Jump to content

2022 Film Stock Price Increases?


Robin Phillips
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Sustaining Member
5 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

there is far less junk shot on film than when film was the only way to shoot and get good quality. Now, nearly all of the junk is being shot on low-end cameras and that's why so many people have shifted away from digital and back into film, so they aren't associated with it. 

This isn't true at all. You can check out YT and Vimeo and find plenty of junk shot on film. People purchasing old cameras like the K3 to test them, realizing that film doesn't make you pro, and then selling them after putting those videos up with terrible handheld footage that makes my head hurt watching. Sure, there is less of it in film than in digital because of the low barrier to entry of digital. But it is there if you expose yourself to more than just the projects you choose to look at.

I don't mean to pick on you, Tyler, but you have this habit of treating your personal experience as empirical data. That is fine if you want to share your experiences and those of your associates. But your associates and you do not equate to facts. I am still waiting on data on Kodak film vs say, Sony camera division.

30 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I mean Kodak does release annual numbers. I can also tell you that in my entire life shooting on film, I have never once found it difficult to get stock. Kodak is making as much stock as they have been for the last few years, but there is so much demand for 16mm color negative, that it's nearly impossible to get.

Supply chain issues have hit many companies; not just Kodak. Supply chain issues are not always indicative of popularity; sometimes it is logistics, manufacturing issues, raw materials, labor, etc than can contribute to these things. Maybe Kodak is doing better than they were but I would like to see some data to support this outside of "my friends and I..."

32 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Ohh and from most filmmakers point of view, Kodak triumphs over anything Sony makes. Your statement isn't even logical, it shows how out of touch you are to the actual film industry. 

If I am so "out of touch" then why is Sony absolutely murdering Kodak? Maybe Sony understands what the public wants whereas Kodak is still living in their own out of touch reality where they can command premium prices for a dying medium. You can talk all you want but the numbers do not pack up your viewpoint. And adding statements like "most filmmakers" is an appeal to authority. I swear, Tyler, if you didn't commit logical fallacies then I don't think you could speak at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

If only there was a Kodak ColorPlus 200 of movie stocks. It's less than half the price of Portra. A pack of ten rolls of ColorPlus costs AU$80. A pack of five rolls of Portra 160 costs $100. $8 vs $20.

Maybe make the 500T cheaper than the others?

As an independent underground filmmaker with no external funding, I feel like the entry-level celluloid filmmaking is getting more and more out of reach. Here in France we have some artist-run labs and most of the young filmmakers here are scraping the bottom of the ebay barrel for expired VNFs, Ektachromes and EXRs. I feel like if Kodak could have the 500T more within the reach of entry-level celluloid filmmakers, especially in 16mm, it would bring a lot of people back to film.

Also, Super8 needs to be much cheaper and not almost as expensive as 16.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You can call those people "elites" but I will be the first to tell you, they are no different than you are. Many have full time jobs outside of the industry, many only shoot for fun and only shoot their own projects. They'll save up for months, maybe even years to make one small project, but they strive to make something good. They work hard to insure what they shoot is worthwhile and you can pick on them as you picked on me for what we achieved, but we did it.

So eloquently put. Indeed there are many of us, we just silently go about our business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Gautam Valluri said:

... Indeed there are many of us, we just silently go about our business.

As a teenager I used to save up for each roll I shot. I would go months without being able to shoot anything. I lived on dreaming up new projects, for when finally I had film in the camera again. And when I did have film to shoot it was only a few minutes of footage. On rare occasions I would have more than just a few minutes of film. Eventually my school offered Film & TV as a subject and I was able to make some longer films. That was wonderful. But most of the time I very slowly saved up, working in the holidays, and waited for the next project. I wasn't interested in video in the least. I wanted to shoot film. I made sacrifices for what I wanted to do. Film has always been expensive. It's never really been easy to shoot film. 

Elites? I don't think they're elites at all -- just people who tenaciously decided to stick with film. Because they love it.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
42 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Elites? I don't think they're elites at all -- just people who tenaciously decided to stick with film. Because they love it.

I think I need to exit this thread as it seems that reading comprehension is not a thing here.

I never called film lovers "elites". If that were the case then I am guilty as charged as well. What I said was "I am completely blown away at how Kodak has stayed faithful to the 'elitist' mindset they had back when they controlled everything. It is like they would prefer to lose everything rather than find a way to make shooting film more affordable."

