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

[Jon O'Brien]

12 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

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

Spot on.

I have a buyer for the camera, monitor and batteries already. Word of mouth, through local film community. Just got to sell two EVFs and a lens and they won't be difficult to sell. I've also got a Zhiyun Crane 3S gimbal that I was thinking of selling but I think I will keep it for now. Especially after I found out you could potentially put a Bolex H16, roll of film, lens, and mobile phone (as makeshift monitor) on it at under 3.7 kg and the thing is said to be rated to over 6 kg.

Could come in handy for some shots.

I realised that if I do need a video camera for my own use I can just rent one, with a lens etc, for about AUD $300 a day. Or pick up a small thing for the very purpose you describe.

Video did teach me a few things, so I don't regret walking that path for about 3 years. I now know all about those weird and wonderful things called digital video cameras or as some call them digital cinema cameras. Three years ago they were a total mystery to me.

And now, back to film.

Getting two rolls of AHU stock in next few weeks, and will test two separate cameras, lenses etc plus two separate labs we now have in Sydney, all in one go. Looking forward to it.

I'm also costing a 12 minute short film for someone, to be shot on Super 16 on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. That's if the funding goes fine.

Edited February 24 by Jon O'Brien

[Robin Phillips]

hear me out. if you're able to leverage and/or balance resources to shoot 16 (or film in general) and its important enough to you and everyone involved, shoot 16. if it doesnt make sense for a given project and you're happy with digital, shoot digital. 

thats really what it comes down to.

my only other 2 cents is that not being able to shoot on film should not get in the way of making a film or show, especially if getting that one show made means you have the leverage to get the next thing made, giving you the next opportunity to fight to shoot on film. 

[Tyler Purcell]

13 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

hear me out. if you're able to leverage and/or balance resources to shoot 16 (or film in general) and its important enough to you and everyone involved, shoot 16. if it doesnt make sense for a given project and you're happy with digital, shoot digital. 

Correct, this is my attitude. 

Of course, the other problem is getting that larger imager depth of field. That also pushes a lot of people to shoot digital because to get that ON FILM, is a move up from 16mm to 35mm OR use longer lenses, which can be challenging for narrative especially. 

For me, the flat look is just not acceptable for narrative work. Even though I have shot plenty of other filmmakers narratives on 16mm, I personally dislike the look for that sort of storytelling. It works fantastic for documentaries or doc style narratives, commercial and music videos. I always push to 35mm for my own narrative work tho, I just vastly prefer the look and the ability to shoot 500T and push it a stop to get beautiful night scenes on film. 

13 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

my only other 2 cents is that not being able to shoot on film should not get in the way of making a film or show, especially if getting that one show made means you have the leverage to get the next thing made, giving you the next opportunity to fight to shoot on film. 

Bingo, far better to be creative than it is to always wait for the proper funding to shoot film. Seems like MOST people who consider them selfs film shooters, are only "experimenting" with the format, doing camera tests and very short subject pieces. There is whole other world out there with good digital cinema, where you don't have to be so invested financially in a given project, but are continuing to be creative without the financial constraints every time you turn on the camera. 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

1 hour ago, Robin Phillips said:

hear me out. if you're able to leverage and/or balance resources to shoot 16 (or film in general) and its important enough to you and everyone involved, shoot 16. if it doesnt make sense for a given project and you're happy with digital, shoot digital. 

thats really what it comes down to.

my only other 2 cents is that not being able to shoot on film should not get in the way of making a film or show, especially if getting that one show made means you have the leverage to get the next thing made, giving you the next opportunity to fight to shoot on film. 

Ok, some reasonable points made - but the issue I see with that logic is that it applies commercial practicalities to something that's doesn't necessarily need to be made, it's not a commercial that will pay your bills, it's not a corporate shoot that will keep you afloat, moreso if it's a passion project.

So, what's the point of making the movie as leverage? Leverage to what? The endless void of millions of people with the same thought as you? What about all the other compromises you will make on the same vain? 

Oh, but you will say, why waste all your budget on film, as you could spend it on talent and/or production capabilities?

I say to that, that if your context is a standard commercial narrative feature (or short) that is just another rehash of ten million movies with zero new perspective, shot with zero bravado, dare or interest, then literally nobody will care or feel what you shot it with anyway, there'd be nothing to showcase. Moreso in the age of A.I.

