Jump to content

Why Shoot Film?


Guest

Recommended Posts

Even the greatest digital format of all time will fail to match film 100% of the time...

 

 

Wait till you SEE my new camera from the future!

 

To make a long story short:

 

Borat paid a visit of my store.

He made a really BIG mess.

While low on money to compensate

for the damage, he offered me his watch from the FUTURE.

 

I said, no, thanks, not interested. A FUTURE camera maybe?

 

The rest is history...

 

:)

 

 

Regards

 

Igor

 

PS: My head got dizzy from the long listing

of all the presets avaliable in the on-camera stock plugin.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I noticed that same look in Star Wars EPIII, not that it wasn't fantasticly shot (the bits of it that WERE ACTUALLY shot) but it just lacked something, flesh tones didn't look right, little things like that, I still enjoyed the movie, though. :D

 

Episode II looked twice as bad...I was surprised half my friends didn't notice any difference between it and film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Digital cameras will never be 100% exactly like film mainly because of two reasons: One is human error. No one can shoot a complex movie and never make a single mistake. Second is the fact that ambitious artists often push their tools to their working limits.

 

So when this happens, either a mistake is made or the format is stressed to its breaking point, with film, when it craps out or breaks down, it does so in familiar film-like ways.

 

But even the most film-like digital technology ever invented, or to be invented, when it craps out, will break down into uniquely digital artifacts.

 

But even if 100% isn't achievable, the question is what percentage does one think is practical to achieve one's goal? No one will answer that question in the same manner, and they will change their minds depending on the application at hand, or even their mood for the day, or how much money they have in their pocket.

 

Episode II looked twice as bad...I was surprised half my friends didn't notice any difference between it and film.

 

Having been fairly disappointed with the quality of the D.I. used for Episode 1 ("Phantom Menace"), which some people told me was done at 1.5K or something low in resolution -- and you can see some bad chattering noise / grain problems in some scenes even on the DVD -- when it was announced that Episode 2 was going to be shot in 24P HDCAM, my response was that the bar had already been lowered by Episode 1 and that I doubted that Episode 2 could look any worse technically (lighting-wise, I liked Tattersal's work just fine).

 

And when I saw Episode 2 several times, digitally, in 35mm, and in IMAX (I'm a masochist), I felt that it wasn't really any worse overall than Episode 1. Some things were bad, yes, especially the keying. Skintones were much worse, clipping was a problem, but resolution seemed similar and grain was less of a problem.

 

Episode 3 was better-looking than either of the first two (again, just technically speaking). Again, I saw it about five times at various theaters, both digitally and in 35mm. It didn't have the noise/grain problems of the first, it didn't have the keying problems of the second, and overall it was richer in color, contrast. The main problem was the plasticky skintones in many scenes, particularly during the birth/death scene at the end (HD hates sweaty faces...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with Hal, a cinematographer should use whatever tools suit the job best. I am sick of hearing the film vs digital debate. To me much of the art of cinematography is all about choosing and using the right tools for the job and using them to effectively make a positive contribution to the production. If we remain byased towards certain aquisition tools then our ability to do this is comprimised.

 

Ultimately we do not want an audience to notice the cinematography until they look back on the film in retrospect. While watching the film our work should help ensure they are immersed in the world that has been created for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe because I went to a hippy-dippy art school (CalArts) and watched a lot of mixed-media experimental art, I learned to stop thinking that all movies have to be made to the same aesthetic standards using the same technology

 

This inspires me, reminds me of people plugging away making shorts on those pixel cameras. Really got me thinking of just what I can use...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
............On the flipside, I just had a job interview where the issue of HD came up and I said that there was little motivation for me to use HD if 35mm was affordable, in particular, HD as in the Sony F900 HDCAM kind of HD. Either it had to be a situation where 35mm wasn't in the budget... or something where HD provided some advantages over 35mm, like if the project needed to run very long takes, shoot high ratios, need a high depth of field, use a lot of greenscreen (and I wouldn't recommend the F900 for that), etc. The director asked me "but what if using HD instead of 35mm would get you a week more of shooting days? Wouldn't you prefer that? Wouldn't that make the movie better in the end?"........

 

...............David, I have a lot of respect for you and your work. It's also totally fantastic that a real member of the ASC takes the time to answer our questions and give out excellent information.

 

However, I have one comment. Over the last several months whenever you answer a question in the area of film vs. video, I don't know if you realize this, but your posts feel very slanted towards digital video.......

 

Mike

 

I do find these two posts, back to back, somewhat ironic.

 

Or...., just insert the standard line "This is what I'm talking about."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

In the practical reality of here and now, we have a mix of formats to choose from. Unfortunately some of the best ones, like 65mm, are hardly an option. But my point is that as of today, we aren't being told that tomorrow, film will be gone and we must accept whatever the current state of digital camera technology that exists right now. We have options.

