Jump to content

Is it really cheaper to shoot in digital ?


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
18 hours ago, Bruce Greene said:

It's not uncommon with digital capture to shoot a 2 shot, where one face looks normal and the second face looks more like a lobster, even though they are in the same lighting.  I certainly noticed this effect when shooting on the old RED 1 cameras...

So Tyler, I guess we actually agree ?

 

Exactly. It's a HUGE problem and it's very costly to remedy from the perspective of post production. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
17 hours ago, Jesse Hanna said:

Not to derail this thread, but isn't the film camera makers (bolex,arri,etc), film companies (kodak,fuji) and film developers and their inflated prices somewhat responsible for their own demise? 

Actually, the modern Aaton 16mm and 35mm cameras were similarly priced to high-end modern Digital cameras. So no, it has nothing to do with camera pricing. 

Kodak and Fuji pricing is based on how much film is sold. If they sell all the film they make in a given batch, than they could eventually lower the price. The problem is that Kodak doesn't sell film older than 6 months. So they actually have to either destroy it OR give it away, which means not every foot is sold. There is HUGE waste and that's why the price is high. 

Film processing pricing changed when film prints stopped being made. The labs made quite a bit of money by retaining the silver from prints and reselling it. Now that prints aren't being made anymore, there isn't that extra income to keep the labs going, so they had to raise their prices. Still, there are many labs in the .12 - .18/ft in the US. Just gotta do your research. Fotokem is the most expensive lab in the US, but they DO offer discounts for students and you can negotiate lab discounts if you process enough film with them. I've been really good to me and my school over the years, so I can't fault them. 

17 hours ago, Jesse Hanna said:

The people who work in film know that the people who make film are wealthy so they charge ridiculously high costs and then rather then adjust their costs, they just say film is over. 

Na, they aren't. Fuji closed down shop years ago and Kodak had to file bankruptcy in order to close down their main plant and now they only have one factory open. 

17 hours ago, Jesse Hanna said:

Film development labs like FotoKem are extremely expensive, and the actual costs to develop film are no where near what they charge, but it is what they charge because they know their clientele. 

Cost of goods on processing is around .10/ft. So that's a markup of what, 150%? You do know that the markup's on digital cameras are like 500%? 

17 hours ago, Jesse Hanna said:

This is true of film camera manufacturers as well. A 35mm film camera is a big metal box, with a motor and a piece of glass on it and they charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for it, and haven't lowered the costs in decades. 

HA! Omg, that's not even close to being correct. Digital cameras are a big metal box and the only "calibration" is the imager that''s screwed to the mount. The image is literally created in software, so computer programmers, not machinists. The moment you work on a film camera and realize the level of detailed machine work,  you'll be like... umm, yea how could they make these things for so CHEAP.  Most of the complication is optical however, the viewfinder, the mirror shutter, those things are what kills the cost. This is why the "newer" film cameras, have no optical viewfinder, including the Panavision XLII variant they made a digital hybrid. 

When you look at the inexpensive blackmagic cameras and wonder why Arri can't do that. Think about this, they could EASILY make a $20k camera, but they don't because they've set a high-cost precedent and they aren't going to change it because they're profit margins are the highest they've ever been. Arri have so much money right now, they spent millions building a training facility for cinematographers here in LA.

So you've got it all backwards, the rich people are the digital people, the poor people are the film people.  

17 hours ago, Jesse Hanna said:

And part of me thinks film wouldn't be in such dire trouble if the people who ran it weren't so old and stubborn and actually tried to innovate their products and adjust to the marketplace. 

I mean nobody really makes professional film cameras anymore. I mean, who would really want a new film camera anyway? You can get used ones for so cheap, who would really pay $35k for a new 16mm camera, even if it were all digital? I mean there just isn't a market for it, which is why nobody has done it. If film had a huge comeback, then it would be easy for someone to make a new camera. There are plenty of talented engineers who are fanboys and would die to be the next big thing. 

