Jump to content

Why do they still shoot on film?


Doug Gorius

Recommended Posts

Hi anton,

 

Like what you said about Art and about taking photos on film rather then digital, I still take 90% of my photos on film.(this is my flickr link: My link .

 

Thanks Oron. I looked your photostream and I must say you have really nice photos there. You should put them in groups, they have little or no views, and that is shame for them to not be seen.

 

I also think working with a physical matter and within the restrictions that it gives you, can create interesting artistic result. I also try to push Super16/35mm in my work, sadly it's hard to do this days and I usually try to explain first and for most the difference in the work itself, when you work with different materials it could lead you into a different path/way in your search for the end result.

 

Yes, it can. And not only that, it will learn you to think in different way, more imaginary way.

 

I edit for a living. I work in the music industry (i'm a closet cinematographer in my spare time). I've been working with music videos for over seven years.

 

In the last two years I have noticed a massive surge in videos originating on digital (especially bloody 5D and 7D). And I do find it sad that film is being slowly but surely phased out. Even the promo commissioners are starting to become more and more reluctant to splurge for celluloid. And with the masses starting to use digital for their acquisitions we are getting more and more problems from what I call 'the bedroom music-video-makers'. Things being shot on ridiculous frame rates, appalling color grading, you name it.

 

It will be sad when celluloid gets phased out altogether. I remember the middle of last year, we got in a copy of a video by an artist called Jack Penate, the video was called 'Pull My Heart Away' and was shot all on Super8 in Jordan. It was such a welcome sight compared to the schlock that I was doing on that day.

 

 

Paco, don't be pessimistic about film. There is no reason for film to die, as long as it has its market film will be alive.

 

"Why Do They Still Shoot Film"

 

Because, in my opinion, there is something that happens when light is let onto each frame that contains those silver halides that no digital medium seems to have managed to capture. Call it warmth, depth, texture; it's something that encapsulates the moving image.

 

I cannot add anything else. Brilliantly written!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

there is something that happens when light is let onto each frame that contains those silver halides that no digital medium seems to have managed to capture. Call it warmth, depth, texture; it's something that encapsulates the moving image.

In my native language, movies are called ”living images”. To paraphrase a friend, digital cinema is undoubtedly ”moving” images, but they’re certainly not ”living” in the same sense as film is – if that makes sense to you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's to do with Barriers to Entry and Proprietry Ownership and Legacy Systems and Transfer Costs etc. Alot of money at stake and been invested in doing it the old way. It will change, slowly. Eventually film will disapear, like the typewriter.

 

Using words like "Barrier" and "Legacy" sounds like marketing carryover from some digital-only company's regretful campaign. With some experience you will find that the rest of what goes into making a production happen is a much larger barrier than the technology is, by far actually.

 

And the "old way" is a poor choice of words. This way you refer to works for many projects for reasons that don't need to be gone into here again, but trust that the choices of many artists are made with great education and understanding of the available technology as a whole.

 

Oh, what's that full name that you forgot to enter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eventually film will disapear, like the typewriter.

 

The typewriter is still out there: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_10?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=typewriter&sprefix=typewriter

 

They're great for filling in forms and quite a few writers still use them rather than word processors. When writing the typewriter forces you to progress the story rather than fiddle endlessly over the detail.

 

 

BTW You need to use your full real name, it's one of the forum rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why Do They Still Shoot Film"

 

Because, in my opinion, there is something that happens when light is let onto each frame that contains those silver halides that no digital medium seems to have managed to capture. Call it warmth, depth, texture; it's something that encapsulates the moving image.

That may be true to an extent, but to think that the way an image is captured ultimately means whether the final product will be good or bad is senseless. At the end of it all, it's all about the person who's behind the camera and that's it. I've seen stunning film work, stunning digital and horrific for both.

 

Digital has a lot of advantages for shooters, still photography has embraced the many advantages. I completely see cinematography going that same way. It's not so much a matter of cost in any particular sense, it's more about the opportunities and requirements for a particular work, both independently choosing either film or digital. Sometimes even both (Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire).

 

I think it's more important for cinematographers to not get so caught up in the logistics of it all and to be shooting great stuff no matter what.

Edited by Marcus Joseph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

At the end of it all, it's all about the person who's behind the camera and that's it.

