Shoot film or go digital?

[Frank Tarasco]

FILM!!!!!!!!

[Tom Jensen]

Yes, I love film as much as the next guy but for the most part you are at the mercy of production. They make the ultimate decision. Half the films, if not more than that, I have seen in the last 10 years aren't worthy of being shot on film. So, why does everything have to be shot on film? I have no clue. Resolution? How much do you need, especially when we knock it down with filtration? Do we really have to see every pore to judge content? No. Is it because of pixilation? It will improve. For the guy just now getting into film, I say learn what is being used the most first if you want to work in this industry for any length of time. Learning film involved a lot of concepts particularly exposure and lighting. Well, you can learn almost everything else on a digital camera like operating, camera moves, coverage, filtration. You can quickly learn lighting because you can see it instead of practicing on something that you won't see your mistakes until after developing and printing. Film is great. I won't say it's dead yet because it is a great archival medium but I will say digital is here and cannot be denied.

[Keith Walters]

Yes its amazing that a film cinematographer will denounce every person who shoots video as incompetent and not worthy of a job and then goes about lowering the quality of every fast action shot by refusing to shoot it at 48 frames per second even though digital cinema 2K specifications allow that for projection.

 

Er if you refuse to shoot at 24fps, I don't think you're going to be shooting much. And also "er", the bulk of cinema ptojection is still film.

 

 

And if I convince the producer or the director to go with 65mm film again I am fired...

I don't think that would be the reason. :D

 

Tell me Thomas, did you ever post under the name "Weebus" on a certain About.com forum? You sure sound like him :lol:

[Thomas James]

So what would be my reason for being fired? If its rocking the boat and making waves then why did the Director take my advice and decide to shoot some scenes using 65mm film? The reason for getting fired in that circumstance would be incompetence because 65mm film is simply not a format that you can learn to shoot film on if your only experience is HD video. However all is not lost. Shutter Island used 65mm film , 35mm film as well as high definition video which is a good backup for the 65mm cameras that broke down.

[Brian Drysdale]

So what would be my reason for being fired?

 

You mightn't even get hired in the first place because only A list directors will have the budget to shoot either 65mm or 35mm at 48 fps (which would be limited to being screened only in digital projection theatres, therefore annoying funders and distributors).

[Thomas James]

By that logic Christopher Nolan should have been fired for daring to shoot Batman and Inception using 65mm film since it was a waste of money and it could only be shown in IMAX theatres. However the reality is that the movie stayed on budget because only select scenes were shot on 65mm film which is easily reduced to a 35mm print.

[Brian Drysdale]

Christopher Nolan is an A list director, he can get away with things that other people can't because the studios are prepared to back his production. When did he take your advice on this matter?

[Daniel Smith]

I'd probably go digital unless I had an insanely large budget.

 

The problem is people keep on comparing cameras like the HVX200 to £50,000+ worth of film kit. Get a decent camera with a large sensor, some prime lenses and a decent crew. And finally get someone who actually knows something about colour grading. Applying an 'S' curve in after effects is not going to make your film look like Harry Potter.

[Thomas James]

Okay so long as the film is classified as an Epic its okay to shoot it on 65mm film. In fact traditionally all Epics were shot on 65mm film so at one time 65mm film was mainstream and 65mm film will again likely become the mainstream for Epic production once 4K digital projection becomes more common. However the decision to shoot Batman on 65mm was Christopher Nolans idea. Yet Christopher Nolan never regretted that decision and if there were any regrets its that the whole movie should have been shot on IMAX rather than a few selected scenes.

[Marcus Joseph]

Why the hell is Christopher Nolan and 65mm film even being discussed? He's a big shot with 200 million dollar plus budgets because he made it big over his creative vision, since when is any of us on that level?

 

I think a lot of people in this thread forgot that at the end of the day, story makes a film, it's what gets people to go to see it in the first place. And whether you shoot digital or film, it has to depend on the story, you can't possibly say film suits everything, that's preposterous talk. What about a flick like District 9? That was incredibly well shot and the effects being some of the better parts of the movie. It's indeed possible that it wouldn't even be made if it weren't for digital acquisition, the budget expense would probably be too much.

 

What's the point of wasting money on projects that really don't require the film look, or a detailed photographic look at all? (The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity) The purpose of film cannot always suit the story and the story just cannot always worth enough in the first place. Sadly Hollywood has become a place where obscure sequels have the opportunity for film budgets (because that's what the 'audience' wants), but alas great original stories have to suffer their artistic integrity, but that's a whole other issue altogether.