I do think Kodak needs to innovate more and make a Vision 4 stock that's even finer grain. That would be very nice and having 1000iso base stock that has less grain than current 500T using new tech, would be amazing and I think pretty doable. They just don't wanna spend the money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a film lover and a shooter but I have to admit the cost of shooting on35 film is a lot more expensive than digital. You can't always rely on recans and short ends. Are you going to be able to find 90k ft of 5219 from the same batch for example? So essentially, you'll still have to go through Kodak. The prices at Kodak are like in the 700's for a 1000ft roll of film, which only runs for 11 mins or more depending on the format choice. Even with the high rentals etc there is no way film will be cheaper. Maybe you can get away with recans etc for some short film but I wouldn't count on these "cheap" deals, recans, etc for a feature film for the sake of consistency amd availability. Especially if you finish photochemically like I do, then the consistency matters even more so. It's sort of like that's the look you want and truly believe in hence will accept to spend significantly more - nothing wrong with this of course. It is what it is....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice if Kodak made a new stock but it is a convincing producers into shooting on film battle as is - and pretty much always it is a hard no... I doubt Kodak would even go through the trouble of testing a new stock, it is more or less barely used format as is. 1 approved out of 100 is just an exception. Maybe I woke up funny that I am being negative... As much as I would love to, I can't really say that film will be around much longer. I hope Kodak can sustain but I mean I don't personally know  one single project being shot on film at the moment - I mean more earthly budgeted projects with no name people. And I'm not talking some silly little film shot in someone's living room either, I mean a professional production with either union or non-union crew. Shame really.

Edited by Giray Izcan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More negativity, I apologize but I mean from being pretty much the one of the bigger supplier for the industry to shrinking the list to a number of productions a year that you could say out loud in one big breath just doesn't look promising to me. How many out of how many of the current or even in the last year productions is being or was shot on film? 10 movies a year? How many? Some inserts with some dp's s8 camera in a digital show doesn't count because that is just a goof in a way. Or Johnny with Bolex shooting the streets of whatever city doesn't count either. Hope it gets better really as I only shoot and finish on film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Giray Izcan said:

How many out of how many of the current or even in the last year productions is being or was shot on film? 10 movies a year?

In 2018 there were 43 features partially or entirely shot on film, about 25 of them were released theatrically in the US. This year, the number is a bit less, but that's mainly due to people not filling out IMDB properly. I know of at least a dozen features shot on film that have no tech specs on IMDB. So it's really hard to gauge/judge.

I do know this. Fotokem is slammed with work. Kodak has been selling film so well recently, they've had to run a few 24hr or weekend shifts to catch up. Cinelab London dominates the processing scene in Europe and they've been slammed with work. In 2018, they did around 150 professional commercials and music videos, plus a few dozen features for European cinema. Heck, my cameras alone have shot dozens of short films, tuns of professional and amateur music videos and three features, one of which I'm shooting now. I have another feature that's slated for January and we're already fundraising for one to shoot next summer. 
 

1 hour ago, Giray Izcan said:

Hope it gets better really as I only shoot and finish on film.

Well, it's hard to cost save when you're finishing on film. There are so many hidden costs that it becomes a budget bloating concept that very few people do anymore. Decent scans are cheap these days, ya just gotta know where to look. We also have a great film recording deal with dolby digital soundtrack, which enables us to make stellar 35mm prints with sound, without the bloated cost of a regular lab. When you put the pieces together, DI is the only way for us low-budget filmmakers to produce theatrical prints. 

2 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

Are you going to be able to find 90k ft of 5219 from the same batch for example?

Ya don't need to, that's just silly. You only need the film to match on individual scenes, within the scene. If it's a tiny bit different for the next scene, who cares. If the film was all stored properly and you're shooting a conventional story that takes place in multiple locations over a period of time, then it doesn't matter. I've shot plenty of short-end productions and you'd never know. Yes, I've also shot some short end productions that sucked because people lied about the condition of the film, but I would never shoot a feature film on old stock anyway. My 35mm cameras are 3 perf and if you buy a bunch of stock from Kodak for a feature, they will cut you a killer deal on it, way less than retail. 

For a 10:1 shooting ratio, 110 page script, 3 perf 35mm (excluding rentals), your "negotiated" film, processing and transfer price is around $100,000. So that's what you'd "tack on" to a regular budget to shoot film, assuming the cameras and accessories are the same price. I mean, if you're shooting a feature and you can't afford $100,000 more to shoot 3 perf, I don't know what to say. You really can't make a decent feature with A list actors for anything under a million dollars anyway. So if your movie costs $5M, what's 100k? Nothing that's what it is, absolutely a drop in the bucket. 

