16mm vs. digital

[Freya Black]

"Moonrise Kingdom," "Beasts of the Southern Wild," Super-16mm. 'Nuff said.

 

I liked Black Swan which I seem to remember is cropped Super16!

 

love

 

Freya

[Tom Jensen]

Realistically, as an artist, you don't always have a choice. It may be your dream but it's the producer's money. It's not just a trend but a technological movement that you cannot stop. Digital has all but replaced film for TV, documentaries, music videos and many features. Look at the still world. My Nikon 8008 body was $700 new, I bought it for $200 used and now it is worth $35 at most. The digital world has taken over. It just gets better and better. Does anyone think that film will be around in 50-100 years? It may still be the best archival medium but as a capture medium?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Personally, I think film will be around as long as there are people who want to use it, who need to use it. Now, it may not exist in its current form, and the players who make it now may go by the wayside, but so long as there is a market for it, then I think there will be production of it.

You see a similar thing with records. Now, granted, in a lot of ways the two aren't comparable, but what is is that you had what was once the dominate market force totally eclipsed by a digital technology, only to go through it's own down-sizing yet still remaining as a small player motivator just because of aesthetics. It's nowhere near as large volume as it was, yet it still exists. I think the same can be true for film-- though the worry is of course that film requires a certain level of support beyond just the "pressing," which other things like records do not. Still, though, I feel the market, if there is a market, will find a way to create a profit and keep it going.

[Bill DiPietra]

Personally, I think film will be around as long as there are people who want to use it, who need to use it. Now, it may not exist in its current form, and the players who make it now may go by the wayside, but so long as there is a market for it, then I think there will be production of it.

You see a similar thing with records. Now, granted, in a lot of ways the two aren't comparable, but what is is that you had what was once the dominate market force totally eclipsed by a digital technology, only to go through it's own down-sizing yet still remaining as a small player motivator just because of aesthetics. It's nowhere near as large volume as it was, yet it still exists. I think the same can be true for film-- though the worry is of course that film requires a certain level of support beyond just the "pressing," which other things like records do not. Still, though, I feel the market, if there is a market, will find a way to create a profit and keep it going.

 

I agree with Adrian. I don't think anyone here expects the industry to go back to using celluloid as its primary format. But as long as there are enough of us around who demand to use film over digital - be it still photography or cinematography - film will be around.

 

Tom, your point about cinematographers not having full control over the choice of format is understood. However, this is another reason why new filmmakers should be taught how to work on film. I did and I always shoot on film, but I do have control over the choice of the format. Granted, I make shorts, but those are the best kinds of projects to shoot on film simply due to their length. I for one am getting tired of seeing all of these high-res, HD shorts that look like Hollywood films. They are changing the face of short films as we know them...and not for the better.

 

Tell me, Tom...you said that digital is just getting "better and better." What exactly is "better" in your mind?

Edited September 30, 2012 by Bill DiPietra

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I can't speak for other shooters, but I can say, at least this. Despite the pervasiveness of Digital, I still get asked, and often-times demanded, to shoot on film from time to time. It all depends on the story. Perfect example is the short I'm on later this month (oct) which is a mix of HD (in this case the D-21 because we got an amazing deal on it) and S16mm. The whole thing is about storytelling, to we start with a clear image of the world (though I'll certainly add some kind of diffusion to the lens to keep it not super clear) and as this old grandmother tells her grand-daughter stories, we simply swap out to film, not only for portability and easy of use, but also because the grain and color handling add a layer of abstraction to the image-- or so the director is going for. I mention this because, in this particular project, as soon as I sat down in the meeting with the director, the first thing she said was "before we start, you should know we're shooting on film and that's non-negotiable for part of the script." This whole thing has a tiny budget, but, the fact that someone who was broke not only understood that film is about aesthetics, but pretty much so demanded me to shoot it- well it gives me hope, you know.

Actually, I'm winding down my shooting for this year, and have been pretty low-profile on the whole as I'll be moving out to LA soon (I hope.) But in fact almost all of the projects which came to me this year so far have either been 35mm origination, or S16mm-- though I was shooting DSLR on 2 shoots both of which are intended just for web. Buy I digress. Sufficient to say, that at least in my experience, limited as that may be, interest in film is not only alive, but seems to be growing a bit.

