Jump to content
panagiotis agapitou

Is it really cheaper to shoot in digital ?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Christopher Santucci said:

What possible advantage could there be at this point to originate on film? Even IF it cost the same as digital? People are shooting popular features and commercials on iPhones & cameras you can pick up at Best Buy now. Audiences don't care about film. People watch more video/motion picture work daily now than they used to watch in a year, and are really only interested in content.

I see work shot on film (stills or motion picture) these days by tech hipsters and for the life of me, I can't see anything different in terms of look from any other modern digital imagery. Film is more time consuming, offers more possible ways to ruin it (fog, dust, tears, scratches, crinkles, lab damage, etc.), and film is a one time use medium as opposed to thousands. 

I started out with film and I for one don't miss it. Clients don't ask for it and consumers/audiences don't either. 

Go tell that to Spielberg, Nolan, Scorsese, Tarantino, PT Anderson, Snyder, Chazelle, JJ Abrams, Ponsoldt, Coen Brothers, Scott Cooper, Adam McKay, and so many others. This is ridiculous. It MATTERS, who cares if audiences know the difference (but they'll feel it), it's your intention, you, the filmmaker, and the DP,  you want your film to look and feel a certain way. You might not miss it but plenty LOVE it because it looks and feels better, there is emotion with film, something happens, it's a quicker way to empathy than digital is imo, plenty will tell you the same, it can't be rationalized, it just is. It also looks more interesting and stands out. 

All my favorite films are shot on film, all of them, it's not a coincidence, it's not an internal trick, it just makes me feel in a way digital doesn't, independent of the emotion of the movie itself. 

 

Go ahead and call those master directors, or DPs like Linus Sandgren, or Masanobu Takayanagi, or Rodrigo Prieto and so many others that they're "tech hipsters". If you truly can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you, it's blatant, it's obvious. 

Edited by Manu Delpech
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes sure.. Im not saying the DP decides the medium.. if the Dir wants it they will find a DP who will do it..  I just wonder how long film will be around purely for ecomnic  reasons ..  the higher chance of problems inherent in the film workflow.. and the added cost.. I mean part from large budget movies..and very few of them..and the other end of short end Indies . nothing is really shot on film anymore .. there is the rest of the industry out there too.. film is gone I would say completely from main stream doc/corp/industrial shoots and pretty much most TV shows.. what was the reason for that.. answer .. money.. Digital is massively cheaper in those markets..

 

RED isn't anywhere near dead .. they have just come out with a very fancy rental only camera.. based on the one they custom made for Gone Girl I think.. ?.. Red is very popular in Indie/commercial /Music videos.. you almost have to own one to work in this markets .. and a pony tail :).. where did you get the idea Red was dead !!..

And yes Arri have taken over .. taken over film more than they have Red camera,s.. with this new Mini I think the grasp will be even more .. !

My Deakins reference is not to do with his style .. but that he is as you say a very experienced DP with a huge amount ion films under his belt.. but has gone on record as saying he often cant tell film apart from Digital .. this is to debunk the old chestnut that digital cant look good.. Now today it can.. you can shoot raw and Log.. same DR as film or more.. any sort of post you want.. 

 

As I say .. Im not a digital fan boy or film fan .. I,d rather work in digital for my shoots because its juts alot easier and the look is better I think for my market.. very often not having much or any control over what's going on..but clearly the writing is on the wall for film in the big picture.. any sort of 15 year graph would show this..maybe unluckily for film Arri was the camera maker who got it right.. with a sensor they made 9 years ago .. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But Manu.. digital can look like film and film can look like Digital .. there isnt one generic film look .. that all those Directors want..  film can be very sharp ,digital can be very soft looking.. again this idea that if you shoot on film there is some mystical ,magical quality .. and it must be good because famous directors like film.. alot of those people in your list have made some really bad movies .. guess what.. shot on film..

 

Top DoP,s can work with digital and make it look great.. just as they can with film.. Barry Ackroyd has shot digital .. although a film fan..and it looks exactly like his work on film.. and anyway shooting film doesn't fix a crap movie ..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Robin R Probyn said:

But Manu.. digital can look like film and film can look like Digital .. there isnt one generic film look .. that all those Directors want..  film can be very sharp ,digital can be very soft looking.. again this idea that if you shoot on film there is some mystical ,magical quality .. and it must be good because famous directors like film.. alot of those people in your list have made some really bad movies .. guess what.. shot on film..