The "elitist" here is Kodak; not film shooters. If y'all going to quote me, please quote me correctly and stop committing straw man arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience with Kodak and their QA service during the past year has given me everything but the impression of elitism. Warm, thoughtful, generous - those are the words I'd rather use, as funny it might seem when speaking of a big corporation.

On the price of film, while it is true that especially super-8 has become much more expensive than it was when I started shooting on film - back in the 2005 with Kodachrome 40 with processing included! - my impression regarding 16mm is that I'm nowadays able to make a project for less than I was a bit over a decade ago.

Back then I produced and directed a short film I wanted to have shot on super16. It was 19 minutes long, I bought 9x400ft of Vision2 200T of which a couple of rolls were recans. Film related costs not including VAT were about 3600 €. That was film, processing and HD telecine (to DVCAM & HDCAM!). Had I wanted to get files on hard drive from that post house, it would have cost €€€. So I had to find someone studying in an institution with HDCAM to do online edit there and get those TIFFs on the hard drive for the grading.

Now I can get more for less. At least previously this year 9x400ft of Vision3 with processing and technical HD telecine with files delivered online to me would have cost only 2340 €. Quite a difference! And no need to play with those HDCAM tapes!

Sure, the 2008 post house had comfy sofas and "free" Coca-Cola for us customers sitting watching the best light telecine (which ultimately was color tempwise opposite direction than what our DP wanted to take the project in the final grade) but I'm much happier with 2021 than I was with 2008. That was the time of elitism.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
15 minutes ago, Heikki Repo said:

On the price of film, while it is true that especially super-8 has become much more expensive than it was when I started shooting on film - back in the 2005 with Kodachrome 40 with processing included! - my impression regarding 16mm is that I'm nowadays able to make a project for less than I was a bit over a decade ago.

It appears that economists can add film to the list of goods that is inelastic since it seems that no matter how much they raise the price, there will be a long list of compliant and loyal purchasers.

Good luck with that. I'm out.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

It appears that economists can add film to the list of goods that is inelastic since it seems that no matter how much they raise the price, there will be a long list of compliant and loyal purchasers.

Good luck with that. I'm out.

Matthew we all want film to be cheaper and more accessible. I'm just finding it hard to understand what you want to say. I went back and read all your posts and it oscillates between "Kodak is killing its business by raising prices" and "not sure people want to shoot on film anymore".

Your messages also sound angry, but I'm not sure if you're saying "forget film and shoot digital" or "I'm annoyed that its getting more and more expensive to shoot on film and its not fair"

I'm genuinely interested in understanding the point you're trying to make, if you feel like elaborating a bit.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Good luck with that. I'm out.

If you are a super-8 shooter I can well understand your sentiments. As for 16mm, perhaps it has been previously much cheaper in the US than in Europe, but as I mentioned, I'm paying less than previously.

But I agree, in the end it comes down to priorities and choices. And there is absolutely nothing wrong in deciding that film is too expensive to use and using digital. It's only a medium for telling stories.

Me, I want to spend as little time as possible with digital cameras. I don't like them, even if my OCD tendencies don't always play well with working with film. And I don't mind having to struggle a bit with film cameras and film prices, I feel it adds something to my art even if only I can feel it. So it's just a personal preference. And combined with the fact that coating film is expensive and things are generally becoming ever more expensive, well, that's a choice I have to pay for.

So choose what you find the best solution for you. It's okay to stick with digital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
19 minutes ago, Gautam Valluri said:

Matthew we all want film to be cheaper and more accessible. I'm just finding it hard to understand what you want to say. I went back and read all your posts and it oscillates between "Kodak is killing its business by raising prices" and "not sure people want to shoot on film anymore".

Your messages also sound angry, but I'm not sure if you're saying "forget film and shoot digital" or "I'm annoyed that its getting more and more expensive to shoot on film and its not fair"

I'm genuinely interested in understanding the point you're trying to make, if you feel like elaborating a bit.

 

The point I am trying to make is that indie film shooters care more about Kodak than Kodak cares about them. I absolutely love the look of film but I hate Kodak. I don't like their business practices, their attitude, not even their stock much anymore to be honest. I don't support Red cameras because of certain things about them I disagree but Kodak is not far behind in my book. And I disagree with Tyler that Kodak has tried to lower prices to end users and tried to make it more accessible. I simply do not believe that and see no evidence that they have.