If someone can figure out their artistic expression by striving and  using what they meant instead of going on weird mental gymnastics abour what makes sense or not they're in the right path, there are zero, literal zero practical reasons to make any artistic effort - nobody needs your work, so one should be very cautious into taking any advice that does not further what truly matters to oneself.

Every work should be treated like the last, at least it stands a chance at being more honest even if it takes longer to materialize.

Finally, just as a side note, story is not necessarily "king" -immersion and mood are equal contenders and play in to the viewer's psyche in more ways than one.

 

Edited February 25 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Karim D. Ghantous]

2 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Finally, just as a side note, story is not necessarily "king" -immersion and mood are equal contenders and play in to the viewer's psyche in more ways than one.

 

Absolutely. A lot of people don't realise that the reason why they like what they like is because it made them feel something. They felt immersed. A good example is Rear Window. It's not something you can specify on a script, and it's not easy to quantify. 

[Jon O'Brien]

2 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Absolutely. A lot of people don't realise that the reason why they like what they like is because it made them feel something. They felt immersed. A good example is Rear Window. It's not something you can specify on a script, and it's not easy to quantify. 

Yes. You feel immersed when the story is told so, so well, by a master entertainer. That's the quality we are lacking in many filmmakers today. They want to tell their stories, but are they entertainers? Your film might entertain you, your friends, and other like-minded filmmakers who admire your work ... but can you inspire ordinary non-filmmaker folk, mums and dads, grandpas and grandmas, etc, to shell out their hard-earned for a ticket to see your movie?

You might have a totally cool story and vibe and approach that is really cutting edge. But unless you can inspire the general public, can you put food on the table with the money you make on the movie?

Maybe. Maybe not. By the way, I'm not suggesting I can do it. I just hope that I can, if I ever get the chance. Like everyone else I guess. In the meantime, I will do my 'passion' projects as they are called. Like everyone else.

At least I know what entertainment is, and I know that entertainment, as a concept, is good in principle. We need entertainment. It's a good thing in society. That's my view.

By the way, in other news ....

I just found out today that Australia is getting a third motion picture film processing lab, in Melbourne. They will process 16mm and 35mm.

 

 

[Jon O'Brien]

Watched the first episode of Columbo last night, the old 70s tv show. Directed by Steven Spielberg.

It's beautifully and artistically shot. Really stand out camera work for a tv show in my opinion.

Even though it was filmed in 4:3 ratio I sometimes like to watch these episodes widened out to 16:9. Okay, a bit uncouth, but I do like the effect sometimes, even though the people look a bit wider than usual.

It's story telling by a master entertainer. It's the way he tells the story. The story itself is interesting but not especially compelling.

The sign of a great filmmaker/story teller is often the camera work. Interesting, isn't it.

So inspiring. Well done Mr Spielberg.

Edited February 25 by Jon O'Brien

[Aapo Lettinen]

at the moment I kind of feel that music is "more cinematography than cinematography" in a sense... instead of making moodboards or such for a movie I think that it is more useful to make a soundtrack for the movie first and then shoot the actual movie. This might be a good way to gain funding too because it is much cheaper to make indie music than to arrange test shoots and demos and teasers to seek funding. Using AI is of course cheap if making moodreels etc. But if not wanting to resort to AI garbage then it could be a good way to make couple of soundtrack songs and make a reel out of them using concept art.

I have this crazy idea of making short films this year so that I would both shoot the film AND compose the soundtrack. One of the benefits is that it is much easier to negotiate with musical themes with the director than on specific cinematography stuff which easily goes so technical that the actual storytelling aspect is lost. On music one can immediately catch everything

[Aapo Lettinen]

I think music directly translates to light and movement. Contrast and dynamic.  Music kind of IS cinematography but in different medium. Depends on the style of music of course but still. If composing soundtrack and then translating it to cinematography one can also avoid some pitfalls of typical cinematography cliches. And the underlying themes and dark and bright overtones are kind of crystallized which will absolutely make the movie better

[Thomas Beach]

On 2/18/2026 at 12:41 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

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.

Tyler, perhaps I misunderstand your post; does this mean all of your film (35mm i.e. "medium format?) failed to come out in post? If so, I'm having a difficult time understanding what happened. Can you elaborate further, please?

On 2/18/2026 at 12:41 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

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.

Agreed. And I failed to make that point clear. Yes, I am a one-man-band (producer/director) save for one other silent investor. So, all of the decisions belong to me, alone. This is the only reason I can choose to shoot on film. And I also agree that outside of that scenario, working in film is almost extinct. I can only hope that HW and the big ad agencies which can afford film, will, along with us Indies, keep the format alive. Like others here, I too believe that film is witnessing a resurgence. Small. But a resurgence nonetheless. 

