Is film archaic and about to die?

[Guest sonickel]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm camera assisting on a student Super 16 shoot at the moment. A professional cinematographer who is supervising the shoot said that instead of learning about film, we should be embracing digital, as it is the future, and that only "dinosaurs" like himself still care about film. That film will be dead in the water very soon.

 

Do you agree?

I'm rather depressed at the moment. :(

[Nick Mulder]

I'm rather depressed at the moment. :(

 

If you like film then get excited about it and use it

[Chad Stockfleth]

Yawn.... depends on the project......paint brushes....yawn.....latitude........still viable....yawn....

[Freya Black]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm camera assisting on a student Super 16 shoot at the moment. A professional cinematographer who is supervising the shoot said that instead of learning about film, we should be embracing digital, as it is the future, and that only "dinosaurs" like himself still care about film. That film will be dead in the water very soon.

 

Do you agree?

I'm rather depressed at the moment. :(

 

Are you in England by any chance??

 

love

 

Freya

[Phil Thompson]

digital is rubbish... 16mm is loads better

[Guest Michael Carter]

I just bought a Regular 8mm camera on ebay but it came to me as a dud. It didn't work at all. However, my brother in law likes to take things apart and fix them so he got it running in a few minutes. It runs smoothly now for over 45 seconds then stops on a dime never slowing down. John Schwind sells film for it and Dwayne's processes the Kodachrome. Mr. Nowill in England perfs other stocks. I make the cameras and technology available to students and teachers. It is great for animation. So, send me your old cameras if you are 'upgrading' to digital and we'll make use of the stuff to keep kids in school with neat things to do.

[Rod Otaviano]

A professional cinematographer who is supervising the shoot said that instead of learning about film, we should be embracing digital, as it is the future

 

I think it's a bit irresponsible for a professional to say to a young student he/she shouldn't bother studying film anymore and jump straight to the digital format.

 

During the learning process one complements the other. Film is important to teach you discipline, photography, composition and digital is better if you are studying camera/actor blocking, for example.

 

Besides if you want to work in this area, you really need to have experience with both of them so ...

[Marco Leavitt]

Digital is getting more and more attractive -- go Silicon Imaging! -- but I don't know anyone who wouldn't rather shoot on film if they could afford it. I also don't know anyone who can afford it, at least for features.

[Robert Hughes]

Didn't I just read this thread on filmshooting.com?

 

16mm is rubbish...digital is loads better :rolleyes: except when film is better. :blink:

Edited May 22, 2006 by Robert Hughes

[Dan Goulder]

Video and film have coexisted for many years, and will probably continue to do so. While some people seem preoccupied with the great strides that have been made in video over the last couple of decades, it shouldn't be overlooked that the quality of film is also in constant evolution. Neither medium is standing still.

 

A good used film camera is still a better investment, as it will retain its value. Can the same be said for video, in which even the latest and greatest manage to become obsolete in a few years' time?

[Nick Mulder]

I think B&W will be around for a very long time - if it stops it will probably be a time when a fair amount of other things stop also (cars for example)

 

http://money.canoe.ca/News/TopPhoto/2006/05/09/1571592.html

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm camera assisting on a student Super 16 shoot at the moment. A professional cinematographer who is supervising the shoot said that instead of learning about film, we should be embracing digital, as it is the future, and that only "dinosaurs" like himself still care about film. That film will be dead in the water very soon.

 

Do you agree?

I'm rather depressed at the moment. :(

What sort of "Professional"? You won't be taken very seriously in the industry if you go around saying things like that.

 

You certainly need to learn all you can about both technologies, but film has apparently been on life support for about 50 years now! My first boss (now deceased) always liked to tell us about the training course he attended in 1958 when his TV station was about to take delivery of its first Ampex "Two inch" VTRs.

 

The Ampex guys were confidently telling everybody that "by 1965" movie film will be an extinct technology, superseded by their cumbersome refrigerator-sized video recorders! Every time some new video technology comes out, they seem to recycle the same old BS.

 

Videotape is cheaper than film, no argument, but that cheapness comes with a price. If you're making a prime-time US TV series with a budget of $1,000,000 or so per episode, it's going to be shot on film, most likely using the most expensive Panavision camera and lens package available. Origination costs there are mere petty cash.

 

Obviously if you have a smaller budget, the lower cost of videotape is going to be more and more of a factor, but one problem is that origination on videotape tends to emphasize the fact that you are on a restricted budget. A better approach is to try to find ways to reduce the cost of using film. All else being equal, the film-originated job is going to have more chance of at least being looked at

[Sandy Thomson]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm camera assisting on a student Super 16 shoot at the moment. A professional cinematographer who is supervising the shoot said that instead of learning about film, we should be embracing digital, as it is the future, and that only "dinosaurs" like himself still care about film. That film will be dead in the water very soon.