 

As much as we all favour and admire cinematography so much here, I strongly stand by that it's the story first, picture second.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Marcus Joseph

[David Mullen ASC]

 

As much as we all favour and admire cinematography so much here, I strongly stand by that it's the story first, picture second.

 

Most of the time, it's not really an either/or proposition -- I think that's a bit of a false choice. After all, you can't have a movie without images. When "Blair Witch Project" chose to shoot on consumer video equipment (and some 16mm) it wasn't really a matter of putting picture second but finding a good marriage between the story and the technique. Some stories don't need super high-resolution images to be told visually, but that doesn't mean that the picture comes second, just that the story doesn't need the highest level of technology nor technical quality, the level chosen was appropriate for the story.

 

Not all scripts are the same in terms of the technical level that the image has to achieve to best tell that story. Also, some stories are more driven by images and less by acting and dialogue ("2001" for example). It's not necessarily a fault of screenwriting if the movie wouldn't work as well if shot on a consumer camera; some stories need a certain level of visual expressiveness and dimension on a very large screen, and some do not. Lumet probably could have shot "12 Angry Men" on 16mm b&w rather than 35mm, but that would have worked less well for Lean shooting "Lawrence of Arabia" (or Malick shooting "Days of Heaven".) Or one of my own movies, "Northfork".

 

Story usually drives style and informs it, but that doesn't mean images have a low level of importance in cinema (they are moving pictures after all), nor does it follow that when on a limited budget, you always have to give second place to the image over other production values. And certainly you never have to choose between a good script and good cinematography, since those aspects are usually handled by two different people.

[Stuart Brereton]

Yes its amazing that a film cinematographer will denounce every person who shoots video as incompetent and not worthy of a job and then goes about lowering the quality of every fast action shot by refusing to shoot it at 48 frames per second even though digital cinema 2K specifications allow that for projection.

 

Thomas, would you PLEASE stop banging on about 48fps projection in every thread that you contribute to. You have made your pointless many times, and I and many others are tired of hearing it. Hijacking threads with your own strange beliefs is not what this forum is for.

[Alain Lumina]

Film looks better for most things, but also even to my inexperienced eye one big thing is it doesn't crap out on motion like cheap digital does.

 

I have 16mm film (CP-16R) and a Canon 7D -- both cams cost about 1.5K now; but the Canon looks way worse on most motion.

 

And as far as convenience and cost goes, I don't think it's as one-sided as people think.

With film, you have to lose a pretty substantial object (the processed film) to be SOL for real.

With digital, hit ERASE once too often.....

 

However, on the last day of a shoot 20 min after sunset, squeezing in scenes, the 7D with a Zeiss 1.4 lens

that only cost me $250 used got the job done.

 

I don't know enough about cinematography to know if we could have gotten away with film there, but 1.4 lenses seem a lot more expensive.

 

However, the biggest difference I've seen as a nobody from nowhere just deciding to make films with no connections and no training, is that incredibly talented, experienced people are inexplicably willing to come on board with someone so green, precisely because they know I'm using film. I think they believe it means I'm not a total dolt.

 

One DP who worked with Fred Astaire was just blowing me away with stories; and it was like getting essentially free tutoring from someone far beyond me, someone it would take years for me to meet clawing my up through the computer cam world.

 

One really funny thing is a lot of these talented people contact me because I'm using film, but then try to convince me to use digital because I don't have enough money. But when both cams are sitting there, guess which one they pick up!

 

And I don't know why they think I don't have any money. I haven't gotten an eviction notice yet from my tiny studio apartment, and my 30 year old little Toyota runs fine.

 

I should buy a chair or something for my apartment

[Marcus Joseph]

Most of the time, it's not really an either/or proposition -- I think that's a bit of a false choice. After all, you can't have a movie without images. When "Blair Witch Project" chose to shoot on consumer video equipment (and some 16mm) it wasn't really a matter of putting picture second but finding a good marriage between the story and the technique. Some stories don't need super high-resolution images to be told visually, but that doesn't mean that the picture comes second, just that the story doesn't need the highest level of technology nor technical quality, the level chosen was appropriate for the story.

