Film Is Dead! Long Live Film!

[Tim Carroll]

It's no secret that for years I pushed film, especially with the Arriflex 16S cameras. I've been away from it for a while, shooting still photography and working with digital video in the GH-1 realm, trying to mate cine lenses with inexpensive digital cameras.

 

Yesterday I ran across a bunch of old test clips that I'd shot years ago with an Arriflex 16S and some "cheap" lenses, an old Schneider 16mm, and 25mm, one of those old Zeiss 8mm lenses that I always thought was sub-par, and an old Angenieux 12-120 zoom. And I took all the clips in their most raw form (some were from miniDV tape transfers, some from hard drive transfers) and converted them all to ProRes HQ at 23.98 fps. Threw them into Final Cut and strung them together, then output them in AVHCD and .mp4 to view on my Sony Bravia 32" flatscreen. And I was amazed at how good they looked.

 

So I compressed them (which definitely degraded the image) and put them up on the web site. You can view the long (19MB) clip below:

 

How 16mm holds up

 

Again, these were just test shots, and the hand held camera work is awful (probably had way too much caffeine that day) but the image quality is much better than I remembered. Everything was shot 16:9 with a taped off ground glass.

 

The church stuff was an attempt to create a dark/spooky religious environment. The train, flags and pan street shots were a lens test for the 8mm, 16mm, and 25mm respectively. And the end stuff of the young lady walking around, talking on the phone, was a test of the 8mm lens and was a miniDV transfer (which looked really good on the 32" flatscreen).

 

All of this was Regular 16, with cheap lenses. Makes me rethink shooting a project in 16mm, especially with the prices of 16mm gear at an all time low.

 

Just thought I'd share.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Bill DiPietra]

Nice footage, Tim. Was any of that shot in NYC?

[Chance Shirley]

I still prefer 16mm to any of the digital cameras, but it is so expensive (especially the HD telecine). I've been shooting with a Canon 7D lately, and I'm willing to work around its limitations (aliasing, rolling shutter) because of the cost savings. But if I could figure out how to do it affordably, I'd happily go back to my Aaton LTR and Optar primes.

[K Borowski]

You have to admit, though, that high speed Super 16mm, in the current workflow, can look very bad in 1080i/p on HDTV.

 

 

I still think 16mm is great. So does Dominos Pizza (am I breaking a trade secret having seen all the empty Fuji cans from their productions in late 2009, early 2010?). So does Friday Night Lights on FX (500-speed Fuji). I think FNL looks incredibly grainy, in a distracting, bad way. I'm sure a teeny bopper watching this show is thinking, "Gee, why is my signal so fuzzy?"

 

Compression and grain don't mix, IMO. I think if you limit yourself to 200T, 250D at the most, it can look very good, though.

 

 

 

Besides "Friday Nights Lights," and commercials finished in standard def., is there any new 16mm film even on television any more? I can't say I've really seen any.

[Ian Cooper]

...Besides "Friday Nights Lights," and commercials finished in standard def., is there any new 16mm film even on television any more? I can't say I've really seen any.

 

Don't know about America, but the latest BBC series of "Spooks" broadcast last November was shot entirely on Fuji 16mm. Broadcast last September, the ITV drama "Albert's Memorial" was shot on 16mm Fuji Vivid160T, 250D and 400T.

 

Fuji are reasonably happy to advertise when their products have been used on projects, Kodak don't seem as keen, so no doubt there's been stuff shot on Kodak as well.

[K Borowski]

Ian: Kodak only seems to want to advertise when their *35mm* products have been used, or at least that was true in the past B)

[Tim Carroll]

One thing to keep in mind, this is all Regular 16 footage, not Super 16 footage. And the last footage, the stuff with the young lady talking on the phone and walking around, was shot Regular 16, transferred best light with a Spirit, to anamorphic miniDV. So that wasn't an HD transfer, wasn't transferred to hard drive, and just put on miniDV tape. And it was all shot with cheapy little Schneider lenses, and that one Zeiss 8mm.

 

I just think we've all kind of written off 16mm, especially Regular 16, and maybe we might want to give it a second look. I know I sure do. Again, a best light to miniDV transfer is not that outlandishly expensive.

 

Best,

-Tim

[K Borowski]

TIm, let me clarify my position on the matter: I have not, nor will I ever write off 16mm film. However, I am not the one budgeting for television shows. Ultimately, the large-volume shooters are the ones who are going to determine if 16mm film continues to be made. I'm told the last Super 16 movie I worked on, over the summer, is the last one that is ever going to visit that city (not NYC, can't be more specific).

 

The little guys like us can never dream to generate enough usage to keep a corporation like Kodak happy. The producers and directors and other execs (to a smaller extent film school department heads) determine whether or not 16mm lives or dies.

[Tim Carroll]

Hey Karl,

 

I'm not worried about Kodak discontinuing 16mm film production. Though I am worried that they will continue to discontinue certain stocks like they did with 7231/5231 last year. That hurt.

