Low-budget, and possibly higher-level, filmmaking is now dominated by DPs

[Jon O'Brien]

In the past, filmmaking used to be dominated by directors, even in the lowish-budget short film world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in low-budget to maybe mid-level short film production it is DPs who now tend to take the dominant lead in the endeavour.

DPs tend to rule the roost now because, for the first time in history, DPs can own all their own professional gear. In the past, it was assumed that expensive rental equipment would need to be hired. The director called the shots, led the endeavour, and chose a DP, who generally kept his or her head down, worked hard, but otherwise kept out of many of the decisions not directly related to the cinematography.

Is this a fair appraisal of the current situation? Or not? Where I am, directors seem meek and quiet. DPs rule the roost. Or was it always like this?

As ever, I'm just curious.

[Brian Drysdale]

The problem is that filmmaking involves more than shooting the film. It involves a preproduction stage, which is often a lot longer than the shooting, unless all the elements are lined up (script, casting, art direction, locations etc) the DP has limited options. Filmmaking is a collaborative art form, so a good director makes full use of their cast and crew, as the saying goes how good a film is going to be, is often decided before a frame of film is shot. That's not forgetting the post production people - DPs may not be happy about a final grade that they don't have any control over.

You may have some local cinematographers who have strong personalities, however, the film belongs to the director. Some directors don't get hands on with the actual shots, some may have discussed it in an advance with the DP or let the actors run through the scene and allow the DP relative freedom in the coverage because they trust the DP knowing that they have an understanding of what the scene is about.

Inexperienced directors may defer more to an experienced DP, but how well that works depends on how much they have a common goal. Low budget films, which often involves cast and crew working for little or no money can have different dynamics, but the DP should be working to create a director's vision. However, even on a production with funding I know one cameraman has a told a director "you'd better be careful, otherwise I might give you what you asked for". 

There is an element of picking a DP because they've got gear, but if that's just the reason it mightn't work out in the longer run. DPs have owned gear for many years, so there's nothing new in that, it was not having the costs of shooting on film which allow a wider range of people to make films.

[Aapo Lettinen]

If it is a low paid or non paid production and the DP is providing the gear, then they are basically acting as co-producer and have something to say about the wild unrealistic ideas if there is any. Another thing is that one needs to constantly improvise on low budget productions and the directors are rarely able to do that on tech gear so they need to listen to advice and let others do the technical arrangements to get forward.

The "candy store approach" where director just runs around yelling "I want this I want that I want ten of those make it happen no complaints" only work if there really is tons of budget for that and someone else pays the bills and everyone get paid real salary instead of couple of pizza slices and bring your own car and gas.

I would use my gear as leverage if the director or producer tries to pressure people do something very dangerous or illegal. Or if there would be some harassment case which is not handled properly and need to make them listen for a second. Have not needed to do that yet but it is an option on the low budget stuff, you can walk away with your gear if they become too unreasonable

[Mark Wiggins]

I wouldn’t say DOPs take the lead necessarily. It’s certainly the case that the financial burden of making short films has changed.

When I started Short Films tended to be  shot on 16mm (I’m old).  There weren’t many owner operators so the financial burden of renting the camera, buying film stock and paying for processing would fall to the director (who was almost always the writer and producer as well).

Now it is different. Directors of Short films tend to expect the DOP to provide the camera which, of course, has had to be bought and insured by the DOP. All the director has to do is buy a few drives to put the footage on. Then the director can edit the footage on his/her free copy of Da Vince Resolve on the lap top they already own.

A YouTube video came up in my feed yesterday called “How to shoot a short film for nothing.” Complete rubbish of course as the short film is shot on a camera bought by the DOP, the sound is recorded on equipment bought by the sound recordist, the makeup is done with makeup bought by the makeup artist. So basically a Short Film being shot for nothing. Is actually a Short Film being paid for by the crew who have agreed to work on it. Of course, in return, the crew are getting experience, learning more about doing the job, a credit for their CV/Resume and making contacts that can lead to further work.

 

Edited August 17 by Mark Wiggins

[Tyler Purcell]

The Ultra low budget feature thing, has vexed me for years. I use to work on them and I just never understood the point. 