 

Everyone has heard this ad-infinitum. If it were realistic, the Sound of Music could have been on 16mm, Baraka on Super8, There Will be Blood on a DVX and Black Swan on an F35. If so, would these films be any different?

 

Don't be afraid of something because it isn't part of what's being frantically sold today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There's a huge installed base of film projectors that aren't going away any time soon. They're paid for, they work, and they'll keep on working for years to come. Prints are the distributor's problem. Theaters don't make all that much money, so they're not going to spend ten times the price of a film projector that will last for decades to get a digital projector that will be obsolete in months. There aren't all that many projection engineers, because the machines tend to work well for a long time once they're set up correctly.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

I have do differ a bit here. In the small community that my parents live in, the theatre is replacing its film projectors with digital. They are also not putting any money back into the theatre (many seats are broken, speakers blown, on and on) but they insist on buying new digital projectors. The new theatre about 10 minutes away in the next town is all digital, and was built that way.

 

In the town I live in, the Regal cinema is also slowly replacing it's projectors with digital. I have been fighting a loosing battle for some time with my university because they have TWO Simplex (old school arc-lamp) 35mm projectors that likely haven't been ran in 40 years. They are sitting, not being used. I have been pleading with different people in the university for a good long time to do SOMETHING (Like let me take them home) with them, but no... They installed a new digital projection system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Sorry to hear that. Which Simplex projectors are they? (Standard, Super, E-7, XL) Are those carbon arc lamps, or xenon? Tim Burke in Chicago may be your closest qualified projection guy.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

I know they are Carbon-Arc Super Simplex's, (And I also know they still work... but don't ask me how I know!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
...

There is also a generational aspect, there are younger people who are so used to digital images that they don't have any nostalgia for film and feel that digital "looks right" to their eyes, it's simply a taste thing for them, and who can argue with taste? Some people think that digital images look "plastic" to them, being so clean, and some people think that film images are just soft and grainy, the beauty of that sort of image eludes them.

 

I believe there is another generational aspect at work as well: what cinematographers feel comfortable using. It seems like there are those most at home with light meters, filters and film stocks. And there are others who like waveform monitors, After Effects and RAW. I think it's fair to say that the first group is, by and large, older than the second. (There are people out there, who to their credit and as a result of hard work, can live comfortably in either camp.) But I think filmmakers (i.e. cinematographers, AC's, loaders fully competent with shooting film), are going to become harder and harder to come by.

 

I remember reading a book on Albert Einstein in which it chronicled the debate Einstein had with Neils Bohr over quantum mechanics. Essentially, Einstein thought quantum mechanics was useful for making predictions, but it was not how things really worked, "God does not cast dice." Bohr saw uncertainty as being part of the very nature of the system.

 

Their argument ended in a stalemate that came down to something along the lines of perspective or scope of the system. Essentially, point of view. Fast forward half a century and quantum mechanics became accepted as truth. Not b/c Einstein was necessarily wrong, but b/c he was no longer around to be proponent for his way of thinking. For someone who put the world of physics on its ear, Einstein was not so impressed with himself, as he saw what he did to Newton happening to him. He preferred to say that old theories in physics don't die as much as old physicists do.

 

I think it will be the same way with film. Film will continue to be a technically valid way to capture images long after its practioners have dwindled below the critical mass necessary to keep the medium vibrantly alive.

 

JMHO.

 

 

P.S. Here's a link to the book, BTW: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005459Q/ref=s9_simh_gw_p129_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1MCP5SR8CXYVF0KMX178&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Do they have any carbons? The last carbon lamp I knew of was replaced maybe 5-10 years ago, when they ran out.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Actually they used fairly modern welding rods, but yes, they do have "carbons" from the old world. The "Theatre" was used up until the 60's, when every one's memory get's fuzzy for some reason (including my parents!), but then it seems the general consensus is that the projectors were used up until the 80's, and they just stopped for some reason.

 

I do not know the condition of the remotes (change over, curtain), nor do I know if the optical sound readers work. It was only later that I found film still on the reels (in major very poor condition), but I saved the celluloid I could, and the rest is still sitting up there. Someday, I am going to "save" the rest. I just haven't had time.