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Thomas Beach said:

Tyler, perhaps I misunderstand your post; does this mean all of your film (35mm i.e. "medium format?) failed to come out in post? If so, I'm having a difficult time understanding what happened. Can you elaborate further, please?

Yea 120 medium format stills. Something happened to one of the rolls, either a lab issue or camera problem, but the edge code existed, so the camera shot the film, but there was no image. 

On another situation, we sent film out to a lab that threw our film away after scanning it. They couldn't be bothered to send their clients emails or text messages before destruction. 

We've had other issues with still film as well, poor scans, scratched film, long delays, etc. We thought we had a good workflow for a while, but things changed and the results started to suck. So we had to try other labs and in that process, we found lots of other issues. I don't understand how in Los Angeles, the home of this stuff, where there is literally a film lab on every corner, you can't seem to get good fast results. It's not even about money, it's like the labs just don't care. 

By contrast, Fotokem is next day guaranteed. Results are usually 99% perfect, with the occasional issue that they compensate people for. We scan motion picture ourselves and it sounds like we will eventually start scanning still film as well in the future due to the issues. If we eventually move to a place we can have a small lab, I wouldn't mind processing still film as well because I'm bitterly frustrated with the lack of integrity in the still business. Even the Darkroom, arguably the best mail-in lab in the country, still disappointed me with a 2 week turn around for color and 3 week for ektachrome/black and white. Completely unacceptable. If you run a lab and can't guarantee 48hr service once the box lands, then you shouldn't be in business. Customers have become complacent and it's infuriating. 

3 hours ago, Thomas Beach said:

Agreed. And I failed to make that point clear. Yes, I am a one-man-band (producer/director) save for one other silent investor. So, all of the decisions belong to me, alone. This is the only reason I can choose to shoot on film. And I also agree that outside of that scenario, working in film is almost extinct. I can only hope that HW and the big ad agencies which can afford film, will, along with us Indies, keep the format alive. Like others here, I too believe that film is witnessing a resurgence. Small. But a resurgence nonetheless. 

I see the resurgence is a "curiosity" in the consumer space and a real thing in the high end, fully funded commercial space. With even large format VistaVision, IMAX 15P and 5P being used on music videos these days. I don't think that trend is going anywhere, we absolutely get a bunch of commercial clients and higher end camera owners who are swamped with work using their film cameras. So the work DOES exist, but it exists at a much higher tier than a few years ago. 

The more I work with young people who have just found film,  I see a very common trend. They're shooting very small personal projects and/or funding the "film" aspect on bigger shows out of their shoot payment. Where this may seem like film is exploding, within months or a year, I see those same people selling their cameras. They get in, shoot some stuff, realize they actually can't afford it and then move on. They do get the experience which is great, but they aren't lifers. They're still shooting 99% of their content digitally. 

I travel the country on a regular basis and attend photography events regularly. The trend of film taking off was clear to see during covid and up through 2024. Heck, one day at one of the events in 2023, we had 6 guys shooting on film. Hasselblad, Leica, Canon/Nikon and some 4x5 folks too. Then you add me and my mate, there were 8 of us out of 70 people all on film, it was incredible to witness. We were just driving around town during that event and saw a group of large format 4x5 guys shooting landscapes on film as well, probably 12 of them. I leaned over to my mate and was like; film is back baby! 

Today tho, going to the same events, with much of the same clientele, it's all gone. In 2025, I saw one older gentlemen with a beautiful Pentax 120 camera, which is funny because we shot with a Pentax 120 camera at the same event! LOL  But only one guy outside of us was shooting film. Then over the summer and into the fall, zero guys at the events on film. This winter we were back, the only film guys were another older guy with an AE1 and a young bloke with a glass plate 4x5 camera. I didn't get the time to talk to either one of them, I was very busy, but out of over 300 people and 5 shoot days, I only saw those two cameras one time. We shot 16mm film 2 out of the 5 days and both guys were not around when we did. 

So the trend I see with the stills guys, is that they just can't afford to go to these events anymore, or they're not bringing their film cameras. Either way, it was clearly a growing trend and now it's declining again, based on ancillary data. 

As peoples personal budgets tighten due to the economic decline, we will see film use decline as well. I for one struggle to afford it and we scan our own stuff! 

