Freezer or refrigerator for film storage?

Samuel Berger · November 12, 2017

My wife says I can't fill up the freezer on our refrigerator with film and I'm considering buying a chest freezer for the garage to store it all in, especially as I acquire more raw stock. But a refrigerator is cheaper. Is there a big advantage in getting a freezer for film instead of keeping it in a fridge?

What about after the film has been exposed? Is the freezer okay for it? I always thought of just putting it in the regular refrigerator but now I'm wondering about condensation.

Haven't read up on this stuff in ten years and it isn't really like riding a bicycle like I thought it would be. Thanks.

Heikki Repo · November 12, 2017

My suggestion is, do not hoard (old) film :) Been there, done that. It just becomes older and more fogged every passing day. And when you finally get to make your project and you calculate all expenses, you'll end up buying new film because you don't want to risk shooting your expensive and time consuming project on that old and fogged film.

So, my suggestion is: buy film just before production. Otherwise you'll just lose money and feel guilty for not shooting all that film in your freezer.

But if you want to make the same mistakes I have made: yes, freezer is IMO better than fridge. And yes, chest freezers are quite nice :wub:

I myself haven't stored any exposed film in cold but I live in Finland, it isn't usually hot and humid here even during summer. I have only tried to have the film processed as soon as possible, no later than within a month of exposing it.

Aapo Lettinen · November 12, 2017

you don't really want to store exposed film for long periods before processing, couple of months is absolute maximum and you will see elevated grain and fog levels if storing it for long. I have stored exposed film in fridge on doc projects normally for max. 4 months before processing and that is ok if you don't have to match it to other footage stored differently (for drama shoots a month or two would be fine I think).

some rolls have stayed in the fridge for about a year before processing and I don't recommend it, you will have very visible contrast and grain issues with the stuff and difficulties matching it to any other footage. especially 16mm will be very bad for long storing because of the smaller frame/more magnified grain.

I would never freeze exposed film, if you have too much humidity in the can you will ruin the film and you will need to process it soon anyway so there is no point doing so in any circumstances.

If you have issues with storage space you can buy a separate fridge which you will keep in the garage... if you have some factory fresh rolls which you will want to store at least three or four years before shooting them it may make sense to freeze them but otherwise one does not need to freeze any film and take the risk of ruining it. if you have factory fresh roll which you want to shoot next year the fridge is fine for it, and if having a short end you don't generally want to freeze them because of the possible humidity in the can which may cause serious damage if freezing it

Samuel Berger · November 12, 2017

Thanks, guys. I remember in the 90's one indie filmmaking book suggested buying your filmstock right away and freezing it, because that lit the fire under your seat to get the production going. It gave you a ticking clock of one year. Might have been the Rick Schmidt book because he changed it into a digital video making book.

Aapo Lettinen · November 12, 2017

Thanks, guys. I remember in the 90's one indie filmmaking book suggested buying your filmstock right away and freezing it, because that lit the fire under your seat to get the production going. It gave you a ticking clock of one year. Might have been the Rick Schmidt book because he changed it into a digital video making book.

the one year for frozen film would be totally wrong estimate... for refrigerated it would be somewhat correct though it would be more like 1.5 - 2 years for refrigerated in an indie production (using the same batch for the whole movie) and maybe 4 - 6 years for frozen film. freezing does not stop the ever-going gamma+cosmic rays damage so frozen film does not last forever either, you may start to see small blue flashes etc. radiation damage after the years of storing in the frozen state.

one catch with the long refrigerating is to make sure all the sides of the can stay at the same temperature. so it is not a good idea to completely fill your refrigerator with film and other stuff because the other side of the film cans may have very different temperature compared to the other side and the other half of the roll thus ages quicker than the other which may lead to the extremely irritating "pumping grain" in the final image or other weird symptoms. this is one reason why it is best to have a separate refrigerator for film and keep all the food stuff in the kitchen refrig, your wife was correct in that you should not fill the kitchen freez/refrig with film stuff ;)

Samuel Berger · November 15, 2017

I found the actual quote from the book:

A: Your first decision is whether or not to spend $900 for 12, 400’ rolls of 16mm B&W filmstock to break the inertia (see “Emergency Self-Funding,” page 63, Chapter 3). Once those rolls are in your refrigerator you have approximately one year to shoot before it goes bad. Now you’re on the road. Time to get a concept, start writing, find a cinematographer, sound person, actors, and start planning, because it’s really happening!) Neither money nor self doubts can stop you once you’ve finally made a commitment to yourself.