 

What I'm trying to point out on this thread is that 16mm never ceases to amaze me. Years ago when I shot my first Bolex footage with a Vario-Switar/EBM package I picked up for $200, I was amazed at the image quality compared with my new (at that time) Canon XL1s with the "best" lens available for it at the time, the Canon 14X manual focus zoom. The Canon package ran something like $4500 or something like that, but the little $200 Bolex/Switar package blew it away on image quality.

 

Still amazing what these old lenses and cameras are capable of. I just find it exciting. Probably because I'm weird.

 

;)

 

Best,

-Tim

[K Borowski]

What about the discontinuation of Vision2 100T? That was like a kick in the b**ls too.

 

 

 

I am fairly certain that Kodak only continues to make any B&W movie film out of charity. Film schools are probably the only major consumers at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if they lose money on 16mm B&W film.

 

Again, look at commercial usage. I can't think of anything in 16mm since, what, "Pi."

 

 

Expect E-6 to get axed next. . .

[Will Montgomery]

Tim, can you post some of these clips to Vimeo?

[Tim Carroll]

Tim, can you post some of these clips to Vimeo?

 

Hi Will,

 

Why post them to Vimeo? Not sure the reasoning there.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Vincent Sweeney]

Besides "Friday Nights Lights," and commercials finished in standard def., is there any new 16mm film even on television any more? I can't say I've really seen any.

 

The USA series Monk is all S16 though I dont know how new it is now. They recently starting broadcasting it in HD so it looks new at least. The Walking Dead on AMC is all 16mm too, and it is shooting its new season now I think.

[Tim Carroll]

What about the discontinuation of Vision2 100T? That was like a kick in the b**ls too.

 

Hey Karl,

 

I missed that. Like I said, been preoccupied other places for the last twelve months or so. That's a real bummer. So now there's only the old 500T and 50D Vision 2 stock, the 200T, 250D, and 500T Vision 3 stock, and Double X, that's it. Wow, getting to be pretty slim pickin's.

 

All that footage of the young woman with the cell phone was Vision 2 100T (with an 85). That was great stock.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Ian Cooper]

...So now there's only the old 500T and 50D Vision 2 stock, the 200T, 250D, and 500T Vision 3 stock, and Double X, that's it. Wow, getting to be pretty slim pickin's...

 

Or in the 'Green' camp:

 

Eterna Vivid 500T

Eterna 500T

Eterna 400T

Eterna 250T

Eterna Vivid 160T

Reala 500D

Eterna 250D

Super F-64D

 

 

so between the two manufacturers, that's x13 colour options and x1 B&W

[Alessandro Malfatti]

It's true that 16mm doesn't look best at 1080i/p, but it's an unfortunately underused option for anything finished in SD or blown up to 35mm: Just look at how good The Hurt Locker or Black Swan looked. It's too bad that people are turned off by the cost of shooting 16mm and instead turn to digital video cameras, especially considering how costly and short-lived they are, while 16mm gear is getting dirt cheap. If only the stock and transfer didn't burn a hole into most people's pockets...

[John Holland]

The sooner Kodak get out of motion picture scene the better and let them waste their time with Printers/ Scanners. Fuji just really know what people need/want !

[K Borowski]

Ian, don't forget aFujij makes a B&W neg. film like Plus-X, probably for Japanese film students, and basically Reala coated for 16mm golf analysis.

 

 

 

Let's not forget, John, that Kodak and Fuji, preconceived notions and marketing campaigns aside, form an oligopoly, in this case, an almost perfect duopoly.

 

When one discontinues a stock, the other follows suit. So be careful what you wish for. If Kodak were to pack up today, the productions that didn't go digital would probably have maybe a 500T and a 64D stock to chose from at Fuji.

[Robert Lewis]

The sooner Kodak get out of motion picture scene the better and let them waste their time with Printers/ Scanners. Fuji just really know what people need/want !

[Ian Cooper]

Ian, don't forget aFujij makes a B&W neg. film like Plus-X, probably for Japanese film students

 

Is there?! - whoops, I haven't come across reference to that on their listings, hence why I missed it! :D

One I did forget is the new Vivid 250D, that was launched/announced last week.

 

...and basically Reala coated for 16mm golf analysis...

 

Lol :lol:

[Robert Lewis]

The sooner Kodak get out of motion picture scene the better and let them waste their time with Printers/ Scanners. Fuji just really know what people need/want !

 

I would not go quite that far John, but I do find Fuji a much more friendly and customer focussed company. Their 16mm stocks are beautiful and whilst they do not do a reversal stock, projection prints I get are excellent. I do wish they did a B & W stock, however. I find B & W can be particularly nice and so I use Kodak's 7222 when I want to film in B & W.

 

Kodak's Ektachrome 100D is a lovely stock too, but for reasons which they will not explain, they will not make it available in the UK in 100ft rolls. Strange this, since I understand it is available in France and Germany. This illustrates their lack of customer focus. They produce a good product but they will not sell it. One cannot help but wonder what sort of future that approach will generate?