In my opinion there are two options; 

1) You make a feature with your friends for ~ $10k, on weekends, spread out over a few months, using gear you already own. 
2) You get real financing and make a real movie ($500k +) with professional known talent and have a distributor already lined up. 

If you're in the first group, you are just practicing so who cares about the risks. 
If you're in the second group, you've already practiced, so you're ready to make something serious. 

If you're in between budget wise (the $20k - $499k, we will call the 1.5 group), you should be making decent budget short films. Why? Because it's all about dollars per minute on screen. The more money you put in per finished minute, the more people will take your property seriously. Make something specifically for the top festivals, which will fit in their limited framework of runtime and themes, get your movie shown on a big screen, meet people at the festivals, rinse and repeat. Eventually something will happen if you do this right and have a stack of feature scripts ready to be shot. It's a lot of work and a lot of people have this presumption if they make the same movie over and over again (mostly horror/thriller genre) they'll somehow garnish a cult following that will help pay their bills, so the vast majority of low/no budget stuff is in that genre pool, which really makes things sticky and reduces your over-all future as a filmmaker. You get quickly pigeonholed into making X product, distributors like the fact they can make a few grand off you and that's all you do forever.

So yes, if you're in the first group, you will probably be a director AND cinematographer wrapped up into one person, owning all your own gear and such. This is the most common thing I see and it translates right into the 1.5 group, which are a lot of director/cinematographers with their own gear, spending money on locations and talent, rather than crew. In the 2nd group, you see that go away, with a more collaborative team effort of paid professionals.

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

Nah, one either makes indie movies for fun with friends for free OR one gets paid for wannabe-filmmaker project and has some funding but it is really hard work and pretty miserable and no one cares about the end result anyway and the street cred you get is the oh-so-wonderous-and-rare priviledge to get more of that same crap. 

Making good indie stuff for fun for free is much better than suffer in some low-ish-budget-wanna-be-hollywood pretentious production which can be somewhat tolerable but the script and end result is still pretty horrible and you don't even want to watch the end result even if worked on it.

I mean I would shoot those cute little no-budget indie films every day with absurd scripts and great team spirit and leave the pretentious wannabe-professional-looking-crappy-dialogue-but-sexy-expensive-camera productions drown in their own shit😅

[Aapo Lettinen]

The spec/business card style shorts tend to be the worst. One is not really making a movie, one tries to convince people that one is the super rare special unicorn the whole world wants to hire if they would only know how special unique snowflake the 'aspiring filmmaker' really is. 

The freakin witty dialogue and one room theatrical pretentious blocking. Make a cool entrance which looks cinematic and then we nail your shoes to the floor and you stand like a stick in crappile for 15 minutes reading my witty cool wannabe-tarantino dialogue so that we can show people how cool writer I am and I will get hired to write hollywood scripts😂

Yes yes let's cut the crap, on 40 second mark a rabid PA shreds the director to little peaces off-camera, then the real movie starts when their guts fly in da face of the lead actor. The set is run over by a caterpillar smashing the A and B cameras and the Panavision lenses and the survivors flee the zombie t-rex army through sewers but accidentally cause a methane explosion

[Mark Wiggins]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

1) You make a feature with your friends for ~ $10k, on weekends, spread out over a few months, using gear you already own. 
2) You get real financing and make a real movie ($500k +) with professional known t

Christopher Nolan is a good example of the first type.

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Mark Wiggins said:

Christopher Nolan is a good example of the first type.

To be fair, he did start in the 90's, so he got in before the chaos of today, where you COULD make a feature and get it distributed based on its own merits. Today, not happening. 

[Jon O'Brien]

I'm stuck in a go-nowhere filming situation. I've tried ways to get out of it but so far haven't succeeded.

I'm old too, Mark, and started in film. I did something else in life for decades and only a few years back got back (or tried to get back) into filmmaking. I even went to 'film school' in Brisbane as a mature age student to do some courses in digital cinematography and get experience with the different crew roles, alongside 19 year olds. But I'm old and appear to be considered just a retired old dude wanna-be. I would hope I have more to offer than just that 🙂

Anyway, I get ignored. The young do not relate to old dudes anymore it seems. Or, don't want them on their patch.

