Film making and reasons for shooting analog film

[Mainecoonmaniac]

This isn't a thread about which is better, analog or digital. This is more about aesthetics and methodology of shooting film in movie making.

 

[Lee Rust]

As described here, the look of film can be fairly well duplicated with digital, but the analog process is very deliberate and the materials expensive. The resulting production is therefore much more likely to be thoughtfully planned out and carefully executed... which is never a bad thing.

The digital process is so cheap, easy and fast that the end product is very often messy and haphazard, as evidenced by a great many YouTube videos besides this one.

 

[Kilgallb]

I shoot mostly large format, bit when I do digital, my process seems to be similar. Take your time, look for an image. Figure out how the print will look.

Digital is still more expensive.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I shoot mostly large format, bit when I do digital, my process seems to be similar. Take your time, look for an image. Figure out how the print will look.

Digital is still more expensive.

The cost of my Hasselblads, lenses, filters, backs, enlarger and print dryer a few years ago totaled to be less than the top of the line Canon or Nikon digital camera.

 

[Moose22]

The cost of my Hasselblads, lenses, filters, backs, enlarger and print dryer a few years ago totaled to be less than the top of the line Canon or Nikon digital camera.

Well, I need my top of the line Nikon digital camera so I can scan my work and then people can look at a jpg of it on their cellphones...

Maybe I should carry a photo album around with me so people can see stuff printed out.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, I need my top of the line Nikon digital camera so I can scan my work and then people can look at a jpg of it on their cellphones...

Maybe I should carry a photo album around with me so people can see stuff printed out.

Photo books are very cheap today.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Here’s a sober fact about digital cinema. Theaters spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on digital projection systems that has to be replaced way more often than film projectors. It only benefits the movie studios by lowering piracy. Did you know that the movie studios take all the box office receipts AND 10% of concession sales? But shooting a feature on film won’t guarantee it won’t be shown digitally.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here’s a sober fact about digital cinema. Theaters spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on digital projection systems that has to be replaced way more often than film projectors. It only benefits the movie studios by lowering piracy. Did you know that the movie studios take all the box office receipts AND 10% of concession sales? But shooting a feature on film won’t guarantee it won’t be shown digitally.

But that's standard. It's filmed on film and then converted to digital to be shown with digital projectors. But it still looks like a film. They can't duplicate the look of film if they shoot it digitally.

 

[Kilgallb]

Here’s a sober fact about digital cinema. Theaters spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on digital projection systems that has to be replaced way more often than film projectors. It only benefits the movie studios by lowering piracy. Did you know that the movie studios take all the box office receipts AND 10% of concession sales? But shooting a feature on film won’t guarantee it won’t be shown digitally.

Not true. In North America the studios paid for the digital projectors so they could stop distributing film which is a huge cost. That is why my small town theatre closed. The town is too small to support the cost and with no film available the theatre closed.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Not true. In North America the studios paid for the digital projectors so they could stop distributing film which is a huge cost. That is why my small town theatre closed. The town is too small to support the cost and with no film available the theatre closed.

Here’s an interesting article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/13/...ojection-of-films-is-coming-now-who-pays.html

 

[btaylor]

There was a lot of hand ringing in the film community as to whether camera film would still be produced after the physical film prints were no longer made and distributed, since prints were by far the biggest use of movie film. I used to have camera film processed at Deluxe in Hollywood, at the same facility that provided prints. It was a city block in size- all gone now. I am happy to see at least camera stocks are still available and some people still prefer the workflow.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

There was a lot of hand ringing in the film community as to whether camera film would still be produced after the physical film prints were no longer made and distributed, since prints were by far the biggest use of movie film. I used to have camera film processed at Deluxe in Hollywood, at the same facility that provided prints. It was a city block in size- all gone now. I am happy to see at least camera stocks are still available and some people still prefer the workflow.

Here's an article related to what you mentioned. I think high cost and high tech projection systems hurt small towns and the little guys.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tal-projector-costs-imperil-theaters/1600439/

 

[jtk]

Here's a detailed discussion of how original film and digital were both shot (combined for aesthetic reasons) to make Lone Ranger. Doesn't mention the staggering cost to shoot, fly the film to LA and back from New Mexico desert to view dailies in Albuquerque.

Widely cursed by ignorant reviewers, none of whom actually saw the movie (e.g. the idiot who wrote for Ebert). Heavy reality about genocide as well as humor. I loved it.

https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2013/TheLoneRanger/page1.html

"
Were you pleased with 5203’s performance?



Bazelli: In my opinion, it’s the best film stock ever made! If you wanted to create an impossible scenario for a cinematographer, then you would include black, deep brown and white in the frame, shade faces with hats, and put bright blue sky and fluffy white clouds in the background — and then keep the actors in full, bright sun. That’s the case whenever Tonto and the Lone Ranger share the frame. Johnny wore a large, black bird on top of his head, his face was painted white, and to avoid squinting he wore custom neutral-density contact lenses that darkened his eyes significantly. Next to him, sitting on a pure-white horse, was Armie, wearing a white hat, a black mask and a black suit — and all those extremes were heightened by the bright sun. 5203’s range is unbelievable, especially at 25 ISO. There was no loss of detail at either end of the curve. I think it has 16-18 usable stops, and almost double the highlight range of [Vision2 50D] 5201.



