Jump to content

Dream 'job', massive budget - would you shoot digital or film?


Stephen Perera

Recommended Posts

A prestige issue? Nah, Fruitvale Station shot on 16mm with a 500K something budget, The Spectacular Now shot on anamorphic 35mm on a 3 million budget, plenty of films (not necessarily high profile features, or shorts, etc) shoot on film on small budgets. Sometimes, there are real reasons as to why digital is the only way, but I often believe (and some DPs say as much) that if you REALLY want it, you'll find a way to make it happen. It's always a bummer to see top notch DPs going "well I wanted to shoot on film but the producers wouldn't let me". And many of those producers don't seem to get how much of a plus shooting on film can make (if the film is actually well made) and how much it will stand out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
10 hours ago, Mark Kenfield said:

Can we let each other dream without the "constructive" criticism?

Fair enough ?  The whole point of dreams is to imagine something which is very unlikely to happen so it does not have to be practically doable in real life and one can imagine anything one wants ?  

I would like to do a scifi movie which is all shot in real space with real actors and only practical effects would be used. It would be nice to fly by some planets as well to get gorgeous footage for couple of window scenes so it would take couple of years to make but who cares when the view would be that good! It would be like a holiday for the whole crew, I would probably not need to even pay them anything!

.... IN SPACE, NO ONE CAN HEAR THEM whining about their salary!

 

would still shoot digital though because it would be more practical in that environment XD 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 10/27/2019 at 5:22 AM, Stuart Brereton said:

They shot digital because it would have been almost impossible to shoot on film.

They shot digital because the Cinematographer who is a digital guy, wanted to shoot with the Alexa 65. He hasn't shot film since 2010! So why would he go back to shooting film 9 years later. 

I can't think of any true "cinematic" situations where you'd need more than 1000 iso and 500T can be pushed to 1000 iso without much of a difference in quality. I shoot IN THE DARK on 500t all the time, in situations I can't control doing documentary work, where I don't even bother bringing out the meter because I know it's going to say "under" even if I rate the stock 1000 iso and it ALWAYS comes out really nice. Add a HINT of noise reduction (all digital cameras do this in-camera anyway) in the green channel and you're all good. You need to watch "The Favorite" if you haven't already. That was shot with candle light in some cases without any issues. 

The new Panavision XLII's have beautiful HD video taps you can focus with and with peaking turned on, you can actually do focus pull's just like a digital camera. So you know you have the shot in perfect focus, no excuses "ohh the tap was bad" or "I couldn't tell in the viewfinder". They weren't going to shoot Panavision though because the DP doesn't want to. So that was taken right off the list from day 1. 

3 perf 35mm, has a pretty long load time (14min) on 1000ft magazines. They could have easily gotten those long adlib shots using that format since it's 1.85:1 naturally. I can't imagine the actor running longer than 14 min in his adlib shot, I bet most of the time he ran 5 - 10 min at most. It's hard getting into character and being there for long periods of time. So the excuse they needed longer running time, was just an excuse. 

Had the DP known these things, they would have shot on film. However, digital DP's just don't know these tidbits. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Obviously I'm in no way informed other than via IMBD but looking through his page.....Lawrence Sher - cinematographer of The Joker, shot film before 2014.....his last big film on film being Hangover Part III according to IMDb so I wouldn't say he's a digital guy Tyler. He was born in 1970 so he comes from film background....I born in 1966....people from my era learned and shot on film (albeit me stills photography Im NOT a DP or Cinematographer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Stephen Perera said:

Lawrence Sher - cinematographer of The Joker, shot film before 2014

I mean so did Rodger Deakins, but he won't ever go back to film again. 

If you wanna shoot film in the future, you need to be with a "pro film" DP, not someone who has a passion for the Alexa 65. In fact, they were going to shoot through Arri rental on film, not Panavision. So I bet the concept of even using the XLII with the beautiful HD tap, wasn't even mentioned. 

