek, obsessing over the minutiae of this and that digital workflow and camera sensors vs. really focusing on lighting mood and immersion which kind of explains the let's-cater-to-the VFX-and-post-people grey slush mud we see today in today's productions. Well, if you shoot digital like film, without the gadgets and focus on creating a perfect image in camera, then the tool is irrelevant. Even back in the film days, DP's experimented with the new toys, so this isn't a new obsession, it's still old. I do wish people would stop playing with stuff and just tell a good story, but even on Sinners, the 2 stops under exposed look and heavy VFX driven movie shot and presented on 65/70mm was no different than if it was shot on digital and presented on film. Everyone today in Hollywood works the same way, even on PTA's One Battle, they still had all the toys, plenty of VFX shots too. I think you're referring to a different type of filmmaker. Go watch Nomadland. Shot an Alexa, no VFX, looks great. It CAN be done. The obsession is the problem and the medium does not matter. It's a "filmmaker" problem, not a technology issue. Film or digital, doesn't matter.
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted February 19 Premium Member Posted February 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Validity is directly connected to qualified people. If someone who is qualified says something based on long-term experience which contradicts what I say, I will either learn from that and/or try to engage in a conversation which may lead to a mutual agreement based on different experiences. But this is not what happened here, you simply said that your statement had more validity because some agreed with you, but let's skip that conversation at this stage. 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: The growth for consumer stuff has flatlined. Not in Europe at least. 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Go watch Nomadland I have, twice I believe. I like many things about the movie including its story, acting and layers but that is despite its awful cinematography - allow me to demonstrate with three different images at random points in the movie: It's the usual "grey mud" prevalent in Cinema and TV cinematography for the past, I don't know 6-8 years? I call it "someone forgot to turn on the lights" 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: but even on Sinners, the 2 stops under exposed look and heavy VFX driven movie shot and presented on 65/70mm was no different than if it was shot on digital and presented on film. Everyone today in Hollywood works the same way, even on PTA's One Battle, they still had all the toys, plenty of VFX shots too. Agree 100% on Sinners, One battle was 100% not the case, lighting looks very instinctive, direct, with hard lights, accentuation and sculpting - again I demonstrate: It's like, this movie their people understood that they have a spine and can actually LET LIGHT BE! That's not to mention the telephoto scenes! The underground scenes (at that mansion) was as if I was watching "Eyes Wide Shut" meets Dr. Strangelove. As for the toys, monitors were disallowed on set and shooting was very focused on the individuals absolutely needed. 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Film or digital, doesn't matter. For some of us it absolutely, unequivocally does, but maybe not for you, It's not about purism, it's not about snobbish attitudes to those who do differently, it's just that some of us think it just looks and works better in both image and process fashion. I wouldn't be personally touching film in a million years if I didn't think it actually looks better, no matter how fashionable or hip it may be today or in the past. Edited February 19 by Aristeidis Tyropolis
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 20 Premium Member Posted February 20 (edited) On 2/18/2026 at 10:57 AM, Aapo Lettinen said: I am composing and recording music for my documentary projects at the moment and having very basic gear. Zoom recorders, basic condenser mics, nothing fancy. I could have afforded Neumann mic or two if wanting to show off but went with NT1 and AT2031 and similar very basic stuff. The instruments are very basic models too. I think the most expensive guitar cost like 200 euros or so. And recording at home, not in a cool well known studio. The results are still great. It is because I do care, I don't have any reason to make mediocre slop or use AI for anything and I don't need to follow the artificial made up "rules" people are confined with if they want to "look professional". The videographer attitude would be to buy the most expensive most drooled-after Neumann or other high end microphone, then having no money to buy any musical instruments to play and resort to using AI to make some slop mediocre music to get something usable. The expensive gear was just a smokescreen for the sweatshop really used to make the end product. Grab the cash and run before they realize it was some AI drawing you claimed to have spent 200 hours making by hand... and making some music for old short film projects too. small sample from today. will mix the more complex ones probably in Summer when the birds are singing too loudly that one could record anything. Maybe this kind of stuff is not everyone's cup of tea but I think one can at least hear what I am talking about when comparing making something for real instead of just checking internet for references and then trying to get some stupid AI "compose" something you kind of like. Playing every single note by yourself is just entirely different universe, I think one can catch something real that way instead of the endless mirages the pop culture and internet drown us in. Especially people need to shut up about "not being good enough to make something by themselves" because that is total bs and just leads to the whole human culture being reduced to nothingness Edited February 20 by Aapo Lettinen 1
Karim D. Ghantous Posted February 21 Posted February 21 On 2/20/2026 at 8:37 AM, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: It's the usual "grey mud" prevalent in Cinema and TV cinematography for the past, I don't know 6-8 years? I call it "someone forgot to turn on the lights" This is truly awful. It can be used rarely, here and there. In general, it's so pretentious.