Contrast this with Blackmagic Design who, love them or hate them, seems to really care about helping indies and making a good product within their budget. They even made Resolve accessible to the masses when it was once untouchable for indies. I may not think their cameras are on par with film but I really want to support them because I like what they are doing and believe they give a crap.

When I was legit a student at Uni., Kodak did everything they could to try to get out of giving me a student discount and made me jump through hoops. It was ridiculous. And their student pricing wasn't even that great tbh.

In a perfect world, another company would come out with a new film at a game changing price and bury Kodak once and for all but we could still keep film. My issues with film are mostly Kodak; however, they corner the market on film right now so it forces me to choose between my love of film and hatred for Kodak. The price increases are pushing me away from film. I just cannot keep paying it. I don't have a motion picture film camera now and that is also ridiculous to try to buy with people on eBay being crazy. Someone who is completely outfitted, gear wise, and has local labs and connections will, no doubt, have a vastly different take and I cannot blame them. It is easy to pontificate about how simple or easy something is when your own situation is covered.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

The point I am trying to make is that indie film shooters care more about Kodak than Kodak cares about them. I absolutely love the look of film but I hate Kodak. I don't like their business practices, their attitude, not even their stock much anymore to be honest. I don't support Red cameras because of certain things about them I disagree but Kodak is not far behind in my book. And I disagree with Tyler that Kodak has tried to lower prices to end users and tried to make it more accessible. I simply do not believe that and see no evidence that they have.

Contrast this with Blackmagic Design who, love them or hate them, seems to really care about helping indies and making a good product within their budget. They even made Resolve accessible to the masses when it was once untouchable for indies. I may not think their cameras are on par with film but I really want to support them because I like what they are doing and believe they give a crap.

When I was legit a student at Uni., Kodak did everything they could to try to get out of giving me a student discount and made me jump through hoops. It was ridiculous. And their student pricing wasn't even that great tbh.

In a perfect world, another company would come out with a new film at a game changing price and bury Kodak once and for all but we could still keep film. My issues with film are mostly Kodak; however, they corner the market on film right now so it forces me to choose between my love of film and hatred for Kodak. The price increases are pushing me away from film. I just cannot keep paying it. I don't have a motion picture film camera now and that is also ridiculous to try to buy with people on eBay being crazy. Someone who is completely outfitted, gear wise, and has local labs and connections will, no doubt, have a vastly different take and I cannot blame them. It is easy to pontificate about how simple or easy something is when your own situation is covered.

I see where you're coming from. I do agree with you about Kodak's monopoly and I don't like it either. I'm hoping that Orwo will deliver on their promise of a new colour film stock and going by how their BW stocks are priced, price them low enough so Kodak will have to rethink their prices.

If only Sony bought the Fuji stock workflow and brought them back on the markets, they could give Kodak some much needed competition.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The news about Orwo sounds exciting. I shot their bw stock and really enjoyed it but next to kodak, it is still a ma and pa shop in a way... I am not sure if they will be able to keep up with professional production demands.. For instance, I couldn't even get a hold of someone for a long time when I was trying to get stock. When I did get a hold of them however, they seemed very nice. They didn't have 1000 ft rolls. 

As for Ebay, I agree with Matthew... people demand thousands for their pos cameras that once cost a few hundred - Canon Scoopic... I'm looking at you. It is an ok camera but check out those prices... 1500-4k... haha 4k for an unstable camera with a fixed lens that is like a toy camera. Or thousands for some hand wound bolex... 

Edited by Giray Izcan
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everytime i hear someone saying stuff like, my 35mm short or my 16mm feature, I begin worrying because those films usually tend to suck but hey it's on film - the acting, the script, locations or lack of coverage just shows that the format takes precedence over the story and the production.

7:1 ratio and stuff sounds doable but you need coverage. Lets say you're shooting a dialog scene where you need to have coverage for reactions etc. You need to shoot your singles etc during the entirety of a dialog for editorial purposes. This way you can cut to non speaking actor's reactions while the other actor is delivering his or her lines. These little things bring the whole picture together. In order to be able to properly run the camera for coverage you NEED money and film. Otherwise, you will end up with shortcomings during editing like I wish I had more coverage to cut to some reactions and stuff. I am a hard core film lover but I will not be dillusional about the cost of it. 