 

Not all scripts are the same in terms of the technical level that the image has to achieve to best tell that story. Also, some stories are more driven by images and less by acting and dialogue ("2001" for example). It's not necessarily a fault of screenwriting if the movie wouldn't work as well if shot on a consumer camera; some stories need a certain level of visual expressiveness and dimension on a very large screen, and some do not. Lumet probably could have shot "12 Angry Men" on 16mm b&w rather than 35mm, but that would have worked less well for Lean shooting "Lawrence of Arabia" (or Malick shooting "Days of Heaven".) Or one of my own movies, "Northfork".

 

Story usually drives style and informs it, but that doesn't mean images have a low level of importance in cinema (they are moving pictures after all), nor does it follow that when on a limited budget, you always have to give second place to the image over other production values. And certainly you never have to choose between a good script and good cinematography, since those aspects are usually handled by two different people.

I agree with the point your making that image does have a strong correlation to the story, but it also makes the point of shooting film all the time because it's the most visually pleasing and highest resolution format around unnecessary because it's agreeable that not every movie needs film. A lot of movies do benefit greatly from it, nearly all of my favourite photographed ones are shot with it, in fact most still being shot that way. But there's also a lot of benefits to digital too, such as a really immersive film like Avatar wouldn't be around without digital. And then there's things like the size and practicality of digital and what can actually be done with the equipment to achieve more surreal and engaging photography. There's also shooting ratios, instant viewing and quicker post-production times. These are all benefits that can be heavily weighed in whether or not film is right for the particular project. Of course there's the downsides too, lesser quality, dynamic range and actual look. And then there's the amount of 3D crap that is being released because of Avatar.

 

One thing I suppose I was trying to say was no matter what format a film is to be shot on anyway, or whether it's badly or greatly shot, is that I tend to lean towards the actual story rather than the photography. I can remember and rewatch badly shot good movies, but I tend to forgot those greatly shot bad movies.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Marcus Joseph

[Thomas James]

I was merely making the point that comming from a video background it would be very difficult to make a recommendation to shoot film without cutting my own throat even though I possess unique skills that allow the improvement of picture quality. Since most of these skills are too controversial to discuss I prefer to champion 65mm film aquistion so that discussion may continue as everyone agrees that this is an acceptable way to improve picture quality. However the major roadblock that I face in my attempts to improve picture quality is that this is merely over compensation for a terrible story. So this leads me to believe that the true champions of improved picture quality must also be great story tellers.

[Phil Rhodes]

I have 16mm film (CP-16R) and a Canon 7D -- both cams cost about 1.5K now; but the Canon looks way worse on most motion.

I think that's about the most disingenuous statement you can make about film and video, and it's the oldest trick in the book.

Yes, you can pick up a film camera for next to nothing, but you then have to buy stock, processing, and transfer, even if you then don't end up having to pay extra for tape transfers into a format you can use. The camera may be 1.5K but it then costs you that again every time you get it out of the box.

P

[Thomas James]

Yes but he gets more jobs because he knows how to shoot film so the the 16mm format pays for itself even if it costs more to process than HD video.

[George Ebersole]

Most of the time, it's not really an either/or proposition -- I think that's a bit of a false choice. After all, you can't have a movie without images. When "Blair Witch Project" chose to shoot on consumer video equipment (and some 16mm) it wasn't really a matter of putting picture second but finding a good marriage between the story and the technique. Some stories don't need super high-resolution images to be told visually, but that doesn't mean that the picture comes second, just that the story doesn't need the highest level of technology nor technical quality, the level chosen was appropriate for the story.

 

Not all scripts are the same in terms of the technical level that the image has to achieve to best tell that story. Also, some stories are more driven by images and less by acting and dialogue ("2001" for example). It's not necessarily a fault of screenwriting if the movie wouldn't work as well if shot on a consumer camera; some stories need a certain level of visual expressiveness and dimension on a very large screen, and some do not. Lumet probably could have shot "12 Angry Men" on 16mm b&w rather than 35mm, but that would have worked less well for Lean shooting "Lawrence of Arabia" (or Malick shooting "Days of Heaven".) Or one of my own movies, "Northfork". *snip*

I remember all of the effort that went into one of the older comedy-action-sci-fi films shot here locally ("Inner Space"), and on a stage I used to work at. I remember all the features I worked on or hovered around and noting the gigantic effort needed to get the director's "vision" put onto film. It was a far cry from the videos and films I shot with my friends growing up. Hell, even the industrials I worked on at the time and later only required your basic crew.

