Tired of hearing "Film is Dead?" Well So Are We!

[Guest Christopher Sheneman]

Christopher,

 

(and in fact anyone, I guess...)

 

Have a read of the 'How do I remove people from my friends' list?' thread and ask yourself where you fit into the discussion.

 

 

Just have a think about it, no need to report back.

 

;)

Do you have something to say, Chris Millar? I'm not very good with passive aggressive behavior.

[Brian Drysdale]

Total= $300+ for 10 minutes of footage that is mostly crap because the actors are semi-awful craiglisters and the DP is incompetent and grossly underexposes half the roll.

 

A film shot on digital will suffer just the same, casting and crewing is key to any film.

[Pat Murray]

For all intents and purposes, it is. And what's the big deal, James? Neither you nor I could afford to use it, process it or transfer it.

 

Filmmaking is still plenty expensive without film- celebrate that if you must.

 

All my projects have been on film so far.

 

I've also helped other people who used digital for their projects. Whatever works for the filmmaker and his/her vision. I expect to use digital eventually as well. When it's the right medium for a particular project.

 

Contrary to what you keep saying on these boards, digital has not democratized filmmaking. Before cheap HD cams there was cheap 16mm and Super 8. It is the distribution of films that needs to be democratized and the internet has helped to some degree.

[George Ebersole]

I wish fine gentlemen and ladies in Rochester start selling more affordable fine grained 16mm motion picture film, at least with that you could still attract young filmmakers to the format, not necessarily used to celluloid or enamored with "delicious" smell of chemicals. Even though there are all sorts of related costs to it, you could still brainwash some of them with all the talk about "the only true discipline" or "unique organic grain structure" and many will actually believe that. Just don't be frustrated if a lot of the youngsters will be making faces at you "Don't waste my time with that, I'd better focus on how to light the scene". Two very decent labs nearby actually raised developing costs last month again, haha. Thanks, but no thanks. Good luck with that, Agent K.

 

Oh yeah, about the ad.

"Tired of hearing "Kodak is desperate"? Well, that's kind of true".

 

Last I checked there were hundreds of "film schools" across the nation now, and the supermajority fo them teach their students on either SONY or Canon L-series cameras. I didn't even know anyone was still making 16mm film, much less shooting on it.

[Pat Murray]

My only issue that I feel you haven't address ,James, is value. I feel that motion picture filmstock is no longer a good value for most productions. Yes, it can be slightly more appealing in certain limited situations but for the most part it's horribly expensive, environmentally unsound and laborious in general.

 

Case in point, to shoot and watch a ten minute roll of film I have to:

A) Purchase the filmstock $60-140 on average depending on length, age, etc.

B] Drive 18 miles south of my home to the only film lab in Seattle (repeat trip to pick up), Gas $10

C) Process and transfer 400' is $212 plus sales tax in my neck of the woods.

 

Total= $300+ for 10 minutes of footage that is mostly crap because the actors are semi-awful craiglisters and the DP is incompetent and grossly underexposes half the roll.

 

With Digital, I have to

A) Turn the switch from OFF to ON

 

All that time, money, etc. to get that tiny edge that filmstock gets you these days is just not a good value.

 

Not good value for what you're doing as pointed out by James.

[Alan Rencher]

I hate these conversations. This kind of argument with any other artist wouldn't hold up as well. Would you tell an illustrator that Illustrating digitally is what he or she should be doing. "Hey buy a mac, and make your art digitally. Those paints and paint brushes are expensive, and then you have scanning fees." Isn't that a moot point? If an illustrator has chosen paint, watercolors, colored pencil, charcoal, or whatever inspires that artwork, who are you to question that?

[David Cunningham]

 

Last I checked there were hundreds of "film schools" across the nation now, and the supermajority fo them teach their students on either SONY or Canon L-series cameras. I didn't even know anyone was still making 16mm film, much less shooting on it.