[Freya Black]

I can't speak for other shooters, but I can say, at least this. Despite the pervasiveness of Digital, I still get asked, and often-times demanded, to shoot on film from time to time. It all depends on the story. Perfect example is the short I'm on later this month (oct) which is a mix of HD (in this case the D-21 because we got

 

I've actually seen some nice things shot on the d21! :) I get the impression it's one of those very underrated cameras but my taste is a a bit different to the prevailing winds often as not.

 

intended just for web. Buy I digress. Sufficient to say, that at least in my experience, limited as that may be, interest in film is not only alive, but seems to be growing a bit.

 

I would expect that to happen at some point.

 

Good luck with it all! :)

 

love

 

Freya

[Bill DiPietra]

Actually, I'm winding down my shooting for this year, and have been pretty low-profile on the whole as I'll be moving out to LA soon (I hope.) But in fact almost all of the projects which came to me this year so far have either been 35mm origination, or S16mm-- though I was shooting DSLR on 2 shoots both of which are intended just for web. Buy I digress. Sufficient to say, that at least in my experience, limited as that may be, interest in film is not only alive, but seems to be growing a bit.

 

That's nice to hear. Also, good luck with the move, Adrian! I hope some great stuff comes your way because of it.

[David J Paradise]

I liked Black Swan which I seem to remember is cropped Super16!

 

love

 

Freya

 

Yes, Super-16mm for Black Swan; looks amazing!

Might as well mention The Wrestler and of course The Hurt Locker.

16mm was also used on the following recent BAFTA winning & nominated films: Jade, Shifty, Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll.

[Tom Jensen]

I would say by "better and better" I mean that it looks like 35. But look at all the motion picture film manufacturers that are dropping like flies. Orwo, Agfa, Fuji and even Kodak has reduced demand and that is what fuels an industry, Demand. If the demand drops so low that the product is no longer profitable, the product won't get produced. Learning will be done on digital. Not only is the demand dwindling but the art of exposing film will no longer be needed. Bill, I learned on film myself and my resentment against digital was the main reason I lost interest in film. That was a mistake that I made that I don't want to see others make. All my film friends are now digital friends. i got left behind. It was my own undoing.

[Dom Jaeger]

Despite the pervasiveness of Digital, I still get asked, and often-times demanded, to shoot on film from time to time. It all depends on the story. Perfect example is the short I'm on later this month (oct) which is a mix of HD (in this case the D-21 because we got an amazing deal on it) and S16mm.

 

Hey Adrian, I'd love to hear how that shoot goes.

 

We have a D-21 in our rental fleet which just never goes out, the perception seems to be that it's not up to Alexa standards, too slow etc, but aside from slightly less DR and a slower native sensor speed the thing makes beautiful images, quite filmic, as long as you light for it.

 

Anyway, I'll be curious to hear how it cuts with S16, sounds like an interesting project. Good luck with the move, too!

[David J Paradise]

The majority of filmmakers I know are keeping perspective by embracing both film and digital. It's an exciting time with a huge array of tools and formats to choose from.

 

Also, all the crew members I know have a sense of proportion and are keeping their options open. After all, why would anyone shoot themselves in the foot and sow dissension that could possibly affect future work on a film based production?

 

However, nobody is trying to stop a technological movement; that's just silly.

The subway scenes in ‘Black Swan’ were recorded with the Canon 7D, which shows Aronofsky isn’t reluctant to embrace new technology.

 

...and, by the way, I almost forgot to mention The Walking Dead series; S16mm.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Hey Adrian, I'd love to hear how that shoot goes.

 

We have a D-21 in our rental fleet which just never goes out, the perception seems to be that it's not up to Alexa standards, too slow etc, but aside from slightly less DR and a slower native sensor speed the thing makes beautiful images, quite filmic, as long as you light for it.

 

Anyway, I'll be curious to hear how it cuts with S16, sounds like an interesting project. Good luck with the move, too!

 

I'll certainly try to recall to post about it-- though I really get rather embarrassed by what I shoot, for the most part, so I don't mention it too much.

I"d agree that the perception is that the D-21 isn't the Alexa, and to a certain degree they're right. The alexa is much more portable, and a lot easier to work with. That said, the Optical finder on the D-21, and the slower speed aren't anything to sneeze at. There are a lot of times where 200 is a lot more useful than 800-- on this project specifically as it's almost all day interior shooting with window-light.