Edited February 25 by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

11 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

I have this crazy idea of making short films this year so that I would both shoot the film AND compose the soundtrack. One of the benefits is that it is much easier to negotiate with musical themes with the director than on specific cinematography stuff which easily goes so technical that the actual storytelling aspect is lost. On music one can immediately catch everything

You should and record your very cool music on ribbon mic's with tube front ends, it will add some softness even if you record to Pro Tools. Maybe do the soundtrack first and then create the film around it? I've done that before, it's a lot of fun, especially with the eery style of music you create. I wouldn't even do dialog, could be completely focused on the music only and something thats more of a music/visual piece, save some money too! 

[Robin Phillips]

17 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

So, what's the point of making the movie as leverage? Leverage to what? The endless void of millions of people with the same thought as you? What about all the other compromises you will make on the same vain? 

For an example, Coogler managed to shoot 16 on Fruitvale. He couldnt shoot film again till Sinners, and when he did he went big. all the way to Imax big. 

We move forward in our careers as artists by proving ourselves as economically viable to the money people. thats ultimately how we get to a place where we have fewer compromises, or at least fewer externally imposed compromises. 

[Tyler Purcell]

1 minute ago, Robin Phillips said:

For an example, Coogler managed to shoot 16 on Fruitvale. He couldnt shoot film again till Sinners, and when he did he went big. all the way to Imax big. 

Yep, but Coogler may be an outlier. Fruitvale had some good funding and he got picked up immediately by the studio system. The only reason he got to do Sinners on film is due to IMAX. The studios make a lot of money with IMAX screenings, so their ears lifted up when they heard that word and they saw a lot of money. Sinners has A LOT of VFX, it's pretty sad when you see the BTS and notice that even the sky is fake. 

1 minute ago, Robin Phillips said:

We move forward in our careers as artists by proving ourselves as economically viable to the money people. thats ultimately how we get to a place where we have fewer compromises, or at least fewer externally imposed compromises. 

Bingo. It seems that many people do not understand this aspect. 

Just watch the junk on Tubi. It makes me sad to see so much wasted talent, simply for the bragging rights of "I made a 90 minute thing". 

[Robin Phillips]

17 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Oh, but you will say, why waste all your budget on film, as you could spend it on talent and/or production capabilities?

 

Actually no, I wouldnt just say that. Im not sure why you are taking my replies to the most extreme possible interpretation. 

What I would say is that if you cant put together a sellable package of a movie on film, but shooting digital gets you the budget to afford the bankable talent or the actual minimum number of days you need to accomplish the show the way you see it, then in those circumstances you arguably cant afford film. If I've got to bang through 10 pages a day because I have less than 20 shooting days, and shooting film ups that to 12 pages a day because I had to loose a day or two, its possible I've lost the time to make a quality piece on any medium. At that point, theres no high art being made regardless of medium. This is especially the case in a place like California, where you dont have a guaranteed incentive that can drastically open up the budget to get you more days/talent/film etc.

Like, I own 3 super 16 cameras and two 35mm cameras. And I actually use them whenever I can. if I had my way, I'd never shoot digital. But sometimes thats just not in the cards. it changes how you work, but it doesnt make that way of working inherently wrong. 

anyway, as I type this I realize Im starting to become one part of the problem in this thread. So I'll just leave this as the last words from me - make the best art you can however you can, and know that the balance of factors is part of of the creative process and no choice is necessarily or inherently right or wrong. it is, after all, art. 

[Tyler Purcell]

12 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

just found out today that Australia is getting a third motion picture film processing lab, in Melbourne. They will process 16mm and 35mm.

Yea, Neglab is re-opening, but I think mostly due to runaway production from the US. They don't have a "commercial" lab required for the bigger shows. Same thing happened in Europe as well, the demand from bigger US funded films, pushed for new labs to open and once they were open, smaller shows could get in and shoot film without the delays of waiting for processing. I think it's a great thing because once there is a serious commercial lab in the region, it means there will be more people willing to work there on film and that trend steamrolls into bigger things. Just wait until someone wants to shoot 65mm there, it'll probably eventually happen. 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

13 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

Actually no, I wouldnt just say that. Im not sure why you are taking my replies to the most extreme possible interpretation. 