 

(An earlier attempt to generate this response failed)

Edited February 3, 2011 by Robert Lewis

[Scott Bullock]

The recent film BLUE VALENTINE was shot on S16. Rob Zombie decided that the look of his HALLOWEEN remake, which was shot on 35mm, was too clean, so he shot his sequel on S16.

 

Not long ago, I did the same thing that Tim did. A friend of mine and I took a bunch of our older 16mm and Super 16mm test footage that had been transferred to video and played it back on a 46" LED LCD HDTV. It looked great!

 

I hope film doesn't die because, if so, I'll die (inside), too. :(

[Alessandro Malfatti]

The sooner Kodak get out of motion picture scene the better and let them waste their time with Printers/ Scanners. Fuji just really know what people need/want !

 

I guess that's why Kodak offers one color reversal, one black and white reversal and various color negatives on Super8 while Fuji recently discontinued all Single8 film stock. To be honest, I tip my hat to Kodak just for that.

[K Borowski]

The USA series Monk is all S16 though I dont know how new it is now. They recently starting broadcasting it in HD so it looks new at least. The Walking Dead on AMC is all 16mm too, and it is shooting its new season now I think.

 

Hi Vincent. Sorry, missed this earlier. Knew about "Monk" but don't know if it's still on the air or just in reruns. Didn't know about "Walking Dead." Good to know. I know "Breaking Bad," and "Mad Men," are Kodak 35mm. What about their other show? Wasn't really up my alley. Is that 35- or 16?

 

 

I should know, I have AMC in HD now, FINALLY. Unfortunately, it is one of the most compressed signals I get, and think it's just 720P too.

 

 

 

 

As far as S16 grain, I think it's just fine (underexposure is another matter though, especially with 500T). But a JPEG-2000 of S16 grain is a strobing pulsating mass of pixels, banding, compression, and possibly brings out the worst characteristics of both film and digital.

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised, either if this were due to ignorance or even by design. I'm sure that the compressions currently used on American television were designed by people that didn't even know movie film was still made, let alone used to shoot more than half of all dramatic televiison programs when they were coming up with them. :rolleyes:

[John King]

Gosh! This is a topic near and dear to my heart. Of course the title of this thread caught my eye, and when I started reading the responses here, I knew I just had to reply. But PLEASE don't any of you all report me to the Digital Video or HD guys or they might find me and beat me up! :(

 

 

Anyway, the thing is I'm a diehard FILM guy and absolutely do not like video images. It's hard to describe, but to me video images lack something,some sort of spatial quality. They seem to me vapid, airless, utterly devoid of any texture or atmosphere. And I find this true of most digital video images too, even though they may be a little less "videoishy" than older formats. Although I can't go as far to say that digital video images are "bad"-- but they are different, and yes, I can tell a difference.

 

I felt a little vindicated in my position by this excerpt from MovieMaker Magazines' Complete Guide To Making Movies 2011 [issue 89 Vol. 17 Fall 2010] Article: "So Many Fish In The Sea" Author: Frederick Schroeder

 

First Mr. Schroeder talks about 35mm compared to digital video images:

 

"Still the best image source after 100 years, the quality of 35mm film cannot be beat in terms of color fidelity, latitude and resolution. (Resolution of 35mm film ranges between 5K and 8K.)"

 

So film is definitely better not just in my opinion either! ~~haha!

 

BUT he goes on to write:

 

"Even shooting with the smaller Super16mm format...will give you BETTER color fidelity and latitude than ANY digital format currently available." [Emphasis Added by me]

 

It's true, I simply like FILM images, and have always liked the look of films shot on 16mm. But I put HD, I think to the ULTIMATE test, and it happened quite by accident.

 

A buddy of mine recently bought a new Blu-Ray disc player. One day I head over to his house for a visit and he has Kubricks "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) on the wide screen TV. I can't believe what I am seeing. So I ask my buddy-- "What's wrong with it?" He replies "What do you mean what's wrong with it? This is in HD, just like audiences saw it when it first came out"-- NO, it wasn't either.

 

It looked like VIDEO to me and not even decent video either, but the thinnest, most vapid video you can imagine -- like soap opera video only worse (if that's possible, and looking at this I'd ahve tosay yes, it's possible!) So this was the much vaunted HD that I'd heard so much about! YUCK! It took Kubrick's BEAUTIFUL film images and made them look like cheap soap opera video! I was horrified, and stupefied as to WHAT all the fuss over HD was about anyway??

 

I am being honest with you I cannot stand to look at HD images, saw "Teh Book of Eli"on his machine too (shot on digital RED One camera) and he had it set on HD and this time it looked like the images in a video game. The colours were whacky (someone told me that was done deliberately in colour correction-- OK if that's what they want to call it) but again,over all the thing just looks so videoishy to me, and HD is worse, not better as far as my eyes can tell.

 

If digital cinema and HD truly are the future of cinema, then I am afraid I will have no future in it, not only as one making movies, but even as one who watches them.

 

Anyway, had to get this off my chest, and this thread looked like the ideal place to do it.

 

Thanks & God bless!

 

JMK