 

We'll see how it goes. If it all goes to hell, it all goes to hell, and the director has already said well if it doesn't work I'll just paint on the negative or something to make it work.

[Tom Jensen]

I'm not sowing dissension, I'm being realistic. For every one show shot on S16, I can see 10 shows shot on digital. That says something to me. I loved shooting film. I could see it, hear it, touch it. It is beautiful. But, the ones shooting film now will just experience the inevitable in a few years. Going back to the original posters question, I think it's better to learn digital first, lighting, operating, composition, etc. then learn film or exposure because the odds are that any job he gets or project he shoots will be digital and not film. It takes a long time to really understand exposure.

[David J Paradise]

I'm not sowing dissension, I'm being realistic. For every one show shot on S16, I can see 10 shows shot on digital. That says something to me. I loved shooting film. I could see it, hear it, touch it. It is beautiful. But, the ones shooting film now will just experience the inevitable in a few years. Going back to the original posters question, I think it's better to learn digital first, lighting, operating, composition, etc. then learn film or exposure because the odds are that any job he gets or project he shoots will be digital and not film. It takes a long time to really understand exposure.

 

Moonrise Kingdom of course.

 

In some ways it's better to learn digital first in terms of convenience and quantity of output. Although, there is the choice of Super 8mm let's not forget which is good for focusing discipline and efficiency.

 

But really, at the end of the day it's his choice, it's his project and it appears he's going for 16mm. Crucially; it's getting the film made that's most important whether it's done digitally or on film.

 

I can't foretell who will end up doing what in a few years but I can say that with a Best Picture nominee and with one of the highest rated cable series utilizing 16mm, the format isn’t dead.

 

They shot the Coney Island Documentary 'Zipper' on 16mm.

[Chris Burke]

I'm not sowing dissension, I'm being realistic. For every one show shot on S16, I can see 10 shows shot on digital. That says something to me. I loved shooting film. I could see it, hear it, touch it. It is beautiful. But, the ones shooting film now will just experience the inevitable in a few years. Going back to the original posters question, I think it's better to learn digital first, lighting, operating, composition, etc. then learn film or exposure because the odds are that any job he gets or project he shoots will be digital and not film. It takes a long time to really understand exposure.

[/quote

 

there is no disadvantage or wasted time learning to shoot film first, in fact, it will teach an economy and preparedness that is missing with digital. The tasks learned that take any time worth talking about are the same in either film or digital production. The major difference being; learning digital tends to lean one toward a style of production where you leave a good deal to post. I know these comment tend to be incindiary, but this is how I see it.

[Freya Black]

Bill, I learned on film myself and my resentment against digital was the main reason I lost interest in film. That was a mistake that I made that I don't want to see others make. All my film friends are now digital friends. i got left behind. It was my own undoing.

 

I would say the mistake you made was buying into the whole Video vs Film meme in the first place. I absolutely love video, it's fantastic, I try and take my little handbag video camera with me everywhere. I love DVD's and even youtube can be loads of fun. I also love film. I like to go to the cinema and preferably see a real film print. Shot on film, projected on film. I find it to be something special. The two are different. Very different.

 

It seems to me that you are still caught up in this mistake of looking it as one vs the other. Yes it will probably end up that way in many places, but that's because people have bought into that.

 

For myself I love both, and will be very sad to see the end of one, especially the more magical of the two.

 

love

 

Freya

[Tom Jensen]

there is no disadvantage or wasted time learning to shoot film first, in fact, it will teach an economy and preparedness that is missing with digital. The tasks learned that take any time worth talking about are the same in either film or digital production. The major difference being; learning digital tends to lean one toward a style of production where you leave a good deal to post. I know these comment tend to be incindiary, but this is how I see it.

 

I see the disadvantage in the money spent learning your craft.. I guess you could learn exposure by shooting still film like I did and use the digital to learn composition, how to follow action, editing. But, with the labs going away and the prices going up it is expensive. Shoot something on film, have it printed or go to telecine is expensive. With video, you can shoot something over and over until you get it right and have spent practically nothing.

[Tom Jensen]

I would say the mistake you made was buying into the whole Video vs Film meme in the first place. I absolutely love video, it's fantastic, I try and take my little handbag video camera with me everywhere. I love DVD's and even youtube can be loads of fun. I also love film. I like to go to the cinema and preferably see a real film print. Shot on film, projected on film. I find it to be something special. The two are different. Very different.