I'm not mad about the film being shot digitally because the Alexa 65 looks fine. I'm just mad that very few people got to see the film print because it looked excellent. To me, that's what the movie should look like. The digital version is just flat and even with the gobs of film grain they added, its still very digital looking. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Stephen Perera said:

Lawrence Sher - cinematographer of The Joker, shot film before 2014.....his last big film on film being Hangover Part III according to IMDb so I wouldn't say he's a digital guy Tyler. 

I've worked with Larry since 2008 and you're correct, he WAS a film guy.  Now, he only wants to shoot digital and particularly likes the Alexa 65.  He likes digital for the same reasons I like it and I've posted those reasons in previous posts.  He really is not interested in shooting film again.

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
18 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

all this sniffing ,sprocket hole gazing against a north light..caressing and getting teary eyed over a can of film ,is not really a concern of the working DP/AC /Editor or director.. .. its an aesthetic for amateurs ,students and hobbyists  ..  

I'm certain Christopher Nolan, JJ Abrams, Quentin Tarantino, Damian Chazelle, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Kenneth Branagh, Yorgos Lanthimos, Wes Anderson, James Gray, Joel and Ethan Coen and the 100's of other "professional" filmmakers who choose film, would love some videographer telling them film is "an aesthetic for amateurs, students and hobbyists".

It's a huge concern for working directors because NOBODY want's their movie to look like someone else's. Everyone wants to differentiate the look and feel of their production. The cheapest way to do so, is to shoot on an alternative platform. Back before digital's take-over, this would have been video. In fact, I shot two features back to back in the early 2000's on a Varicam because the filmmaker wanted them to look more like a multi-cam TV show than a single camera narrative feature. We had the budget to shoot 16mm, but he wanted his movie to stand out, at a time when FILM was the only thing out there for professional work. 

Today, the roles are reversed. Everyone shoots digital and to make your product stand out, you need to do something different. Will most people notice on their iPhone screens? Nope, probably not. However, as a filmmaker, there is a certain respect you get from shooting on film that just doesn't exist when using digital. If you use the marketing tools Kodak has setup, you can get quite a bit of traction with your production and festivals are liking stuff shot/printed on film. With the costs to make film prints from DI getting cheaper due to high-speed machines, it's a lot easier to make a "festival" print than ever before. Distributors also love the "shot on film" aspect when related to marketing as well, it draws audiences to your project. The studio's figured this out a few years ago, which is why we've been seeing more and more 70mm theatrical prints in recent years. 

Finally... do people care? 

Yes, they do. My parents spent 4 weeks, trying to get into see "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" in Boston because every 70mm screening was sold out. It took me over a month to get into a screening on 70mm, it was completely sold out for 3 weeks straight! This is unheard of for normal movies. I got tickets for Star Wars Episode 7, opening night on a digital without an issue and that was the biggest release I've seen in decades. But for a little "amateur" director, his "film" screenings were sold out and continue to be sold out at his personal theater. They're re-releasing the film, on 35mm in November with an "extended" cut and now everyone will have to see it again! hahaha ?

People care.... they really do. If you make it "special" they will come. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
57 minutes ago, Gregory Irwin said:

I've worked with Larry since 2008 and you're correct, he WAS a film guy.  Now, he only wants to shoot digital and particularly likes the Alexa 65.  He likes digital for the same reasons I like it and I've posted those reasons in previous posts.  He really is not interested in shooting film again.

Larry has been a digital guy since 2011, way before the digital revolution. He was a very early adopter, so why would he go back to film? Seems a bit stupid. He's got a new way of working and he's going to stick with it.

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Was there another digital revolution after the first one in the early 2000’s??? 

I think it's fair to say there was, or maybe it's the same one that started earlier and it just took a while to finish.

