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

[Giray Izcan]

4 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Maybe you can spare us your last minute posts that prove nothing.

Please check your attitude instead, you made statements such "as this discussion makes no sense" if it doesn't why are you in it?  Why do you even care?

This thread is about our thoughts on the medium not who has the most expertise. But since you haven't read it you wouldn't know.

 

It is a public forum, therefore, I do not have to ask you for your permission whether I can or cannot post. You've been all talk but nothing to show for. Like I said, and there's nothing wrong with it, matter of fact I actually enjoy the fact that you enjoy film this much because I am actually through and through film person I get that you just probably discovered shooting on film and love everything about it and you should it's a great format.  I don't only shoot on film, I also print on film and scan that print, no di or anything like that. I shared the stuff I shot with you so that you can see I'm not just some digital guy who's hating on film. Otherwise I couldn't care less about impressing you or not.

My advice to you is not to get pigeonholed by a format. Push for film if there's budget for it but if there's not, don't burn Bridges with people by rejecting who want to collaborate with you just so you are loyal to one format. Be flexible

 

[Giray Izcan]

2 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

The thread is literally about being passionate about film shooting over switching to digital.

The fact that you immediately assume that I am not aware that lighting should be non intrusive and serve the director's intention is very interesting, I don't do critique because no one asked, but I was primarily being polite.

This is not a thread that I will post personal projects, but I promise that I will do so in the appropriate section, provide a description and ask for opinions

To that end I will be posting my NC500 and NC200 tests in the relevant section the following month and promise to update on my audio tests as well.

 

I look forward to that test. Is that going to be 16 or 35? I haven't got a chance to play with those stocks. But I remember Orwo sent me one of their black and white stocks for me to test for a feature film project. The feature film never happened so that was that however.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

3 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

It is a public forum, therefore, I do not have to ask you for your permission whether I can or cannot post.

At which point did I say, that you need permission? That doesn't mean I am or you are free of critique within the discussion.

4 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

You've been all talk but nothing to show for.

All talk on what? 90% of my thoughts are references to other artists plus thinking that can be applied to very broad themes in life, if we had a thread about 16mm camera shooting and experience then we would have a different plane of discussion.

Feel free to check on me in five years, I will have exactly the same enthusiasm about it regardless of eventualities. Or how much stuff I shoot with it.

I've shot digital video most of my life but primarily out of necessity. But none of the above matters really as the discussion is more on our thoughts on the medium not whether this or that experience plays any role. It doesn't.

I could write some words about my experiences but it wouldn't make my opinions any more or less true.

 

 

[Jon O'Brien]

Funny, Giray, what you said about short films shot on film and how you know they are going to be bad before you see them.

Well, almost all short films I've seen lately have been crummy, generally. And all were digitally shot. Don't know if that's a coincidence.

I always prefer watching a movie or short film if it's been shot on film.

If a short film is pretty bad, but it's shot on film, at least I can sit there in the dark and check out the cinematography, the look of the film, the definition, the grading, how they exposed the shadows, etc etc., and be very interested by what I see. If it's a digitally shot movie I just sit there and think 'this looks bad'. 'This looks like really flat video.' 'This looks low quality.'

In some award winning short films I've seen lately the camera operator doesn't even know how to focus. The lens mechanism automatically tracks in and out during a shot. Robot camera operation. Sheesh. To that recipe add in the flat deadpan video look and, wow, you've got instant filmmaker noodles. With freeze dried cheese powder on top.

Better to just go back to all handmade filmmaking. More interesting.

Edited February 26 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

As for Tyler's comment about flat looking films with deep depth of field, I prefer deep depth of field to the sort of videos you often see now, where you see the subject floating in a mush. Just a completely blurred background in many shots, or even in shot after shot. There was a period we went through, the last five years basically, where the "Youtube experts" said that the mushy pea soup background was "cinematic." Um .... no. Just lowbrow videography .... again.

[Jon O'Brien]

17 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Better to just go back to all handmade filmmaking. More interesting.

It's like fresh food.

[Tyler Purcell]

15 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Edit: we also need to remember that some of the best shows ever made were, for better or worse, shot on video cameras. Golden Girls, Fawlty Towers (all indoor scenes), and so on.