 

If we really were told to make a permanent choice this week, one or the other, it would be a no-brainer because 35mm looks great so let's keep that and junk the rest.

 

But that isn't the situation. 35mm is still widely used in the film industry, Super-16 is more popular than ever, and digital camera technology keeps improving. So we don't have to take a stance that is either pro-film or pro-video, all or nothing. We just have to fight to use the correct tools for the particular project at hand, taking into account the needs of the production and the financial reality of the budget. And sometimes we have to make do with something less than we hoped for. But few of us, except for the top cinematographers in the world, would have a career if we refused to deal with digital technology ever.

 

Some of the best commercial cinematographers, who do great work in 35mm, have done some projects on the Viper, Genesis, Arri-D20, etc. That doesn't make them pro-this-or-that, it just means they are practical people who keep involved in all the possible options out there and who have a vested interest in making digital get better, which it won't if people don't use it and put it through the paces and really test its limits. Few of them are going to say that the current crop of digital cameras produce better images than 35mm, but that's not the same thing as saying that they haven't found a use for these cameras, or can't produce good images with them. They can see the weaknesses of these new technologies better than anyone, their eyes are so critical. But that level of critical skills hasn't therefore made them anti-digital. Again, there's no practical reason for them to take such a stance. All they have to say is "digital is nice... but it can be better. Keep working on it!"

 

As soon as you take some sort of political stand that you will be for film and against digital, or the other way around, you get shut-out of the process where manufacturers come around and ask for your opinion, ask you to test stuff, etc. because you're seen by them as having already made up your mind. A few big DP's can afford to be this way, always trying to shoot with the same camera, lenses, film stocks, etc. that they are happy with, but most of us don't have that kind of power. Nor do most of us want to be locked in that way -- we enjoy trying new things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, just out of curiosity what's your current feeling about shooting features on Super16? Last time I heard you discuss it you seemed keener on HD as a poor man's alternative to 35mm than Super16.

 

There have been some interesting and good looking low-budget films in the last few years that have originate on Super16: My Summer of Love, Vera Drake, The Squid and the Whale etc. Do you still consider Super16 as a format for feature production? Or do you find the increased grain an issue and only for very specific atistic needs?

 

Cheers,

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as you take some sort of political stand that you will be for film and against digital, or the other way around, you get shut-out of the process where manufacturers come around and ask for your opinion, ask you to test stuff, etc. because you're seen by them as having already made up your mind. A few big DP's can afford to be this way, always trying to shoot with the same camera, lenses, film stocks, etc. that they are happy with, but most of us don't have that kind of power. Nor do most of us want to be locked in that way -- we enjoy trying new things.

 

I hang out on a lot of "pro-DV forums" and run into a lot of the same issues you do. Too many people willing to bet the horse and that's it. I just like shooting movies, and using the right tool for the job. The current project I'm on is on 35mm, because it will give the look needed and the cost difference isn't great enough to validate any other options. After that, planning on one designed for Super8, because I want to play around with it and it's an art film pure and simple, so it doesn't matter if it's commercially saleable or not, just how it looks. After that, who knows? I do know that it's beyond rediculous to expect 1 camera to do every job out there. It's unfair to your crew, your cast, and to the camera itself. Every camera has a job, every format a role. Pick your tools according to your need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
David, just out of curiosity what's your current feeling about shooting features on Super16? Last time I heard you discuss it you seemed keener on HD as a poor man's alternative to 35mm than Super16.

 

I just saw "Venus", which was quite a decent blow-up from Super-16 to 35mm.

 

Both HD (of the F900 variety) and Super-16 are a cheaper alternative to 35mm, and both are a compromise in some technical manner (resolution, grain, etc.) So if I had to choose between them, it would be based on the look I wanted to achieve. I'm certainly more positive about Super-16 these days; I just saw some clips of TV pilots made this year and some of the best-looking were shot on Super-16.

 

One of my arguments for HD would have been regarding low-light work, since you'd have to use high-speed stock in Super-16 and perhaps even push it. However, even the current 500 ASA stock in Super-16 isn't all that grainy. But it would still be grainier than HD.

 

So it really depends on the look I want and the shooting logistics -- for example, if there was a lot of greenscreen work.

 

One of the odd issues I have with a Super-16 blow-up in the theaters is that it can look so close to 35mm in quality that it would be easy to mistake it for just softer, grainier 35mm photography. In a weird way, HD-to-35mm looks more unique, different than 35mm in more ways, that it is harder to mistake for mediocre 35mm.

 

I know that's a weird way of thinking about it, but when I left the theater after seeing "Venus" my thought was that most viewers are going to think that was shot in 35mm -- just that they must have used really fast film and some soft lenses (or for the less knowledgable viewer, just that it was a "low budget" movie). In other words, the best you could do was to fool people into thinking it was somewhat cheap-looking 35mm. It may be better to approach Super-16 more stylistically at least so that it's particular visual qualities add something special to the image.

