Search the Community

Hello group, Just a thought - very likely not feasible: Disclaimer: the following is my personal opinion only. Well I am a huge fan of good rock concert footage and since forever I feel true relief when I see that it was actually shot on film. I always disliked the old broadcast video for that particular purpose and I still dislike the modern digital video. There are a number of rock/pop concerts (and classical as well) shot on film back in the day. It must have cost a fortune and probably was hard work to change the magazines every 11 minutes (or so) for each camera - real fast. Needless to say: a lot of live footage was padded (no coverage) or incomplete. Yet even old transfers from 16mm to standard definition (say: early 1980s) look so much better than anything on video from the time (I count the 1990s as well). I fully understand that young folks are so used to digital that film would not even be considered. I know the trouble with the lighting as well when it's a closed venue or night time footage. Yet I always wondered: there are quite a few bands from way back in the day (getting fewer each year) that still perform and release DVDs/BluRays that very obviously were very expensive to make - not to mention the entire live recording being processed and mixed in a high end studio after the fact. So I was just wondering how anyone would solve the logistics to shoot a concert on film and how much it would cost (just as a thought). The lighting very likely has to be adjusted (as seen on some rare 35mm concert footage, which looks awesome). The solution to cut down on film cost is obviously going Super 16mm (which neatly solves the problem of dust, fluff or hair trapped in the film gate to a large extend) or 35mm 2 perf. Film stock obviously would have to be the Kodak V 3 500T, pushed one or two stops - fast cinema lenses are obviously a must have. To achieve as much coverage as possible I think a four camera setup (including one hand held on stage), plus a fifth camera for padding (obviously audience reaction and the likes) sounds reasonable. Shooting ratio then would be a little over 4:1 when carefully planned. I'm not sure why this hasn't been done by any band, who can afford five trucks worth of equipment. Yes: a two hour concert would need a lot of pre loaded mags - all with matching film stock - and obviously matching cameras and lenses. Any idea why this never had been made in the past two or three decades (as I know of) besides from no one thinking about it and no film crew being truly prepared for that very reason (lack of demand)? I am talking about legendary bands (or reunion concerts for that matter) with huge budgets, that recorded on video what they (and many others, including myself) think of as treasures to be preserved for the ages. Just take into consideration how much money has been spent on stage design, lighting, and sound + custom music instruments. Why hasn't ever any film director approached a band with the idea to shoot on film in the past decades? Perhaps some did - unsuccessfully? I surely haven't seen any new film footage of concerts for a very long time. Now we have tons of great live performances on video (which IMHO looks bad up until the early 2000s - and even that is only technically great, IMHO, not aesthetically). I own quite a few concert DVDs and I always think: how much more awesome this would look on film, since I own also BluRays with film footage (16mm and 35mm) from the 1970s and '80s. Needless to say that IMHO it looks awesome. I just can't get over the video look. As for recent "footage", no matter how crisp and detailed: it always looks like an afterthought - like a TV broadcast. Not trying to beat a dead horse here, nor resurrect anyting. Just wondering... Again: this is just my personal opinion - and I fully respect others. Thanks for reading. Any additional thoughts about budget and logistics appreciated (just a thought experiment). Thanks in advance, Cheers, Christian