Jump to content

Digital Bolex


Brian Drysdale

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

For over function.

 

 

 

Yes, they are. That's why there's film school. Then when they get out and make their festival underdog sensations, they can choose whichever medium suites the story and budget. Or suppose they're realistic and want to shoot a short but would rather put that hard earned cash towards a location or real actors. You know, the stuff that everyone else notices.

 

It mimics the look of a 16mm camera because it also mimics the function of a compact 16mm camera, or Bolex. A low budget camera that allows the filmmaker to capture their image with little to know influence from the camera. Or more simply put, a taste of the big leagues.

 

There are still some of us who are able to work on a small budget, shoot on film and produce quality work. Your insinuation that if people shoot on film the rest of the prodution will therefore suffer due to the cost of the medium, is a weak one (though not uncommon.) Sorry, but I'm tired of hearing that. That's a cop-out. If people want to shoot on film, they will find a way to budget it. If they have a good story or concept, it will get made one way or another. And at the end of the day, it is not the medium that will make or break the film. It is a matter of skill and talent. The bottom line is that you have a lot of filmmakers out there who simply should not be making films because they don't know what they're doing. The biggest problem I've seen is that so-called filmmakers these days have no sense of film history and they have not been exposed to enough varied genres.

 

Sadly, there is no question that digital filmmaking is the future (actually, it's more like the present.) But as Adrian stated, the emphasis on technology these days has helped to push artistry to the side. That part of the craft is not fostered and, as a result, there are more and more camera operators coming out of film school who are calling themselves filmmakers.

 

Does anyone actually do photochemical finish and edit on a Steinbeck. No. If you do, "viva la resitance".

 

Yup. I do. Take a look...

 

http://www.richprod.com/passion.html

 

Shot on Kodak 7231 with my Arriflex 16 S/B and edited on my Steenbeck ST-900W downstairs in my basement. It's gotten into the 4th Annual Columbia Gorge International Film Festival, the 6th Annual Illinois International Film Festival and now it's heading to the 43rd Annual Nashville Film Festival in April.

 

So I must be doing something right... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you hit on an interesting problem of Digital there, Marcus, the lack of thought put into digital.

In my experience at least, as soon as a digital camera (and it's accompanying video monitors) come out on set, all thought kind goes right out the window. It takes extreme discipline to shoot film, and sadly, more often then not, such discipline doesn't transfer over to digital productions precisely because it is so cheap to shoot. There's often the attitude of, ok, let's do another take, and another, and another. Eventually you wind up with a lot of footage, some of it good, most of it bad, and an exhausted cast/crew for the next setup (if you even now have time for it).

But, such is the double edges sword of ease, says me.

All things being equal, I'm always of the school of thought to pick the format which most easily gets you what you need- sometimes film, sometimes digital. I see, almost, attempt at creating a digital "film look" Sisyphean, in the end, as one ought to really be embracing a format for how that format looks, feels, and operates-- married to the way in which you want to tell a story.

 

I often come back to the film Cloverfield in this example, primarily because the way in which it was supposedly told- by a handycam, required it to be shot digitally. Also it is one of the few films I can think of that really embraced the "digital aesthetic," though I'm sure there are many other examples.

But anyway; I don't want to derail the topic too much.

I absolutely agree, I always thought of film as a lot of well thought out structure put into the image. There's also the preciousness of film stock. I do sometimes think it is great to try new and exciting things, but a lot of the times you watch something play out and it feels like there's no conviction behind it. There's no 'is this really worth it?'

 

There's just so much of this fix later mentality being schooled into young filmmakers with digital and it's only causing so much mess. I think there has to be some sort of new found respect for the image (and choosing the right format for the right job) and not for names or brands or cameras. The ultimate dilemma is budget, but now cameras are getting so very cheap, it should be about is this right for the job? Will this make the crew's work easier and will it make everyone deliver something better?

 

One other film I distinctly remember for the digital aesthetic was District 9, I felt that really suited what the movie was going for. I remember a lot of digitally captured films were I couldn't get absorbed into the story. There's some independent films I'd find absolutely dreadful, you'd see some incredibly boring and worthless things like ten minutes of people eating on a dinner table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$3200 is 35 rolls of 7222 which can be processed in a lomo tank scanned at prob $0.30/ft and inverted to positive. so back some scanning money out... thats what like 4hrs of black and white 16mm? so you can look at that both ways. 4hrs is a LOT of disciplined shots. but the little bolex will provide i guess thousands of hours. then theres the stupid editing suite and computer with enough guts to run it. and the hard drives to store all your work and the hours of wanting to throw it all in the pool. of course its not like you / or the lab never screw up processing chemicals and want to throw YOURSELF / someone else into the pool from the 20th floor when you have to reshoot. ahhh the dilemma. oh wait... did we forget to spend money on lights!? nah skip em.

Edited by steve waschka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AndreaAltgayer

Interesting. I guess we'll see.

 

At that price, it will be difficult for them to compete with the Sony PD170, Panasonic DVX100 etc.

 

It will be interesting to see whether it sells or not.

 

ARegards,

 

Andrea

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
×
×
  • Create New...