Second, I want to shoot film, and appear to be the only one in my area willing and able to do this.

Problem is, the filmmaking scene where I am is controlled by what appears to be a tight clique of young digital cinematographers who seem peculiarly reluctant to have anything to do with what I might offer the local scene.

The directors appear to be entirely passive and do what they are told by the tight clique of cinematographers. Yeah sure, film costs money, that's a problem, I know all about that one. But on rare occasions people do film on it. It does happen. But not where I am.

I had the idea of getting friends to be actors, and to help out as crew, but so far it is difficult because my friends are of the older generation who, where I live at least, all believe that film died years ago and they don't seem to really appreciate why any grownup would want to go to the trouble of shooting on film which to them is both a dinosaur medium, and perhaps something that young hipsters do. So, there's a problem of will there. No one has the drive or the will that I have.

But I cannot shake the feeling that I'm being deliberately kept out of the local scene by DPs who, maybe, don't want to be shown up by film. If it's film, they want to be the ones doing it. If it's someone else, who has the gear and could therefore potentially leverage the situation, well to hell with that. Especially some old dude wanna-be.

I will keep trying.

I keep getting told how much experience these young DPs have. How many short films they have shot. I'm sorry, but I don't care. It means nothing to me. They will not go to the real trouble of shooting on film. If they do that, they will earn my respect. I can see I certainly don't have theirs.

Edited August 18 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

The standard modus operandi for filmmakers in my area is to stand around drinking with each other. Unfortunately I do not do that, with anyone. I tried it but found out that the particular group was entirely digitally obsessed and didn't seem to even know that film was still around. At that point I said never again. No more standing around with young dudes, drinking.

[Jon O'Brien]

There's no point saying well offer to help them out on their digital projects. No. The type of films they want to film don't interest me. It's film-student level stuff. One-location psycho dramas with too much dialogue. Ahh, no.

Edited August 19 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

Look, to be realistic, I missed the boat. It didn't work out 🙂

That's okay. 

[Dom Jaeger]

No idea about the question in the thread title really, or what’s going on with you and your local filmmaking community Jon, but the new lab here in Melbourne should start building more interest in film originated projects in this country. We just wrapped the first 35mm feature shot in Australia since 2012 and there’s more coming. The crew loved working with film, a mix of young people who had never worked with the medium professionally and old hands whose knowledge was essential and valued. I‘m pretty optimistic interest will only grow. 

[Jon O'Brien]

Dom, they're arrogant. I could help them so much, and in turn they could help me. But they remain aloof. It's really their loss. If I can get some work in the Australian film industry, then I will. I wish these Melbourne filmmakers would bring their crew up this way or maybe give me a call and see if I will fly down. I must be of some use, surely. I am free. I'm a musician who teaches, but my students will understand if I need to take some months off. Anyway, thanks for the news, Dom.

[Aapo Lettinen]

2 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Dom, they're arrogant. I could help them so much, and in turn they could help me. But they remain aloof. It's really their loss. If I can get some work in the Australian film industry, then I will. I wish these Melbourne filmmakers would bring their crew up this way or maybe give me a call and see if I will fly down. I must be of some use, surely. I am free. I'm a musician who teaches, but my students will understand if I need to take some months off. Anyway, thanks for the news, Dom.

Actually you are right about the local arrogant young dudes. They are different generation, they have entirely different world view and different stories they want to tell. They have different things they value in movies. It is NOT possible to adjust to that and you are right that their stuff feels uninteresting because it is.  You could definitely help them in lighting/electric department, anyone needs help on lights because few want to do that work. But that is only technical stuff and it does not change the fact that those people are not interesting to hang with in the first place and no one cares about their stories.

It is the same thing here, the 20 to 25 year olds mainly do those "I copied this movie concept from youtube/tiktok videos explaining how to become famous aspiring filmmaker by copying successful hollywood directors" and they don't tell original stories about real life. Even if they do, they are fixated with the idea that short films should be "nail the actors to the floor so that they don't move and then make them read 20 pages of crappy dialogue" and no one would want to watch them. It might have worked on small festival screenings 20 years ago but no one cares about those nasty little dialogue movies anyway, they are just painful and awkward to watch.