 

Top DoP,s can work with digital and make it look great.. just as they can with film.. Barry Ackroyd has shot digital .. although a film fan..and it looks exactly like his work on film.. and anyway shooting film doesn't fix a crap movie ..

 Even greatly manipulated digital footage does NOT look like film, it just doesn't. There are extremely rare films shot on film that are so squeaky clean that they possibly could be misconstrued for digital, but honestly, I can't think of any off the top of my head. Film is obviously not just grain, it's the way faces, colors are rendered, it's the life in the frame.

 

Prashantt talks about Benoit Debie, Debie himself said on The Beach Bum that he CANNOT achieve the colors he wants to achieve with anything else but film. There are so many films that would gain something if shot on film, so many films that need the grit, but are too goddam squeaky clean and it works against the film, I'm sorry but  it does. It made me smile when Rodrigo Prieto said in a video that he thought Sicario should have been shot on film because it needed that grit, Sicario is gorgeously shot but I agree. 

Linus Sandgren has professed his love for film, and continues to do so every single time and is adamant he can do so many things with film that he can't with digital, and many others say the same thing. Deakins not seeing the difference anymore is his problem really, but hey, as much as his work with the Alexa is gorgeous, I still think it doesn't come close to his best work on film (independent of the fact that every movie is different) and something is missing. That's just my two cents.

We fundamentally disagree here, there IS a magical quality to film, and if you're not willing to take the word of tons of highly respected directors and DPs on this, I don't know what to tell you. I tell you what I see, story is story sure, shooting on film doesn"t mean you're going to make a good movie, only a clown would think this. But it MATTERS, do you understand? 

I always see the difference and I've spent years training my eye for it, scrutinizing footage, sometimes up close, and it's also what the format evokes, and I said what film evokes for me. 

Also, keep in mind that I see most films on a 90 inch plus screen with a great JVC videoprojector, I'm lucky enough to do so. Now, if you're watching something on a TV and you're sitting far away, or same in the movie theater, you're obviously not going to see the grain or the texture of film much, unless it's super 16 or it was push processed, that's common sense. Even then, you still have all the advantages and qualities of film, but I don't see the point of sitting far away, I want to see and FEEL the texture of the film. 

And here we go into another film vs digital "debate" despite my  best intentions. Sorry OP. 

 

Edited by Manu Delpech
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Yes sure.. Im not saying the DP decides the medium.. if the Dir wants it they will find a DP who will do it..  I just wonder how long film will be around purely for ecomnic  reasons ..  the higher chance of problems inherent in the film workflow.. and the added cost.. I mean part from large budget movies..and very few of them..and the other end of short end Indies . nothing is really shot on film anymore .. there is the rest of the industry out there too.. film is gone I would say completely from main stream doc/corp/industrial shoots and pretty much most TV shows.. what was the reason for that.. answer .. money.. Digital is massively cheaper in those markets..

 

RED isn't anywhere near dead .. they have just come out with a very fancy rental only camera.. based on the one they custom made for Gone Girl I think.. ?.. Red is very popular in Indie/commercial /Music videos.. you almost have to own one to work in this markets .. and a pony tail :).. where did you get the idea Red was dead !!..

Again, in 2018 Kodak had it's best year since they filed for bankruptcy and people are looking to differentiate their products from everyone elses. So MORE people are shooting film, especially super 16, that has an entirely different look than digital. Nobody cares about what television doc's, corporate or industrial films are shot with, could be a camcorder as long as it tells the story. Television has such a fast timeline, unless you're shooting in a media city, it's hard to make film work. However, many TV shows have in recent years Westworld being one of them. Where it's true many long-term shows switched to digital for their 2018 season, a lot of that is just less viewership and budget reductions. Television is dying, so I wouldn't expect them to shoot film anymore, or do I feel something being watched once, has any value on being shot on film. 

Red is falling off the popularity chart. I know they worked out a deal with Panavision to make a special kit for TV, but nobody cares. The Alexa dominates the digital market, whether it's the Amira on doc's or Alexa Mini on TV, Music video's, commercials or features, the Arri's are more stable, have better overall integrated support and don't require dozens of add-on's to work. Where I do like Red Code as a codec, Pro Res from the Alexa's work much better for post production. Yea there are some Red die hard's, Soderbergh and Fincher to name two. However, those guys are all about experimenting with new stuff, they could care less about tradition. In my eyes, the only reason why Red has been popular at all is due to the over-sampling imager. Being able to shoot 6k raw for a 4k finish, has been great but now that Alexa has higher resolution solutions. Arri will enter into the 8k market soon and when they do, if they "sell" the cameras instead of simply only rent them, I think Red will be done. The color science on the Alexa is far better and they've proven to build a better more stable package over the years. Right now, the only people who use Red's are devotee's and people who own them. Sounds just like the people who shoot film to me! lol 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's not the medium it's the content. The Beatles revolution was kicked off by kids listening to AM radio on their transistor radios with 1" speakers (I was one of them). 