Between around 2007 and 2010 there was the release of the Red One (which I felt was groundbreaking but unusably immature upon release–just my opinion), the Alexa (still the gold standard imo, imo truly groundbreaking), 5D Mark II (first affordable/prosumer large format digital video camera), and the Red MX (which I consider the first really usable, mature Red camera body). 

And then in 2012 digital overtook film in terms of percentage of major features acquired one way or the other. So I think the "bulk" of the revolution happened between 2007 and 2012. Earlier cameras like the F900 and F35 (which I quite like) for whatever reason didn't seem to have the same impact. Personally, I think it was happy accidents that had the largest impact–ProRes on the Alexa, which I believe was originally intended as a proxy format, and affordability with the 5D Mk II, originally intended almost exclusively for stills.

Personally, I find earlier digital cinematography (Zodiac, Miami Vice, even Tim and Eric and Adult Swim stuff) more interesting for the risks taken. But I think the bulk of the "revolution" took place around 2010-2012. 

Related to the original question–do you think a combination of S16, slow film stocks (50D and 200T), Hawk 1.3 anamorphics, and 1/2 and full classic softs would be too "soft" of an acquisition format? Do classic softs feel different on S16 than they do on 35mm as regards strength at equivalent focal lengths for a given field of view? I imagine you need to shoot pretty wide open to avoid the pattern showing up in front of the lens... And in your experience, what are the effects of pulling those stocks a stop, I think I remember you shot a feature you rated at 100T on 5213? What was the intended effect? More saturation and less grain? I'd be shooting 7213 of course... 

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Was there another digital revolution after the first one in the early 2000’s??? 

I don't think the 2000 revolution was THE revolution. I think some cinematographers meddled with Digital for fun, trying new toys, which they've always done. 

I think the revolution happened between 2008 - 2014 (6 years) the industry went from predominantly film acquisition and distribution, to predominantly digital acquisition and NO film distribution. It wasn't until AFTER the labs disappeared, Kodak filed bankruptcy, all the theaters switched to digital projection and the SAG-AFTRA deal, that marked the real revolution. I have to say, a few big DP's who took the plunge early, also helped seal the deal for other filmmakers. 

I classify the "revolution" to be those 6 years. The world prior to 2008 was film, the world post 2014 was digital. 

The revolution is over because Digital is for all extensive purposes an "easier" process. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've written this before, but I can remember back as early as the mid-eighties there was an article published in the discontinued Australian film industry publication Cinema Papers that the future of feature movie cinematography was going to be fully digital, and imminently so. I have no idea how the person writing that article knew, but time proved them right. It just took a bit longer than was thought. Clearly, technicians at Sony or wherever must have already known by then that sufficient quality was scientifically and economically doable.

During my teens I'd planned to go on to be a cinematographer and I wanted to work with film. Believe it or not I was so in love with film as a teenager I would get up early on Saturday mornings to watch a show on TV called 'Wonderful world of boating' (I was not into boating at all) that even on the crummy tv images of those days I could see was clearly shot on 16mm film. We also in Australia had 'The Leyland Brothers', an evening tv show, I specifically watched because at first it was shot on 16mm, and later they started shooting on Super 8. By this time, this was in the days when tv shows were almost all shot on video. So, I don't know why I was so committed to film, but I was. Someone decides they are just an oils person, as a painter. Who knows why. It's just a look they are seeking. Perhaps a method of working too. Video never got me interested. My mistake maybe, but it doesn't matter as I went on to do other good things.

Like many teenagers contemplating their future lives I was in two minds as to what to do after leaving school. That Cinema Papers article clinched it for me. I decided I didn't want to get into cinematography if it meant it was all going to change one day soon to digital. And in Australia you could tell there was a lot of excitement out there about digital. I just didn't share that enthusiasm. So there it goes. My point in writing this? Just to say that the first talk of a coming revolution happened long before it actually arrived. Most here would know this, but still worth repeating. To this day I'm amazed not only at how true that article was, but also that I myself could clearly see, young as I was, that that big change was definitely coming. For some reason Australia was particularly keen to change completely to digital.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I'm certain Christopher Nolan, JJ Abrams, Quentin Tarantino, Damian Chazelle, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Kenneth Branagh, Yorgos Lanthimos, Wes Anderson, James Gray, Joel and Ethan Coen and the 100's of other "professional" filmmakers who choose film, would love some videographer telling them film is "an aesthetic for amateurs, students and hobbyists".