 

Your profile says you are an "industry rep". Ummm... you are a cinematography industry rep and didn't know that anyone was producing 16mm film or shooting on it? Apparently you've missed all the hype over The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad. This is not to mention Chuck and Burn Notice, both canceled last year. But still very recent.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

The new Simon Pegg movie, apparently has some S16mm thrown in according to the IMDB I checked this morning out of curiosity.

[James Steven Beverly]

My only issue that I feel you haven't address ,James, is value. I feel that motion picture filmstock is no longer a good value for most productions. Yes, it can be slightly more appealing in certain limited situations but for the most part it's horribly expensive, environmentally unsound and laborious in general.

 

Case in point, to shoot and watch a ten minute roll of film I have to:

A) Purchase the filmstock $60-140 on average depending on length, age, etc.

B] Drive 18 miles south of my home to the only film lab in Seattle (repeat trip to pick up), Gas $10

C) Process and transfer 400' is $212 plus sales tax in my neck of the woods.

 

Total= $300+ for 10 minutes of footage that is mostly crap because the actors are semi-awful craiglisters and the DP is incompetent and grossly underexposes half the roll.

 

With Digital, I have to

A) Turn the switch from OFF to ON

 

All that time, money, etc. to get that tiny edge that filmstock gets you these days is just not a good value.

Well, Chris, it's the difference between eating in a decent restaurant and eating at Mickey D's. Yeah both will offer you a meal but chances are you'll be far more satisfied and talk a LOT more about the restaurant experience. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say how great the food was at Mickey D's. If you have no money, you're gonna eat at the Golden Arches 'cause that what you can afford, but no one ever said it was gonna be a great experience! With ticket prices beiong what they are, the audience deserves a great experience.

[George Ebersole]

 

Your profile says you are an "industry rep". Ummm... you are a cinematography industry rep and didn't know that anyone was producing 16mm film or shooting on it? Apparently you've missed all the hype over The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad. This is not to mention Chuck and Burn Notice, both canceled last year. But still very recent.

 

Well pardon me, but I'm not up on every production that gets tossed into the fray. I've got enough troubles where I live dealing with locals biting at my heels.

 

When I was working a lot super-16 was going to be the next big thing, and it was for a while. But every low budge trailer I see on Youtube looks like it was shot with a prosumer cam-corder.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I dunno James, sometimes I am thrilled when I find a McDonalds breakfast in the morning... but then again, eating it every day would make me quickly fat, lazy, and slow.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Every low budget film on youtube probably was. But that's a question of sample bias, George. You still come across some film on Vimeo, though.

[Jon Lester]

I finally got around to watching "The Hunger Games" last week, and when I went to read the Wikipedia entry for the film, I saw that the production schedule was so tight, that they elected to shoot on real film, as a time-saving measure, because they knew digital would likely take more time in post.

 

I'm actually kind of doing both at the same time now, with two concurrent projects. One is a Super 8-originated 20-minute accompanying film for a set of 8 songs, and the other is a longer thing that will be made with HD webcams and HDV camcorders. The short will cost $2k for film stock, processing and HD scanning (if I'm lucky enough to stay within a 3:1 ratio for useful footage out of 60 minutes of film stock), and the digital thing will cost literally next to nothing. Neither will be made with full crews of paid professionals, mind you, and we're not talking major studio releases, by any stretch, just two things I want to do as an artist/hack.

 

I sure hope real film stays with us for some years to come, because there's much more I want to do with it before I get much older. At the same time, different projects might call for different approaches. For example, I'm looking forward to seeing "Computer Chess," which was mostly shot in black and white with 1970's video cameras.