 

On the other hand, an advantage to Super-16 is that you can capture the more gritty feeling of an old 35mm movie from the 1970's, that roughness of a semi-documentary movie like "The French Connection" -- modern 35mm has gotten so high-quality that it's hard to degrade enough. This was one reason they used Super-16 for parts of "Babel", since 800T stock had been obsoleted and they wanted that graininess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the odd issues I have with a Super-16 blow-up in the theaters is that it can look so close to 35mm in quality that it would be easy to mistake it for just softer, grainier 35mm photography. In a weird way, HD-to-35mm looks more unique, different than 35mm in more ways, that it is harder to mistake for mediocre 35mm.

 

That sounds quite bizzare, though understandable.

 

So a format that achieves a certain level of quality but falls short of the industry standard, can be percieved as being a compromise, where a format which is a more significant departue in look from the industry standard is often perceived as deliberate.

 

This brings up an interesting thought though, when ever I see DV shot drama or films like 28 Days Latter, This World, Road to Quantanamo in the cinema or Funland on tv, I can't help feeling the filmmakers are brave and 'pushing the boundries' taking advantage of the aethetic percurliarites of a domestic format, when I see a film shot on full HD video like Me You and Everyone We Know or The Business or tv drama shot on DigiBeta, i'm a little dissapointed they didn't make it 'properly' on film.

 

This is perhaps a foolish sceptisism that I possess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I've heard that same argument from some DP's like Ellen Kuras -- they'd rather use lower-end DV than high-end HD because the high-end HD just looks like mediocre film to them. So it's a similar thing to what I said about Super-16.

 

But like I said, this past year I've seen so much good Super-16 work that I've been leaning more that way than to HDCAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Troy,

 

Troy, you always have to choose your words carefully (don't worry, I've made the same mistake also). You said in your post above, "Though these Technicolor films undoubtedly look better now than they did then,"

 

I have to ask you what you base this statement on? It may or may not be true, but unless you were sitting in the 14th row of the Bijou in 1939 watching THE WIZARD OF OZ or GONE WITH THE WIND I'm not sure how you can make such a statement. If you guess about technology and its effects, what is the point? I could just as easily say, "Technicolor films will never look as good as they did when first projected." Of course I wasn't around in 1939 so I have no way of knowing if that statement is true or not.

 

So does that mean since we werent there to see history happen its all false? Becuase your same ideology can be applied to a textbook, and also, it's possible he did buy original prints of the film and project them on his own, just think about it.

 

 

But I think this is quickly changing as digital cameras continue to improve at a very fast pace.

Hi Mike,

 

This is another problem, houses are going to buy a TOP OF THE LINE camera, and within half a decade, it's obsolete making them have to spend more money, whereas if I took the FIRST "Cinématographe" camera (1885?) and put a modern emulsion into it, i am able to produce a damn good image, and not only that, today's industry standard Arri 35-III was made in 1979 and is still heavily used!

Edited by Kenny N Suleimanagich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hey Buddies:

 

It's kinda' funny that I went through this same kind of argument in art school... only, it was over paint. This is very much like the oil vs. acrylic paint war. Concerning film vs. video we can all talk about which we think is better and why, and we're probably all right from our own perspective. That's the thing... we're all right.

 

Me? I love film. The reasons I prefer it are almost impossible to define. Let me try it like this: I like oil paints better than acrylic; I like cotton shirts better than polyester; I like the prime rib at Pauline's better than the prime rib at Applebees; I like the Porche better than the Volkswagon; I like Saint Augustine grass better than Bermuda... you know- like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I responded that the question implies some sort of equivalency, and if we're talking about the Sony F900 level of HD, it isn't equivalent to 35mm. I mean, if I were told that they were using a Final Cut Pro system rather than an AVID to save money and get me more shooting days, I'd be all for it -- the change has no affect on my work and probably won't affect the quality of the final product. But using HDCAM instead of 35mm just to put more money into shooting days is basically choosing to go for an overall drop in picture quality which is harder to justify unless the HD was adding even more advantages like the ones I mentioned before. Marcel Zyskind can probably elaborate better on this than I can.

 

 

The advantage of HD in some of the cases for me has been that we've actually been able to make the films in the first place. Tristram Shandy for instance I would very much liked to have shot in 35mm, but in the end the budget only allowed us HD in the case of a HDW 750. S16mm we found to be too grainy.