The same arguments were made about records vs. CD's. Yes the record sounded better, the first time you played it, before all the scratches and pops accumulated over the years. 

Film and digital look different, it's true, but content is the most important thing.

What's more important to you, the way a meal looks or the way it tastes?

Edited by Bob Speziale
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Of course, content is the most important ... but it matters what you play it on!! I like Mozart on violin, piano, things like that. Bach was of the opinion that the type of instrument was critically important to the musician/the artist. Good heavens, people, film and digital can co-exist in the world of cinematography! Film doesn't have to be done in like some sort of failing dinosaur. Because it's not a failing dinosaur. It's vibrant, young, and hip, and its prospects are on the rise. So is digital's.

It's a myth that medium isn't relevant to content - just ask any musician. What's up with the cinematography world that there are these curmudgeonly firebrand defenders of digital? The two can happily co-exist. Calm down, all ye, I pray.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Again, in 2018 Kodak had it's best year since they filed for bankruptcy and people are looking to differentiate their products from everyone elses. So MORE people are shooting film, especially super 16, that has an entirely different look than digital. Nobody cares about what television doc's, corporate or industrial films are shot with, could be a camcorder as long as it tells the story. Television has such a fast timeline, unless you're shooting in a media city, it's hard to make film work. However, many TV shows have in recent years Westworld being one of them. Where it's true many long-term shows switched to digital for their 2018 season, a lot of that is just less viewership and budget reductions. Television is dying, so I wouldn't expect them to shoot film anymore, or do I feel something being watched once, has any value on being shot on film. 

Red is falling off the popularity chart. I know they worked out a deal with Panavision to make a special kit for TV, but nobody cares. The Alexa dominates the digital market, whether it's the Amira on doc's or Alexa Mini on TV, Music video's, commercials or features, the Arri's are more stable, have better overall integrated support and don't require dozens of add-on's to work. Where I do like Red Code as a codec, Pro Res from the Alexa's work much better for post production. Yea there are some Red die hard's, Soderbergh and Fincher to name two. However, those guys are all about experimenting with new stuff, they could care less about tradition. In my eyes, the only reason why Red has been popular at all is due to the over-sampling imager. Being able to shoot 6k raw for a 4k finish, has been great but now that Alexa has higher resolution solutions. Arri will enter into the 8k market soon and when they do, if they "sell" the cameras instead of simply only rent them, I think Red will be done. The color science on the Alexa is far better and they've proven to build a better more stable package over the years. Right now, the only people who use Red's are devotee's and people who own them. Sounds just like the people who shoot film to me! lol 

Best year since filing for bankruptcy.. ..  thats a very relative statement .. :).. if you were to look at a 20 year sales chart I would bet the farm its going to look like the down hill in Kitzbuhel..actually of all the doc camera people I know only one has an Amira..  unlike movies ,where for sure Arri rules supreme.. for TV Docs  Sony does.. mostly because of the need for 4K..(C300 dominated in HD days but they left it way too long for the 4K version) their other big competitors from the ⅔ ENG days ,Canon and Panasonic have dropped away big time.. esp Panasonic .. and the massive success of the Fs7.. Amira is a fine camera but too heavy and battery thirsty .. plus not 4K.. as an owner /user freelance your dead in the water without 4K now.. dont remember  ever a request for Amira for a doc shoot..Agreed RED has always been a smaller sort of hipster market.. but I believe their sales are good.. I know a lot more people with Reds,s than Amira,s come to think of it.. :)..small company so I guess they don't need huge sales either.. 