You can save up all the film in the world, but one stock to the next, are they going to match? During coverage, you change out a roll to another roll from God know what batch and all of a sudden the look changes to fogged up piece of film look or shifted colors etc. At the end of that tunnel, you will still spend the same thousands at the lab so it isn't even cute anymore. You know what I mean?

 

Edited by Giray Izcan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
10 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

This isn't true at all. You can check out YT and Vimeo and find plenty of junk shot on film. People purchasing old cameras like the K3 to test them, realizing that film doesn't make you pro, and then selling them after putting those videos up with terrible handheld footage that makes my head hurt watching. Sure, there is less of it in film than in digital because of the low barrier to entry of digital. But it is there if you expose yourself to more than just the projects you choose to look at.

I mean most of the stuff I see online are people doing camera tests. They can't really afford to shoot anything of any value, so they shoot whatever they can and post it to say "hey I shot this on film". That's not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people doing actual productions, where they have an idea, go shoot it and finish it. 

10 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

 I am still waiting on data on Kodak film vs say, Sony camera division.

Are you referring to profits? What "data" are you looking for? 

10 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Supply chain issues have hit many companies; not just Kodak. Supply chain issues are not always indicative of popularity; sometimes it is logistics, manufacturing issues, raw materials, labor, etc than can contribute to these things. Maybe Kodak is doing better than they were but I would like to see some data to support this outside of "my friends and I..."

Lack of film is not a supply chain issue, lack of film is an issue with them simply not able to produce enough of a certain film because the demand is high. They can only make X amount of feet per day of a certain stock. I personally know the sales people, they tell me how busy they are, it's crazy honestly. 

10 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

If I am so "out of touch" then why is Sony absolutely murdering Kodak? Maybe Sony understands what the public wants whereas Kodak is still living in their own out of touch reality where they can command premium prices for a dying medium. You can talk all you want but the numbers do not pack up your viewpoint. And adding statements like "most filmmakers" is an appeal to authority. I swear, Tyler, if you didn't commit logical fallacies then I don't think you could speak at all.

You're comparing a consumable to a physical product manufacturing company. There are no comparisons, zero. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
6 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

The point I am trying to make is that indie film shooters care more about Kodak than Kodak cares about them.

You haven't even shot a real film on motion picture film, so how do you know? 

Kodak has been incredibly generous with me and the filmmakers I work with. Where I can't really go into details in public, suffice to say I have never worked with another media company that has been so nice to me. Without their support, I would have never been able to teach film in the way I can today. 

So yes, if you actually went out to shoot a feature film on 35mm, you bet your ass Kodak would have your back. You would not pay retail, you would probably get some freebees and you'd probably get a bunch of marketing and promotional support as well.

If you shoot a dozen 100ft rolls a film a year, you probably aren't going to get any support. 

6 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

And I disagree with Tyler that Kodak has tried to lower prices to end users and tried to make it more accessible. I simply do not believe that and see no evidence that they have.

I never once said Kodak has lowered prices, that may have been your interpretation. I've been very clear that Kodaks prices have been going up every few years since they filed bankruptcy. 

6 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Contrast this with Blackmagic Design who, love them or hate them, seems to really care about helping indies and making a good product within their budget. They even made Resolve accessible to the masses when it was once untouchable for indies. I may not think their cameras are on par with film but I really want to support them because I like what they are doing and believe they give a crap.

Blackmagic designs is a post company, they make software and hardware for post production. They entered into the camera market because they saw a need for "different" cameras than what existed, but they are still a post company. They are a walled garden and if you stay within the walls, you can get decent results. I do care about BMD a lot, I think they make great products for the price and they are "enablers" which is great. They however, don't really make many professional products; nothing that will last decades of use. Even Resolve is constantly updated for new codec's and functionality. So you stopped updating today, you'd probably not be able to use it anymore in a decade. Meanwhile, all the film I shot 30+ years ago, works great, looks great and will always look great until physically destroyed. Heck, I just used the same camera I shot with 30+ years ago for a recent YouTube video about sound on film. Go play with a 30 year old video camera and come back to me about the experience. 