What I would say is that if you cant put together a sellable package of a movie on film, but shooting digital gets you the budget to afford the bankable talent or the actual minimum number of days you need to accomplish the show the way you see it, then in those circumstances you arguably cant afford film. If I've got to bang through 10 pages a day because I have less than 20 shooting days, and shooting film ups that to 12 pages a day because I had to loose a day or two, its possible I've lost the time to make a quality piece on any medium. At that point, theres no high art being made regardless of medium. This is especially the case in a place like California, where you dont have a guaranteed incentive that can drastically open up the budget to get you more days/talent/film etc.

Like, I own 3 super 16 cameras and two 35mm cameras. And I actually use them whenever I can. if I had my way, I'd never shoot digital. But sometimes thats just not in the cards. it changes how you work, but it doesnt make that way of working inherently wrong. 

anyway, as I type this I realize Im starting to become one part of the problem in this thread. So I'll just leave this as the last words from me - make the best art you can however you can, and know that the balance of factors is part of of the creative process and no choice is necessarily or inherently right or wrong. it is, after all, art. 

I am purposely using extreme examples (as you correctly ascribe) to primarily make the point that many times we're looking at things from a financial perspective, which while valid is only true within a very specific context.

There is no inherent correct way to do art. Michael Haneke shot Caché on a Varicam, this movie, with its long continuous static intro would not have been possible on film - further, the look he got from the camera was part of his thematic intention, so everything matched.

But, if you start counting pages, might as well not do the thing. It's a difficult pill to swallow especially in your neck of the woods but I hold that axiom it as personal truth.

26 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

For an example, Coogler managed to shoot 16 on Fruitvale. He couldnt shoot film again till Sinners, and when he did he went big. all the way to Imax big. 

We move forward in our careers as artists by proving ourselves as economically viable to the money people. thats ultimately how we get to a place where we have fewer compromises, or at least fewer externally imposed compromises. 

I am sure we're missing alot of context on what happened on this person's career, I doubt though life really works that way outside of pure chance mechanics plus competence of course.

I'd venture to say that we move forward as artists (I remove the word career) by proving we can be honest with how we perceive our work intentions. You don't shoot film because you're a fanatic, you choose it because you prefer it over something else in terms of what you want to do. If a career in making money is also part of your pursuit then your work is invariably diluted by that additional burden.

So you either take a second job, shoot commercials and/or events or start justifying film career progression over artistic choices such as how many pages one medium allow which is fine but my apologies, you can't have everything in life and not everyone needs to make it in California.

Edited February 25 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Tyler Purcell]

3 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

What I would say is that if you cant put together a sellable package of a movie on film, but shooting digital gets you the budget to afford the bankable talent or the actual minimum number of days you need to accomplish the show the way you see it, then in those circumstances you arguably cant afford film. If I've got to bang through 10 pages a day because I have less than 20 shooting days, and shooting film ups that to 12 pages a day because I had to loose a day or two, its possible I've lost the time to make a quality piece on any medium. At that point, theres no high art being made regardless of medium. This is especially the case in a place like California, where you dont have a guaranteed incentive that can drastically open up the budget to get you more days/talent/film etc.

Correct, this is the truth that some people just don't understand. 

If the money you'd put towards film can in tern be put towards billable talent, then you always go for the talent. 

If the money you'd put towards film can in tern be put towards more shooting days, you always go for the more time on set. 

If the money you'd put towards film can in tern be put towards better art design/locations, you'll always push for those. 

I'd rather have something with billable talent, with more shooting days and a better art design with more interesting locations, than have the bragging rights of shooting on film. Heck, shoot Alexa 35 and spend some P&A money on a record out to 35mm via a 4k Arri Laser and simply scan that IN and use that as your final color. That's WAY cheaper than shooting the entire project on film. 

Plus, even if you have an incentive in another state, maybe it's 20%, you'd spend that money on post anyway. So your total budget goes towards production, but that 20% rebate is what you need to round out post. This is how we've done it in the past and it works pretty well, especially if you can have a full time assistant/lead editor during production, on the production budget. So when the production is over, then you will use that 20% rebate for the finishing. 

[Giray Izcan]

Every time, when I see "Shot on film" shorts/projects, I just know the film will not be good because I can tell most of the budget went to feeding the camera and everything else most likely went way side... I haven't been proven wrong thus far.. I am of course talking about low budget projects that really have no business shooting on film. A lot of the shot on film projects that I see on Kodak's Instagram posts would have been laughed at during the film days - ceratinly wouldn't be praised by the audience with comments like they are gorgeous etc.. 