8K.. Jesus I really hope that doesn't happen.. total bollocks to sell TV,s.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Manu Delpech said:

Go tell that to Spielberg, Nolan, Scorsese, Tarantino, PT Anderson, Snyder, Chazelle, JJ Abrams, Ponsoldt, Coen Brothers, Scott Cooper, Adam McKay, and so many others. This is ridiculous. It MATTERS, who cares if audiences know the difference (but they'll feel it), it's your intention, you, the filmmaker, and the DP,  you want your film to look and feel a certain way. You might not miss it but plenty LOVE it because it looks and feels better, there is emotion with film, something happens, it's a quicker way to empathy than digital is imo, plenty will tell you the same, it can't be rationalized, it just is. It also looks more interesting and stands out. 

All my favorite films are shot on film, all of them, it's not a coincidence, it's not an internal trick, it just makes me feel in a way digital doesn't, independent of the emotion of the movie itself. 

 

Go ahead and call those master directors, or DPs like Linus Sandgren, or Masanobu Takayanagi, or Rodrigo Prieto and so many others that they're "tech hipsters". If you truly can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you, it's blatant, it's obvious. 

If I had the budgets top tier A-list directors had, I might shoot on film too. Or, I would put that extra expense into something an audience would actually appreciate, like production design. I wasn't referring to them, obviously. And I'd be willing to bet if movie goers were polled, most if not all wouldn't know and wouldn't care what the movies they watch are shot on.

Content is king.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sure, but read again what David posted, a few posts back. He and Manu nailed it on this thread.

George Lucas (yep, sure, it was he that did so much to push for full digital process) used to just make the movies he wanted to make. He didn't care about the audience. Yes they pay the money and it's wonderful to hear their applause if applaud they do. But no one at the very top cares too much about audience, in any creative field. I'm not saying that that's an outlook that is necessarily a wise one to take for anyone (Mel Brooks was literally penniless at one stage) - but it is, nevertheless, a defining characteristic of movers and shakers.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Film projection has lost its magic. Most theatre owners wouldn’t care about a snow-white screen, good lenses, and enough light. To see a fourth-generation continuously exposed print in the dull light of xenon lamps is quite different from the experience of a step contact positive off the original brought to life by the fiery light from high-intensity carbon arcs. Film projection offers the inviting subtractive imagery. Cell phone, tablet, monitor displays, and LASER projection work after the additive principle, more exactly, with better illumination evenness. But also more abstract, sterile. Architecture has failed to be uplifting, too.

Why make a film when it will end on liquid crystal displays?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was 100% happy with the look of the digitally-projected 'The Force Awakens' and 'The Last Jedi', both largely shot on 35mm film. No complaints at all. For a couple of lower-budget pictures I've seen in the cinema lately I wasn't completely happy with the digital projection as the picture was sometimes too dim. Maybe the projectionist didn't bother to turn up the lamp. But I happen to think, on the whole, that digital projection of real film is great. I saw '2001: A Space Odyssey' in 70mm recently and it looked great but, to me, it wasn't necessarily better than the look of the two recent Star Wars films digitally projected. So there's hope! - as Princess Leia would say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Best year since filing for bankruptcy.. ..  thats a very relative statement .. :).. if you were to look at a 20 year sales chart I would bet the farm its going to look like the down hill in Kitzbuhel..actually of all the doc camera people I know only one has an Amira..  unlike movies ,where for sure Arri rules supreme.. for TV Docs  Sony does.. mostly because of the need for 4K..(C300 dominated in HD days but they left it way too long for the 4K version) their other big competitors from the ⅔ ENG days ,Canon and Panasonic have dropped away big time.. esp Panasonic .. and the massive success of the Fs7.. Amira is a fine camera but too heavy and battery thirsty .. plus not 4K.. as an owner /user freelance your dead in the water without 4K now.. dont remember  ever a request for Amira for a doc shoot..Agreed RED has always been a smaller sort of hipster market.. but I believe their sales are good.. I know a lot more people with Reds,s than Amira,s come to think of it.. :)..small company so I guess they don't need huge sales either.. 

8K.. Jesus I really hope that doesn't happen.. total bollocks to sell TV,s.. 

Well think of it a different way. Kodak farmed out their still business decades ago to a Chinese company. So the only thing made in Rochester "film" wise, was and is motion picture film. Their R&D business was also loosing quite a bit of money, but again that has nothing to do with motion picture. The bankruptcy was the best thing they could have done because they demolished most of the old buildings and now rent the property and have a lucrative real estate business. You've gotta think, the failure of Kodak was not motion picture film, but not selling their technology sooner. 