[Prashantt Rai]

It's all about distribution,. DIGITAL is NOT less expensive, it's more expensive. The latest, "camera that will make film extinct" costs 12 grand a day to rent then the workflow for digital is ridiculously expensive unless it's done on you're home PC. Where studios save a fortune is on distribution prints, BUT that comes at the price of image quality as you've probably seen in any multiplex you've ever been in. IF film production were "dying", the big boys woulda dumped motion picture film like it was a dead, overdosed crack whore in the trunk of the family car, but MOST big productions SHOOT FILM because the image is FAR superior to anything digital can muster. IF you're spending 1.5 to 200 million dollars on a movie, the cost of media is a footnote. The ONLY reasons to shoot video is the budget is under a quarter mil (and many people would STILL shoot film UNDER that figure, probably down to as little as 30 k using recans and long ends with limited takes) OR because the film will be heavily saturated with CGI for WHICH there seems to be a recent backlash against (The Evil Dead remake used ALL practical VFX among many others....because it LOOKED better). ALSO there's the talent element. Actors and actresses HAVE to look good on screen. Their face is their fortune. Film makes them look great. They also tend to assume that if you're willing to shoot them on film, given the expertise and training it takes to shoot film properly, they are working with professionals who know their jobs so the shoot will go more smoothly and trouble free. THEN there is also the tradition of a Hollywood production, which should never be discounted. These people grew up wanting to be the great stars the graced the silver screen and there is a potency in that. Never underestimate he power of movie magic.

 

 

I have two gigs coming up after the rainy season gets over. Both are low budget films. And both are being planned on Super16 (1:1.85) format. It's a beautiful format and we have a wonderful professional crew including the director who knows how to get the best out of actors on an assigned shooting ratio. Having said that, digital doesn't mean cheap by any stretch of imagination. I recently saw couple of films originating on digital formats and both looked extremely noisy(grainy) on a 60 ft screen. Digital Post and Production work flow costs money. Digital doesn't mean You can just pick up a camera and shoot in 'Hurt Locker' style with no lights etc. If you really need to shoot in a guerrilla style or a low budget where money for lights is limited - nothing beats film.

 

I have done couple of projects before, all shot on 35mm. One of the film hardly had much budget for lights and we shot anamorphic, shooting sometimes wide open in the night (as generally advised against. must shoot T4), and it still looked good.

 

See Lone Ranger, there is a difference between the Day and Night quality. Night scenes have a greenish tone and not as sharp as day light shots which were 35 anamorphic. It is EVIDENT on a big screen.

 

Then also checkout superman - man of steel. Amir Mokri;s cinematography (1st half) is the most stunning in recent times. The clever use of chemical image manipulation (skip bleach etc) helps engage the AUDIENCE to the story. Well 2nd half is all about arcade video games stuff.

 

If you are a professional and want your film to look good, why NOT shoot film. Hire good professionals. there are plenty of film trained cameraman and directors who would die to work on a low budget film production.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"There is nothing called a beautifully shot low budget digital film. It's either UGLY or insanely EXPENSIVE."

Edited July 29, 2013 by Prashantt Rai

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I always weep when I think of my SR3 at home while holding a 5D. But then again, with the 5D I can sometime steal some shots which i'd've not been as easily able to get on the SR. Right tool right job. The problem often is people are picking the tools which they have laying around and then trying to kludge it together as opposed to sitting back and thinking of jobs for said tool they happen to have laying 'round. Or holding off till they can get the right tool.

[Guest Christopher Sheneman]

Well, Chris, it's the difference between eating in a decent restaurant and eating at Mickey D's. Yeah both will offer you a meal but chances are you'll be far more satisfied and talk a LOT more about the restaurant experience. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say how great the food was at Mickey D's. If you have no money, you're gonna eat at the Golden Arches 'cause that what you can afford, but no one ever said it was gonna be a great experience! With ticket prices beiong what they are, the audience deserves a great experience.

Ha! You should have picked a different restaurant because McDonald's is delicious. Extra value menu? I think so!

Nobodies talking about McDonald's you say? Au contraire homey slice- people are talking about the McDonald's experience here..

https://www.facebook.com/McDonalds

Over

29,243,320 likes

and

 

156,465 talking

Numbers don't lie. A billion served - must be because nobody likes the food.