When you buy a film camera and work with film, you are buying one camera for life. So the investment is amortized over your entire life, not the 5 years the camera is "relevant" before you buy another one. Just look at the Alexa Classic's from around a decade ago, they use to cost $100k and now they're worth $6k? My Aaton S16 camera was worth $40k 30 years ago and now is worth $16k. Plus, unlike a digital camera that loses value when it's sitting, film cameras only cost money to use when you put film in them. When they're sitting on a shelf, they literally cost you nothing because the value of them is retained. 

So sure, digital is a great way to simply make a product. I use it all the time when I need to just make something quick. However, if I actually care about what I'm making, I will take the time, spend the money and shoot on film. Why? Because what I shoot will last forever. I know my negatives are physical evidence of my hard work. One's and zero's have very little value to anyone.

Maybe people get to a point in their life where just knowing what you shot is "real", means something. Maybe that's why I'm so infatuated with analog audio as well. Master tape recordings pressed at half speed to vinyl records, playing back through tube components. Just knowing that's what it's suppose to sound like or look like, without any manipulation of the image, really means a lot to me. Where one could argue, we aren't editing on film, that's fine. I can still make one light work prints of all my films and watch the B-roll. I have several work prints made to demonstrate what film "actually" looks like and people fall in love with the format when they watch it in person. 

6 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

When I was legit a student at Uni., Kodak did everything they could to try to get out of giving me a student discount and made me jump through hoops. It was ridiculous. And their student pricing wasn't even that great tbh.

I've never had a problem with people getting student discounts. Kodak gives them away like candy these days. 

Also, the discount when you were in school was 30%. Good luck getting a SD card manufacturer to give you a 30% discount on "media", which is all Kodak is... a "media" supplier. Only you can't reuse what they make. 

6 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

In a perfect world, another company would come out with a new film at a game changing price and bury Kodak once and for all but we could still keep film. My issues with film are mostly Kodak; however, they corner the market on film right now so it forces me to choose between my love of film and hatred for Kodak. The price increases are pushing me away from film. I just cannot keep paying it. I don't have a motion picture film camera now and that is also ridiculous to try to buy with people on eBay being crazy. Someone who is completely outfitted, gear wise, and has local labs and connections will, no doubt, have a vastly different take and I cannot blame them. It is easy to pontificate about how simple or easy something is when your own situation is covered.

I've said this countless times; your "product" is a business. If you treat it like a business, you will be treated well by everyone around you. If you treat your product like a consumer, you will be shoved into the consumer pile and ignored. If you don't care enough about your product to make it a business, then that's your fault, not the fault of the companies who provide services. You have to be serious, build your business connections out of concrete so you can call on them when you need them. 

Complaining about the medium of film because it's too expensive these days, is childish when all you're doing is making content for fun. If you were serious, you'd raise the money to hire a crew, including a DP with equipment. Then you wouldn't need to spend all that money on cameras and leaning how to use them. You could focus on what you should be focusing on; writing stories that people will want to watch. Even if you have the holy grail of a story, the acting, blocking, shot composition, lighting, sound, music, edit, color, mix etc, will all suffer because you're too focused on doing everything yourself, with nearly zero budget. Nobody really gets away with that, most people will lie about their budgets to make it seem like they spent no money and had no crew, but when you look deeper, you see they had $250k worth of equipment donated and had a full complement of crew members (9 or more) Real filmmakers generally, only write, produce and direct. Even then, most pro's hire ghost writers to get their stories touched up. They'll always hire a real producer and of course a super top notch line producer, the people who "actually" make the films. Some even shoot their own content, but within the framework of a professional set, with camera operators and gaffers. 

So if you wanna just screw around with cameras, that's fine. But seeing as your journey thus far in the visual media arts, appears to be laser focused on "indy" feature films, you really can't complain when you're trying to do everything yourself on a shoe string budget. It's just too much for one person to do and then worrying about "film" seems hardly worth it. You don't have to be jealous that people "got in" when film cameras were cheaper. You don't have to call us "elites" because we can shoot on film. We earned the ability to work on film because we worked hard, saved for months and instead of making a "feature", we focused on short stories, which are more accessible, which are easier to make and cost way less money. A 17 page short film being made for $6k is a far better investment than a 78 page feature film made for $100k. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So if you wanna just screw around with cameras, that's fine. But seeing as your journey thus far in the visual media arts, appears to be laser focused on "indy" feature films, you really can't complain when you're trying to do everything yourself on a shoe string budget. It's just too much for one person to do and then worrying about "film" seems hardly worth it. You don't have to be jealous that people "got in" when film cameras were cheaper. You don't have to call us "elites" because we can shoot on film. We earned the ability to work on film because we worked hard, saved for months and instead of making a "feature", we focused on short stories, which are more accessible, which are easier to make and cost way less money. A 17 page short film being made for $6k is a far better investment than a 78 page feature film made for $100k. 