It's a huge concern for working directors because NOBODY want's their movie to look like someone else's. Everyone wants to differentiate the look and feel of their production. The cheapest way to do so, is to shoot on an alternative platform. Back before digital's take-over, this would have been video. In fact, I shot two features back to back in the early 2000's on a Varicam because the filmmaker wanted them to look more like a multi-cam TV show than a single camera narrative feature. We had the budget to shoot 16mm, but he wanted his movie to stand out, at a time when FILM was the only thing out there for professional work. 

Today, the roles are reversed. Everyone shoots digital and to make your product stand out, you need to do something different. Will most people notice on their iPhone screens? Nope, probably not. However, as a filmmaker, there is a certain respect you get from shooting on film that just doesn't exist when using digital. If you use the marketing tools Kodak has setup, you can get quite a bit of traction with your production and festivals are liking stuff shot/printed on film. With the costs to make film prints from DI getting cheaper due to high-speed machines, it's a lot easier to make a "festival" print than ever before. Distributors also love the "shot on film" aspect when related to marketing as well, it draws audiences to your project. The studio's figured this out a few years ago, which is why we've been seeing more and more 70mm theatrical prints in recent years. 

Finally... do people care? 

Yes, they do. My parents spent 4 weeks, trying to get into see "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" in Boston because every 70mm screening was sold out. It took me over a month to get into a screening on 70mm, it was completely sold out for 3 weeks straight! This is unheard of for normal movies. I got tickets for Star Wars Episode 7, opening night on a digital without an issue and that was the biggest release I've seen in decades. But for a little "amateur" director, his "film" screenings were sold out and continue to be sold out at his personal theater. They're re-releasing the film, on 35mm in November with an "extended" cut and now everyone will have to see it again! hahaha ?

People care.... they really do. If you make it "special" they will come. 

Yes this is exactly what I have been saying .. you are saying that the only way a film maker can make their film stand out is to shoot on an alternative platform eg  film.. ... really thats it.. no other ways..  the directors you list would made films that were all the same if they shot digital .. Im going to tell Quentin you said that.. he won't be happy .. and I'll going to tell Roger you think  he a videographer ..  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2019 at 7:36 PM, Mark Kenfield said:

Can we let each other dream without the "constructive" criticism?

Dreaming of shooting film is all fine. But shooting it isn't very green.  Lots of wasted materials, chemicals, etc.  Best to shoot on Digital since IPCC reports lately say our near future is looking more and more like this:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I don't think the 2000 revolution was THE revolution. I think some cinematographers meddled with Digital for fun, trying new toys, which they've always done. 

I think the revolution happened between 2008 - 2014 (6 years) the industry went from predominantly film acquisition and distribution, to predominantly digital acquisition and NO film distribution.  

I'd agree with this.

I'm of that lucky generation that studied purely photochemical photography through school and university, to emerge out into the real world in 2008... to the GFC, the Red One and the 5D Mkii ?

I don't know if I could have timed things much worse if I'd tried!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Just now, Michael LaVoie said:

Dreaming of shooting film is all fine. But shooting it isn't very green.  Lots of wasted materials, chemicals, etc.  Best to shoot on Digital since IPCC reports lately say our near future is looking more and more like this:

 

What human endeavour isn't? It the nature of consumption, it's a destructive process.

