Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

I want to be optimistic about the future of film, but I don't appreciate being fed bullshit by Kodak marketing.

I mean it's a good way to determine who works on film without using google. 

9 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

A new 16mm camera is likely to end up in the same place as the Super 8 camera they designed for Kodak.

That story is interesting, but I don't think it has any bearing on future development. 

To say the least, I'm not holding my breath. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I thought you were specialised on the sub 1M productions and commercials / docs.  You should ask the line producers of these 50M+ shows to correct the credits and imdb

Tell me about it. When you work as an engineer, the only people who get credit are the post house executives, they never credit the technical people. Worst part is working in restoration, when yo

I mean don't get me wrong, the stuff I'm talking about has nothing to do with indy/low budget production. The sub $1M productions, are rushed in production and in post, no doubt about it. I'm referrin

Posted Images

7 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

forum member David Sekanina was making a new silent super16 camera. Don't know about the current status of the project but I think that is the only new sound sync 16mm camera in development at the moment (modifying the existing camera models does not count)

Yea I know about that project too, I think it's all talk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

So the main thing is the producers fearing to go over budget if shooting on film. To them there is a additional risk when using any film based workflow and they always want to eliminate all the risks they can. The artists working for them generally have very little to say on that.

I mean most films have reshoots, it's part of the budget. Heck, I budget it into my shorts. You re-shoot mostly due to story issues, not technical issues with the format chosen. Where I agree, the risk of shooting on film is greater than digital, I have been on plenty of digital shows where things have gone wrong technically and it hasn't been seen until post. 

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

who cares what its shot on

Why don't you use an old F900 with an external recorder? 

Because the client does care what it's shot on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2021 at 8:31 PM, Karim D. Ghantous said:

If you're a DP, your whole job is to care about gear.

6 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

You're a DP. You are supposed to care about the technical stuff.

But the debate never ends, because that debate is part of your job.

Karim, you seem to have a lot of strong opinions on what a DP’s job entails. Are you a DP yourself?

If not, then your opinions are a bit like a guy telling his plumber what wrench he should be using because he has a subscription to American Plumbing magazine...

It’s fine if you want to express opinions on your personal taste in lighting or lensing. But frankly, I think it’s ridiculous for you to lecture working DPs on how to do their jobs if you’ve never done the job yourself. Otherwise, you’re  just parroting advice you’ve heard elsewhere, not from any personal experience. And it shows.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Why don't you use an old F900 with an external recorder? 

Because the client does care what it's shot on. 

In think I still have my old dig beta ,even better .. 🙂 .. what I mean is digital is up to the same level as film these days , there isn't a bad camera anymore , even iPhones can take good pictures .. and so .. whats always been the more important elements  is even more so .. as shooting video is no longer  a compromise ..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

on documentaries the film works pretty well for MOS stuff, insert shots and flashback scenes. But shooting talking heads on film does not work very well in most situations so you will generally want to shoot the talking heads on video in any case. That makes it a multi format production which is generally fine even when you have to explain the producer why it makes sense to make the movie that way. Most documentaries are multi format anyway even when shooting all digital... there is just not enough light and personnel and grip gear to make the same camera work in all shooting situations so you need to change camera scene by scene to make it work

Yeah and who wants that hassle and added expense ..why would you suddenly do all your insert shots on film .. ?  its just not reality ..  film is very very rarely used in main stream doc s anymore .. and only for say some "special look " at most .. it costs so much more , thats the simple truth and thats what happened .. it died out .. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

You're a DP. You are supposed to care about the technical stuff. You don't have to prefer film to digital, though - 

Not necessarily true .. at the high end there are plenty of DP,s who are and should be , more interested in the script , story and how its told , acting , blocking etc ..than all the techie stuff .. tell that to Chris Doyle or Barry Ackroyd .. or Roger Deakins , well in fact any of the top DP,s in the world .. these guys wont even do a film if they don't like the script .you might not know but on drama, the DP is sent a script ,usually, before they sign on ...there is any army of assistants and DIT,s , post production to deal with the techie stuff thats their job..although of course a certain level of knowledge goes without saying ..its not the primary function of the DP at all ..

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

what I mean is digital is up to the same level as film these days , there isn't a bad camera anymore

Then why does everyone want an Alexa? Why does Red continue to deliver odd skin tones? Why does everyone who shoots with Sony cameras tint the image in an unnatural/unrealistic way? Why is it that only a hand-full of filmmakers even attempt to shoot with lower-end cameras and generally get completely written off for doing so? 

I agree, there are some amazing lower-end cameras. Nothing stops people from going out and shooting. 