There is a funny technical reason why. 

SAG actors could not be shot with video cameras without a waiver. So if you had a big actor on your show who wasn't from TV, they budgeted film and used analog editing for the most part. This was really critical if you wanted "guest stars" on your program, because SAG's pool was much bigger. 

AFTRA the TV union, they were both video and film. So of course, those shows were shot on video mostly. 

Once the two unions joined forces in the late 2000's, you instantly see everyone switch to video. It was a light switch, with a bunch of shows already in production, shooting their next seasons on video.

So in the Untied States, that's why a bunch of shows in the 90's and 2000's were shot on film and why you just don't see that anymore outside of few examples like Euphoria, Westworld, Fallout and Winning Time. 

Edited February 26 by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

16 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I am, with my Crystal Synced camera with sync sound. But it's a doc, will be conducting sound tests next week with 32bit float audio using Lavs. Will also look at blimping if it can be made practical or really needed.

There is no cover you'll be able to use in order to do intimate close camera sync sound recording with a K3. Where it's true, there are some new AI tools that should be able to help, it will be audible for sure. Heck, my 35III Aaton was roughly 30db and in intimate quiet scenes, even with a barney and leather jacket, you could hear it in the mic no problem from 6 feet away. The K3 is like 60db. So unless you build a real full blimp full of sound dampening material, or recording from 50+ feet away, sound will be a huge problem. 

Giray's point about NPR/ACL options is spot on, they are both clunky cameras, but can be made pretty quiet for cheap. Honestly, even the CP16R is a good example. 

There are some design changes that can be made to the K3 which would make it way quieter and have good registration, but nobody has bothered implementing them because it would require a new chassis/housing. 

16 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I am not pitching camera systems to anybody here, all I am saying is that you use what you intended to use based on what you believe makes sense to you and is afforded by your circumstances. 

Well, film isn't cheap. So if you're pushing film through a camera that is substandard on a project you care about, then you're up against a wall when it doesn't work out. The K3 is fine for the one or two experimental home movie rolls a consumer may shoot once a year, it's not a production camera outside of that. I service them for a living and I have yet to find one that repeats the same quality on every load. So just because you do two or three camera tests, doesn't mean the 4th and 5th roll will come out at all. 

16 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I had some scratches, but this was solved, no burns whatsoever at any moment in time, focus was an issue in initial testing but is also fine now.

I have 4K Resolve shots that are as clean as they can be for 16mm on my tests.

Won't use that camera for a feature film - not possible, but totally doable for  shots spread over a long period of time.

Yea, if you're just shooting 2 rolls a year and are very careful and manually load the camera, you may be able to get away with it. If you're shooting 10 - 20 rolls a year, which is what you'd need to be doing for a real project, you will absolutely get film back with nothing on it but a blurred image and absolutely have unstable/flashed footage. This is because the gate/pressure plate design is complete and utter garbage. There is no spring loaded side rail and the pressure plate doesn't even properly fit between the gate rails, it can wobble around. Because of these issues, the film easily falls out of the film channel AND if you try to compensate by altering the spring tension on the pressure plate, you wind up scratching.

Plus the new AHU stock is very sensitive to back scratches, way more than remjet. I notice you also talk about ORWO stock as well, but they have even worse scratch issues than the new AHU stock. Even on my XTR and Beaulieu, which work with AHU fine, the ORWO stock is always scratched somehow, even after doing multiple scratch tests. Now you add the coating issues with ORWO which have plagued nearly everyone, it's just not worth the time and energy to purchase, process and scan when the results are so poor. 

NC200 is not actually out yet, so if you were in on the pre-release, that probably was coated on their little beta testing coating machine in Germany. The public release whenever it happens, will most likely not be made on the same coating machine. This is something we have seen already with early NC500 and NC400 tests looking fine, but the public release having lots of density issues in our tests. 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

14 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

All talk on what? 90% of my thoughts are references to other artists plus thinking that can be applied to very broad themes in life, if we had a thread about 16mm camera shooting and experience then we would have a different plane of discussion.