Oh please...is this another Tyler "I am a pro and you are not" speech? Dude, you aren't even shooting your own feature on film; you admitted as much. And you aren't anyone that anybody has heard of so you can cut the "we" bit (including yourself among actual filmmakers) out. Just be honest and admit that you are ticked off that I insulted your precious Kodak and preferred medium. It sounds like you are the childish one who gets butthurt every time someone disagrees with your narrative. I have never even pretended to be a "pro" and you keep bringing it up like I care that you say it. I really don't. I have a great career that I enjoy so I have no complaints on that front. Where I get testy is when you come on here like you have all of this industry cred when you don't. Sure, you might have made a few shorts and am working on a feature but that doesn't make you anybody at all. Ironically, the people on this site with the most real cred have a much better attitude and approach than you do. 

I'll make a deal with you, Tyler. I wont comment on your posts anymore and please don't comment on mine? Since Tim doesn't have a block feature, I figure a mutual cease fire is best. And yes, I will let you have the last word since I know that is so important to you. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
2 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

man I just wanted intel on pricing and we wound up with another "is film viable" thread followed by people seemingly getting angry with each other... comedy gold?

Anyway thanks for the intel Tyler. 

Fair enough. The answer is yes, Robin, film prices will go up...and up...and up. They will never go down and always up. Has never changed in the 20 years since I shot my first roll.

Contrast that with digital where I purchased a Canon XL2 in 2005 for $5,000 and now I can get a 6k cinema camera for half that price. Amazing, innit?

Edited by Matthew W. Phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gautam Valluri said:

If only Sony bought the Fuji stock workflow and brought them back on the markets, they could give Kodak some much needed competition.

That makes me think a little bit. If Fuji doesn't want to make film anymore, then I'm not sure why Sony would want to. Fuji is doing terrific business with Instax, though. I hear that they were just about to give up on it when sales spiked, and the rest is history.

8 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

Canon Scoopic... I'm looking at you. It is an ok camera but check out those prices... 1500-4k... haha 4k for an unstable camera with a fixed lens that is like a toy camera. Or thousands for some hand wound bolex... 

It's quite amazing what has happened to 35mm SLR and RF cameras, too. The price for a Leica M6 is not far off that of a new Fuji GFX 50R. Think about that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
30 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Oh please...is this another Tyler "I am a pro and you are not" speech?

I was simply stating the obvious.

30 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Dude, you aren't even shooting your own feature on film; you admitted as much.

When you're making a short film with friends (like I just did), it's fine to shoot things yourself. When you're making a feature film with financial backing, to reduce risk, they will require you to have a full crew compliment and the cinematographer is the right hand to the director. So of course they'd laugh at me if I even suggested that I'd shoot it myself.

Furthermore, on my last short film, I spent too much time being a DP and not enough time being a director. I can't do that on a feature, my time needs to be focused on the acting and not on lighting. I had wanted to shoot it myself, just because I know I can, but sometimes just because you have the ability, doesn't mean it's the wisest thing to do. I've learned from the guys here, that the smartest thing to do is have two other "creatives" on your film to help guide the visual and storytelling elements; the DP is a critical role and the editor is as well. I wouldn't dream of making my first feature without both of those positions being filled by trustworthy "other" people, even though I can easily do both. 

30 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

And you aren't anyone that anybody has heard of so you can cut the "we" bit (including yourself among actual filmmakers) out.

When I say "we", I'm referring to my creative team. Filmmaking is not a "singular" activity. You must have a team. 

30 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Just be honest and admit that you are ticked off that I insulted your precious Kodak and preferred medium.

I could care less. I'm shooting my first feature on digital, I'm not butt hurt about that at all.