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 21 Premium Member Posted February 21 On 2/19/2026 at 2:37 PM, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: For some of us it absolutely, unequivocally does, but maybe not for you, It's not about purism, it's not about snobbish attitudes to those who do differently, it's just that some of us think it just looks and works better in both image and process fashion. I wouldn't be personally touching film in a million years if I didn't think it actually looks better, no matter how fashionable or hip it may be today or in the past. There is zero doubt that film looks better than digital out of the box, with no post processing. It's why I love film so much, you can shoot something and with very little post work, it just sings. Plus, the grain and softness is built-in, so it hides a lot of the problematic color issues that plague direct-from-imager digital images. The moment you sit down and start manipulating digital shots, using 3rd party plugins to add the missing elements and smooth out the image, you start to see it match or surpass the capabilities of film. Higher ISO workflows allow for a more realistic look for instance and with the proper post color workflows, you can nail the missing aspects of digital imagery quickly and easily to make the image more pleasing. So it's really down to the artist and what they are capable of achieving with their camera system and post system. There are plenty of examples of digital being extremely good looking, and even more examples of film looking like crap. The tool you use SHOULD be irrelevant to the final image.
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted February 21 Premium Member Posted February 21 (edited) 7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: The moment you sit down and start manipulating digital shots, using 3rd party plugins to add the missing elements and smooth out the image, you start to see it match or surpass the capabilities of film. Higher ISO workflows allow for a more realistic look for instance and with the proper post color workflows, you can nail the missing aspects of digital imagery quickly and easily to make the image more pleasing. This "surpassing" you are referring to is really a factor of sharpness, dynamic range and ISO. But we all know that the qualities of how film actually looks go further than that. Those "remaining" aspects cannot be "nailed" and are only factors of approximation - which has become a really pedantic race nowadays. Till this day, I have seen zero evidence of the contrary being the case. You can choose to say that you can make "pleasing" images but these images are not necessarily pleasing - or to use a more apt word, "appropriate" to the mood I am personally looking for as well as for others. 7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: So it's really down to the artist and what they are capable of achieving with their camera system and post system. And the medium is part of the capability, you keep removing it but that's just your perspective. 7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: There are plenty of examples of digital being extremely good looking, and even more examples of film looking like crap. True in some cases, but that's not relevant to whether film is preferred or not, as for some of us it looks better provided the opportunity. 7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: The tool you use SHOULD be irrelevant to the final image. Edited February 21 by Aristeidis Tyropolis
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 21 Premium Member Posted February 21 Maybe I continue posting music samples because Acoustic Instruments vs. Synthetised Instruments is the same debate than Film vs. Digital. I feel it is very difficult to get synth instruments to resonate with the soul on the same level. It is subconscious thing like the analog image resonating differently 1
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted February 21 Premium Member Posted February 21 37 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said: I feel it is very difficult to get synth instruments to resonate with the soul on the same level. It is subconscious thing like the analog image resonating differently I really like this music - there's some echoes of Zbigniew Preisner in there (maybe) which I am a big fan of. But beyond that, the means to do it is very much an extension of the creative process - to this day, I don't really understand this diminishing attitude "oh, but you can do this virtually" - over everything expressive, it's not really bringing anything to the table, do what you want - just let others exist within their own expressive context without dismissing it with blanked statements as naive or "easily reproducible" or whatever.
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 21 Premium Member Posted February 21 2 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: I really like this music - there's some echoes of Zbigniew Preisner in there (maybe) which I am a big fan of. Thanks! have not listened to Preisner but I am kind of a Gustavo Santaolalla fan which sometimes can be heard from the use of very bright guitar style instruments. Will definitely sometime travel to Bolivia to pick up a very good quality ronroco, they don't sell them here but the sound is just lovely! Basic ukulele style instruments work for my stuff pretty well at the moment when not having super special exotic stuff available 🙂 Here is the latest from the same soundtrack, again very different style than the previous ones but the same thematic story continues especially by the flute. playing unconvetional instruments with violin bow etc which is pretty heretic to some musicians 😄 1
Jon O'Brien Posted February 21 Posted February 21 16 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: The moment you sit down and start manipulating digital shots, using 3rd party plugins to add the missing elements and smooth out the image, you start to see it match or surpass the capabilities of film. Yes, I agree that this "surpassing" is in the eye of the beholder. In my view, with digital you get the sharpness but at the expense of a certain thinness in the image.
