Shoot film or go digital?

[Jon Rosenbloom]

I think that most people on here understand that what we shoot on is based a lot on what the budget it and what the look we're going for it and which format(s) best suite those needs.

 

I think that "we're going for a look" - usually "gritty" - thing is something we tell ourselves when we don't get to shoot on film.

[Keith Walters]

I think that "we're going for a look" - usually "gritty" - thing is something we tell ourselves when we don't get to shoot on film.

Exactly, B.S. is brown, sloppy and malodorous, because that was the effect the bull was looking for :lol:

[George Ebersole]

Exactly, B.S. is brown, sloppy and malodorous, because that was the effect the bull was looking for :lol:

The stuff I've seen shot on mini-DV cam looks pretty sharp. Granted, it's not a 35mm print, but seeing the footage on FCP, it makes one wonder why you'd shoot on something as expensive as film.

 

Like I said some posts back, when I worked on shoots I was intimidated by the cost and level of organization and logistics involved to get a shot off. People seemed to treat a Panaflex or an ArriIII like sacred statues. You burn money paying the camera operators, renting the cameras, then you burn cash on a gaffer, electrician, and lord knows on how many PAs or "talent". All because that mag of film and the emulsion collect light a certain way.

 

Now that you can do away with that, things should be cheaper to shoot. But, for whatever reason, they aren't. Which is part of the reason of why I asked the question. Is it ego or a real need that forces people to shoot film?

 

EDIT;

Unlike a lot of other people here, I never wanted to "make it big". I fantasized about it, and dreamed about it, but was hoping to make some pretty rockin' films without the need for a budget of millions of dollars. I kept hoping that video would solve that problem. It seems to have, but only partially.

[Patrick Cooper]

digital seems to be better

 

In what way does it seem to be better? Please elaborate. I am most intrigued.

[Brian Drysdale]

The stuff I've seen shot on mini-DV cam looks pretty sharp. Granted, it's not a 35mm print, but seeing the footage on FCP, it makes one wonder why you'd shoot on something as expensive as film.

 

 

Films aren't screened on FCP, perhaps if they were, min DV would be fine. It does fall apart on the large screen, especially on the wide shots and the shapnees is more edge enhancement, rather than actual resolution.

 

Film has advantages like a larger colour space and tends to make the leading actors look good. How much film costs is relative, if your leading actor is costing from $1m to $20m, the film stock and associated costs isn't that high compared to other costs. If you're making a film out of your own pocket, it can be painful.