This can't really be happening...

[Will Earl]

Probably not, they normally shoot 35mm film. I don't know anybody who has shot any Betacam in the last 8 years, I think Digital Betacam killed it off in Europe.

 

This was the theorectical conversation I thought of when you said beta camera. :)

 

Client: Hi we want to shoot our next project using a RED camera.

DP: Sure you do know it's a beta camera right? So there is some risk involved.

Client: Huh!? No we don't want to use a betacam, why would we want to shoot on video when we normally shoot on film? we want to use a RED!

DP: Yeah, yeah. It's still in beta, meaning it could break dow.. oh you thought I meant... No it's not a betacam, it's a camera still in development.

[David Auner aac]

Funny how a 40-year-old Arri 2C build 1 still works 100% of the time...

 

Yeah, that and the fact that kills every digital/video camera: It will take much better pictures in another 20 years, given that we still use 35mm film then (which I really do hope). And that the pictures it takes today are way better than when the camera left the shop.

 

Regards, Dave

[Adrian Sierkowski]

As far as I can figure, we'll still be shooting film in the future so long as the DP is in control of the image. Now, this needs the caveat budget/director permitting.

There is an aura of film, so to speak. From what I've seen even in the low-budget world I often inhabit, there is an intense want to shoot film, just not always the intense money needed to back it up.

I have the feeling that once the economy rebounds a bit, we'll see more film. Well, perhaps it's not a feeling, but my deepest hope.

[John Sprung]

And that the pictures it takes today are way better than when the camera left the shop.

That's one of the lucky things about film. The really hard part, the part that's subject to ongoing research and constant improvement, is all handled by Kodak and Fuji. The camera stays the same, upgrades come in cans with new numbers on them.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Kenny]

That's one of the lucky things about film. The really hard part, the part that's subject to ongoing research and constant improvement, is all handled by Kodak and Fuji. The camera stays the same, upgrades come in cans with new numbers on them.

 

The catch is, the per-project cost of film (vs. hard drives) is so high that it's cheaper to shoot digital and buy a new camera every two years than to shoot film and keep the same camera for 20 years.

 

As far as Red reliability... we've had a couple of minor glitches with #404 over the months, but the only serious thing we've encountered was the codec error problem in high detail scenes with some of the early build 16 betas. Fortunately, Red got that fixed pretty fast.

 

In general Red has been pretty open about the fact that things are still in development, and has allowed people to hold off on delivery (without going all the way to the end of the line) until things are more finalized. I believe Red plans to consider the final version of firmware build 16 to be the point where the camera crosses that threshold. The most recent build 16 beta seems quite solid.

[John Brawley]

That's one of the lucky things about film. The really hard part, the part that's subject to ongoing research and constant improvement, is all handled by Kodak and Fuji. The camera stays the same, upgrades come in cans with new numbers on them.

 

-- J.S.

 

 

Not only that but the electronic film scanning, telecine and image processing paths keep betting better too. Film I shot 10 years ago looks much better transferred today than when I originally shot it !!!

 

jb

[John Brawley]

The catch is, the per-project cost of film (vs. hard drives) is so high that it's cheaper to shoot digital and buy a new camera every two years than to shoot film and keep the same camera for 20 years.

 

Im sure that you wish it were different Chris. I think it's sad that COST is what's driving the digital revolution. Since when was the best way to do something the cheapest and most convenient.

 

jb

[Chris Kenny]

Im sure that you wish it were different Chris.

 

Honestly? It doesn't make much difference to me. I don't have any particularly strong interest in shooting film.

 

I've discussed this a bit in the past. I'm 25. Most of the creative activities of my life (and many of the other activities, for that matter) have been mediated in some way by computers. While you can certainly find exceptions, I think people of my generation (and younger, obviously) are most at home with digital tools, when it comes to creative activity. If they're interested in photography or filmmaking, odds are very good they've shot the vast majority of the images they've ever shot digitally. Maybe all of them, for people a few years younger than I am.

 

In the long run, I think this will be the factor that makes digital the dominant force in filmmaking.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I haven't seen that where I am. I'm 24 and most of the people around me all want to shoot on film. But it's all conjecture. A great image is a great image, regardless of how it originated.

 

 

If anything, I think digital will slowly dominate as media moves into non-traditional venues. The youtubes of the world and future will degrade the appriciation for high quality images, and everything will slowly erode. . . And that's when I'll strike! :ph34r:

[Chris Pickle]

The lamest example of this ever was when Claudio Miranda stopped posting after being attacked for having run tests that didn't show red as awesome.

 

God that was embarassing to read.

 

That was certainly a low point.

 

BTW - I see that your Oscar nomination (and obvious talent--Silent City was way cool.) finally paid off! Akira....?? Wow!! And rumored to star a couple of of most talented actors in Hollywood today!

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I haven't seen that where I am. I'm 24 and most of the people around me all want to shoot on film.

 

I don't notice that a lot of young people around here want to shoot on film, I just notice that they want to shoot digital and have it look like film. They want the best of both worlds and I would bet money that digital will never mirror the look of film.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

East cost west cost thing?

 

Might just be a Phila thing?

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Might just be a Phila thing?

If Phila likes film then Matthew likes Phila. ;)

[Ruairi Robinson]

I don't notice that a lot of young people around here want to shoot on film, I just notice that they want to shoot digital and have it look like film. They want the best of both worlds and I would bet money that digital will never mirror the look of film.

 

"never" is a dangerous word!

[Matthew W. Phillips]

"never" is a dangerous word!

 

Not for me it isn't...why? Because nothing could make me happier than to shoot on a format that has the wonderful look of film with the quickness of video/digital cameras. It would be a glorious day indeed...just am not so confident it's going to happen...at least not in my lifetime.