 

Do you agree?

I'm rather depressed at the moment. :(

[Sandy Thomson]

Life just isn't that simple. You have to look at film as a distinct medium. It has and likely will always have a different look to Video. Personally, I think both can fit in the same production. I will shoot HDV if I need extreme portability, shooting internationally, or for interviews that could have very high shooting ratios. I have invested more money in my Super-16 film gear than in video but much of the equipment for example lighting and sound can be used for either. I prefer the look of film, frankly but I don't find myself struggling with the question of which is better. Both have 16X9 aspect ratios and they cut together well in a documentary. I have no doubt that the Arri SR2 gear I own will outlast the brand new video kit.

Everything about film is more robust... there are so many analogies possible with cars, bikes, musical instuments, airplanes, you name it. But I won't go there. You want to go from point A to point B. You can drive or you can fly. They both get you there. Which is better? Depends. But no-one can ever say absolutely.

 

Sandy

[Annie Wengenroth]

The only thing you have to be depressed about is that there are "professionals" out there trying to brainwash you with this sort of thinking. In fact, I'M depressed just reading about it. Nothing will EVER put film in the ground and I will stand by that statement for as long as I live. It would basically be like saying, "You know, nobody listens to classical music anymore so let's just get rid of it". Whatever. I'm listening to Bach right now and tomorrow I'm going out on an HD shoot with the D-20. There is room in this world for both, so learn it all and by learning about HD and digital cameras instead of hating them, you will gain a considerable edge in this industry. Similarly, by keeping an open mind and continuing to become well-versed with film cameras, you will then learn ALL of the available technology and be completely unstoppable. Then you can tell this "dinosaur" to stuff it because he is closed-minded and you are not.

[Guest beanpat]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm camera assisting on a student Super 16 shoot at the moment. A professional cinematographer who is supervising the shoot said that instead of learning about film, we should be embracing digital, as it is the future, and that only "dinosaurs" like himself still care about film. That film will be dead in the water very soon.

 

Do you agree?

I'm rather depressed at the moment. :(

 

I'm just moving from hobby to pro. but IMHO film is not going away anytime soon. I love film, it is not a matter of video getting to the point where it can replace film. you always hear stuff lilke: well with the new high resolution of "video camera XXXXX" film is dead. it is not about quality. film just a diferent look. in my opinion film just provides a look that is vital for drama/storytelling. take the movie "Collateral" for instance, it is mostly shot digitally, and even though the picture is crisp and clean, in my opinion it just doesnt look right. I felt like I was watching a documentary of the movie. It's like your just watching the characters act instead of getting into the story. very strange. does anyone else feel this way or am I alone in this. anyway for what it's worth I encourage you to get as much experience with film as you can. It's a little more costly, you have to wait to see what you shot, and you have to transfer it before you can work with it. but it just looks so beautifull, it's worth the effort in my opinion. (my 4 cents)

[Marty Hamrick]

I felt like I was watching a documentary of the movie. It's like your just watching the characters act instead of getting into the story. very strange. does anyone else feel this way or am I alone in this.

 

I'm glad you mentioned that.We did a thread on that film when it came out.The general consensus was, was that "it worked".I didn't think so.I ran the movie as a projectionist, so I got to see it a few times.I had the same impression as you.It looked "wrong" to me.

[Guest beanpat]

I'm glad you mentioned that.We did a thread on that film when it came out.The general consensus was, was that "it worked".I didn't think so.I ran the movie as a projectionist, so I got to see it a few times.I had the same impression as you.It looked "wrong" to me.

 

check out the movie "pieces of april" it was shot on SD video. it's a pretty cool movie (I like katie Holmes) but it looks hopelessly amatuerish because of the video look. I believe that movie would have really been different had it been shot on film. super16 would have been fine since it went straight to DVD I believe.

[Brian Wells]

So many of these discussions are fueled by economy. Independent tests have shown that video from a $6k camcorder looks insanely good for the price. When compared to film, it's hard to justify the difference in cost. Especially at a time when budgets are sinking lower and lower and lower. So, from an economic point of view, there are alternatives to film that offer a much greater price/quality performance. Artistically, film offers some real competitive advantage, sure. But, if you're given a budget for a TV ad that is 1/4th of what it was 10 years ago, you're probably not going to be shooting 35mm anymore if you hope to see a profit at the end of the day. That's a good enough reason to shoot on something like HD. That's where the market has been for quite some time and it's not gonna turn around because some students "prefer" one over the other for "artistic" reasons. In other words, I agree with the veteran. Embrace digital if you want to make a living taking pictures in your lifetime.