Yet none of those cameras look anything like film. It's still the "gold" standard. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Then why does everyone want an Alexa? Why does Red continue to deliver odd skin tones? Why does everyone who shoots with Sony cameras tint the image in an unnatural/unrealistic way? Why is it that only a hand-full of filmmakers even attempt to shoot with lower-end cameras and generally get completely written off for doing so? 

I agree, there are some amazing lower-end cameras. Nothing stops people from going out and shooting. 

Yet none of those cameras look anything like film. It's still the "gold" standard. 

I think there are plenty of good images from Venice and Reds.. (The Crown / Queens Gambit) it probably depends who is using them and post .. I think people stick with Arri because they got it right first and big productions know the workflow .. its a safe bet and alot of the top DP,s stated using them first ..  as Ive said before .. film can look really bad , some the older big budget Panavision films look pretty bad these days , very over lit etc .. and no doubt I could make an Alexa look like shite too 🙂

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

there is just not enough light and personnel and grip gear to make the same camera work in all shooting situations so you need to change camera scene by scene to make it work

These days, though, it's a different story, is it not? Thanks to cameras like the Gemini, or the A7S III, you can pretty much shoot in any lighting situation. I'm probably missing something, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

Karim, you seem to have a lot of strong opinions on what a DP’s job entails. Are you a DP yourself?

I have stated several times that I am not. I will create a signature to remove any ambiguity. But I do know what a DP's job entails. I don't tell DPs how to shoot, or what to shoot, although I may offer opinions, especially if solicited. But I do know what the job means, just like any director, writer, actor, or producer would know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2021 at 5:48 PM, Leonardo Gastel said:

I am looking for a book that defends analog and why it shouldn't go away as a tool for expression. 

A book I’m not but you can ask me anything. One argument in defense of film cameras is weight. Movies didn’t improve by lighter cameras, be they Eyemo, Arriflex, Aaton or electronic devices. Heavy projectors equipped with carbon arc lamps complement the heavy cameras. No video projector matches. Nothing replaces paper, pen, ink, brush, letter types.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Simon Wyss said:

A book I’m not but you can ask me anything. One argument in defense of film cameras is weight. Movies didn’t improve by lighter cameras, be they Eyemo, Arriflex, Aaton or electronic devices. Heavy projectors equipped with carbon arc lamps complement the heavy cameras. No video projector matches. Nothing replaces paper, pen, ink, brush, letter types.

??? you never heard of the French / British new wave .. it was all to do with light weight ,hand held cameras .. it must be one of the biggest changes ever in the film industry, to get away from massive studio bound cameras and be able to shoot in locations / cars / hand held etc ..  you are not really saying film is better because the cameras are heavy ..   or have I just had some bad acid and not read you post correctly .. could the "others " be some how banned from anything about cameras .. its pure  Kafka   🙂 ..

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t say movies got worse through lighter cameras, I say they didn’t improve. Shaking or non-shaking images are on the level of taking. Too much emphasis on that. The storytelling, the narrative pace or its absence, the editing, that’s where the public is caught. Today we have tiny digital HD cameras attached to almost everything. The other way around it looks like this:

280679413_TechnicolorTakestheAir1937-Kopie.jpg.9de9c8e4459bc6d4cbe3e1afe902e304.jpg

A convergence of the very illusory film cinema and the actuality or news gathering video makes a loser and a winner. I doubt anybody ever writes that coppedly in a book.

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

One argument in defense of film cameras is weight. Movies didn’t improve by lighter cameras..

This is a pretty ridiculous argument Simon. Believe me you can make digital cameras as heavy as you want, load them up with mini monitors and transmitters and focus assists and lens motors and a 3 foot long zoom and plonk them on a geared head.. it has no bearing on the quality of the movie. Lighter cameras may not have resulted in better movies, but they did give filmmakers more choices, more strange little paths to explore.. which is really the only argument for film that we need - more choices.

Film is a different enough medium from digital that it should remain an option for film makers on that merit alone - a different but equally valid approach. The process is different, the workflow is different, the image is different, and there's value in that. As always, it's a question of economics though, and only sustained interest from actual filmmakers will keep it as a viable option, because the hard truth is that it is a more expensive choice. We can argue on forums til the cows come home about the aesthetic value of film but the only argument that really matters is the one with your (or your producer's) wallet - if people truly want film to survive they need to buy it and use it. 

I don't think film makes economic sense for a lot of situations - low budget films are probably best served by spending the little money they have on better actors or set design or script development, and as Robin says it's not a great choice for most documentary work either. I'm pretty sure news gathering or sports coverage won't be going back to film any time soon. But for art films and music vids and shorts and mid to high budget features or series and the odd TVC it should definitely be an option that stays around.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Believe me you can make digital cameras as heavy as you want

You absolutely can. Four feet to my right is an Ursa Mini Pro with the Wooden Camera power distribution back end, a B4 zoom on the front, an Accsoon CineEye transmitter slapped on the side, a big Titon 150 battery on the back and UMB-1 mattebox on the front. It is already a beast, and I could add the Core Neo uninterruptible power supply and a monitor if I wanted.