Edited February 25 by Giray Izcan

[Robin Phillips]

ok, honestly last note. or I a suppose a clarification. I do actually think there are some circumstances where if your ability to sell the movie has been taken care of cast wise that it may be worth cutting a corner here and there to shoot film. for example, and this is largely a matter of taste, I cant stand the 12800 ISO nighttime look. I'd much rather be super selective with how night looks and what I see, and film slots in well there. I also think taking away the possibility of spray and pray shooting when things go sideways has a benefit. Not to mention what can be a quicker color session if you get things mostly in camera.

And especially if talent is on board, I do think film can leverage a more deliberative and selective process in shooting. those of use trained on film do have an easier time bringing that to digital, though its also worth noting there were spray and pray directors in the film heydays too so digital didnt inherently bring that madness about.

my main opinion on all of this is that if shooting film is actually going to make the product deficient in a critical way, then you've got a problem. that would be separate in my mind from say "I have 35 shooting days and now I have to drop down to 33 or 30 but I work the way I do best in" so long as the film can actually be made that way. 

Like, if you have B+, A-, or even A listers attached who believe in the project and are working for scale, you prep and know what you want, and on 1m you can pull the whole thing off on film, go for it.

But I also just hope this thread doesnt get anyone into a mindset that "if I cant shoot film I shouldnt shoot at all." We basically have to will these films into existence at any level, so its important to not be blind or absolutist about what battles we pick if it could cause anyone to get hung up on making a thing at all.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

54 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

f the money you'd put towards film can in tern be put towards billable talent, then you always go for the talent. 

If the money you'd put towards film can in tern be put towards more shooting days, you always go for the more time on set. 

If the money you'd put towards film can in tern be put towards better art design/locations, you'll always push for those. 

Why would anyone want "bragging rights" over anything?  Literally nobody gives a damn on whether filmmaker A or B chose this or the other. 

54 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I'd rather have something with billable talent, with more shooting days and a better art design with more interesting locations, than have the bragging rights of shooting on film. Heck, shoot Alexa 35 and spend some P&A money on a record out to 35mm via a 4k Arri Laser and simply scan that IN and use that as your final color. That's WAY cheaper than shooting the entire project on film. 

So a movie's ability to withstand scrutiny is judged over its ability to showcase specific production design "qualities" and "locations" not whether the project itself makes artistic sense on its conception inherently?

In other words, the way you perceive whether a film should get made or not is whether it checks its preconceived notions about how many locations and art designs it has? Is it like a horsepower thing?

8 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

A lot of the shot on film projects that I see on Kodak's Instagram posts would have been laughed at during the film days - ceratinly wouldn't be praised by the audience as the comments in these posts suggest that they are gorgeous etc.. 

Ok so now, the discussion is moved onto irrelevant references toward projects that are shown in Kodak's instagram feed? So just because some people were naive or superficial about the whole thing, it should now steer the debate, where exactly?

There isn't a single suggestion here alluding to making crap movies that have the "shot on film" logo for the sake of it.

6 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

my main opinion on all of this is that if shooting film is actually going to make the product deficient in a critical way, then you've got a problem. that would be separate in my mind from say "I have 35 shooting days and now I have to drop down to 33 or 30 but I work the way I do best in" so long as the film can actually be made that way. 

Ok, fine, but why would you do that? Aside from bad things happening, you supposedly have a vision of how you want your project to look, feel etc, you made your homework, you found the funds in whatever fashion you did (again not everyone lives in the U.S) and managed to put the cards on the table, that's all.

9 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

But I also just hope this thread doesnt get anyone into a mindset that "if I cant shoot film I shouldnt shoot at all." We basically have to will these films into existence at any level, so its important to not be blind or absolutist about what battles we pick if it could cause anyone to get hung up on making a thing at all.

I don't think it's about that, my opinion is that if your project is conceived with shooting on film, then this is how it should be, again no one is waiting on your "art", and there's no reason to compromise because it's more expensive or whatever., But you can pursue other projects that have been conceived with digital as a medium and that's also super-fine.

But I really find the side-by-side, pages-per-day this-or-that approach not only artistically flawed but fundamentally problematic. We shoot films because we want to do it, it's not a supermarket discount and I doubt people get into this to get rich or anything.

Stanley Kubrick, who clearly had alot of financial freedom from the studios, focused alot on the practicalities of shooting with a small and efficient crew, and even approached shooting in such a way that would "afford" him more shooting hours per day - so even he, operated within a financial constraint but knew where and how to give emphasis. I think we are grossly underestimating how ingenious film crews can be into achieving certain goals.