 

"Old people" have enough life experience to direct, the young ones often don't so they just copy the stuff they have seen and admire. Being over 35+ something allows one tell more wholesome and better truly original stories I think. The answer to your issues, I think, is to take more of a writer+director+producer role and tell stories about your point of view, and in best case find directors who share the approximately similar world view. Those are the ones whom stories you want to tell with your cinematography, not the copycat-wannabe-hollywood stories of the 20 year old posers you talked about. 

One thing is that you said you are a teacher and that means you know the music students and their world pretty well. You could just make some short films about their stories if they would want to participate. No dialogue or minimum dialogue and just music and cinematography all the way. You can even start with music videos if you want, that is the absolutely easiest to arrange. Documentaries are easy to arrange too. Start with something and then expand to narrative projects after that. You can for example start with a small documentary about the music students which has short "dream scene" type of scenes where they play their instruments in beautiful nature scenery and shoot the interviews on video and the music pieces on film

 

[Jon O'Brien]

The 'industry' is choked down in a mediocrity so thick it is suffocating. Zombies walking around thinking that they're filmmakers. All they can summon is to do laughey-face replies on facebook. Humanity has devolved to a facebook laughey-face emoji level of discourse. I'm over it.

If someone wants to hire me, or consider hiring, bloody well pick up the phone or email me. I must be one of the easiest people in the Australian 'industry' (ha ha haaaaa) to track down. If you don't think I'm good enough, get stuffed. I return the sentiment right back at you. Have a good look in the mirror instead, and enjoy making your movie.

Thanks Aapo for your encouraging words.

[Brian Drysdale]

I would say that it's possible to shoot cinematic films using digital cameras. A few years ago I saw a short made by an 18 year old media student using the original Blackmagic pocket cinema camera, using very cheap, old stills lenses, this was stylish and much influenced by Kubrick.

It's how people use the cameras and the lighting etc.

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

I would seriously consider doing multi-format productions where digital and film are mixed together trying to benefit from the best aspects of both mediums. For example night and low-light on video and bright daylight scenes on film like they did in the 2000's when digital cinematography was still cumbersome but video cameras had real benefits in low light. I still shoot the same way on some projects because need to often shoot 3200 - 12800 ISO low light scenes which are impossible on film but even 6 years old mirrorless cameras handle them fine. 

Mixing formats makes it easier for directors to test how film works for their projects as it lowers the perceived risk to minimum. If restricting one's shooting to 100% film origination then one can basically shoot only really small short film projects which are usually additionally silent films to reduce the shooting ratios to financially manageable levels when funding with one's own money. But if having for example 1500 budget for film stock and processing and that is used to shoot select scenes on film, then the rest of the movie shot on video to allow dialogue if needed and to expand the story... that would allow making it much better movie and it would still have film material and one can benefit from both mediums. You can never reach similar level end result if only shooting on video or only shooting on film, you need both. I have a strong documentary background and it was common on doc projects to mix up to 20 different cameras and intercut them if needed, it does work fine and no need to worry about it. Mixing two different video cameras and 3 different film cameras on a single short film project does work too. You just need to think about it for a moment to figure out which one fits which scene best.

I don't have the newest projects on web yet but here is a older one where 35mm 5207 shot on Cameflex and 4k xavc shot on Sony FS7 was mixed. It was just selected scene by scene which format to shoot to benefit from the medium. The FS7 was rental and the Cameflex was my own so shooting partially on film allowed saving some money on very short 1 - 3 shot scenes too as most of the time went to travelling between locations and daily fs7 rental would have been more than the film costs to shoot half a roll of 35mm at a time.

 

[Tyler Purcell]

Here in the US, film has been pretty prevalent in recent years, mostly with young people. The old timers don't like film at all because they were forced to use in the past and they love digital's ease of use and "instant" results, I totally get it. 