Jon O'Brien Posted February 21 Posted February 21 Plus, real is very important to me. As Simon said above, with film we are dealing with a real object. Digital imagery is generated by, and forever remains, just data. As an artist I cannot get around that fact. Yes, putting food on the table comes long before art. But if it's not art I can't get involved in it if it's supposed to be art. I'd rather sit out in the sun in the garden of a Sunday and read a book. If I was confined to digital data for the creation of art I'd rather not do it at all. 1
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 22 Premium Member Posted February 22 3 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: Digital imagery is generated by, and forever remains, just data. As an artist I cannot get around that fact. This is true, but people have been printing digital files to paper and celluloid since the late 80's. Plus, you are literally using digital technology right now to communicate with the rest of the world. So working with the modern medium of digital, is basically saying you're compatible to the rest of society. Mind you, I have a feeling 99.5% of the world shoots digitally mostly and a small portion also shoots film for fun. I'm about to wrap this big shoot we are doing in Colorado, we shot digital for 3 days and film for 2 days. On day two of digital, I knew I had enough footage to make what I was after. On day two of shooting film, I have no idea. I could get the film on the scanner in a few days and find out, there was a light leak in my changing tent, or because it was minus 5 degrees Fahrenheit this morning, that my flange distance of the camera is too tight, so it's all soft. The digital camera was out in the snow, just purring along the entire time without any issues and the instant results, gave me confidence that I'm heading back with what I need. Plus I can show people what we're doing right away, with 80MP still grabs directly off the digital imager. Still grabs from 16mm don't look good, they're kinda poor honestly. So in a week when I got it all scanned and ready to start editing, the excitement of the event we shot will be all over, the stills will have no value anymore.
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 22 Premium Member Posted February 22 Final music sample for now. Unconventional instruments again and as before, every instrument real and self played. Yes I am recording these digitally, at the moment with Zoom Livetrack L12, one instrument at a time and then mixing with computer. And microphones on this one were all small diagram condensers and not tube or ribbon mics! If comparing to the film world I guess it would be counted as movie shot on film but finished and projected digitally 😅 Did not make a video when recording this but people would call me mad doing some of the stuff, like that screaming self made instrument sounding like broken glass or dying animal, and playing baritone guitar with violin bow like that 😄 To get a really interesting result one has to ignore the "rules" at times of "how it is allowed to make music and how not". Reminding that it took around 2 hours to record this so it is not about it taking too long or anything if wanting to use real instruments. Synth use is just laziness 😄 2
Jon O'Brien Posted February 23 Posted February 23 (edited) Selling all my digital kit, everything except mics and audio stuff I can use for celluloid shoots. By the way, I've got a new name for the anti-film hardline pushers of total digital. They are the digital literati . Edited February 23 by Jon O'Brien 2
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted February 24 Premium Member Posted February 24 10 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: Selling all my digital kit, everything except mics and audio stuff I can use for celluloid shoots Yes absolutely, digital cameras work best if being purchased for certain carefully planned couple of projects and after that sold before they drop value too much. You have to have some kind of digital camera which is multi purpose and mainly used for stills but which can shoot video if has to. It is mainly used for promo photos and making of videos if on a film shoot. But if something horrible happens to the film camera one can still finish the shoot with that mirrorless makingof camera. I use gh5s with kit lens for this at the moment, it is cheap enough so that others can borrow it to shoot makingof and I can concentrate on the film camera. Audio gear does not expire like video technology. One can buy recorders and mics and they are still valid 20 years from now. I only buy more audio gear if needing different type of mic or extra mics. Upgraded to F6 recorder from the old H6 to get more sturdy body and timecode and npf battery option, sold the 12 years old H6 as it still worked fine. All my from 10 to 20 years old mics work fine, just bought some different type ones for music projects. I have used sennheiser and audio technica mics from the 80's on projects and nothing wrong with them and work find with modern recorders
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