Jump to content

Shoot film or go digital?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

Nobody else?

 

The reason I ask is because JP Beauviala, Aaton's founder, states that 35mm is 7k's worth of visual information. Based on that, one wonders why anyone would shoot on anything other than film. It seems like if film is going to give that much more visual content, then would it not make sense to always shoot film?

 

Is it me, or is traffic really low on this website as of late?

 

Can any of the pros chime in on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

My opinion on this has always been moderated by that elephant over there in the corner wearing the "$" T-shirt.

 

I have seen productions, which could barely afford it, compromise everything to shoot film. These shows had insufficient crew, insufficient food, insufficient everything and often terribly compromised production design, just so they could send 75% of their production budget through the camera. This is not a smart approach; what you end up with is really high dynamic range, really high resolution images of a tedious show. In fact, in my experience, you don't even necessarily get the resolution or the nice clean images; really good film images require an awful lot of attention to detail and if you are short-handed or not using experienced crew it is terribly easy to get wrong.

Therefore I'd shoot film, but only if I could very clearly afford to do it properly and there was no doubt in my mind about that. Electronic cameras are much more forgiving of a low budget, from every perspective.

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm sorry but I could care less what resolution some format supposedly has and the desire to use whatever has the most "K's" shows a lot of ignorance about one's craft.

 

Some material seems to need the various qualities that film has, it's that simple to me.

 

In 2015, the "Z camera" might shoot 12K but that doesn't mean anything to me or to the end consumer.

 

Maybe the board is slow lately because people, including myself, have finally become tired of the trend-fueled tech talk that seems to get worse with every new (monthly?) camera release. The DSLR, RED, 'K'-talk, etc. is not that beneficial and has become tiresome. Maybe it will all settle one day and more concern for story and craft will emerge and corporate, censored forums will fade a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

this is a question you ask your pockets! I would shoot both! depends on the project budget

Heh, are you sure?

 

Back in the day I was working with a couple of actors who wanted to produce a project. One of them was real high on a real stinker of a film; Beverly Hills Vampire. The thing was shot on Super-8, marketed on VHS, and made money. He thought we could pull it off.

 

I said "No", and so did the other guy. The "negative cost" was low, but for us it seemed like if just shot on 16mm we'd be okay. Then we considered BETACAM SP telecine, then 35mm. And the incrimental cost of shooting stuff seemed really cheap. But it wasn't.

 

In the end we didn't get anything done. I went on to AD and stage manage, while those two jokers went on to unknown careers (one recently died in a car crash I think), while the other ADs for Pixar.

 

So, what's my point? Well, my personal thinking at the time was that if we couldn't do something well, then better not to shoot it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoot film or digital, forget about it. Who cares. Sign a star. THAT's what you want to worry about if you're gonna try to sell it!! IF you only look at the medium it's self there is no contest, film wins hands down. If you look at production costs / release strategy, it's a toss up. A well planned shoot can bring film in and the same cost or less than the (as Gordon Willis put it) the "dump truck directing" approach to digital film making. I personally would ONLY shoot film unless there was a STRONG technically compelling reason to shoot digital. For the most part, I don't like the way digital sees color and I like a certain amount of grain. Call it an artistic choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Chemical film, polyester base motion-picture film, perforated, in cameras on tripods, at any rate from one frame a day or so to 500 per second or more if possible. Forward and backwards, under water and in the ice. 35 mm and 65 mm. Sometimes 9.5 mm. Black-and-white film at the standard four perforation step, full frame. Colour film of ISO 50 or 64 for the big screen. Lit. Worked out. Suffered. Budgeted. Cinema. Even for three minutes final length

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Chemical film, polyester base motion-picture film, perforated, in cameras on tripods, at any rate from one frame a day or so to 500 per second or more if possible. Forward and backwards, under water and in the ice. 35 mm and 65 mm. Sometimes 9.5 mm. Black-and-white film at the standard four perforation step, full frame. Colour film of ISO 50 or 64 for the big screen. Lit. Worked out. Suffered. Budgeted. Cinema. Even for three minutes final length

Huh? :huh:

 

Anybody else? If you had your choice would you always shoot film, or is there something about pixels that does it for ya?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

film, always film for my person projects. Also when it suits, I recommend film to others as well. All depends on the project. If I had my druthers, film, without a doubt.

Wow, no other replies. Interesting.

 

I'm sure the topic's been bandied about a bit, but I figured with all the debate of who's willing to shoot what, and with the continued advancement in chip technology, that there would surely be some vocal opinions.

 

I guess I was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It depends on lots of stuff, most of which has been mentioned above. My "Columbo" one more thing is: How are you going to distribute it? If your audience will see it on TV, then it's a no brainer. Digital all the way. For theatrical, you have to think about all the factors already mentioned.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Wow, no other replies. Interesting.

 

I'm sure the topic's been bandied about a bit, but I figured with all the debate of who's willing to shoot what, and with the continued advancement in chip technology, that there would surely be some vocal opinions.

 

I guess I was wrong.

 

 

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/index.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, no other replies. Interesting.

 

I'm sure the topic's been bandied about a bit, but I figured with all the debate of who's willing to shoot what, and with the continued advancement in chip technology, that there would surely be some vocal opinions.

 

I guess I was wrong.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Bill_Dill/index.htm

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/The_True_Cost/index.htm

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/index.htm

Edited by Cary Sato Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think the only way you can make HD not be cheaper is if you don't know what you're doing and you don't make your post decisions properly, well ahead of time. Of course the same thing applies to film too but everyone knows how to post that. I have made money out of people making stupid non-decisions about post that are then expensive to fix, but for what it's worth I didn't feel good about it...

 

Since those big high end guys are more than willing to admit they needed help to shoot HD I can't but wonder if it isn't time for other people (no, not me) to become the big high end guys. If I shoot film I don't get a "film technician" because I don't know what I'm doing, but they do get a digital imaging technician because they don't know what they're doing. Which, if they think digital isn't cheaper, they don't. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes its amazing that a film cinematographer will denounce every person who shoots video as incompetent and not worthy of a job and then goes about lowering the quality of every fast action shot by refusing to shoot it at 48 frames per second even though digital cinema 2K specifications allow that for projection. If it were up to the film cinematographers James Cameron would have been fired a long time ago because he does not know how to operate a steadicam. And if I convince the producer or the director to go with 65mm film again I am fired even though the film cinematographers tried to convince the producer that 65mm film was overkill.

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

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...