 

[Guest Christopher Sheneman]

 

A film shot on digital will suffer just the same, casting and crewing is key to any film.

Yeah but at least I didn't blow $300 to find that out!

[Brian Drysdale]

The secret is knowing in advance before you push the button. Investing the time saves the cash.

 

Many diners are better eating and cultural experiences than MacDonalds.

[Stuart Brereton]

 

Ha! You should have picked a different restaurant because McDonald's is delicious.

Thank you for proving Chris Millar's point.

 

No wonder the traffic on this site has plummeted when this is the sort of inane, juvenile post that visitors can expect.

[James Steven Beverly]

 

Ha! You should have picked a different restaurant because McDonald's is delicious. Extra value menu? I think so!

Nobodies talking about McDonald's you say? Au contraire homey slice- people are talking about the McDonald's experience here..

https://www.facebook.com/McDonalds

Over

29,243,320 likes

and

 

156,465 talking

Numbers don't lie. A billion served - must be because nobody likes the food.

 

 

LOL, well with all due deference to your and Adrian's culinary preferences, I, personally prefer food that doesn't come in a brightly printed cardboard box but instead is place in front of you by a well dressed and graciously mannered waiter. But to each his own. I think that as you grow in your art, your tastes may expand beyond less pedestrian fare. I'm setting my sights on quality films that appeal to a wide demographic, written and executed well that will attract high end talent and powerful supporters. There's always gonna be a "Blair Witch" or "Paranormal Activity" every 10 years or so, but the VAST majority of these shot on, and straight to, video productions......how do I put this kindly,.....REALLY suck. You don't believe me, check out Youtube. Very few people can make a film and only a handful can make a GREAT film. Spending a few bucks to make your project look great is worth it, at least it is to me.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Eh no worries about my own feelings on it James. If ever you wind up in Cali though, and I'm around I'll cook you up something.. just obviously not breakfast food and I'll probably be in jeans and a tee shirt.

 

I'm personally about to take on a blair witch type project, and I think it's all well and good to have those types of films on occasion. It certainly is a challenge for me and it's a certain aesthetic which, hey, it works sometimes. The Bay was a film similar to that. However I think it failed when it started using "good" cameras. It just didn't cut in at all and it stuck out like a sore thumb. All the sequences off of camera phones and security cameras worked well for that film-- but that's about it.

In any case, I suppose my very circuitous point is this-- it is important when you're approaching a project to pick the right format for that project. I love film, love it. I am thrilled I get to shoot it on occasion, and really should shoot more of it. However, it's absolutely not right for everything. That said, I think the vast majority of projects shot digitally would look better on film, but then there are a few which wouldn't work nearly as well.

And I also personally think that regardless of what format you give most people, you'd still get the same crap product, and film wouldn't make it look that much better. At least with digital they can sorta kinda say, oh this is too dark or too bright. Granted, film is supposed to make you think, but this pressumes you have the capacity in the first place to think in a visual and technical way.

 

I also slightly disagree with Brian-- but only because of one caveat. While it's very important to know before you push the button; sometimes, not too often, but sometimes, when you go in blind you get some of your most amazing work because you don't over-think it, which is just as bad as not thinking at all. But, i think this requires a certain taste and sensibility which has been grown over time and many many films.

[Guest Christopher Sheneman]

Thank you for proving Chris Millar's point.

 

No wonder the traffic on this site has plummeted when this is the sort of inane, juvenile post that visitors can expect.

I wonder who shot this juvenille, inane production. Probably wasn't you.

I thank you and professionals at Asylum studios for cluttering up Netflix with garbage like this.

Here's what people are saying on IMB of your most recent work.

 

"This movie is one of if not the worst I have watched"

"I'm curious as to who bank rolls movies like this?"

"This absolute turd sandwich of a movie featured horrible effects, worse acting and a dumb story that had really nothing going for it."

 

Ouch, Stuart. hey, I bet the average prostitute has more self-respect than you do.