[Robert Houllahan]

The catch is, the per-project cost of film (vs. hard drives) is so high that it's cheaper to shoot digital and buy a new camera every two years than to shoot film and keep the same camera for 20 years.

 

I seriously doubt that this is really the case on any budgeted show, they don't own cameras and the cost difference between a viper or F23 shoot and 35mm is actually often nil. The idea of a new camera every 3 to 5 years seems very wasteful to me and if you have seen batman you know that the very highest quality results are had on film so why would anybody strive for anything but the best?

 

 

-Rob-

[David Auner aac]

If anything, I think digital will slowly dominate as media moves into non-traditional venues. The youtubes of the world and future will degrade the appriciation for high quality images, and everything will slowly erode. . . And that's when I'll strike! :ph34r:

 

You'll have my sword! Aerrhm, camera!!!!

*bows and steps behind Adrian

 

Cheers, Dave

[David Auner aac]

I don't notice that a lot of young people around here want to shoot on film, I just notice that they want to shoot digital and have it look like film. They want the best of both worlds and I would bet money that digital will never mirror the look of film.

 

I have to agree with Adrian. I'm 26 and currently convincing a director friend that we can afford to shoot his next short on 16mm. And everybody around wants to shoot film, but say that they can't afford it. Then they dump thousands into new Hd cameras every three years.

 

Cheers, Dave

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I have to agree with Adrian. I'm 26 and currently convincing a director friend that we can afford to shoot his next short on 16mm. And everybody around wants to shoot film, but say that they can't afford it. Then they dump thousands into new Hd cameras every three years.

 

Cheers, Dave

 

If they dump thousands into HD cameras then one has to question if they really wanted to shoot on film in the first place. I have seen PHENOMENAL deals for 16mm 400' cans and short ends on ebay. I have seen deals with 2000' of film for like $100. You could shoot tons of film at that rate for the cost of an HVX200.

 

Just my thoughts.

[David Auner aac]

If they dump thousands into HD cameras then one has to question if they really wanted to shoot on film in the first place. I have seen PHENOMENAL deals for 16mm 400' cans and short ends on ebay. I have seen deals with 2000' of film for like $100. You could shoot tons of film at that rate for the cost of an HVX200.

 

True, but it seems to be common knowledge that film is so expensive you can't afford it. I was really surprised how cheap 16mm actually was when I first really checked it. I had thought the cost at 2-3x what it really was.

 

Cheers, Dave

[Brian Drysdale]

True, but it seems to be common knowledge that film is so expensive you can't afford it. I was really surprised how cheap 16mm actually was when I first really checked it. I had thought the cost at 2-3x what it really was.

 

Cheers, Dave

 

There are currently some great deals on Super 16 cameras from rental companies. Many of them are supportive of short films made by people with a good professional approach.

[Tim Terner]

If they dump thousands into HD cameras then one has to question if they really wanted to shoot on film in the first place. I have seen PHENOMENAL deals for 16mm 400' cans and short ends on ebay. I have seen deals with 2000' of film for like $100. You could shoot tons of film at that rate for the cost of an HVX200.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Buying the film is the cheap part

[Adrian Sierkowski]

True, the real cost comes in the Telecine/Color Session along with development. But, still it's often not that bad (if you know how to wheel and deal).

 

David, I thank you for your sword, and Mat, my camera is at your service. Shall we be the fellowship of the film-stock? (sorry been watching LotR a lot recently. . .)

 

On the short film side of things, it is often cheaper to shoot digitally, because these are budgets of scale. The $3000 difference, lets say, on an HVX short and a S16 short is much bigger when the budget is only, say 5,000. Were it 10,000, or 100,000 it'd matter a lot less.

 

As for the people sinking money into digital cameras, it makes some sense. Digitally, you can whore yourself out to lower budget shoots/live events pretty easily (at least here in phila) and make some money back on that investment. My Arri doesn't see nearly as many shoots as I'd like her to-- though I expected that going into the investment-- whereas a friend of mine, with his DVX has paid off the camera many times over. Of course, the downside is that you get roped into shooting a lot of stuff which is pretty sub-standard in quality IMHO. But hey, when it comes to art vs rent, often rent must win out!

[Matthew W. Phillips]

David, I thank you for your sword, and Mat, my camera is at your service. Shall we be the fellowship of the film-stock? (sorry been watching LotR a lot recently. . .)

 

Why thank you, Adrian. I have been spending a lot of time lately watching LOTR special features on the monster "4 discs per movie" collection. It's inspiring.

 

On the short film side of things, it is often cheaper to shoot digitally, because these are budgets of scale. The $3000 difference, lets say, on an HVX short and a S16 short is much bigger when the budget is only, say 5,000. Were it 10,000, or 100,000 it'd matter a lot less.

 

Actually Adrian, If I wanted to shoot a short on either 16mm or an HVX200, it would be far cheaper for me to buy you a plane ticket out here, negotiate a fair non-union rate, and pay for film stock on a short than it would be for me to buy the HVX200. And the quality of S16 would blow the HVX200 out of the water. Granted the telecine would make things more expensive but the great thing about that is that once the film is processed, you can take as long as you need on financing post, if it comes to it.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Very true, though I was assuming one who already owned, or had access to both cameras ;)

Sorry not to have made that clear in my post.

 

Telecine is rather cheap, if you're just doing a one-light to SD. . .it's when you get into supervised and the HD-Flavors that it can get rather expensive. Of course, you're right about financing post after the film is processed, so long as it's stored properly it'll last a long long time.

 

When the time comes, remind me, I'll see what deals I can swing for your telecine. Might be out here in Phila, though, but I am a damned good cook

Edited July 22, 2008 by Adrian Sierkowski