The chemical output and waste from photochemical processing sure as hell wasn't a nice thing. But I do wonder how it compared to the overall natural cost of digital, where the devices become obsolete and discarded so much more rapidly than mechanical film cameras ever were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I don't think the 2000 revolution was THE revolution. I think some cinematographers meddled with Digital for fun, trying new toys, which they've always done. 

I think the revolution happened between 2008 - 2014 (6 years) the industry went from predominantly film acquisition and distribution, to predominantly digital acquisition and NO film distribution. It wasn't until AFTER the labs disappeared, Kodak filed bankruptcy, all the theaters switched to digital projection and the SAG-AFTRA deal, that marked the real revolution. I have to say, a few big DP's who took the plunge early, also helped seal the deal for other filmmakers. 

I classify the "revolution" to be those 6 years. The world prior to 2008 was film, the world post 2014 was digital. 

The revolution is over because Digital is for all extensive purposes an "easier" process. 

The "revolution" was really boosted by the 3D boom which necessitated digital capture. The Sony cameras were pretty popular for that before Alexas took over. 

Some years later the whole 3D rage was just forgotten. Now it is more about large format and special vintage lenses. That has happened many times before, the history just repeating itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Mark Kenfield said:

What human endeavour isn't? It the nature of consumption, it's a destructive process.

The chemical output and waste from photochemical processing sure as hell wasn't a nice thing. But I do wonder how it compared to the overall natural cost of digital, where the devices become obsolete and discarded so much more rapidly than mechanical film cameras ever were.

manufacturing digital gear takes surprisingly large amount of natural resources compared to the size of the equipment. If it's some Alexa body which is used 6 or 8 years then it's fine but if the gear is updated every year then I suspect it may be a big issue.

 

Manufacturing film does not differentiate that much from some special plastic industries. Developing it of course needs chemicals but not that huge amounts, most of it is just water... colour chemicals are more complicated but for example the formula I commonly use for B/W developing contains, in addition of the water, about ONE PERCENT of actual developing chemicals and most of the rest is Sodium Sulphite and Sodium Carbonate. You will have huge amount of water where you add some amount of base to lift the pH up and then add the deoxidizing agent if you need to use the solution multiple times. And just a tiny bit of the actual developing chemicals. If you could dry the water out from used solutions it would fit to very small space and be much more easy and economical to dispose 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought film was greener, even with the processing chemicals. Digital doesn't seem greener to me at all. I suspect the claim digital is greener might have had some traction once, and was used to try and add some extra push to its shove ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

.... the discontinued Australian film industry publication Cinema Papers that the future ....

 

Note the rather poignant words. Discontinued publication of an industry paper. Hmm. Did the article point something out that may have been the seeds of the publication's own demise? Then again, the Australian fully home-grown feature film industry seems to come and go in periods of boom and bust. Or am I wrong?

It's interesting, to me at least, that George Lucas chose Australia to lob his first salvo at the film tradition of the industry, with his Star Wars prequels going all digital with Attack of the Clones. Still, it was a revolution that was coming anyway. And it all started ... right here.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I would have thought film was greener, even with the processing chemicals. Digital doesn't seem greener to me at all. I suspect the claim digital is greener might have had some traction once, and was used to try and add some extra push to its shove ?

Digitals green credentials kick in during exhibition. 10's of thousands of heavy prints made, transported round the world and mostly scrapped after a few weeks run. Even if some form of recycling was done, theres still the energy used in the process and the travel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

...so we've all gone down the rabbit hole hahaha.....anyone want to bring it back to dream job, money no object? 

....personally, the feeling I get when Cinelab London sends me a link to get my 2K .dpx Arriscans is fantastic......would never want to lose that......and as an anecdote should anyone be remotely interested......Im having my 'garden shed' rebuilt into a darkroom to get back into making traditional photographic prints of my photography! Ilford have just released new paper and new film.....Kodak are doing their thing too........

....seems we all agree film should always be available.....long live film! thank you Mr Nolan, Tarantino, Scorcese et al

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...