Ohh and to an earlier comment about film being more expensive to work with due to lighting and such, no it's not. That's just an excuse people use to not shoot film. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be really surprised if film disappeared entirely. For it to fail utterly and cease to exist it would be as grave as if oil and water colour paintings suddenly ceased to exist, and galleries could only display acrylics and plastic or modern-materials-only art works any more. To paraphrase the Doc, from 'Back to the Future', such a happening would cause some kind of tear or displacement in the space/time continuum. Okay that was a joke. But film looks too good and is too fascinating to fail. The cinema is film, after all. Digital is great but it's not the foundation of the cinema.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The foundation of cinema is a good story... .. all this hand wringing and weeping into soy latte,s...really ?  people actually working full time in this business are just going ahead and shooting digital .. they have no choice..its their job.. as its taking over ..they don't have the luxury of the indie/ enthusiast.. they got to pay the bills.. any working DP who cant get a decent picture out of any of todays mid to high level camera,s ..is doing something very wrong..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good story is crucial, but it must be well told. Film is so good in its look that it helps tell good stories very well on the screen. Digital can do that too but quite a few people see that film is slightly nicer in look. But I suppose film is more expensive. Like a pair of good shoes that are very nice to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of cost we can all agree film offers an organic look that digital can't match.

I shot this test last month, using 35mm 3 perf Kodak 50D, had a HDR scan in 11K (down converted to 4K) to preserve all the warmth and texture. Overexposed 1/2 a stop to tighten the grain. 

Look at the grain I think its beautiful, give me this over the cold sterility of digital any-day:

  

I guess I've been converted

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

Regardless of cost we can all agree film offers an organic look that digital can't match.

I shot this test last month, using 35mm 3 perf Kodak 50D, had a HDR scan in 11K (down converted to 4K) to preserve all the warmth and texture. Overexposed 1/2 a stop to tighten the grain. 

Look at the grain I think its beautiful, give me this over the cold sterility of digital any-day:

  

I guess I've been converted

I laughed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
18 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

The foundation of cinema is a good story... .. all this hand wringing and weeping into soy latte,s...really ?  people actually working full time in this business are just going ahead and shooting digital .. they have no choice..its their job.. as its taking over ..they don't have the luxury of the indie/ enthusiast.. they got to pay the bills.. any working DP who cant get a decent picture out of any of todays mid to high level camera,s ..is doing something very wrong..

I mean, there are at least a dozen multi-million dollar films being shot on film right now around the world. So it's not "unusual" and it doesn't have anything to do with their job. Besides, there are only about 5 crews making 80% of the top top cinema in theaters these days. If your production needs post production VFX to tell your story, than it's a complete waste of time to shoot on film and it makes post more difficult anyway. 

The foundation of cinema is a good story. Good stories don't need post production VFX. If ya can't get it in camera, than you've gone too big. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I mean, there are at least a dozen multi-million dollar films being shot on film right now around the world. So it's not "unusual" and it doesn't have anything to do with their job. Besides, there are only about 5 crews making 80% of the top top cinema in theaters these days. If your production needs post production VFX to tell your story, than it's a complete waste of time to shoot on film and it makes post more difficult anyway. 

The foundation of cinema is a good story. Good stories don't need post production VFX. If ya can't get it in camera, than you've gone too big. 

But Im not talking only of multi million dollar feature films.. yes they are the only ones that can afford to shoot on film. . .. if they have the clout to push for it.. and the 5 crews making them.. Im referring to the other 100 million  productions that shoot Digital . because of the prohibitive costs of film.. as I said.. 99.9999% of production comes down to money.. if film was cheaper it would be insisted upon .. but its the other way round.. digital is insisted on.. because its cheaper ,quicker and easier .. I rest my case ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

A good story is crucial, but it must be well told. Film is so good in its look that it helps tell good stories very well on the screen. Digital can do that too but quite a few people see that film is slightly nicer in look. But I suppose film is more expensive. Like a pair of good shoes that are very nice to have.

All very esoteric sir.. but what do you actually mean..  its look helps tell the story.... film will always look better regardless of the story.. film is slightly nicer to look at ..????  its great to be a film lover in an amateur way or an academic ..I think film can look great too.. but the post is about the business and budgets .. waxing lyrical about film will not make it cheaper to this paying the bills  ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

Regardless of cost we can all agree film offers an organic look that digital can't match.