I'd say the bulk of OUR business are the random music video, commercial, short film (narrative/documentary) or experimental art piece. It's mostly 16mm, but occasionally we get a bunch of super 8 and even 35mm. Since we stopped processing super 8, that part of our business has dropped off substantially but we still get work weekly from a few dedicated clients who like our speed, results and low price. This year has been very slow with features, we had been doing them religiously in recent years, but this year we've only done one.

I also feel a lot of my filmmaking friends who HAVE worked on film exclusively, are hitting brick walls with funding this year. I see them less, their cameras aren't as used, they're traveling around a lot just to get work, so things are clearly changing. Many of them have started talking about selling cameras, discussing values and digital post workflows to help keep the film look. I have purchased/bartered for several high end film look tools that are extremely impressive and I always show people how the tech is coming. There is going to be a time where the digital camera system and film look tools are matched perfectly and the benefit of shooting S35mm will be completely negated outside of some random artists who want the film purity. Reality is, the only formats where film actually sticks out from the crowd are super 8 and 16mm right now, once ya hit 35mm frame size, digital can easily compete with the proper camera and post workflows all the way up through large format. I feel we are one un-released camera system away from solving the super 8 and 16mm look issues, because we have the post workflow dialed. It's just down to high dynamic range, S16mm sized imagers which are missing. Once someone breaks through that barrier, I feel it's going to be downhill. 

Kodak Motion Picture VP here in Hollywood, even admits "the middle" of film world is dying rapidly, just like the middle class of society. Kodak is prioritizing high budget workflows like 65mm/70mm over everything else currently. There have been repeated shortages of super 8/16mm/35mm in the last two years, the current one has been over a month and won't be resolved till mid September for backorders. This is a huge problem when you're trying to shoot and there is no film. The demand is too high for the bigger shows and Kodak simply can't make enough film to cover the onsie, twosie, super 8/16mm market. They want to sell in bulk with a schedule, not have people show up at a store and buy a few rolls. This really hinders people's ability to shoot on film and I know for fact, many productions shifted to digital and/or were simply canceled for now thanks to the shortage. One show went with B&W and we just scanned it few days ago. Another went with Verta because it's not affected as much, but the cost was substantially higher and they only got away with it because the budget was increased.

If you mix budgets being slashed, with raw stock availability issues, with parts for film cameras dwindling and rising costs for raw stock, processing and scanning globally, you can kinda see that people in the middle/low budget range, will be shifting rapidly to digital just so they can make their production happen within a reasonable budget. The bottom of the market is being hit hard too because those 100ft daylight spool and super 8 guys are having costs and supply affected the most. So when people DO buy, they buy in bulk which means there is less to go around, which exacerbates the issue even more. I'm one of those guys myself, I always buy 10 x 400ft rolls (two 5 roll boxes) whenever I buy because I always go through it fast. I have been buying film directly from Kodak for over a decade and the answer I got was the same as everyone else; sorry there is no film. I have a few 100ft daylight spools and some 35mm re-cans for an upcoming project, but that's all I got in the freezer, zero 400ft loads. I had so many requests from people in the last few months due to shortages, I just sold it all to help their shoots. Now everyone is stuck in the same place and requests have basically stopped because I think everyone's given up and has pushed to digital or pushed dates. 

So yea, even if you have the budget to shoot film, certainly you also need the film! LOL 😛

[Brandon Paterno]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

There is going to be a time where the digital camera system and film look tools are matched perfectly and the benefit of shooting S35mm will be completely negated outside of some random artists who want the film purity. Reality is, the only formats where film actually sticks out from the crowd are super 8 and 16mm right now, once ya hit 35mm frame size, digital can easily compete with the proper camera and post workflows all the way up through large format.

there’s another thread below this one about working photochemically that i wanted to share this opinion on in response to your experience with the quality loss of a film as it is translated from film -> film -> film and so on and so forth. 