 

Sorry to hijack the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even a no-budget nobody from nowhere like me, skulking around darkened film school parking lots begging for short ends in a tattered trench coat, doesn't really find film more expensive.

I am so sick of buying endless hard drives, which I know will be unusable in 6-8 years to manage the multiple backups digital needs.

 

Film is its own backup.

 

Plus, most important of all, when I use film it attracts a far higher degree of cast and crew talent which far more than makes up for the small higher costs.

 

It's like oil paint: Do you really want one of your most important creative decisions to be based on a 15% difference in costs?

 

We've got enough MBAs/climbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even a no-budget nobody from nowhere like me, skulking around darkened film school parking lots begging for short ends in a tattered trench coat, doesn't really find film more expensive.

I am so sick of buying endless hard drives, which I know will be unusable in 6-8 years to manage the multiple backups digital needs.

 

Well, you're not nobody from nowhere if you have film school in your area ( I have only one in my country and that is film college ) and if you can buy yourself endless hard drives. :)

 

Plus, most important of all, when I use film it attracts a far higher degree of cast and crew talent which far more than makes up for the small higher costs.

 

It's like oil paint: Do you really want one of your most important creative decisions to be based on a 15% difference in costs?

 

We've got enough MBAs/climbers.

 

Uh, I really hate myself for writing this, but I disagree. As much as I love film I have to say it is expensive, at least in cinematography ( in analog photography, which I use exclusively is much cheaper ).

I mean, how much money would I need if I want to make 30 minutes documentary on Super16? And now think about that, how much money would I need if I do the same with DSLR, for example, 5D?

I would be happy if you prove me that I'm wrong. Bear in mind that I don't have neither Super16 camera nor 5D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I believe he was speaking of narrative film making. Documentary is a different beast where digital often makes sense, due to run-times and it depend on what's the doco's on. For example, it's a lot cheaper to shoot on film if you're in the middle of the jungle, without power. Think about it... You don't need power for certain film cameras, but you'd need a lot of power and/or CF cards to somehow store all your digital footage you'd shoot... An exact cost comparison isn't that important, I don't think, as it's a hypothetical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, it's a lot cheaper to shoot on film if you're in the middle of the jungle, without power. Think about it... You don't need power for certain film cameras, but you'd need a lot of power and/or CF cards to somehow store all your digital footage you'd shoot... An exact cost comparison isn't that important, I don't think, as it's a hypothetical.

 

Well, you can carry couple of extra battery packs and lot of CF cards. I mean, in your pocket you can put, how much, kinda fifty or more CF cards. Still don't see film as cheaper option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

how much does all that cost, is the issue, you're still buying it for the production, -v- buying film for the production. And on film, you needn't need batteries. Figure how mang GB you'd need for the project to shoot so many min, then figure how many CF cards nd their costs, and the batter to shoot that amount of time, about. then figure it for film; that's how the costs can go up with digital.

Another interesting way, and this is coming from the shoot I'm on right now (leaving in an hour) is how much you shoot.

 

Now, this director and I shoot a short scene for this project for fundraising on my XDCam. And the actors were doing good, not much else changed when we re shot is on S16mm. The big difference was that instead of shooting about a 25:1 ratio on digital, we were shooting closer to a 10:1 on film. Now, in terms of costs, on set, the film costs more, but on the whole, if we were to factor in how much it'd cost to edit that much footage down (in terms of editors time just going through it all) the film, I would strongly say, would cost as much if not less than digital. Digital doesn't necessarily save money, it just moves the costs around a bit. Now discipline in shooting either can mitigate this but I find, from experience, that no matter how disciplined you are, an this includes me, I shoot substantially more footage when recording digitally than recording film, even given the same directors and same actors, because I think when we roll film we all realize it's money going through the camera and we're all more on our toes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how much does all that cost, is the issue, you're still buying it for the production, -v- buying film for the production. And on film, you needn't need batteries. Figure how mang GB you'd need for the project to shoot so many min, then figure how many CF cards nd their costs, and the batter to shoot that amount of time, about. then figure it for film; that's how the costs can go up with digital.

Another interesting way, and this is coming from the shoot I'm on right now (leaving in an hour) is how much you shoot.

