Giray Izcan

I shot this small budget thing last month on 35, and the actress was like, " Oh, can you imagine how (cool) it would be to shoot a feature length project on 35?" I told her it's been done for nearly a century... haha. Scary times are approaching, certainly...

I'm not surprised at all.. It is usually the digital guys who fall into digital camera companies' trap - i.e. my all time least favorite Red - are led to believe that the film is dead blah blah.

Kodak hasn't ceased film stock production.

I was on a commercial shoot yesterday. We were shooting on the new mighty Dragon, and guess what? The camera overheated and was not usable for 45 mins... so go figure.

Is there a reason not to shoot on film? Essentially, with digital, people are trying their hardest to emulate film...

On Avid, one would create separate audio tracks, one for dialogue, one for music, let's say one for sound effects. It would probably be cheaper to do an MOS one light telecine than a work print and mag tracks. By the way, let me clarify, I am not much of an editor, but am just saying out of my general knowledge. In a way, I look forward to hearing from others who know more about editorial.

Or you could just edit digitally and go back to your neg afterwards. Cutting the picture is fine, but how are you planning on handling the sound? Sure you can get the production sound on a mag track, but how about the foley, the sound track etc? All those prints add up you know.

Agreed... I love the lingering shots and the way the movie tells the majority of the story through visuals instead of and excessive amount of dialogue.

I have been looking into a Kem 4 plate for an upcoming 35 project. I was considering editing from select takes on a work print as opposed to one light telecine. I think I will pass up on the idea due to cost involved. Having to get sound prints etc adds up to be too much. Instead, I think we will just edit on Avid and go back to neg for photochemical workflow. Let me know what you guys think.

I just watched it on restored print at the New Beverly Cinema. I was blown away with the quality... Such a good film.

The reason I am asking is that I am prepping for a project that I'm planning on going with flat 85 and photochemical workflow. I was just wondering about digital versus photochemical workflow in terms of cost. Thank you.

Hey David, it sounds great that you guys are following the photochemical workflow. Do you find any advantages to photochemical workflow over DI - considering you will have to get the color timed print digitized? Cost wise and quality wise. Thank you and good luck with the shoot.

We just completed this short. The director/screenwriter wants to turn into a feature. Here are some frame grabs from the film.

Bl4s came out in 88 and 535s came out in 1990... So there is no age difference, not to mention 535s are notorious for scratching film for some reason... Every 3db noise level increase is double the noise level.

You never know. He shot the last Cohen Brothers movie on 35mm. He might do the same with this one as well.

It is precisely for communication. I have pretty never have been on a set where you don't have to have one.

As if the cinematography is just about shooting features... Commercials and music videos don't really count I suppose...

Obviously, I don't intend to start another pointless digital vs film debate...

Hmm... As a huge advocate for film acquisition, I am glad that he will shoot on film. Obviously, he is one of the cinematographers that i look up to, but prefer his older film work as opposed to his later digital work. Photography wise, I think they are all great, but holm film originated movies have much more depth and richness to them. It's just my personal opinion. I mean I was watching The Assassination of Jesse James today, my god, such a beautifully shot film with a lot of depth and dimensionality with phenomenal blacks as opposed to Skyfall, for example, looks more 2 dimensional to me. Again, I wish I was the tenth of what he is as a cinematographer...

I want to believe, but wonder where the information is coming from. I thought Roger Deakins was all for digital, and had no intentions to go back to shooting on film again.

If digital is better than film, why do people try to achieve the film look on video? Better in terms of what? Resolution or the overall film watching experience from the visual stand point? How come many major movies such as the new Bond, the Amazing Spiderman 2 are going back to film? Maybe it's me but I can see the quality of film originated movies due to its rich and deep pictures with better color tonality and more three dimensional quality as opposed to digital which is imho is 2 dimensional. Digital tries too hard but can't achieve that. Obviously this is just my personal opinion. Even one of icon cinematographers, Mr. Deakins, his earlier films such as Fargo, The Assassination of Jesse James and No Country for Old Men have that depth and richness as opposed to his recent works on mighty Alexa look rather flat and boring. Personal opinion of course and am not bad mouthing Deakins. Who am I to bad mouth him anyways? Anyhow, hopefully I'm making sense.

Dom, Thank you. The lens is completely calibrated and "refurbished" at Visual Products. I will shoot a test. I should be fine.