i think that larger format films (counting 35) as exhibition formats make little sense — and not to gatekeep (i am too young to have such a right anyways) but the film works on larger formats that are making it to theaters feel like they are in it purely for the spectacle of it all. So much of the work seems deaf to any dialogue the film body/material is giving a filmmaker, cinematographer, etc. outside of an ultimately arbitrary struggle with how to avoid letting the body appear. the film becomes a byproduct rather than a necessity. I think on the smaller gauges you are still forced to reckon with the limitations that the body provides, thus forcing one to engage with what its limitations provide. a small crew isn’t going to be renting a high end arricam ready to shoot thousands of feet of film unless they can afford it or justify it. at one point you could on 16– the barrier to entry is comparatively low. but even so there is the allure of a nice digital rig that gets things out instantly for better or worse… and if i were trying to get a story told and was given the option to rent a decent rig id be thrilled. regardless, i’d imagine that the arri laser printers out there are getting a lot of work these days… and those digi emulations are good, but not good enough to be a stand in lyrically for film outside of the pastiche aging that it incurs. 

at a certain point, between the lack of exhibition spaces with projectors/projectionists, and the likely quick influx of “”””affordable””””digital medium format video cameras on the horizon, the larger format film thing(enmasse) could stop making sense save for film outs. it feels like these large productions contribute to kodak keeping the lights on so to speak, but regardless they’ve managed to stay afloat this long. i’m sure we’re only a gross sam levinson series away from kodachrome returning so let’s hope the momentum keeps goin 

[Tyler Purcell]

57 minutes ago, Brandon Paterno said:

i think that larger format films (counting 35) as exhibition formats make little sense — and not to gatekeep (i am too young to have such a right anyways) but the film works on larger formats that are making it to theaters feel like they are in it purely for the spectacle of it all.

I'll give you an analog. (no pun intended) 

I don't just buy records, I buy audiophile grade ones with proper mastering, hopefully one step or two step pressing and 45RPM or long run-out 33 1/3. Even if it's mastered from DSD (made from the original source tape) which is what MoFi does mostly these days, it's still a far better experience than 16 bit 44.1 PCM, which is what most normal pressings are made from. For me, what I care about the most is the highest quality FOR the delivery medium possible. I want my all-analog system to sound nothing like the standard streaming fodder or even CD's. I want people to come over to my house, listen to an album on vinyl and be blown away, because it excites people into what is possible with the format. 

This is basically why large format motion picture films are so important. When done properly, even with record-out's from digital acquisition, the results look literally nothing like a DCP on modern laser projection. A film print sings to the audience, the silver halide twinkles, the shutter flickers, the image is imperfect every single frame and that feeling is what separates digital presentation from film. The problems are consistency in roll to roll and theatrical projection, but in a media city like Los Angeles, it's generally very good, even from 35mm sources/prints.

Remember, if you want to keep film alive, you need people to see it. IMAX just made more money from the 70mm prints of the odyssey than any other single movie release in the history of the company, over 50M dollars just from 70mm screenings. Now millions of people globally have maybe seen the first film print in over a decade, maybe their first 15/70 print ever. There is renewed excitement about film and it pushes Kodak's stock higher, it pushes filmmakers to out-do Nolan's masterclass work as well. So yes, there is some spectacle, but that's critical to the whole business of film. 

57 minutes ago, Brandon Paterno said:

I think on the smaller gauges you are still forced to reckon with the limitations that the body provides, thus forcing one to engage with what its limitations provide. a small crew isn’t going to be renting a high end arricam ready to shoot thousands of feet of film unless they can afford it or justify it. at one point you could on 16– the barrier to entry is comparatively low. but even so there is the allure of a nice digital rig that gets things out instantly for better or worse… and if i were trying to get a story told and was given the option to rent a decent rig id be thrilled. regardless, i’d imagine that the arri laser printers out there are getting a lot of work these days… and those digi emulations are good, but not good enough to be a stand in lyrically for film outside of the pastiche aging that it incurs. 

I agree that the last bastion of an alternative look can come from 16mm, I think it's a great medium, especially with super sharp lenses today like Ultra Primes, mixed with 50D and a 416, I mean the package is just unbeatable. You can do 5k scans, down sample to 4k finish and in the theater it'll look like 35mm honestly, even if you did a 4k digital to 35mm. So yes, 16mm is a great format for saving money on ultra-low budget productions. 