 

[Giray Izcan]

28 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Why would anyone want "bragging rights" over anything?  Literally nobody gives a damn on whether filmmaker A or B chose this or the other. 

So a movie's ability to withstand scrutiny is judged over its ability to showcase specific production design "qualities" and "locations" not whether the project itself makes artistic sense on its conception inherently?

In other words, the way you perceive whether a film should get made or not is whether it checks its preconceived notions about how many locations and art designs it has? Is it like a horsepower thing?

Ok so now, the discussion is moved onto irrelevant references toward projects that are shown in Kodak's instagram feed? So just because some people were naive or superficial about the whole thing, it should now steer the debate, where exactly?

There isn't a single suggestion here alluding to making crap movies that have the "shot on film" logo for the sake of it.

Ok, fine, but why would you do that? Aside from bad things happening, you supposedly have a vision of how you want your project to look, feel etc, you made your homework, you found the funds in whatever fashion you did (again not everyone lives in the U.S) and managed to put the cards on the table, that's all.

I don't think it's about that, my opinion is that if your project is conceived with shooting on film, then this is how it should be, again no one is waiting on your "art", and there's no reason to compromise because it's more expensive or whatever., But you can pursue other projects that have been conceived with digital as a medium and that's also super-fine.

But I really find the side-by-side, pages-per-day this-or-that approach not only artistically flawed but fundamentally problematic. We shoot films because we want to do it, it's not a supermarket discount and I doubt people get into this to get rich or anything.

Stanley Kubrick, who clearly had alot of financial freedom from the studios, focused alot on the practicalities of shooting with a small and efficient crew, and even approached shooting in such a way that would "afford" him more shooting hours per day - so even he, operated within a financial constraint but knew where and how to give emphasis. I think we are grossly underestimating how ingenious film crews can be into achieving certain goals.

 

More power to you hahaha.. this is a pointless debate.. no offense but, i am guessing you started shooting on film recently that you are so captivated by it.. during the film days, I don't remember film being fetishized as much as these days...

 

 

Edited February 25 by Giray Izcan

[Giray Izcan]

 

 

Lilitu was shot on Fujifilm and printed on Kodak. The Negative was shot on 5213 pushed 1 stop and printed on Kodak. Mind you, both of these were just hd telecine. I am posting these before I get bashed as the "Digital" guy haha. 

 

Here are some 16mm stuff, all photochemical finish,

https://vimeo.com/483873622?fl=pl&fe=sh

 

Edited February 25 by Giray Izcan

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

17 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

More power to you hahaha.. this is a pointless debate.. no offense but, i am guessing you started shooting on film recently that you are so captivated by it.. during the film days, I don't remember film being fetishized as much as these days...

Is there a point here somewhere?

No offense, but I don't think you read any posts here as there are specific points made against that thing that you clearly imagined in your head that people here are doing.

Also it's not that important what you remember as you made zero comparisons or points to discuss, it might have been interesting to remind everyone (if you do have that experience) that film wasn't fetishized as you said because it was the only way to do things for quite a number of decades in the last and this century, but the word implies a fanatical approach to do things vs. preferring to choose something over another.

Since we're at phase in human civilization that literally millions upon millions of movies have already been made, it is (in my opinion) rather pointless to fret over one's compromises and simply shoot what they really want  vs. what someone says they have to.

As for the fetishization of the whole thing go ask the LUT Genesis/Dehancer crowd that spend 10 million hours in post production trying to emulate 250D or 500T and then go outside to others or online to praise the virtues of their emulation pipeline. I'd argue that's the very definition of a fetish.

Edited February 25 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Tyler Purcell]

48 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Why would anyone want "bragging rights" over anything?  Literally nobody gives a damn on whether filmmaker A or B chose this or the other. 

Giray is 100% accurate, the vast majority of "shoot on film" pieces exist to promote the talent shooting on film, rather than the project itself. A decade ago, this philosophy worked because film had died and was coming back. Today, everyone wants to dabble with film and the most important thing to them IS THE FILM aspect. So they put the "shot on Kodak film" logo before the movie starts, they put "shot on Kodak film" in the URL or title of the project. They brag on social media bout shooting it on film even though the "it" in this case, may be just a 90 second art piece of someone jogging around the city. Is that "art" or just a camera test? 

