Jump to content
panagiotis agapitou

Is it really cheaper to shoot in digital ?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Phil Connolly said:

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.

But if you only have enough film to shoot a particular scene at 7:1, you're going to make it happen through BETTER rehearsals, through better prep and such. Nobody purposely tries to shoot a low ratio on digital, the cost is only in the time it takes to re-do the scene. So on digital, you can shoot the rehearsal for instance, play it back and make sure you got what you're looking for performance wise on the monitor. With film, your crew and cast have to be far more prepped if you don't want to waste film. 

I rarely shoot narrative and I'm in the middle of shooting a feature on 16mm as a DP. The speed at which we work is unbelievable. We've been shooting one takes of certain coverage because the actors nail it. They rehearse diligently with the director so when they're on set, every take is flawless. On the few digital feature's I've shot, (or been on set for) I've never seen that once. Generally the director lets the actors do a take on their own, then corrects them take after take after take until it's molded into what they're looking for. 

1 hour ago, Phil Connolly said:

Maybe? Film can also be more stressful 

Yes it can be, that's one of the few downsides. 

1 hour ago, Phil Connolly said:

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

The DP needs to be more talented, they need to be able to tell if something is out of focus on the viewfinder instead of always trusting that the AC is doing a good job. I've worked on tuns of short form products shot on film where the DP's just didn't pay attention and shit was out of focus. It's a real issue with film and it requires a good/trained eye. 

1 hour ago, Phil Connolly said:

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. 

The process is much simpler. No DIT, no video village, no video replays, no cables covering the camera or wireless video, it's camera, film, lens and a team of talented people. Yes you CAN do the "digital" thing and do all the wireless video, but I honestly prefer not to. I take still grabs with my iPhone from the viewfinder and show the director what it's going to look like and because I have a modicum of talent, they generally agree. 

1 hour ago, Phil Connolly said:

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. 

I've been on hundreds of digital shoots, I can't remember most of them. I've also edited films shot by professionals on digital cameras. I've worked with a dozen directors, some of them award winning. There is a very distinct difference between "film" shows and "digital" shows. It's quantifiable, but unless you work on the entire production through post production on both back to back with the same filmmakers, then you can't tell. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above a certain budget level, time is the most valuable commodity on set, not the recording medium. Some directors (and some actors) are only going to want to do a few takes, even shooting on a digital format. Some shots are only doable once or twice.

And there’s no getting away from video village on most sets, as the script supervisor at least will need a monitor, even if the director is ok with just standing by the camera to watch performances. Some actors want playback on set.

I wouldn’t say shooting on film requires more talent. More command of craft, maybe. You can’t fly by the seat of your pants as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure you can get into bad habits with digital, but you don't have to.

Rehearsing actors is a tricky thing to gauge. I've seen directors over rehearse actors and only roll after they have peaked performance wise. I've also shot 12-15 take wonders of unrehearsed rubbish or excess takes when take 2 was fine.

Depending on your actors, i try to gauge it  that I don't want to do more then 2 or 3 takes - to keep the energy up. So I try to rehearse enough. With great actors you often don't need too much rehearsal. I recently directed some really good actors and they were good to go after a line run and nailed it in take one or two. I try to keep my ratios under control for the sake of the performance and usually i'm under time pressure. Thats the bigger limitation. But again is a casting thing - I used to shoot acting workshops at a Drama school and with inexperienced actors energy and consistency is a real problem. Its wise to shoot the rehearsal in case it ends up being the best take. 

But sometimes your shooting ratio can get ruined even if you actors are great and well rehearsed. Especially out doors - your take could get ruined by all sorts of factors outside your control, public, noises, planes, seagulls, steam trains etc... In those situations where you find your self having to peace the scenes together, they can get very bitty and you end up burning stock. In those situations its nice to know you not going to run out. I have seen plenty of low budget shorts that are shot on low ratios and you can see its compromised the film, they didn't have enough stock to shoot the things they needed. Even with all the planning in the world and the best intentions, things don't always work perfectly. Thats why I'm always wary about shooting film on really tight budgets. 

