Jump to content
panagiotis agapitou

Is it really cheaper to shoot in digital ?

Recommended Posts

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 ūüôā


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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

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.

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.

  • Glidecam

    Abel Cine

    Gamma Ray Digital Inc

    Ritter Battery

    FJS International

    Just Cinema Gear

    Broadcast Solutions Inc

    Serious Gear

    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

    Rig Wheels Passport

    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment


    Tai Audio

    G-Force Grips

    Visual Products

    Wooden Camera

    Paralinx LLC

  • Create New...