Dang, film was cheaper then. I wonder why he said 12 rolls.

B&W? He had "Clerks" in mind, obviously.

Anyway, 12 rolls of Vision3 come up to $2122.56 unless you can ask a student friend to get that student discount for you....Carl, you around? ;-)

For the film I'm shooting next year I calculated 13000' of 16mm filmstock for $5749.

Here's the page he was referring to:

Edited November 15, 2017 by Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger · November 27, 2017

Someone asked why I gave up using 35mm for that project next year. I've been looking closely at current filmstocks and it's Kodak's fault: they made the grain too fine in 35mm. It almost looks like digital. It's so strange that to compete with digital they just decided to make film that looks like it, but at a much higher cost.

This is explained right here, around the 2:17 mark.

Tyler Purcell · November 27, 2017

Someone asked why I gave up using 35mm for that project next year. I've been looking closely at current filmstocks and it's Kodak's fault: they made the grain too fine in 35mm. It almost looks like digital. It's so strange that to compete with digital they just decided to make film that looks like it, but at a much higher cost.

Cool video! Unfortunately the videomaker isn't a filmmaker so he doesn't understand one of the most basic rules about "renting" equipment... umm, nobody charges you a "day" rate. Equipment is rented for a 3 day week, which means all of those cameras are MUCH closer to the cost of a film camera.

Another factoid is that 6:1 ratio is SUPER tight. I have yet to make a single budget under 8:1 and almost all of my "low" budgets start at 10:1. This of course raises the cost substantially.

Now the three big things missing are first the transfer... which for theatrical SHOULD be a scan, which is more money than a telecine. Second, the color grading on a digital project takes WAY more time than on film, costing more money. Third, when you're done with the film, you can always scan it later at a higher resolution, but with digital you can't.

In the end, today in 2017 to shoot on S16 (with a 4k scan) vs Red Dragon (with a 4k finish) for instance... Digital "CAN" be cheaper, because a talented artist can do most of the work at home and "borrow" a camera for peanuts, thanks to places like Share Grid.

So where I do love film and I do promote as my business, what I personally use to promote it are things like; longevity, resolution agnostic, a look that draws people's attention which intern gives your project more attention, making something "different" then the other guys and of course it's that layer between reality and the audience that digital doesn't have.

Ohh and I vastly prefer 35mm because of the shallow depth of field on wider angle shots.

Samuel Berger · November 27, 2017

Ohh and I vastly prefer 35mm because of the shallow depth of field on wider angle shots.

I see you're on board with those millennials and their shallow depth of field. ;-)

I need my deep focus.

Adrian Sierkowski · November 27, 2017

I dunno at a base of 800ASA and the ability to push to 1600 when needed on most digital cinema cameras (of the 5000 on the Varicam!); those deep focus 35mm sensor shots aren't as difficult as the old 25ASA days. . .

Tyler Purcell · November 27, 2017

I see you're on board with those millennials and their shallow depth of field. ;-)

I need my deep focus.

Well... it looks more "cinematic" in my eye. Plus, having shot Super 8 and 16 for much of my life (including the same FOV on my pocket cameras as S16) it's nice to have a bigger imager look.

Plus... here in Hollywood, 35mm doesn't cost much more than 16mm, thanks to lower cost re-can stock.

Samuel Berger · November 27, 2017

Well... it looks more "cinematic" in my eye. Plus, having shot Super 8 and 16 for much of my life (including the same FOV on my pocket cameras as S16) it's nice to have a bigger imager look.

Plus... here in Hollywood, 35mm doesn't cost much more than 16mm, thanks to lower cost re-can stock.

I don't do the shallow depth of field thing, this is about as shallow as I'm willing to go.

That frame isn't mine but I often use it as reference. Young kids these days would have that whole kitchen background blurred out and it would look like a reality TV interview insert. ;-)

Edited November 27, 2017 by Samuel Berger

Tyler Purcell · November 28, 2017

That frame isn't mine but I often use it as reference. Young kids these days would have that whole kitchen background blurred out and it would look like a reality TV interview insert. ;-)

Ehh, that's "enough" depth of field for me.