[Jason Debus]

So, from an economic point of view, there are alternatives to film that offer a much greater price/quality performance.

 

I was under the impression HD productions really aren't that much cheaper than doing it film. Somewhere in the 5% range of savings. If that's the case then why not pay 5% more and shoot with film?

[Brian Wells]

I was under the impression HD productions really aren't that much cheaper than doing it film. Somewhere in the 5% range of savings. If that's the case then why not pay 5% more and shoot with film?

That may be true for major hollywood features, but the percentage is much higher for other types of production, such as commercials. Last month, a national commercial was shot on the Panasonic HVX200 for Subway. It was the "A" camera; there were no film cameras at all. That tells you something, doesn't it?

[David Mullen ASC]

I was under the impression HD productions really aren't that much cheaper than doing it film. Somewhere in the 5% range of savings. If that's the case then why not pay 5% more and shoot with film?

 

That's too simplistic. What film? 35mm or 16mm? What HD? Will the HD go back to film? Does the film have to end up on HD?

 

Generally HD is much cheaper than 35mm to shoot but if you count the cost of a transfer to 35mm for making prints, most of your savings disappear. However, many people aren't sure they'll need to transfer to 35mm.

 

A $70 HDCAM tape holds 50 minutes. That's the equivalent of 5000' of 35mm film, more or less. If you are paying $500 per 1000' roll, that's $2500. If you are paying .20/foot for processing, that's $1000. If it takes you an hour and a half to transfer it to HDCAM in a Spirit suite at $400/hr., that's $600. Not to mention the $70 HDCAM tape again. So roughly $4000 for every 50 minutes of 35mm footage versus $70 to end up with an HD tape.

 

Let's say that 16mm is a quarter of that, that's still $1000 for every 50 minutes, so even if you toss in the cost of downconverting the HDCAM tape to DVCAM for editing, and the fact that the pro HD camera will probably be twice as much to rent than a 35mm package and three-times what a Super-16 package would cost (I'm throwing around a lot of approximations, I know...) it's still cheaper to shoot HD, especially when the volume of footage will be high. The more you shoot, the more the costs favor tape over film.

 

You also have to compare apples to apples, i.e. does the film-shot project need to be mastered to HD? And like I said, does the HD project have to be transferred to 35mm? That can cost around $70,000 for a feature, most of your savings from shooting in HD. But then, if you had shot in Super-16, transferred to HD, and transferred the HD to 35mm, you'd have the film costs plus the HD mastering costs plus the film transfer costs.

 

So there are a lot of big questions to answer that will affect your budget numbers.

[Jason Debus]

Sorry my last post lacked detail. I was thinking commericals and TV shows, or anything that ulitimately needs to be displayed video/hd.

 

As far as commericals go, I've heard that the shooting ratios can get up to 100:1 which you would think would favor HD. I'm under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that most commericals are shot on 35mm.

 

Some TV shows have switched to HD and perhaps that's where I got the 5% savings number.

[David Mullen ASC]

Saving money is usually not the primary goal when making a national commercial spot, so the quality of 35mm outweighs the savings of HD for shooting lots of footage.

 

TV shows are more of a mixed bag, with the high-end dramatic shows opting for film whereas some cable series now use HD. Almost all sitcoms are shot in HD, whereas they used to mostly use 35mm.

 

And when you say 5%, is that 5% of the overall costs of production or just 5% savings over the costs of using 35mm film?

 

Also, the higher-end HD formats like using the Viper or F950 and going to an SRW1 deck cost more than shooting with the F900 or Varicam, and the rise in costs can make a producer consider just going back to film if they aren't going to save significant amounts of money. That's been one of the reasons why I have yet to shoot with the Viper or F950 -- everytime I bring it up, producers say "we might as well go back to film if it's not going to save us a LOT of money to shoot in HD."

[Jason Debus]

I was thinking 5% of the total production. So if for example you can save money in lighting by shooting HD then that's savings too.

 

But I think you explained what my misunderstanding is, and that's the auxilary equipment that is needed to support an HD shoot almost ends up costing as much as shooting film. What (I think) Brian was talking about is the 'P2 revolutionary workflow' which I put in quotations because I don't know enough about it to speak twords it's greatness, but apparently you can avoid the deck costs that come with the VariCam and CineAlta.