 

the VAST majority of these shot on, and straight to, video productions......how do I put this kindly,.....REALLY suck. You don't believe me, check out Youtube. Very few people can make a film and only a handful can make a GREAT film. Spending a few bucks to make your project look great is worth it, at least it is to me.

Looks like the "2-head shark attack" movie was shot on 35mm.

 

[Brian Drysdale]

I also slightly disagree with Brian-- but only because of one caveat. While it's very important to know before you push the button; sometimes, not too often, but sometimes, when you go in blind you get some of your most amazing work because you don't over-think it, which is just as bad as not thinking at all. But, i think this requires a certain taste and sensibility which has been grown over time and many many films.

 

In thinking before the pressing the button, that also includes casting actors who you know will add something extra, give you a positive surprise in each scene. They may come from Craigslist or where ever, but you've auditioned them and others and made a decision. Of course, you could be wrong and they might have been on a roll during the audition, although call backs can help the final selection.

 

Thinking involves using taste and sensibility and taking on board that reality doesn't always exactly match what's written on the page. It also involves knowing that the new line an actor has come with is better than the one scripted or realising that the tone of the new line throws off the sub text of the scene.

[James Steven Beverly]

See, I actually have no problem with that at all. It seems like you have a vision for this project and the equipment you're planning on using is a considered choice to achieve the look and emotional quality you're trying to create. Oddly enough, I wrote a picture a while back called "Thrill Kill" , a thriller, which uses a very similar approach to filming as yours. I wanted a documentary / real world / amateurish (in some instances) look. It was specifically designed to be shot on low end video. (It's my ace in the hole is nothing else was to come through) .

 

I also appreciate the meal offer, and you probably made the right call about it not being breakfast food, there are enough rumors about me already, as for your attire, as long as you're wearing clothes, I'm cool. :D

 

I used to live in SoCal for about 15 years. I'm one of the few people who truly can say, to quote Randy Newman, "I LOVE L.A.". I used to live in the valley. I miss it almost every day. My parents are thinking of moving to Phoenix. If they do, I may move back. or at the very least, keep a place there once my stuff starts to hit, the chances of which, seem to be looking better and better.

 

I AM planning on hitting AFM this year again though (assuming I can afford it), so if you happen to be in Santa Monica in early November, 6th through the 13th, we can hang or have a beer or whatever.

 

As for your last statements, I know what you mean, I always plan, but when on set, and I have a thought, I do tend to go with instinct and often times, they work out reaalllyy well!! B)

[Pavan Deep]

I always say filmmaking is a unique blend of art and commerce. In many ways independent filmmaking is a medium of constraints which should force the filmmaker to think in different ways and be creative at all stages in order to produce quality films. Films that are 'art' or 'entertainment' and sometimes both, but films that have a magical quality and that have great appeal and appreciation beyond family and friends. Films that are meticulously made by professional actors and crew who are respected for their craft and are properly paid. In almost all independent filmmaking the accepted professional rules and conventions are broken to some degree, however when people work with film many of the conventions are adhered to.

As technology is so accessible these days picking up a camera pointing and shooting is all to common, of course this is filmmaking and storytelling, but at a different level and people need to understand this. This type of filmmaking used to be called amateur filmmaking, these days we are all professional, no one shouts out that they are an amateur filmmaker. Today, in this type of filmmaking quite often a lot of the creative decisions are made in the computer, regarding look, cinematography, lighting, set design etc and then put out on sites like Youtube for family and friends to view. This type of filmmaking is a growing phenomena, where all not only conventional rules of story telling are broken but artists are quite often exploited.

Perhaps we shouldn't discuss this type of filmmaking in the same manner as filmmaking which is more of a professional commitment and in independent filmmaking is often a personal and creative crusade, a huge financial endaveour, we have heard stories for years of people who are financially struggling mortgaging their homes, taking out a loans to bring their vision to the screen.

Pav