When I say Doc's, I don't mean History channel. I mean feature length doc's in the theaters. I don't mean talking heads and interviews, I mean cinematic filmmaking, which is the style of most modern doc's. Anything going on Television is being shot with broadcast style cameras, using broadcast codec's; Panasonic and Sony make those cameras. For the rest of us, it's the Amira or Alexa, with a sound guy, locked timecode and 12 bit 444 Pro Res deliverables at 3.8k, which is fine. 

I know two dozen people with Red's and they all rent Alexa's or film cameras to make THEIR products. In fact, the DP using my camera right now HAS an Alexa that he's selling to get out of digital. Yea you heard me right, the guy has an original XT and is selling it so he can buy a 16mm kit and he's using mine to get acquainted before he puts his money out there. More competition for me, but man that's great news for "film" in general as he shoots A LOT of high profile stuff. Owning high-end digital cameras in his and my mind is futile because the technology changes so fast, it's undoubtedly a loosing proposition. You'd have to rent your camera every day of the week to justify buying. If you already have big clients and they're never ending, it's worth the investment, but you aren't making money off it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your totally wrong money wise .. owning gear is the the only way to make a decent living in freelance  TV /corp land .. and the camera,s have become much cheaper .an F55 even a Venice is less than I paid for an SD Digibeta about 16 years ago.. camera,s have never been so cheap to buy.. .. Ive had my camera  f5..6 years or so and its made alot of money, a lot more than my wages.. tech isn't changing that fast.. you dont have to use everyday at all..I usually work about 100 days a year.. and never rent out any of my gear ...

Docs for cinema release only must be a very very small ,market ..and dont they have talking head interviews ? that would  be a very hard market to make a decent living as a DP I would think .. biggest rising Doc market these days must be Netflix .. ! ie 4K ..if they are paying for it.. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Christopher Santucci said:

If I had the budgets top tier A-list directors had, I might shoot on film too. Or, I would put that extra expense into something an audience would actually appreciate, like production design. I wasn't referring to them, obviously. And I'd be willing to bet if movie goers were polled, most if not all wouldn't know and wouldn't care what the movies they watch are shot on.

Content is king.

No excuse, even super low budget films shoot on film. I believe Ryan Coogler spoke of super 16 on Fruitvale Station as being his special effect and I couldn't put it any better. Film is more production value imo, it makes you stand out as well and it will definitely give you more notice (unless the film sucks) than if you are the ten thousandth movie shot on the Alexa. 

It's clear though that you don't have a point here and are left with your "content is king" bit. I don't give a **** if moviegoers know something was shot on film or not. What I know is what I'm looking at and what I want and I can't count how often, always really, I cringe at how clean 99% of the films and TV shows out there look. There are some rare examples where one film will look a certain way, even if shot digitally, and I'll love the look, but there's not one digitally shot film or TV show out there where I don't think, every time, "this looks great but I wish they'd shot on film". 

 

Edited by Manu Delpech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

Film projection has lost its magic. Most theatre owners wouldn’t care about a snow-white screen, good lenses, and enough light. To see a fourth-generation continuously exposed print in the dull light of xenon lamps is quite different from the experience of a step contact positive off the original brought to life by the fiery light from high-intensity carbon arcs. Film projection offers the inviting subtractive imagery. Cell phone, tablet, monitor displays, and LASER projection work after the additive principle, more exactly, with better illumination evenness. But also more abstract, sterile. Architecture has failed to be uplifting, too.

Why make a film when it will end on liquid crystal displays?

 

 

Oh you are speaking the truth. I've been complaining several times to my local multiplex (which is a big chain here), the digital projection quality is UNACCEPTABLE, their laser IMAX theater is impeccable but everything else is DIM as hell, faded, washed out, I told myself I would never go back there to see a film that's not in IMAX, I bit the bullet for Shazam ! as there was no other choice and I was heartbroken at how lifeless the image, and kept thinking how furious the director and DP would be if they saw that crap.

Unless it's a Dolby Cinema theater, or laser IMAX, there's just no QC, it appears no one gives a poop and most people don't know or care. Ugh. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Your totally wrong money wise .. owning gear is the the only way to make a decent living in freelance  TV /corp land .. and the camera,s have become much cheaper .an F55 even a Venice is less than I paid for an SD Digibeta about 16 years ago.. camera,s have never been so cheap to buy.. .. Ive had my camera  f5..6 years or so and its made alot of money, a lot more than my wages.. tech isn't changing that fast.. you dont have to use everyday at all..I usually work about 100 days a year.. and never rent out any of my gear ...