48 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

So a movie's ability to withstand scrutiny is judged over its ability to showcase specific production design "qualities" and "locations" not whether the project itself makes artistic sense on its conception inherently?

Whatever makes the project look more cinematic, should be utilized first, rather than focusing purely on film vs digital. 

So instead of having a 10 minute dialog scene on a couch, split that scene up into 5 or 6 locations within the house with moving camera, coverage, interesting lighting and framing. Production design comes into hand because if the background is boring like a white wall, the scene immediately looks paper thin and cheap. 

Obviously the camera system plays a role, but today with cameras like the Blackmagic 6k FF, you can get beautiful shallow depth of field shots without even trying. This helps create a more cinematic look as well. 

As I said earlier, I dislike 16mm for narrative for this reason. I feel if the image is flat, it's not cinematic. For doc work it's ok, because you aren't working close to actors necessarily, so you can utilize longer lenses and create that bokeh much easier. If you use that same trick with narrative, it seems distant and especially if you're in a close environment, you are going to struggle. So 35mm is really the smallest film format I would use for narrative work. This of course exacerbates the cost, which is why for so many filmmakers, the decision to shoot on film goes out the window. 

48 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I don't think it's about that, my opinion is that if your project is conceived with shooting on film, then this is how it should be, again no one is waiting on your "art", and there's no reason to compromise because it's more expensive or whatever., But you can pursue other projects that have been conceived with digital as a medium and that's also super-fine.

That's fine, but as production ramps up and you're given outstanding opportunities to shift money into cast, better locations or more days of shooting, will you cancel the entire production so you can raise more money and shoot film or will you just shoot digital? 

This has been my issue for the last 5 years, I was naive like you; "I won't shoot it, if it's not on film" and that attitude has basically led me to scrap multiple projects. After my last movie we shot on 35mm, I had been in pre-production on another film with the same writer/producer, did our location scout, casting, the whole 9. When I told him I wanted to shoot on 35mm and we needed a condor for the night scenes, he laughed and said the budget didn't exist. He wanted to shoot digital and I said no way, this has to be film and guess what, the project never happened. Had that conversation happened today, I would have made the movie and it would be out in the world. Instead, nothing came of it, the writer/producer eventually moved out of town and we haven't talked in 2 years.

When you lose opportunities due to format stubbornness, people don't really want to work with you anymore. It's one thing to budget film and then compromise with a record out from digital or post looks, it's another to put your foot down and simply don't work. I just can't believe it's been 5 years since I've done a narrative of my own, all because of forcing others to shoot on film and difficulty of green lighting it causes. Where I do want to shoot another narrative on 35mm and I am collecting the film now to do it, I also won't let film get in my way again. If the show is green lit and I can't afford it, then we're switching to digital. 

48 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

We shoot films because we want to do it, it's not a supermarket discount and I doubt people get into this to get rich or anything.

It seems like you don't really care about getting the story out into the world, it's more about esthetics rather than the content within. As if the person watching on their phone is even going to notice that you shot on film unless you tag Kodak at the head and tail. 

In all these months of discussing this back and forward, we have all pulled our pants down, shown you OUR work but where is your portfolio? All of those "art" projects that just had to be done on film or they wouldn't have any value. You must have one heck of a collection of stuff shoot on motion picture film if it's the only medium you work with. 

48 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Stanley Kubrick, who clearly had alot of financial freedom from the studios, focused alot on the practicalities of shooting with a small and efficient crew, and even approached shooting in such a way that would "afford" him more shooting hours per day - so even he, operated within a financial constraint but knew where and how to give emphasis. I think we are grossly underestimating how ingenious film crews can be into achieving certain goals.

Kubrick was fired from One Eyed Jacks and moved to the UK for the filming of Lolita. Ever since then, Kubrick was an indoor/set person for the rest of his career. The studios gave him freedom because he re-used a lot of the same sets/locations in each movie, like Lolita, which was 1 set mostly, Dr Strangelove which was basically 3 sets and 2001 A Space Odyssey which was 5 sets and basically no exteriors, even the dawn of man scene was rear projection on a soundstage. 

It is true, Kubrick's first three movies did have a lot of location's and super low budget production with MOS cameras, but from Spartacus onwards, he really got sucked into being on sets mostly and was fully committed to that workflow. 

The funny thing is, if Kubrick was a decade younger, he probably would have embraced digital because he absolutely hated editing on flatbeds/film. He would have been one of the earliest conversion people, probably before Deakins.