Film can be a nightmare for people who don't take their filmmaking seriously. I would never suggest it for anyone who is mucking around for fun. It's the wrong medium for that. 

30 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

I have never even pretended to be a "pro" and you keep bringing it up like I care that you say it.

I'm trying to help explain why your opinions fall out of line with other people on this group, myself included. 

30 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Where I get testy is when you come on here like you have all of this industry cred when you don't. Sure, you might have made a few shorts and am working on a feature but that doesn't make you anybody at all. Ironically, the people on this site with the most real cred have a much better attitude and approach than you do. 

The only reason I'm here is because I'm wrapping up the QC notes on my most recent film "A Cowgirls Song" and I'm just in limbo. So I got some down time and discussing something I like, seems like a better waste of my time then watching random YouTube videos. Most industry professionals wouldn't waste their time with a group like this OR answer rudimentary questions. 

What is real cred to you?

- Having your film on Netflix? Been there, done that. "A Cowgirls Story" that I co-produced, edited and graded was on Netflix. In fact I think you can watch my most recent film on most streaming media platforms. It's called "Soulmates".  

- Having your film screened theatrically? Been there, done that. Ironically enough, the last feature I shot starts screening tonight at the Laemmle Glendale, it's called "Sleeping Negro" and it's already won several awards, with nominations for cinematography. 

- Having your film win film festivals? Trophies are on the wall. 

- Having your film internationally distributed and screened, with decent reviews? Been there, done that. "A Fuller Life" a feature documentary that I co-produced, lead DP, edited and colored was well received by the international audience and screened at the top festivals such as Berlin, Venice, Edinburgh and Sao Paulo. 

- How about working with stars? I've lit and lensed; Mark Hamill, Bill Duke, Tim Roth, Joe Dante, Wim Wenders, William Friedkin, Jennifer Beals, James Franco, to name a few. 

So the only thing I'm missing is a script that I write, that I direct with "stars" in it, which goes international distribution and wins festivals. The funny thing is, I actually know what it takes to produce content that goes viral and wins awards. The only reason I haven't made one of my own scripts into a feature is because I refuse to so without guaranteed distribution. I refuse to do so by crowd funding or using my own money. I refuse to do so with a tiny budget and ridiculous shooting schedule. I refuse to do so without a real crew, real cast and a positive outcome guaranteed. 

So I'm taking my time and doing it right. That's how every film should be made, not by buying a camera, but by working as a crew member on shows so you can learn how they're made. Then after years of learning and practicing your craft, you can move up the ladder and make your own big productions. When things fall together, that's when I'm ready to make a feature. 

I will never understand people who make feature films that nobody will ever see. Is it an exercise in futility? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I will never understand people who make feature films that nobody will ever see. Is it an exercise in futility? 

Actually, for some it is just an exercise. Kind of like running a marathon. It's a pretty big challenge.

Some are delusional, of course, but you can't help that. I've recently heard of two stories about film makers who are, or have been, in huge debt. Ironically, the one who had to sell his house was in less debt than the one who went to film school. The former pointed out that his exercise in futility was his "film school".

I wish this on nobody, of course. Learn from the mistakes of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
3 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Actually, for some it is just an exercise. Kind of like running a marathon. It's a pretty big challenge.

Some are delusional, of course, but you can't help that. I've recently heard of two stories about film makers who are, or have been, in huge debt. Ironically, the one who had to sell his house was in less debt than the one who went to film school. The former pointed out that his exercise in futility was his "film school".

I wish this on nobody, of course. Learn from the mistakes of others.

Oh for sure, but like when do people stop wasting time and actually make watchable product? 

Digital cameras democratized filmmaking to a level where anyone can do it, but so few people have compelling stories to tell. 

They want to learn the job as they do it and ya know what, that's impossible when you're working on a feature. 

Funny enough, I tell people now NOT to attend film school and to focus on a backup career in something they like to do, so when they fail at filmmaking (which most do) then they won't have to resort to making YouTube videos about filmmaking. Honestly I always thought it was funny when people said; "Film school professors are usually failed filmmakers" and they're right. The top professors at my college in the filmmaking program, were all failed filmmakers. They had all made a big movie, realized they needed a break from the industry, got a masters and started teaching at a film school. Honestly, I almost went that route, the money was good. However, engineering seemed more logical, way more money and more freedom to take time off and do what I want. 