It's probably heavier than an SR3. This was always my concern with Amira - oh, it's the portable version of Alexa. Jesus, is it!? Oof.

P

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

A book I’m not but you can ask me anything. One argument in defense of film cameras is weight. Movies didn’t improve by lighter cameras, be they Eyemo, Arriflex, Aaton or electronic devices. Heavy projectors equipped with carbon arc lamps complement the heavy cameras. No video projector matches. Nothing replaces paper, pen, ink, brush, letter types.

 

Sure they did. Small, lightweight cams opened up new prospects not obtainable with big cams.

But I just don't get all these arguments. Use what you like and use the tool that fits the job best. If you like heavy cams go for it. Personally I like small, light cams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I surely read you all. Still, to have more choices does never ignite the artistic fire, it only serves convenience, opportunism.

If you ask a sculptor to make a statue from harder and brittler stone than he is familiar with, he will face a new challenge. More resistance from the stuff you work is what I’m speaking of.

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

I surely read you all. Still, to have more choices does never ignite the artistic fire, it only serves convenience, opportunism.

If you ask a sculptor to make a statue from harder and brittler stone than he is familiar with, he will face a new challenge. More resistance from the stuff you work is what I’m speaking of.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2021 at 8:17 PM, Robin R Probyn said:

I think there are plenty of good images from Venice and Reds.. (The Crown / Queens Gambit) it probably depends who is using them and post ..

Well yea, the image is "created" in post. With film, the image is created on the set. 

Both shows are overly graded, I've seen the BTS, looks nothing like the final show. Kinda sad. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Well yea, the image is "created" in post. With film, the image is created on the set. 

Both shows are overly graded, I've seen the BTS, looks nothing like the final show. Kinda sad. 

But surely thats the same for film .. Ive been a lot of film sets that looked nothing like the finished graded shots .. you could see that all the time on the old DVD ,s that had the out takes after the film .. ungraded they looked quite ordinary alot of the time ..  And video sets with DITs adding LUTs to calibrated monitors that looked great .. ? 

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

Well yea, the image is "created" in post. With film, the image is created on the set. 

Both shows are overly graded, I've seen the BTS, looks nothing like the final show. Kinda sad. 

To jump in, and disagree.

On film the image is not 'created' on the set anymore than digital. I've yet to see chemists on set altering chemical compounds of said emulsion in an attempt to boost the magenta channel/layer while you're attempting to get a shot. If anything the look of film is somewhat predicated by the stock you choose disregarding the post process the emulsion and prints will go through similar to that of a digital pipeline  however arguably with less control. 

I don't see why you view a film being graded in a certain way sad. Is choosing a certain stock for a certain look, sad? Is it because the film maker has more latitude and can make more refined decisions? Because it means they can potentially fix an error? The latter two I believe are the main causation for the DI to be knocked but personally I don't mind it. 

The amount of times people throw around the term 'The DP's job is too *insert remark here*' I find interesting yet, isn't our primary job, above all else, to deliver an image? The images that are being delivered 'nowadays' I would partly consider more exhilarating, exciting than in previous decades - this is of course disregarding the actual creating of the image which as said above is becoming easier with more latitude and tools. With that - the bar of quality is getting higher, while the required skill is getting lower. It's almost as if cinematography is becoming easy to learn, hard to master. Which is different, but I wouldn't knock it. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gabriel Devereux said:

The images that are being delivered 'nowadays' I would partly consider more exhilarating, exciting than in previous decades - this is of course disregarding the actual creating of the image which as said above is becoming easier with more latitude and tools. With that - the bar of quality is getting higher, while the required skill is getting lower. It's almost as if cinematography is becoming easy to learn, hard to master. Which is different, but I wouldn't knock it. 

to me, the main issue with today's cinematography is that very few people seem to be interested in mastering their lighting skills, especially the younger generation. It is extremely camera/technology centric nowadays and most people just don't seem to care that much about the final image as long as it is technically perfect on the pixel level. 

bad lighting and grade makes any format look like crap, whether being film or digital. But the issue is that if you want to master those skills, purchasing more fancy gear does not help at all. so it is much easier to just purchase the new fancy camera than to spend five or ten years finessing one's lighting skills. 

the whole "painting with light" approach lost, nowadays it being more like just recording something quickly so that the viewer can see and hear what is going on in the scene and then trying to polish it later in post to make it watchable. just making standardised lighting for all the scenes and then adding some stock music in post to try to set the mood for the scene

  • Like 1
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.




×
×
  • Create New...