Ultra low budget films rely a lot on luck, you may not have weather cover, street lock downs, limited or inexperienced cast or crew - its a process of fire fighting and doing your best with the resources you can marshal. Sometimes you don't have the resources to do it "the right way". The last film I did was real challenge, budget and schedule were silly tight. It was a digital shoot but it felt similar to the film sets I've been on. We had 4 days, an ambitious script and a small crew - so everything had to be pre-planned to a T. There was no scope in the schedule to be sloppy, not plan the shots or shoot tons of material 

We had no video village or playback on set and I try not to watch footage back on set too much. It derails the energy and you don't want to risk the actors spotting it. I don't like actors seeing themselves on monitors during the shoot, it can take them out of it and in the worst case ruin their confidence. I made do with a 7 inch small HD that I handheld and took 0 time to move and rig

Its also why films like "Primer" and "Following" are so incredibly impressive - to shoot films that tight and coherent on such tiny ratios is an incredible achievement.

Me personally I can find directing stressful, I'm nervous about nailing the coverage, continuity and getting the best performances from the actors. On low budgets digital can be an asset, because it reduces the things I need to worry about - e.g stock levels. I can also have a monitor that gives me confidence we got the shot etc... Its one less thing to worry about. On big budget stuff film is less of a problem, your going to have more stock, faster dailies and potentially a bigger and more experienced camera crew. But if I can't afford a top grade focus puller/operator - its very reassuring to have a good HD image on set that I can judge focus on and be confident we got it. 

I don't doubt some people do get sloppy on digital, leave the camera running and not bother with planning and I agree film stock is a way to enforce discipline and focus on a film set.  I do get it. However I came up through video and I don't have much experience shooting and editing on celluloid (although I have done it). But I've still been able to develop a filmmaking style that works for me and i believe is as disciplined as most people that have come up through film. 

The next generation of filmmakers are unlikely to ever handle film. Most of my 18 year old students don't even recall seeing 35mm projected. (they were 2 when attack of the clones came out). In this case they don't need to learn "the film way of doing things". They need to make the current technologies their own and just find an approach that works for them. In some ways learning on digital previously was harder. Back in the MiniDV days lighting for a format that only had 5 stops of dynamic range was a real challenge. I did shorts where I had to nail every look and exposure in camera to avoid the typical artefacts you get from pushing 8 bit video around in colour correction. In many ways thats just as challenging as lighting for film (or more so). You could point a 35mm camera at a scene and it would look loverly. On a PD150 you used to have use every trick in the book, just to make it look not horrible. 

So I guess I agree and disagree depending......

If it sounds like I'm digitals cheerleader its because for me (in the UK) its allowed me to be a filmmaker. All the times I've attempted to shoot on film (and its been several) I wasn't able to raise enough money, to do it to the standard I'd like. So in my case its shoot digital or wait on funding that may never come. It may be that my scripts aren't commercial/good enough to attract funding, but I still want to make them and I won't learn anything by sitting on the subs bench.

UK production is funded in a much more limited way then the US. Its very tough to get even get sub 500k films financed. Also the cost of living is high, crews need to be paid thats going to burn the majority of your budget- on the sub 1 million movie budget (which is most productions here) production format absolutely matters. The US is a different league and episode of "Friends" costs what $5-10 million, towards the end of the run? On that show 35mm production is a drop in the ocean. A UK sitcom might get £300 - £350k per ep and have to run at 29mins not 23. We have to be way more budget conscious. 

Lots of 35mm is being shot in London but its mostly on US productions or expensive commercials. Star Wars may be keeping the London labs busy, but I don't class that as our film industry, its just an outsourced US production. Homegrown films on 35mm are ultra rare, (Harry Potter doesn't count) a few super 16 shows happen but 35 mm doesn't, the last one I can think of is Ken Loaches "I Daniel Blake" (2016). Budget is absolutely a factor, we have the equipment hire companies, NFTS trained DOP's and labs and yet  British features aren't shot on 35mm film.  Right now I have to work within the confines of the UK film industry/hobby I won't be attempting a narrative production on film until I'm able to sort out a green card and move to the US. (then its 15/70 all the way dammit) 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