One thing that would fix these issues is if everyone said "I refuse to work for free, period". That would force those ultra-low budget filmmakers to raise some money and actually have a crew. Maybe they'd even get someone to make their piece of shit script work before they bothered blowing every penny they and their friends have on a futile project that won't be seen by anyone. Sorry, but it's infuriating to know so many people who have these habits and they never learn. Project after project, it's just the same shit, with the same horrible actors, same poorly written nonsense, it's frustrating and it kills potential careers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
31 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Funny enough, I tell people now NOT to attend film school and to focus on a backup career in something they like to do, so when they fail at filmmaking (which most do) then they won't have to resort to making YouTube videos about filmmaking. Honestly I always thought it was funny when people said; "Film school professors are usually failed filmmakers" and they're right. The top professors at my college in the filmmaking program, were all failed filmmakers. They had all made a big movie, realized they needed a break from the industry, got a masters and started teaching at a film school. Honestly, I almost went that route, the money was good. However, engineering seemed more logical, way more money and more freedom to take time off and do what I want. 

"White gloves", you have successfully ran off another member of this site.

Well fucking done.

Edited by Matthew W. Phillips
Tyler isnt worth it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
12 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Okay, this is enough for me. You are now going after academics?

Going after academics by being honest about the people I've met and worked with in the field of academics? I use to teach bro, both college and high school. I had my own film based program at LACHSA for 2 years before the budget was cut and because my career was more important to me than a $55k a year paycheck, I did not take them up on the offer to teach full time.

I'm sorry if my example resonated with your life, it was not written to trigger you. 

12 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Your level of hubris is beyond humorous; it is simply sad and ire inducing.

I work in Hollywood man. If you don't have hubris, you're a waiter making minimum wage living in a shitty single bedroom apartment, asking your parents for rent. It's not sad, it's reality bro. You'd be outraged working here, you'd last 10 weeks before you were so triggered at what someone said, you'd sell everything and move home. 

12 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

 You have driven away another person on this site. And yes, I saw the thread while I was gone about how you were driving everyone away and it makes sense how this forum went from a thriving place before you were here to the ghost town it is now. You are just a complete tool of a person and poster.

The only thing that drives people away are your embarrassing remarks. 

Also, you clearly don't need any help. You've said many times you have no interest in learning how to be a real cinematographer. Everyone here has given you advice and in the other thread, you literally said you have zero interest in doing what any of us suggest. You blame us for being "elites" for suggesting proper lighting techniques which are outside of your budget range. Then you refuse to hire a cinematographer to help make your projects look better. What else do you want us to do? 

12 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

And your videos show that you are on the spectrum; might want to get that tick looked at.

No bro, people who get triggered the way you do, who resort to name calling and angry posts are the ones who need the metal health assistance.

Also, I have severe dry skin, it hereditary, so I blink and twitch my face because it itches constantly even with creme. 

Thanks for thinking I'm mentally retarded because I have dry skin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
37 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The only thing that drives people away are your embarrassing remarks. 

Also, you clearly don't need any help. You've said many times you have no interest in learning how to be a real cinematographer. Everyone here has given you advice and in the other thread, you literally said you have zero interest in doing what any of us suggest. You blame us for being "elites" for suggesting proper lighting techniques which are outside of your budget range. Then you refuse to hire a cinematographer to help make your projects look better. What else do you want us to do? 

Who is "everyone?" I cannot recall having a problem with anyone else but you. I have been nothing but 100% honest about everything. I don't have an ego about anything, admit I am not a pro, ask for help and critique when warranted. You take that as a weapon to start acting like my teacher when I never asked you for anything. I truthfully dont want your opinion and cringe everytime I see you reply to my posts. You have some need for validation that you spout a lot of random facts to appear like you know things; even if they aren't relevant. Don't make it sound like a "we vs. you" thing. I have zero problem with anyone else on this site but you. And do I need to remind you of that thread when Gregg and Robin nearly left because of you? I freely admitted that I used to be a tool on this site and I came back trying to do better. And I have been respectful to everyone but you make it hard, my good man.

And how did you teach college when you admitted you don't have a Master-level or above degree? You admitted that you didn't go to Grad school and I know that no accredited program is going to let you teach post secondary classes without a minimum of a Master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tim Tyler changed the title to 2022 Film Stock Price Increases?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...