The quoted artists you bring up, all had huge budgets and did not shoot with their own equipment. If you're trying to find good examples, you should be pulling from the pool of no-budget artists who shoot on film only.

That list would be, umm very small. 

Most people don't put their money where their mouth is. They "claim" to shoot film on a regular basis, but in the end 99% of the time shoot digital, with maybe two or three 100ft daylight spools shot each year. 

14 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Feel free to check on me in five years, I will have exactly the same enthusiasm about it regardless of eventualities. Or how much stuff I shoot with it.

From what I'm reading this far, in 5 years you'll probably still be on the ground floor, scrounging money together for another few daylight spools, working on the same short-subject project. That's just what I've seen whenever I talk to people who are overly ambitious and clearly have little to no resources to make anything a reality. I just know what it takes because I've been doing it a long time and film itself is very tricky.

You can test and prep all you want, but a single old roll that was flashed, single screwed up load or lab issue, can basically bring an entire production down to it's knees, especially financially. When you don't have the resources for a proper camera, new film, crew to make sure things come out right and of course, paying for a good lab, then the likelihood of success dwindles rapidly. This is the trap so many people fall into, they think it's "digital consist" because they shot some test rolls and were successful. Reality is, unless you check all the boxes, the percentage of potential failure continues to go up every roll you shoot until you have one. How you deal with the wasted time and money when that eventuality happens, is really what makes and breaks so many young filmmakers. I have literally had them in my shop crying because what they thought worked, just didn't even after repeated testing. 

If you had a good budget, purchased/rented a real commercial camera, had new/fresh film, had a great local walk-in lab connection with good results, then maybe you'd be doing pretty good in 5 years. With a K3, picking and pecking film deals and shipping to unknown lab situations, it's just a matter of time before it all goes bust. 

14 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I've shot digital video most of my life but primarily out of necessity. But none of the above matters really as the discussion is more on our thoughts on the medium not whether this or that experience plays any role. It doesn't.

The subject is giving up on film and moving to digital for a multitude of reasons. 

The reality is, everyone likes the look of film, so there really isn't a discussion to be had on that. The thing is, most people aren't putting their hard labor into something that may or may not come out. I love it when we throw film up on our scanner and it's perfect, but the times it doesn't come out are very frustrating and can be deal killers for limited budget productions. 

We just did the first hybrid shoot, film/digital last week, just scanned the film last night, it came out great. The comparison between the 16mm and digital is really none. The digital looks like 15P IMAX and the 16mm looks like an old 90's documentary. Both have their purpose, both have a unique story to tell, but comparing them is silly because they are SO different. 

I doubt I will stop shooting hybrid, the fact I KNEW we had the digital in the bag before I shot film, gave me the confidence to shoot on film a bit more wild, a bit more spray and prey than normal. This actually made the shoot more fun than normal, way less stressful. Mind you, the snowstorm we shot through was epic and not a great place for cameras anyway. I was far more concerned about the gaping hole in the top of the digital camera for the cooling in the snow, then my XTR Prod which is entirely sealed up. So that gave me a bit more confidence to carry the XTR places I wouldn't have brought the digital camera incase I fell hiking in 20 inches of snow, which I did twice with the XTR. 

14 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I could write some words about my experiences but it wouldn't make my opinions any more or less true.

Seeing as you haven't shared anything about your experiences OR anything you've shot, maybe it's worth doing that. 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Seeing as you haven't shared anything about your experiences OR anything you've shot, maybe it's worth doing that. 

That's your opinion - as stated earlier, my experiences do not provide any more or less gravitas to anything I've already said. If I show you any of my work, or tell you my history it literally changes nothing. In any case, I  disagree in almost all the ways you approach this craft, but that's your own way, your approach and the way you see things in your corner of the world and you primarily run a business.

As for your concerns, I'll be 100%, totally fine, I understand the risks as well as the limitations. I will post tests and my setup in the relevant section for anyone interested.

 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

From what I'm reading this far, in 5 years you'll probably still be on the ground floor, scrounging money together for another few daylight spools, working on the same short-subject project. That's just what I've seen whenever I talk to people who are overly ambitious and clearly have little to no resources to make anything a reality. I just know what it takes because I've been doing it a long time and film itself is very tricky.