Lots of 35mm is being shot in London but its mostly on US productions or expensive commercials. Star Wars may be keeping the London labs busy, but I don't class that as our film industry, its just an outsourced US production. Homegrown films on 35mm are ultra rare, (Harry Potter doesn't count) a few super 16 shows happen but 35 mm doesn't, the last one I can think of is Ken Loaches "I Daniel Blake" (2016). Budget is absolutely a factor, we have the equipment hire companies, NFTS trained DOP's and labs and yet  British features aren't shot on 35mm film.  Right now I have to work within the confines of the UK film industry/hobby I won't be attempting a narrative production on film until I'm able to sort out a green card and move to the US. (then its 15/70 all the way dammit) 

I visited Panavision London recently and was so excited to see all the film jobs happening there. They have their own little lab and a projection theatre, and I think they said about 1 in 10 productions was on film, maybe more. Got to play with a 65mm Panaflex, meet the camera and lens techs and see a roomful of film camera bodies waiting to be serviced. Made me very nostalgic for the days when I routinely worked on them. Back in Australia we only crack open a film camera case a few times a year. Of course PV London is the main rental hub for all of Europe and South Africa as well as the UK, so they get a lot of big US shows passing through.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

I visited Panavision London recently and was so excited to see all the film jobs happening there. They have their own little lab and a projection theatre, and I think they said about 1 in 10 productions was on film, maybe more. Got to play with a 65mm Panaflex, meet the camera and lens techs and see a roomful of film camera bodies waiting to be serviced. Made me very nostalgic for the days when I routinely worked on them. Back in Australia we only crack open a film camera case a few times a year. Of course PV London is the main rental hub for all of Europe and South Africa as well as the UK, so they get a lot of big US shows passing through.

Its nice to hear PV London are still getting film jobs. But its going to be primarily big US shows. The number of British made and financed movies shot on 35mm is minimal. Its really Ken Loach and Mike Leigh still working in the format - few others can raise the money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil Connolly said:

But its going to be primarily big US shows.

actually, it's more the art-house films that are increasingly turning to shoot on film again these days. from what i see at filmfestivals.

However i think the majority of productions will be for sure digital and sure its cheaper…

& a bit off topic… but my personal favorites the last season where it was pretty enjoyable to see them shot on film:

 

Edited by Philip Reinhold
add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

The next generation of filmmakers are unlikely to ever handle film. Most of my 18 year old students don't even recall seeing 35mm projected.

In the UK this maybe so, in the US unless you're living in a small town somewhere, there are plenty of opportunities to see film projected. Yes I do live in Hollywood, yes it's an unusual place, but my film cameras are rented by sub 21 year olds all the time, people who have never shot film in their entire life. It's very rewarding to see their final products and hear about their experiences after the shoot and edit is done. I just had a young person borrow my camera for a national Ray Ban commercial. He shot one 400ft roll of film and it was no compromise. It came out great, looks like a pro shot and edited it, but he had never touched a film camera before. He can't wait to shoot with the package again. 

15 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

If it sounds like I'm digitals cheerleader its because for me (in the UK) its allowed me to be a filmmaker. All the times I've attempted to shoot on film (and its been several) I wasn't able to raise enough money, to do it to the standard I'd like.

It can be difficult when your options are limited. Here in the states, we have enough lab competition to keep the prices in check. I know just buying film in the UK is more expensive than the US. Heck I have a Canadian friend who comes down all the time to shoot stuff in the US because it's so much more money to buy film and process it up there than down here. So he comes down, borrows my equipment, does the shoot, processes it locally and flies home to transfer up there. He's been here twice in the last few months and is already prepping for another show in the coming weeks. I rarely shoot other people's stuff, but because I rent cameras, I'm on the ground floor on what's actually going on in the industry. How people are pushing hard to shoot film, how DP's and even Directors are getting those extra budget bux to shoot on film. I mean it's rare my cameras go out on a feature, but they've shot 2 in the last year and I'm currently shooting another for a friend of mine. So it little old me got THREE feature gigs on Super 16 in one year, imagine how many other low-budget films are being shot on Super 16. It only costs $35,000 extra to shoot a 90 min feature at 10:1 ratio on Super 16, using "retail" pricing. 

15 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

Lots of 35mm is being shot in London but its mostly on US productions or expensive commercials.