With that said, even 16mm has become very expensive. At last check, retail pricing for 400ft + process + 4k scan is around $800 bux, for 11 minutes. This is a precipitous increase over just last year when it was closer to $700. May be fine for someone shooting a single roll, but not for someone shooting a feature. So the bottom of the industry is falling out for the lower-end guys. Heck, we have our own scanner and the pricing has gone up so much (we no longer get discounts either) that, I'm having to back off from how much film I'm normally shooting. This is sad, I want to keep shooting film, but I knew this was coming and bought a digital camera because I'd rather be creative, than shut down all creativity all over price hikes. 

57 minutes ago, Brandon Paterno said:

at a certain point, between the lack of exhibition spaces with projectors/projectionists, and the likely quick influx of “”””affordable””””digital medium format video cameras on the horizon, the larger format film thing(enmasse) could stop making sense save for film outs. it feels like these large productions contribute to kodak keeping the lights on so to speak, but regardless they’ve managed to stay afloat this long. i’m sure we’re only a gross sam levinson series away from kodachrome returning so let’s hope the momentum keeps goin 

To me, the end would be theaters converting to LED walls and that's coming super fast. Some theaters have already done it and removed all of their projection. 

Yes, there are some digital medium format options today and yes, nobody but Nolan is crazy enough to do a 15P photochemical workflow. At the same time, I'm very happy we are seeing what we are seeing. 

Also, I don't think we will ever see Kodachrome return. It's officially dead. 

[Brandon Paterno]

the when it’s done properly thing is so true re. analog film. i come from a bit of an audio background and don’t play about SQ — i’ve got a little over half a terabyte of lossless stuff, mostly >96. i’ve seen people be blown away by the difference proper stereo imaging in a configured room makes, some to the point of charting their own paths in that direction. but there are a good bit of options there, whereas with film you’re at the mercy of the final presentation. and that can be pretty botched depending — there’s a theater nearby that does 35mm screenings fairly often but i’ve found every screening to have some sort of insane oversight like poor changeovers, complete lacks of focus, and worst of all booths with what seemed like fluorescent lights pouring into the theater. and that’s while showing contemporary releases… but very broadly, smaller ones for experimental film seem to typically have indecisive focus, to at worst be projecting in some sort of way that the room sound becomes overpowered by the machine itself as it chews away at the film for one reason or another. Media cities like LA, or NYC are lucky to be home to some pretty solid theaters, but the expansion of film film with an emphasis on preserving the sensorial experience of a film in the cinema is fairly imperative to keep the ball rolling. and then maybe the magic of it all will get people buzzin like the odyssey has as of late but otoh,

the pricing of film as a practice seems to be sort of dependent on where one is in the US, or the rest of the world. as an example I know Mono no aware in brooklyn will scan work developed in their studio which acts as a fairly reasonable gateway to make people have to reckon with the body of the film while still also seeing the results and effects. I think they have a spirit (?) but it seems to be tuned nicely. they have a very good tech. i don’t think a service that functions in this way is offered like anywhere else in the US for one reason or another. (not sure if them being a nonprofit with support from the state of ny plays a role)

i also think that people are going to be tempted by this closed loop 3D printed spiral film processor as there seems to be a push on employing the use of these as an interest for wedding filmmakers and small scale projects, but i find it pretty concerning that they’re not addressing the rebonding of film, sourcing leader, or scanning/telecine. Because take away the development cost still puts the film material at risk of damage during spooling and unspooling, splicing, and packaging. and you lose any discount that comes from a dev and scan at a given lab, of course. but on the other hand it’s pretty cool that in the near future one could start “hand processing” with a kit at a brick and mortar store. on set it could almost make sense even for little tests probably

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Brandon Paterno said:

there’s a theater nearby that does 35mm screenings fairly often but i’ve found every screening to have some sort of insane oversight like poor changeovers, complete lacks of focus, and worst of all booths with what seemed like fluorescent lights pouring into the theater. and that’s while showing contemporary releases… but very broadly, smaller ones for experimental film seem to typically have indecisive focus, to at worst be projecting in some sort of way that the room sound becomes overpowered by the machine itself as it chews away at the film for one reason or another. Media cities like LA, or NYC are lucky to be home to some pretty solid theaters, but the expansion of film film with an emphasis on preserving the sensorial experience of a film in the cinema is fairly imperative to keep the ball rolling. and then maybe the magic of it all will get people buzzin like the odyssey has as of late but otoh,