You can test and prep all you want, but a single old roll that was flashed, single screwed up load or lab issue, can basically bring an entire production down to it's knees, especially financially. When you don't have the resources for a proper camera, new film, crew to make sure things come out right and of course, paying for a good lab, then the likelihood of success dwindles rapidly. This is the trap so many people fall into, they think it's "digital consist" because they shot some test rolls and were successful. Reality is, unless you check all the boxes, the percentage of potential failure continues to go up every roll you shoot until you have one. How you deal with the wasted time and money when that eventuality happens, is really what makes and breaks so many young filmmakers. I have literally had them in my shop crying because what they thought worked, just didn't even after repeated testing. 

If you had a good budget, purchased/rented a real commercial camera, had new/fresh film, had a great local walk-in lab connection with good results, then maybe you'd be doing pretty good in 5 years. With a K3, picking and pecking film deals and shipping to unknown lab situations, it's just a matter of time before it all goes bust. 

I was literally referring to whether I am passionate about the thing. I don't make five year predictions in life about anything save wishing to be safe and sound. I have zero ambitions or expectations.

For the rest I don't know, clearly you think that I am so completely out of my mind that I think that a modded K3 is suitable for full or even short narrative movie productions - I do not,  there's no "pecking" to be done, or planned at any time, imaginary or real.

For the lab stuff, you have yours we have ours - they're absolutely awesome.

 

 

Edited February 26 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Karim D. Ghantous]

5 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I was literally referring to whether I am passionate about the thing. I don't make five year predictions in life about anything save wishing to be safe and sound. I have zero ambitions or expectations.

 

That's a wise position to take. I will always love film but I do not know if it will be here in five years. And I don't know if it can ever by cheaper. It can, but that takes development, which costs money... Can we ever replace silver halide? Hmm. Maybe. Maybe.

[Giray Izcan]

8 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I was literally referring to whether I am passionate about the thing. I don't make five year predictions in life about anything save wishing to be safe and sound. I have zero ambitions or expectations.

For the rest I don't know, clearly you think that I am so completely out of my mind that I think that a modded K3 is suitable for full or even short narrative movie productions - I do not,  there's no "pecking" to be done, or planned at any time, imaginary or real.

For the lab stuff, you have yours we have ours - they're absolutely awesome.

 

 

K3 is not suitable for narrative filmmaking.. sorry. Daylight spool is not enough to shoot narrative scenes effectively, not to mention how loud it is too.. you're setting yourself up for a failure.. sorry to be the bad news bearer.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

4 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

sorry to be the bad news bearer.

My advice to you is that you need to start reading what people write before you rush to answer. Kindly read that sentence again.

Edited February 27 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Giray Izcan]

Go ahead and shoot a narrative film on your K3 then. I'm sure those 30 secondsat best of run time will yield to great dialog coverage. Or, get a blimp made and spend more on it than a functioning ACL or an NPR. And still be limited to 30 seconds. I understand you are enthusiastic about shooting on film, which is why I am trying to have you avoid some big mistakes and learn it the hard way.. I would strongly recommend you get an NPR or an ACL and worry about the story as opposed to technicalities like the loud camera and workaround it, daylight loads with 30 second on a good day run time at a time. You are trying to use one tool for a purpose that is not intended. K3 is only good for beginners, or just to go grab a quick shot or something like that. I used to have a K3 by the way. It's just a camera that you grow out of very quickly if you want to pursue cinematography professionally. 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

7 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Go ahead and shoot a narrative film on your K3 then. I'm sure those 30 secondsat best of run time will yield to great dialog coverage. Or, get a blimp made and spend more on it than a functioning ACL or an NPR. And still be limited to 30 seconds. I understand you are enthusiastic about shooting on film, which is why I am trying to have you avoid some big mistakes and learn it the hard way.. I would strongly recommend you get an NPR or an ACL and worry about the story as opposed to technicalities like the loud camera and workaround it, daylight loads with 30 second on a good day run time at a time. You are trying to use one tool for a purpose that is not intended. K3 is only good for beginners, or just to go grab a quick shot or something like that. I used to have a K3 by the way. It's just a camera that you grow out of very quickly if you want to pursue cinematography professionally. 