London is currently the hot spot for commercial film production. Music video's, commercials, large feature films, the sky is the limit. I'm friends with the guys who run CInelab London and the numbers they gave me were staggering, they literally blew the doors off the US numbers. We're talking a dozen high profile narrative features a year, we're talking 100's of commercials and music videos, we're talking 100s of low-budget personal projects and of course, all the restoration work they need to do. They're probably the best lab in Europe and people come from all over the place to use them and they've got so much business, they've had to run longer processing shifts to keep up.  

I mean, it only costs $90k more to shoot a 90 page script at 10:1 ratio on 3 perf 35mm. It maybe difficult to get on a $500k feature, but on a 1.5M feature? That's not even an issue. You get all the clout that goes along with shooting film. All the marketing through Kodak and their channels. You get written up in the trades for doing something cool and for a mere $5k, you can get a 35mm print made from your DI finish, that you can show at festivals. So instead of it being just a lowly, boring DCP, the festivals will project your print and label it in the brochure as being on film and that attracts an audience. People literally will show up for your movie JUST because it was shot and projected on film.

Edited by Tyler Purcell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m working a digital show now, they have gone over, every day, rewritten the script multiple times, and can’t decide which version of dialogue to use. 
 

So far, B-Cam  alone has shot 88 mags, which is about 44 hours of footage, based on data rates of 6k X-OCN on the Venice with 512Gb cards. 

 

They have pushed so much our last day call sheet had 16 pages for the day scheduled. 
 

just because of indecision, poor planning, and the inability to clearly communicate, they have more than 100 hours of footage to go through.  
 

This is an estimate of course, I have no idea what C-cam  /D-cam shot.
 

Of course if they shot on film, it would cost them a lot more.  Hard costs, that producers apparently hate to pay. And those costs could be justified instead of paying overtime on the back end. I know they have spent far more money in schedule changes and overtime than film would have ever cost. 
 

people have see in this thread that it’s a good thing content is being created. I disagree. This content will make money for the producers, I hope, but the content is not good to me personally. It’s not something I would watch. 
 

And, now that there is a choice of medium, the only conversation a lot of people have is cost. I feel the conversation of medium choice should be artistic also. 
 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jay Young said:

So far, B-Cam  alone has shot 88 mags, which is about 44 hours of footage

That's the problem I always have with most digital jobs ... the AD does not care and records every rehearsal ... then they have to select too much footage in too tight timings in the edit room, miss a lot and then come the calls ... why did not you shoot CU / PickUps  etc ... we did ... they just have to find the needle in the haystack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I edit these shows and let me tell you, it's a nightmare. I've had assistants come in and scrub through hundreds of hours of footage, looking for an eyebrow raise, looking for a smile, looking for a different style of head turn, I mean working on these bigger shows is horrible. You need an assistant to be with you at all times, so when the director says "I remember seeing XYZ" on set, the assistant can go grab it. 

Then imagine dealing with 3 cameras! Most of the time the stuff I cut is 2 camera, but I have been on shows with 3 and it's even worse. Too much material to go through, it takes too much time and costs too much money in post. However, these big films don't care! They're just spray and pray. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its great that the formats surviving and I also agree artist choice should be then main decider. My point was only at the really low budget levels cost does become an issue and you have to choose between different compromises. Sometimes a tight ratio forces filmmakers to get their act together and focuses attention. Other times I've absolutely seen films that were compromised by too low a shooting ratio, with mistakes that they didn't have the stock available to fix.

On some of the budgets I've worked too, cost really has been a factor and film origination would not have been sensible. 

Shooting on film can be a good way to create a buzz, but so can casting etc... its a trade off. I could have afforded to shoot super 16 on my last short if I'd spent less on the cast - but I decided to prioritise casting and spent nearly half the budget on actors. 

I have conflicted feelings about film. I love the way it looks and all my formative experiences with motions pictures were from watching celluloid.  I'm old enough to remember class room 16mm projects, super 8 home movies, my most memorable cinema experiences have been watching film prints. I've sought out 70mm screenings and have even seen "How the West Was Won" and "This is Cinerama" in 3 strip Cinerama projection, watched Lawerence of Arabia on a D150 screen and I've been to the worlds largest IMAX 70mm screen

So I'm absolutely playing devils advocate, I've been taking a contrary position, because some of the statment's made on the forum have been arbitrary or selective with the facts. Sometimes, I detect a tone that proper "filmmakers" shoot on film, which is a concept I reject entirely. I could be mistaken of course, but I don't think I am.