I shot this test last month, using 35mm 3 perf Kodak 50D, had a HDR scan in 11K (down converted to 4K) to preserve all the warmth and texture. Overexposed 1/2 a stop to tighten the grain. 

Look at the grain I think its beautiful, give me this over the cold sterility of digital any-day:

  

I guess I've been converted

Dont laugh .. I worked as an assistant on a million music video,s in the 80,s UK.. and some of them looked alot like this .. and everyone thought it was groovy ..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It easy always easy to follow the current trends and just accept other peoples truths without exploring realities. We need to look at things in context, we can't simply say that film is too expensive and digital is cheap, we can't really compare the costs of film verses digital, it's not that simple, there are so many variables. When we look at costs in film making in most cases the technology used is only a small fraction of the entire budget, labour both on and off screen is almost always the most costly aspect in most films.

Pav

Edited by Pavan Deep
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Philip Reinhold said:

I really do not get you guys... let everyone shoot on what they want to shoot... do not blame anyone for choosing their format ... be happy that we still have "all"! the options! I just see relgion discussions here...

Yes agreed.. but the OP was not about that.. just purely is digital really cheaper than film.. the answer is yes..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robin R Probyn said:

just purely is digital really cheaper than film.. the answer is yes..

Sure, digital can be a lot cheaper ... especially for independent projects with Blackmagics, Sony & Co. which can record on simple walmart SSD, notebook-based NRLs and grading/online... the price is not comparable. However Film looks different, has a different Workflow & generates less useless footage... For large projects that require a lot of paid edit, good on set DiT, post & Storage workflow also has its price, its maybe more close by... But this is the project area where you also ask about 2 complete sets of Panavision Primos, some more units or if you could be okay with Cookes or just Zeiss super-speeds…

If i read a script i think okay this could be look great shot on a clean LF alexa/venice look or this could be more interesting on 16mm, or a documentary style on a blackmagic whatever…  and then i look for the budged. If i see film and can make it possible then its nice but i think nobody should say… we have to shoot this on whatever because when we´ll keep a 5:1 ratio it will be cheaper or… am i wrong?

Edited by Philip Reinhold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Philip Reinhold said:

Sure, digital can be a lot cheaper ... especially for independent projects with Blackmagics, Sony & Co. which can record on simple walmart SSD, notebook-based NRLs and grading/online... the price is not comparable. However Film looks different, has a different Workflow & generates less useless footage... For large projects that require a lot of paid edit, good on set DiT, post & Storage workflow also has its price, its maybe more close by... But this is the project area where you also ask about 2 complete sets of Panavision Primos, some more units or if you could be okay with Cookes or just Zeiss super-speeds…

If i read a script i think okay this could be look great shot on a clean LF alexa/venice look or this could be more interesting on 16mm, or a documentary style on a blackmagic whatever…  and then i look for the budged. If i see film and can make it possible then its nice but i think nobody should say… we have to shoot this on whatever because when we´ll keep a 5:1 ratio it will be cheaper or… am i wrong?

Fully agree.. ideally the dir and or the DoP should be able to pick the format .(.Im not an anti film person at all.. Im just anti ,the anti digital religious zealots ..who claim there is some un worldly mystic about film.)..  what ever suits the film.. and some it seems do have the clout to do that.. in that the production I guess decides that this person's name on the film will generate more money and will cover any costs .. but thats only at the very high end.. maybe a few directors ..Chris Nolan ..a few others . even big time DoP,s I think now cant be hold outs.. if they want to work..and its my belief that the really good ones embrace the new technology insread of deride it.. and can make it look every bit as good as film ... But all the other films ,docs ,corporate ,music video,s ,commercials .. a massive amount have gone digital.. TV/Corp/ Doc.s I would say 99%.. and the sole reason is its cheaper, quicker, easier.. and for alot of programs , safer.. you can make your 3 x copies every night .. not carting exposed film cans around the world.. if it thats viable to produce and process film for a very few productions then great.. but I dont think the capitalist system works that way.. film has survived as a niche market in the stills world, but not for professionals .. I dont know a single one who shoots film for paid jobs.. they are not allowed to..its only the amateur market and enthusiasts buying it.. but moving image film I dont think its there's a market like that..there just are not hundreds of thousands of people around the world going out on weekends with old Aatons to Arri,s  .. it probably will die out at some stage.. unfortunately..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is such a non debate - you can't unilaterally claim film is cheaper then digital - without giving qualifiers.