 

Now, this director and I shoot a short scene for this project for fundraising on my XDCam. And the actors were doing good, not much else changed when we re shot is on S16mm. The big difference was that instead of shooting about a 25:1 ratio on digital, we were shooting closer to a 10:1 on film. Now, in terms of costs, on set, the film costs more, but on the whole, if we were to factor in how much it'd cost to edit that much footage down (in terms of editors time just going through it all) the film, I would strongly say, would cost as much if not less than digital. Digital doesn't necessarily save money, it just moves the costs around a bit. Now discipline in shooting either can mitigate this but I find, from experience, that no matter how disciplined you are, an this includes me, I shoot substantially more footage when recording digitally than recording film, even given the same directors and same actors, because I think when we roll film we all realize it's money going through the camera and we're all more on our toes.

 

Well, don't get me wrong, I'm not professional cinematographer ( nor amateur one ), I'm just amateur photographer. But, I simply don't see how can film be cheaper option for movie in general. I'm not talking about production etc, and If I understood you good, you're talking about professional production where some company will buy you film. I'm talking from perspective of amateur cinematographer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's always in terms of the production proper; there is no "generalization," really as even the notion of "digital," and "film," can be any number of things (Canon 7D, F900, HDV, S16MM, Anamorphic 35mm...) and it'll come down to the production you have. Maybe you have an actor (and crew ect) who only need one take, or one who needs 12 and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Let me tell you why some choose film.

 

Because they have to wait for the takes to be processed, for rushes to be printed, processed, screened

 

Because picture and sound have to be synched

 

Because there is cooperation with lab people

 

Because they like moving pictures lacking half of the action due to 180 degree shutters

 

Because there’s more lighting, more work, more human friction in film

 

I had the chance to work with a cameraman who assisted Eugen Schüfftan in the Twenties. Having to wait until rolls were developed meant that he could open a bottle of wine and share it with those who wanted. He smoked all day. At the age of 76 he went for another Indian Sea turn like almost every year. Film work is slower but more intense. You’ve never prayed in the dark next to the step printer that it might swallow a heavily shrunken film, still after the stripe has been given total overhaul, perfect cleansing, moistening.

 

For me it has to do with the inner freedom to do what I can do. I use my senses. I want to feel that somebody projects a film, a person. She or he adjusts the focus while looking through binoculars. Somebody is payed for doing something, not for doing nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Since I have been one of the biggest advocates of film on this board before digital even came into being as an acceptable capture medium, it wouldn't be right for me not to contribute to this thread.

 

I have truly loved film since the first time I loaded a Super 8 cartridge into the camera and saw the results a week later. I really fell head-over-heels in love with it when I cut my first film on my college's 16mm flatbed Moviola. I have been fortunate to set myself up with a kind of 16mm workshop consisting of an ARRI S/B, a Steenbeck, a Nagra, ARRI lights and a ton of accessories. You can site all of the technical benefits of film over digital that you want. For me, the process of filmmaking is still a magical one (however existential that may sound.)

 

On an educational note, I still feel every university that offers digital classes should also offer basic filmmaking classes. As I stated to the chair of my department once, "Film is a discipline." Having been in the industry as a DP for over 30 years, he whole-heartedly agreed. Sure, as digital gets more advanced there will be less room for error and more of a need to know your craft. But I still feel that film is the medium where people should have their foundation in all of the basic elements - lighting, exposure, editing, etc. It's one thing to look at an image on a flip-screen - it's a whole other to have to load a magazine in total darkness and not be able to review your shots in-camera. Those are two completely different mindsets. The same goes for editing. Seeing the images on the monitor and making an edit with a few clicks of the mouse is a great benefit and timesaver. I've done digital editing and analog editing. Final Cut Pro is a great prograqm, but it's a far cry from looking at a Steenbeck screen and actually handling the film to make an edit. Most people who are proficient in FCP wouldn't know their way around an old-fashioned editing suite simply because they've never cut film.

 

And this obsession with DSLR's has got to stop. I will be the first to admit the 5D/7D both produce amazing images. But many students feel that since it gives you such a high ISO that there is no need to actually "light" the scene. Sorry, but that kind of technology is just perpetuating the laziness that is already too predominant nowadays.

 

The quick and easy way is not always the best.

 

FILM FOREVER!!!

Edited by Bill DiPietra
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

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...