Docs for cinema release only must be a very very small ,market ..and dont they have talking head interviews ? that would  be a very hard market to make a decent living as a DP I would think .. biggest rising Doc market these days must be Netflix .. ! ie 4K ..if they are paying for it.. 

Right, but your situation is very unusual. You work in a very specific market from what I can tell.  Corporate/industrial is an entirely different planet because in most cases, it's for internal use only. It's also generally the same clients over and over again. I've spent years in the corporate world, both as a DP and editor, but I rarely talk about it here because frankly, it's not of other people's interest. Most people only care about narrative (short/long form) and occasionally documentaries, but only if they're really well shot. 

There are GOBS of documentaries with theatrical releases, just not at mainstream theaters. When I say no talking head interviews, I mean the doc is not based around talking heads, it's based around b-roll and coverage. 

Netflix is death for anything these days. That's where you go when you've exhausted all mainstream distribution methods. Limited theatrical, pay-per-view, broadcast, airplanes, iTunes and Amazon, those are your best ticket these days. Netflix has stopped paying decent for lower-end productions and their deals are getting worse and worse. Now that Disney is starting their own service and has pulled all content from other providers, Netflix has zero worth as Hulu provides the same TV services for $7.99/month and they've got nearly all of the classic TV shows on there as well. So outside of Netflix only content, they're dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Im very much an average freelancer .. a lot of the work is for TV broadcast .. it used to be the main stay.. but corporate video has become a much bigger market.. next 2 week shoot is broadcast TV... everyone has their own gear .. its really the only way to make a decent wage.. the enemy is production companies now buying their own camera,s or leasing from rental houses.. because they have  realized that money could be theirs not the DP,s.!!.  I think our differences on this come from you being in the art house.indie.. make your own films world... and Im a jobbing freelancer who only does camera work.. own gear its at least doubles your day rate..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's not necessarily cheaper to film digitally because there are so many variables involved. You have to know what project and what budget and you have to have good business sense, which I think a lot of artists seem to lack.

When  you say "shoot digitally" you could be talking about shooting with a smartphone or an Arri Alexa. When you say shoot film you could be talking about using a Kodak Instamatic Super-8 or Panavision cameras. 

Right now I think you just need to use what you need to get the product done. My biggest regret was investing in film gear for a project that could have been done on a first-gen BMPCC. The film didn't get done and now it never will be.  For my next one I'll start planning on shooting digitally from the beginning, using my Canon EOS R. If I ever make any money then I can move back to L.A. and shoot film all I want, but since they closed down Alpha Cine here in Seattle, it's just not realistic to work blindly with film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fascinating how these thread topics spark the most debate yet everyone outside of cinematography find film vs digital to be the least important element of the craft.

Then again I'm sure some people in cinematography find it to be the least important element of the craft as well..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A subtle comment, cleverly done, though strictly speaking not quite true. Everyone outside of cinematography does care - they just don't know why they care. As was said above, they expect the maker to care, so they can sit back and enjoy. How can those who don't know much about art and the creative process care about these things? It's not a strong argument to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They dont care about digital or film . of course they dont..we dont care about the AC system we just want it to work..  but no doubt on the AC engineering forum debate is raging on wether the GE influx compared to the Hitachi follow through systems ..is rubbish or not 

The great un washed want decent content ,a good story .. thats 90%..then they want to hear and see it .. they know lighting that doesn't suit the mood.. they know dodgy sets/stunts and SFX..grab 100 coming out from a good film they have enjoyed .. not one will care if its film or video.. expect the ill fated 48fps hobit thing.. if ever there was a case of not wanting to tell the boss he was dead wrong with an idea  🙂 

Edited by Robin R Probyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

 Everyone outside of cinematography does care - they just don't know why they care.

Kids out here are watching every movie on their phone and laptop through multiple degrees of digital compression. You'd be surprised how little people care. I'll be like "ew look at that digital noise" and physically point it out and they'll be like "huh? what? oh I guess but whatever it's just a movie". Getting up to adjust the contrast so I can see the shadows better and everyone else will say "stop toying with it it doesn't matter I can see the faces its fine".

Edited by Max Field / Macks Fiiod
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • CineLab



    Paralinx LLC



    Metropolis Post



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Glidecam



    FJS International



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Abel Cine



    Serious Gear



    Just Cinema Gear



    Ritter Battery



    Tai Audio



    Wooden Camera



    Visual Products



    G-Force Grips



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment


×
×
  • Create New...