 

It seems to me that you are still caught up in this mistake of looking it as one vs the other. Yes it will probably end up that way in many places, but that's because people have bought into that.

 

For myself I love both, and will be very sad to see the end of one, especially the more magical of the two.

 

love

 

Freya

 

Yes and no. I bought into it because video was so bad when the talk started. I spent a long time learning to expose negative and having bought into it, I was a little resentful. My own issues entirely. I wish I had been smarter and wiser. I just don't have the stamina I once had when I was younger, either so working 12-18 hours a day, no longer appeals to me at all. Nonetheless, I don't think I'm buying into the video revolution. I think I can now see the writing on the wall. Like I said, the film manufacturers shutting down, the rental house all going digital, the large amount of film and TV being shot on digital speaks volume. And with the producers wanting to do things faster and cheaper, digital is here for good. Investors in technology are all investing in digital. Nobody is making a new film camera. It's just my opinion, doesn't make it true. I've been wrong before.

[Freya Black]

Nonetheless, I don't think I'm buying into the video revolution. I think I can now see the writing on the wall. Like I said, the film manufacturers shutting down, the rental house all going digital, the large amount of film and TV being shot on digital speaks volume. And with the producers wanting to do things faster and cheaper, digital is here for good. Investors in technology are all investing in digital. Nobody is making a new film camera. It's just my opinion, doesn't make it true. I've been wrong before.

 

lol! I didn't say you were buying into the video revolution! The whole way you talk is in a film vs video way even now! Look at what you wrote above! Personally I love both for their own qualities. I'm actually quite sad at the moment because not only is film in a lot of trouble, but the quality of video also seems to be kind of getting worse too, and on top of that, I think cinematography itself is perhaps very much in trouble. Frustrating!

 

However the film vs video meme is something of a self fufilling prophecy in a lot of ways.

 

All I'm saying is that you are looking at things in a certain kind of way. It's nothing to do with what is happening, it's your perspective on it. You said before that you rejected video because you loved film, well that was a film vs video way of thinking. You could have embraced them both. I think they both have their own special thing and each has bought many good things to the world in a way! Well that's one way of looking at it anyway!:)

 

love

 

Freya

[Prashantt Rai]

Well, I am not here to debate film v/s digital. Though I can comfortably work on digital, my personal preference is Film. I just bought an Arri SR3 HS camera package from Munich and I am shooting. I like the fact that S16 is an affordable format. I can shoot experimental things. I wish I can buy a 2K digital camera but scared of investing loads of money because they get outdated in 2 years. advanced sony cine cameras costing upwards of 200,000USD were, in a year, selling for less than 10K - the same fate as of Arri 435s being sold cheap on internet.

 

Digital/electronic repairs are expensive. Analog cameras are repaired easily.

 

With digital there is one thing for sure - there is going to be no steadiness/constants in terms of product, softwares, codecs, & pricing. Every 3-4 years some new digital camera manufacturer will come in the market backed by quick return seeking venture capitalist and the product will suddenly lose charm because the funds for further R&D have dried up. The investors recoup their profit, and pump it in Taiwan because someone there has found a new sensor that can see as good as an eye. So, digital cinema is more like an iPhone culture these days.

 

Whether you make films on digital or films, you as filmmaker is going to suffer. You need to have some clairvoyance to see the future. Of course digital will rule the roost but at what cost? The only beneficiaries are the investors who invest in these 'fast food' technology without any binding commitment to stay put behind a product. As an exercise you can count how many cameras came and vanished since the digital revolution began. you will be surprised. :-)

 

Democratisation and capitalisation of Arts isn't beneficial to us filmmakers in any ways. think about it. think deeply.

 

regards

[Bill DiPietra]

What did that package cost you, if you don't mind my asking?

 

 

Well, I am not here to debate film v/s digital. Though I can comfortably work on digital, my personal preference is Film. I just bought an Arri SR3 HS camera package from Munich and I am shooting.

[Prashantt Rai]

What did that package cost you, if you don't mind my asking?

 

 

 

 

What did that package cost you, if you don't mind my asking?

 

 

Hi Bill, have sent you an email. cheers