Also, theres a degree of sadness and possible resentment. Film can be an expensive elite format and I find myself an outsider who within my location can't make it work financially. I also live in a country where the creative industries have a habit of being less diverse and elitist. Unfortunately the UK is still riddled with class snobbery and nepotism particularly in the film industry.  People with money and connections do get ahead and its harder to progress your career when your living paycheck to paycheck. Of course talent sometimes can rise to the top regardless of the starting point, but there are a lot of barriers to some people being able to make good work and be seen.

Digital is a great leveller in that case, a filmmaker with limited resources and no access to training, can access the means of production in a way that wasn't possible 20 years ago. There are now fewer gate keepers, anyone can make a film very cheaply and post it on the internet for anyone to see. Sure its much harder to stand out from the crowd and a lot of this stuff may not be that great. But at least its possible to try and make something. I've taken a long path to finding my voice and place as a filmmaker, I've had many challenges and setbacks. But I also think I've got something to offer and I really love filmmaking, its just the ideas and scripts I've been able to write haven't attracted enough finance to get beyond micro budget - but I don't think that makes the work less valid.

I downplay the importance of "celluloid" for this reason, I want to believe that Art is a meritocracy and people should be able to express themselves creatively regardless of means. Dogma around formats, correct practice, training  and even craft can be a gatekeeper and barrier. Anything that makes "filmmaking" more accessible is great and I don't want to undermine people that have tried to make something in any format by stating it would be better if you used X.  Film can be very cool and I'm keen to see Mark Jenkins "Bait", its hand processed 16mm, shot on a Bolex with post sync sound. The format choice is completely consistent with Marks creative manifesto and has help make the film visually interesting and unique. In my own film most of my energy has gone into the script, so perhaps its less visually innovative - but you can explore different things with different films. 

The crazy high shooting ratios that digital facilitates can really be a problem. Personally I've learn't from experience of editing most of my own projects that keeping a limit the material is important. I used to work as an edit assistant on reality and entertainment TV (the Apprentice, Shipwreaked, Top Gear), so well aware of the implications of shows that shoot 100's of hours of footage per episode. On the shows I worked on the crazy shooting ratios were also due to the producers running the edits and directors being made to "cover everything" just in case. Rather then having a clear plan or vision. Directors would need to cover themselves and just hoover up everything. 

On the other hand Kubrik was a filmmaker with strong clear vision but his shooting ratios could get out of hand, its not just a digital issue. Its also not a problem, if very high shooting ratios work for him thats fine. Its not wrong to shoot loads and have a protracted edit, its just an approach.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

I could have afforded to shoot super 16 on my last short if I'd spent less on the cast - but I decided to prioritise casting and spent nearly half the budget on actors. 

If you don't have A- or B+ actors, it really doesn't matter how much you spend. When you're dealing with B-, C+ actors, which one you choose on your short, doesn't matter. People aren't going to be attracted if one of your actors frequents some Netflix show nobody has seen, but is a B- or C+ actor because it's the only top show they've been on. For short-form, it's MOSTLY story that drives people to watch it, not which low-budget actor you can afford. Sure, if you had Samuel Jackson in your short (he's one of those guys you can get for low budgets), then sure, but he's an A+ guy. 

I also don't fundraise to make shorts, none of them ever have a budget. I just get some short ends and whatever I can get, dictates the length of the script lol. There is no market for shorts really, it's just a waste of time unless you're just making them to have fun like we do. The last two I directed, were actually camera and lens tests, rather than serious short films and all the actors (and crew) were unpaid friends, many of them have pretty decent resumes. 