At the most base level, look at the pictured digital camera (The VTech Kidzoom). It costs £40 to purchase and will record for several hours on a £30 SD card. The is no film based motion picture solution that records moving images as cheaply. The cheapest film solutions, for the same running time will cost several times more. (no matter what deal you get on equipment, stock or processing - donations don't count).

Digital is cheaper, film can not compete with affordability offered by my daughters VTech camera, it also has the advantage of built in video games - try playing "Snake" on an SR3 or an IMAX MSM. (I can legitimately say my kids Vtech camera is better the a 70mm IMAX camera for playing video games and it also records better audio)

If we stick to that level of simplicity there is no debate. No film solution is cheaper...

Beyond that everything in entirely subjective, shooting formats are chosen for:

Cost, convenience, quality, aesthetic considerations, operational factors, availability, record times, size, weight, demands of the client, prejudice, ego, location, production schedule, work flow, low light ability, ease of use.

Those considerations very from person to person and project to project. Its not one single thing, its too complex to an issue to even debate which is "better" or "better value" since those terms are subjective based on the fact that we all have different needs.

Its better not to be do dogmatic about formats. (I would also throw this dead cat on the table) sometimes digital looks nicer then film...I'll get my coat...

 

8196277_R_Z001A.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is pretty stupid. Yes, digital is easier to work with, cheaper in most instances, bla bla but who cares? I sure don't, I shoot film because it is "fun", the workflow is different and it looks "special". These arguments are hardly justifiable in an economic sense, especially in the context of being a freelancer and having to produce commercials / TV shows on restrictive budgets in order to pay your bills. It would unwise to take an anti-digital stance as the market demands such skills. 

Some pro's of shooting film for me:

  • The vibe on set is more serious as people realize we cannot shoot at 50:1 ratio
  • Film is magical and crew/actors treat it as such which increases moral/ownership
  • Less hand-holding / assistance from the camera system, resulting in a lower fault tolerance / higher risk of messing up a shot, requiring a greater understanding of basic light & cinematography (read: fun).
  • In the case of s16mm, it looks quite different from digital. Which is a way for the project to distinguish itself from others.

It must be noted I'm an amateur. I find working with "obsolete" equipment extremely satisfying and apparently there are more people that approach filmmaking like this, including some acclaimed directors/DPs. However, if this was my actual job, I'd make sure to learn how to properly operate a Red/Arri Alexa ?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Once you reach a certain size threshold on crew/cast size, the capture medium cost difference is academic and a fraction of the total budget.

"More expensive" is not a simple thing to define unless you relate it to the project budget at hand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sander Ferdinand said:

The vibe on set is more serious as people realize we cannot shoot at 50:1 ratio

That not ubiquitous, my digital shoots are very serious and we don't have time in the schedule or actor energy to shoot in a 50:1 ratio. I find my digital shoots end up at about 10:1 or 15:1 just by the nature of the schedule and the fact I don't want to burn the actors out.

1 hour ago, Sander Ferdinand said:

Film is magical and crew/actors treat it as such which increases moral/ownership

Maybe? Film can also be more stressful 

1 hour ago, Sander Ferdinand said:

Less hand-holding / assistance from the camera system, resulting in a lower fault tolerance / higher risk of messing up a shot, requiring a greater understanding of basic light & cinematography (read: fun).

Depends on the choice of equipment, also hand-holding /assistance can also result in better looking footage. Its more easier to mess up with film - that could just as easily be argued as a bad thing. There are plenty of badly shot and lit short films on film

However I do agree with your argument about the "fun" aspect - there is a lot of magic in the workflow and understand how the process can be a loverly thing. I'm really interested in Mark Jenkins work and his process of shooting 16mm and hand processing really creates interesting films and his love of the format informs his films.

I think there are lots of reasons to shoot film.

But I don't proscribe to the idea that "film" shoots are more disciplined and digital shoots aren't. When your really pushing and attempting your best work, I take it very seriously - regardless of format. 

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
×
×
  • Create New...