 

Stepping down in overall picture quality, in terms of DV and HD versus film, has also been conscious decision for us (meaning Michael Winterbottom and I) in some of our films. In This World and The Road to Guantanamo would not have been possibly for us to make with 35mm gear and crew. Those films required us to be only myself and the sound recordist on location in terms of the technical crew. The mobility of a DV camera can not be matched. Also the way that Michael has evolved his style over the last few years means shooting without rehearsals, long takes and a lot of improvisation. DV and HD have helped him to that.

 

During the years I have learnt that having the best format do not automatically mean making the best film. I am fortunate that I have a choice of many different formats today. It means the films that I worked have been made and that I have a career.

 

As a cinematographer I can only share my love for the wonderfully built film cameras, the beauty of the film texture and the fantastic lenses made. That being said, a story still needs to be told and we don't always have the funds to use the best format. Sometimes we do and I am grateful for that!

 

I just wish that damn HD format had better latitude. It's like shooting positive film. Also the cameras get hotter than hell. It's like carrying a hot laptop on your face.

 

Marcel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Marcel,

 

Just curious, do you consider other formats, like Super16, when testing for a location based/Winterbottom shoot or are you now so confident of DV and HD technology its now a natural, even instant decision?

 

Have you ever been tempted by the City of God route of mixing film formats, to get a film made on location?

 

Cheers,

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Marcel,

 

Just curious, do you consider other formats, like Super16, when testing for a location based/Winterbottom shoot or are you now so confident of DV and HD technology its now a natural, even instant decision?

 

Have you ever been tempted by the City of God route of mixing film formats, to get a film made on location?

 

Cheers,

Andy

 

Hi Andy

 

We have thought of Super 16 but have found it too grainy for some of the projects we were doing. All though for In This World & Road to Guantanamo even Super 16 would have been difficult.

 

I'm all up for mixing formats. The last film with Michael, A Mighty Heart, we shot mostly HD, but also used DV and anamorphic 35mm for flashbacks.

 

And for a Harmony Korine film I did last year we shot both Super 35 and Super 16mm.

 

It was not used in the same way as City of God or Constant Gardener where it was intercut in the same scenes, but more as time change or change of mood.

 

All the best

Marcel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Andy

 

We have thought of Super 16 but have found it too grainy for some of the projects we were doing. All though for In This World & Road to Guantanamo even Super 16 would have been difficult.

 

Thanks Marcel,

 

It seems that the small size of a DV camera really frees you up to film almost any place, at anytime. Is that why you choose a smaller and lighter camera like the PD150 or DVX rather than say the bigger canon xl1/2 which seems more versatile?

 

Looking forward to A Mighty Heart,

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If video had been invented over 100 years ago with the ability to resolve 4000 lines, then we'd be talking about how great it's archival properties are."

 

With film it's not just a question of resolving power, it's the organic "film look" that is also valuable. Film has that fantasy look that assists the audience in being able to suspend their disbelief.

 

I'm sorry but the new Superman film looks very "videoy" to me, as do most HD features. Yes I know part of Superman was shot on 35mm, those shots looked ok. :)

 

R,

 

I don't believe that 35mm became the cinematic standard by divine right. The format has been worked on since the 16th Century and was argued throughout its birth as a never-reaching cousin to accomplished painters. Digital technology works to immitate film. As film paints with light rather than a brush, so does digital paint with binary. It's a compliment to the format. When digital reaches 100 years in age this thread will be looked at by some very amused 9th-graders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When digital reaches 100 years in age this thread will be looked at by some very amused 9th-graders.

 

That's some of the better comedy writing I've read. Do you write for the one the LA based sit coms?

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argghgh I hate these damned 'anti-digital' threads. As if they're being rebellious and going against what everyone else is doing. Film, IS, the mainstream, format. I'd consider the digital cinematographers more daring, rebellious and experimental.

 

I get it all the time where I work. Customers are going on about the quality of digital and how it no where near compares to their 35mm compacts. I have never said this to one of them, yet, but I certainly feel like it, "That's your photography, mate."

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

I'm just going to keep saying this until someone hears it.

 

I am currently in preproduction on a 40-minute drama to be shot over eight days. I estimate that the costs solely associated with shooting film would be around UK£50,000. If anyone wants to give me £50,000 (US$90,000) I will be extremely happy to shoot it on film. Until that time this entire discussion is fundamentally pointless because the choice simply does not exist, as it does not for the overwhelming majority of independents.

 

The constant griping of people who do not have to deal with the complexities of shooting film (in that they're surrounded by dozens of assistants) or pay for it (in fact, tend to get paid a very good wage to do it) could not be less relevant.

 

It is very, very, very rarely an artistic choice for anyone not to do film.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

I'm just going to keep saying this until someone hears it.

 

I am currently in preproduction on a 40-minute drama to be shot over eight days. I estimate that the costs solely associated with shooting film would be around UK£50,000.

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

What is your shooutng ratio? That sounds very high is your shooting raio 50+:1?

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...