5 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

I have conflicted feelings about film. I love the way it looks and all my formative experiences with motions pictures were from watching celluloid.  I'm old enough to remember class room 16mm projects, super 8 home movies, my most memorable cinema experiences have been watching film prints. I've sought out 70mm screenings and have even seen "How the West Was Won" and "This is Cinerama" in 3 strip Cinerama projection, watched Lawerence of Arabia on a D150 screen and I've been to the worlds largest IMAX 70mm screen

I mean I can't stand the flat, plastic look of normal DLP digital projection with digitally shot content. I hate the fact that same image, is available to me at home on BluRay, what makes the cinema special? What reason do have to visit the cinema when 70% of all content is distributed in 2k and my calibrated home theater projector is in most cases higher resolution than most cinemas? Audience participation? I'll invite 5 of my friends over, make dinner and we can all sit and watch a movie together for 1/10th the price of us all going to the cinema. So again, what's the point of digital cinema outside of COST. 

Also... I just don't like digital cinema cameras. I absolutely despise the motion blur that so many digital cinematographers prefer to accept as a way to increase the shutter angles past a film camera's capability in order to be more efficient with light. I dislike the way digital cinema cameras handle direct light into the lens, how the software tries so hard to reduce the bloom effect and you get this stupid star pattern that looks horrible. I don't like having a fixed base ISO with digital cameras and if I adjust the ISO, I change the dynamic range of my image, instead of having a fixed ISO stock that you change which gives you optimal dynamic range at base ISO. I don't like the fact digital is a fixed resolution, the moment you shoot it, whatever that number is at that day, is the only number it will ever be. We've already chatted about the issues related to long-term storage and longevity. 

Nothing beats a good 70mm print and there is really no reason why 70mm is so expensive to deal with. Nobody has invested in making a real-time recorder, but it wouldn't be a big deal to do it. Once that was made, we could be making IN's in less time, which means less money. With cleaning rollers on the projectors insuring the film is never dirty, if the projectors are clean and well maintained, the added depth of the print is pretty amazing and it makes for an unusual experience. It's a one-time deal, if you miss it, then you aren't going to see the same thing at home. 

6 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

So I'm absolutely playing devils advocate, I've been taking a contrary position, because some of the statment's made on the forum have been arbitrary or selective with the facts. Sometimes, I detect a tone that proper "filmmakers" shoot on film, which is a concept I reject entirely. I could be mistaken of course, but I don't think I am.

I think proper filmmakers shoot film and force theaters to release SOME limited prints. Even if it's just a roadshow print like La La Land and The Force Awakens, at least they tried! 

6 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

Digital is a great leveller in that case, a filmmaker with limited resources and no access to training, can access the means of production in a way that wasn't possible 20 years ago.

Exactly! So why be involved? Like straight up, why would you wanna be involved in that business model? Why do what everyone else is doing? It's boring. When I wanna look for talent, I first check to see if the production was shot on film and if it was, I will pay attention. When it says Arri or Red, I just don't care anymore. It just doesn't interest me. It's just too easy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Marty and Roger agree

Martin Scorsese? I think he does half and half, no? Film daytime, Alexa night time?

I love film but the lack of infrastructure is frightening, along with the fact everyone my age came up on digi. How easy is it to adapt from digital to film? I can see myself switching to 35 if I get a chance and budget, but all my DP collabs are digital only at the moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When it says Arri or Red, I just don't care anymore. It just doesn't interest me. It's just too easy. 

I wouldn't go that far, but the current lighting trends are getting boring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant is I hired the best actors I could afford, I prioritised that in the budget because I wanted great performances. I'm going to find out if my casting choices help my distribution/festival chances next year. I do have a good story well told as well, but I've had that on previous shorts and still struggled on the festival circuit.

I didn't make the film to make money, its a story that I felt was important to tell. Career wise I just need something that demo's my directing chops, so when i begin the long slog of getting a feature financed I've got something to show people that I know what I'm doing.

I don't mind digital projection these days, Laser is good enough for me. I respond to story element more then the technicals - I've mellowed - I used to be a "give me film or give me death" person so I absolutely get where people are coming from. My priorities have just changed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there was a screenwriters forum in 1995 where they debated typewriters vs PC word processors for a script.

"No! The typewriter forces you to never make a typo or you need to get the whiteout! The smell of the ink improves your creative juices while writing your dialogue that C-list talent will roll their eyes at!"

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Max Field said:

I wonder if there was a screenwriters forum in 1995 where they debated typewriters vs PC word processors for a script.

"No! The typewriter forces you to never make a typo or you need to get the whiteout! The smell of the ink improves your creative juices while writing your dialogue that C-list talent will roll their eyes at!"