 

My thought was that there had to be a cheaper way. At the time SONY was experimenting with shutter speeds for video to simulate film. I figured if I couldn't afford to rent equipment and organize a crew, then maybe I'd go do something else for a few years, then hopefully when and if I came back the video technology would have developed enough to make shooting small films on video affordable, and still retain that filmic look.

 

Well, it's come about, sort of. I'm flat busted broke (or nearly there), and can't afford the new affordable technology. But, at least the technology has developed to an acceptable point that a guy can shoot a film on a budget, and make it look reasonably professional.

 

The reason this ties into David's post is because, to me at least, it's probably easier to tweak the image to give a screenplay a certain look. In short, it's cheaper to shoot. It's also cheaper to give your project a certain aura or visual style.

[vswakeman]

We just shot this clip on Canon 5d and 7d, let me know what you think. Open for critisisms!

 

This is the equipment we used:3 camera shoot.

Two (2) Canon 5d

One (1) Canon 7d

 

Lens used -

70-200mm f/2.8 IS

85MM f/1.2 L II USM

16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Series Wide Zoom

 

Here's the link to the clip!

[George Ebersole]

We just shot this clip on Canon 5d and 7d, let me know what you think. Open for critisisms!

 

This is the equipment we used:3 camera shoot.

Two (2) Canon 5d

One (1) Canon 7d

 

Lens used -

70-200mm f/2.8 IS

85MM f/1.2 L II USM

16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Series Wide Zoom

 

Here's the link to the clip!

Where's the link?

[Marcus Joseph]

Where's the link?

Yeah no link, first post, seems dodgy.

[Jim Carlile]

Heh, are you sure?

 

Back in the day I was working with a couple of actors who wanted to produce a project. One of them was real high on a real stinker of a film; Beverly Hills Vampire. The thing was shot on Super-8, marketed on VHS, and made money. He thought we could pull it off.

 

I said "No", and so did the other guy...

 

 

I think it was A Polish Vampire in Burbank

 

http://www.amazon.com/Polish-Vampire-Burbank-VHS-Bruce/dp/6300230317

 

Big difference, Burbank vs. B.H.

[Guest alen]

i preferred to go for a digital

[George Ebersole]

I think it was A Polish Vampire in Burbank

 

http://www.amazon.com/Polish-Vampire-Burbank-VHS-Bruce/dp/6300230317

 

Big difference, Burbank vs. B.H.

Yeah, thanks for that. The other was shot on 35mm and starred super-geek-speacialist actor Eddie Deezen.

 

Christ, shoot a feature on super-8? AND market the thing? That takes gusto that most of us don't have.

 

Anyway, the whole thing fell apart. No one wanted to commit, and no matter how much effort I put into pre-production there was always something holding us up. To shoot the film that they wanted to shoot would have been a fiasco. So, in that regard, I'm glad it never got off the ground.

[Matt Pacini]

All other things being equal, I would ALWAYS shoot film.

 

However, all other things are NEVER equal.

 

 

Other than cost or ease of shooting (which are HUGE considerations), I see no benefit of shooting anything other than film.

- My point being, people always say things like "shoot what works best for the story" etc., but IMO you can always make film look like it was shot on video, but you can almost never do the opposite.

So, quality being the ONLY cosideration (and it NEVER is), film is the way to go.

So I don't really buy anyone saying they shoot video for asthetic reasons (unless they have little or no film experience, hence; they don't know what they're talking about) - they are always either talking out of ignorance, or they simply won't admit that they wanted to shoot film, but just didn't have the $$$ or resources to do it.

All those people who got excited about MiniDV and spouted off with "the format doesn't matter, it's all about the story", how do you feel about your footage now that HD has made all of that look like ametuerish crap? Pretty silly, huh?

All that stuff shot on film while you were off shooting miniDV still holds up, decades later, and doesn't look like an experimental camcorder movie, which is what most everything I've ever seen shot on MiniDV looks like, even the stuff shot with bigger budgets, stars for actors, and otherwise people who supposedly knew what they were doing.

 

But it's kinda a silly argument, the way you phrase it, on par with saying:

"since a 5 bedroom, 4,000 square foot house is obviously better than a 2 bedroom, 1,000 square foot house, why would anyone choose the 2 bedroom, 1,000 square foot house?"

 

Pretty obvious answer.

 

Matt Pacini

Edited July 15, 2010 by Matt Pacini