Just to repeat for the second time: I suggest you read my last sentence again, in full. Re read as many times as you want. 

Feel free to repeat it here.

I'll be waiting...

[Giray Izcan]

"For the rest I don't know, clearly you think that I am so completely out of my mind that I think that a modded K3 is suitable for full or even short narrative movie productions - I do not,  there's no "pecking" to be done, or planned at any time, imaginary or real."

Aren't you suggesting k3 is suitable for full or short narrative fllm production and disagree with others on its unsuiatbility for such tasks. 

what I am trying to say is that I would not waste any resource or money on that camera and try to move on to more of an actual real sync sound camera with proper 400 ft rolls. But of course you do you you know.

 

Edited February 27 by Giray Izcan

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

Thank you, which part of "I do not" wasn't visible in my sentence?

[Giray Izcan]

You do not as in you do not agree with others on suitability of this camera for such tasks. Maybe I'm misreading it. You know better than I do so obviously you do you know. I hope it works out for you.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

I literally said that that the K3 is not suitable for short or full narrative (unless maybe very experimental stuff).

I don't plan to do any of the above and my use will be strategic, sporadic over a long period of time and within very specific contexts. I don't plan any shooting lasting (with prep) any longer than 2.5 hours.

I will start a diary thread to explain the process

[Giray Izcan]

Good luck.

[Tyler Purcell]

21 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

That's your opinion - as stated earlier, my experiences do not provide any more or less gravitas to anything I've already said. If I show you any of my work, or tell you my history it literally changes nothing. In any case, I  disagree in almost all the ways you approach this craft, but that's your own way, your approach and the way you see things in your corner of the world and you primarily run a business.

You yourself admitted earlier that you've been shooting video for years, so clearly a "substandard" format was ok for you and then suddenly not ok? I'm sure it was a minimum of 1080P as well, nothing like the standard definition 400 line Hi-8 and DV formats we were stuck with for seemingly decades, long before HD was commonplace around 15 years ago. 

When I was winning awards for standard definition video content on broadcast TV, was that somehow substandard because of the format? Back then story was king, but apparently you think in today's world, it takes a back seat to the craft? So a "artistic" image on 16mm will somehow trump that of a decent digital cinema camera? Poor cinematography, lighting, blocking, sound and acting, can bring down any production, including something shot on IMAX. Film doesn't magically save anything, especially today when everyone seemingly shoots film and so much of it is total trash. 

I truly feel bad for the people who just assume anything shot on film is a win. 

[Aapo Lettinen]

3 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

Go ahead and shoot a narrative film on your K3 then. I'm sure those 30 secondsat best of run time will yield to great dialog coverage. Or, get a blimp made and spend more on it than a functioning ACL or an NPR. And still be limited to 30 seconds. I understand you are enthusiastic about shooting on film, which is why I am trying to have you avoid some big mistakes and learn it the hard way.. I would strongly recommend you get an NPR or an ACL and worry about the story as opposed to technicalities like the loud camera and workaround it, daylight loads with 30 second on a good day run time at a time. You are trying to use one tool for a purpose that is not intended. K3 is only good for beginners, or just to go grab a quick shot or something like that. I used to have a K3 by the way. It's just a camera that you grow out of very quickly if you want to pursue cinematography professionally. 

Not sure which "30 second limit" you are talking about, the camera has a crystal sync motor and can shoot the whole roll at once

[Tyler Purcell]

16 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Can we ever replace silver halide? Hmm. Maybe. Maybe.

I think 16mm has such a defining look, I doubt anyone will be able to replicate it digitally. We have gotten close, I have a great little DCTL that works wonders on the drone stuff, but I haven't had much success even with the URSA 12k in S16 mode, it just doesn't have the DR and the URSA Cine 12k doesn't work in S16mm mode, so the DOF/FOV is all wrong for 16mm. 

[Tyler Purcell]

22 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I have zero ambitions or expectations.

3 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I don't plan to do any of the above and my use will be strategic, sporadic over a long period of time and within very specific contexts. I don't plan any shooting lasting (with prep) any longer than 2.5 hours.

So it's just another camera test then?