There are still writers that avoid word processors and write long hand. Neil Gaiman for instance. Whatever works. Same with editing on a flat bed, it's going to create a different rhythm. 

Digital can fall short if you analyse it on film terms. It's easy to argue about what it isn't, more interesting to think about what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this debate will become very offtopic now...

8 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Film is dead.. I have spoken... Probyns criteria .. Marty and Roger agree.. 

 

these "roger deakins" said…blabla… argument doesn´t attract anyway, he has shot hail ceasar on film after he shot some stuff digitaly… sure couse of directors wishes and not everyone shares deakins opinion. Currently Linus Sandgren is one of the most wanted DP's and he shoots everything on film...Bond25 as example… like many others still do if they can & are allowed to… you can discuss it to death here but however I think the "main“ topic question is answered…digital is & can be cheaper…
However many people, me included loves Film and im glad that Film is still far from death. Also we have a re-growing infrastructure these days. New labs starting their business again, especially in europe. And thanks to kodak and their marketing it´s easy to access like 10 Years ago… the deepest point in celluloid history was 2015… since then its start rising again. And let's all be lucky that we "still" have these options now. I wouldn´t shoot everything on Film… but if I see any sense behind it I will always try to.

And if we are already Offtopic and talk about home cinema vs porjected cinema... sound will make 60% of a good movie ... many cinematographers let that out of sight... and for good sound you need a good room… thats what makes "cinema" special… no matter how good your home system and your projector are.

P.S. i do not go to a cinema just to see a good story, i can read books for that. i also go to the cinema for an audiovisual experience…

Edited by Philip Reinhold
add P.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Philip Reinhold said:

I think that this debate will become very offtopic now...

I know but its kinda fun and existential.

Sometimes we need a break from discussions about linking Honda generators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Max Field said:

I wonder if there was a screenwriters forum in 1995 where they debated typewriters vs PC word processors for a script.

"No! The typewriter forces you to never make a typo or you need to get the whiteout! The smell of the ink improves your creative juices while writing your dialogue that C-list talent will roll their eyes at!"

Pure genius sir .. nail on head .. nothing more to say.. even from me ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

I know but its kinda fun and existential.

Sometimes we need a break from discussions about linking Honda generators. 

Don't get me started about linking Honda generators !... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Philip Reinhold said:

I think that this debate will become very offtopic now...

 

these "roger deakins" said…blabla… argument doesn´t attract anyway, he has shot hail ceasar on film after he shot some stuff digitaly… sure couse of directors wishes and not everyone shares deakins opinion. Currently Linus Sandgren is one of the most wanted DP's and he shoots everything on film...Bond25 as example… like many others still do if they can & are allowed to… you can discuss it to death here but however I think the "main“ topic question is answered…digital is & can be cheaper…
However many people, me included loves Film and im glad that Film is still far from death. Also we have a re-growing infrastructure these days. New labs starting their business again, especially in europe. And thanks to kodak and their marketing it´s easy to access like 10 Years ago… the deepest point in celluloid history was 2015… since then its start rising again. And let's all be lucky that we "still" have these options now. I wouldn´t shoot everything on Film… but if I see any sense behind it I will always try to.

And if we are already Offtopic and talk about home cinema vs porjected cinema... sound will make 60% of a good movie ... many cinematographers let that out of sight... and for good sound you need a good room… thats what makes "cinema" special… no matter how good your home system and your projector are.

P.S. i do not go to a cinema just to see a good story, i can read books for that. i also go to the cinema for an audiovisual experience…

60% of a films budget will go to the sound department.. thats true.. but really who needs sound.. vastly over valued .. shoot Digital and you have money to do sound in post.. easy.. no sound kart getting bogged down in the mud.. and no need for donuts 24/7.. and the constant mutterings about tax evasion and pipe cladding all day.. 

  • 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.



  • Just Cinema Gear



    Visual Products



    Wooden Camera



    Rig Wheels Passport



    CineLab



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Metropolis Post



    The Original Slider



    Abel Cine



    G-Force Grips



    Ritter Battery



    Serious Gear



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Tai Audio



    Paralinx LLC



    Glidecam



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    FJS International


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...