Yea I think bad projection is quite common, I've seen it out here of course back in the film days. Today with repertory houses, it's rare. Sometimes ya see a missed change over cue mark on an old print, the audience laughs, the film continues. I saw a 70mm print of the original Star Wars few years ago and they prefaced the screening with "the film will most likely break" and it did. The best thing is, we all had a great time and even though the print was nothing like any other version of the film I've seen, it was still a treat. 

Good vintage prints are hard to come by. I do feel projection can be tricky and the buck stops with them for sure. I guess we're just lucky to have a lot of projectionists in the area (LA) who care and henceforth do a great job. 

1 hour ago, Brandon Paterno said:

the pricing of film as a practice seems to be sort of dependent on where one is in the US, or the rest of the world. as an example I know Mono no aware in brooklyn will scan work developed in their studio which acts as a fairly reasonable gateway to make people have to reckon with the body of the film while still also seeing the results and effects. I think they have a spirit (?) but it seems to be tuned nicely. they have a very good tech. i don’t think a service that functions in this way is offered like anywhere else in the US for one reason or another. (not sure if them being a nonprofit with support from the state of ny plays a role)

The pricing of raw stock, processing, prep and scan is pretty much the same across the Untied States. 

Yes, there are some "art house" places like Mono Aware (who are great guys) and Film Photography Project who can do onsie, twosie, small batches of hand processed, with basic scans for a decent rate, but nothing that can be used commercially. 

Yes the United States is cheaper than most other countries for all of this.
 

1 hour ago, Brandon Paterno said:

i also think that people are going to be tempted by this closed loop 3D printed spiral film processor as there seems to be a push on employing the use of these as an interest for wedding filmmakers and small scale projects, but i find it pretty concerning that they’re not addressing the rebonding of film, sourcing leader, or scanning/telecine. Because take away the development cost still puts the film material at risk of damage during spooling and unspooling, splicing, and packaging. and you lose any discount that comes from a dev and scan at a given lab, of course. but on the other hand it’s pretty cool that in the near future one could start “hand processing” with a kit at a brick and mortar store. on set it could almost make sense even for little tests probably

I don't even think processing at home saves any time or money. The proper equipment is expensive, the chemicals are expensive, the experimentation before you get anything worthwhile, is also expensive. You may have a few grand into a setup and testing before you even feel remotely secure processing anything of worthwhile. That money could have just gone towards real processing and the results would be a lot better. Linear processors are the only thing that really works and even tabletop/desktop ones are a nightmare to deal with. The moment you give up, drain the tanks and kick it to the curb, you feel a lot better. Ask me how I know. 😛

Having processed still film at home and work/school, I can attest to how much I would never do that again today. The fun factor wears off very fast and that labor time as you get older, makes no sense. The $15/roll for processing, contact sheet and prints, is well worth it. Motion picture is way worse and I frankly don't think there is actually anything saved.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Also, I don't think we will ever see Kodachrome return. It's officially dead. 

Yeah, it's an environmentally unfriendly process and is almost certainly banned in most countries. I honestly don't think we need it as much.

I also think that our options for stills are better than they have even been - Kodak is churning out multiple options and will most likely expand to others - Fuji mostly dropped the ball with the Superia X-TRA 400 and Pro 400H series and is producing Velvia and Provia in really small batches at insane prices which complete evaporate from the shelves as soon as they reach them.

Ferrania is back, the Foma's are interesting and Ilford is healthier than ever.

It's quite clear that people are willing to spend on this compare to other things.

Meanwhile the Chinese are making strides - Just loaded that thing - I'm sure is no Portra but still...let's see if they will expand to motion picture (I think they are in that process).

 

I agree with the cost thing being an issue but ultimately is better to have less and good than more and mediocre - and it definitely seems we have more of the latter.

There are still deals to be had if you combine dev/scanning (here in europe at least).

Edited August 20 by Aristeidis Tyropolis