Film is still so superior to digital for day exteriors. Mechanically speaking, film cameras are also much easier to work with for a show like this; they were simpler to mount on cranes, and they didn’t require a huge amount of filtration. We did use an Alexa for a day-exterior shot we did with an anamorphic Frazier Lens: the close-up of the hand on the ground holding the pocket watch, where you can see a horseman approaching from the background. We shot that at a T22 because we needed to focus to infinity. "

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's a detailed discussion of how original film and digital were both shot (combined for aesthetic reasons) to make Lone Ranger. Doesn't mention the staggering cost to shoot, fly the film to LA and back from New Mexico desert to view dailies in Albuquerque.

Widely cursed by ignorant reviewers, none of whom actually saw the movie (e.g. the idiot who wrote for Ebert). Heavy reality about genocide as well as humor. I loved it.

https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2013/TheLoneRanger/page1.html

"
Were you pleased with 5203’s performance?



Bazelli: In my opinion, it’s the best film stock ever made! If you wanted to create an impossible scenario for a cinematographer, then you would include black, deep brown and white in the frame, shade faces with hats, and put bright blue sky and fluffy white clouds in the background — and then keep the actors in full, bright sun. That’s the case whenever Tonto and the Lone Ranger share the frame. Johnny wore a large, black bird on top of his head, his face was painted white, and to avoid squinting he wore custom neutral-density contact lenses that darkened his eyes significantly. Next to him, sitting on a pure-white horse, was Armie, wearing a white hat, a black mask and a black suit — and all those extremes were heightened by the bright sun. 5203’s range is unbelievable, especially at 25 ISO. There was no loss of detail at either end of the curve. I think it has 16-18 usable stops, and almost double the highlight range of [Vision2 50D] 5201.



Film is still so superior to digital for day exteriors. Mechanically speaking, film cameras are also much easier to work with for a show like this; they were simpler to mount on cranes, and they didn’t require a huge amount of filtration. We did use an Alexa for a day-exterior shot we did with an anamorphic Frazier Lens: the close-up of the hand on the ground holding the pocket watch, where you can see a horseman approaching from the background. We shot that at a T22 because we needed to focus to infinity. "

I was watching some flick on Neflix. It was so washed out and seemed like it was nighttime all the time. Obviously shot in digital., But the adjustments (film grading?) afterward were terrible. What are they doing? I;ve seen this before. Do they think that looks good?

 

[alanrockwood]

Did you know that the movie studios take all the box office receipts AND 10% of concession sales? But shooting a feature on film won’t guarantee it won’t be shown digitally.

That's a little different from when I worked in a movie theater about a half century ago. Back then the movie distributer only took 90% of the box office receipts, and the theater got to keep all of the concession receipts.

 

[Tel]

There was a lot of hand ringing in the film community as to whether camera film would still be produced after the physical film prints were no longer made and distributed, since prints were by far the biggest use of movie film. I used to have camera film processed at Deluxe in Hollywood, at the same facility that provided prints. It was a city block in size- all gone now. I am happy to see at least camera stocks are still available and some people still prefer the workflow.

Bruce, I used to use the Deluxe lab in New York (in a basement on Hudson Street). It was handy--I could take a train into the city with my rolls of exposed film and Tony and his crew would soup and print them. Upstairs they had an Arrilaser scanner and several really sweet grading suites. That facility is closed now, but Kodak bought the machinery and the crew and moved the operation to Queens where it's still operating.

 

[Tel]

That's a little different from when I worked in a movie theater about a half century ago. Back then the movie distributer only took 90% of the box office receipts, and the theater got to keep all of the concession receipts.

I know a guy who runs an indie arthouse cinema near here, who said the same thing: he gets to keep 10% of the ticket take and all the popcorn profits. He said, "I'm really in the junk-food business".

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I know a guy who runs an indie arthouse cinema near here, who said the same thing: he gets to keep 10% of the ticket take and all the popcorn profits. He said, "I'm really in the junk-food business".

If they can't make any money on ticket sales, why wouldn't theaters just lower the price of tickets to draw people in to increase their popcorn sales?

 

[MattKing]

If they can't make any money on ticket sales, why wouldn't theaters just lower the price of tickets to draw people in to increase their popcorn sales?

Many have no say in the ticket price.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Many have no say in the ticket price.

SO where I live in central NJ there's an AMC theater that used to charge let's say $10 while another not so nice theater nearby charged $7.50. I would go to the second theater to save money. Their poporn was cheaper too. YOu;re saying that the theater had no say in what they charged?? SO how is that amount determined?

I just checked these theaters on Fandago. Interestingly, now, both theaters charge the same amount for Moonfall tonight. $10.13 for adult, $8 for seniors, and $7.73 for children. So now, I would never go to the second theater at the same price because the AMC theater is nicer. ( I don;t know what these theaters charge for popcorn now.)

 

[Tel]

My understanding (which may be flawed, given changes in the broader economic landscape) is that the distributors control the ticket prices. The independent cinema I mentioned (Montgomery Cinemas in Rocky Hill, NJ if you want to go there) used to be able to negotiate their cut of the ticket price. They seemed to have a sliding scale depending on the length of the run; Bobby, the owner, told me that "Amelie" made him a good profit because it ran forever. I think the mall multiplexes are often owned & operated by the distribution companies. This sort of vertical integration was outlawed maybe 60+ years ago, but I'm sure there were work-arounds that continued the practice in fact if not in appearance. Buena Vista Films was controlled by Disney, for example. There were a lot of changes in the latter part of the last century and early 21st: Sony bought Columbia and Paramount went up in smoke, so some of the massive production/distribution empires collapsed and practices changed. The decline in theater audiences and shift to streaming has also altered the economic practices of the industry but they have deep pockets and old habits die hard.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Seeing a movie used to be exclusively a communal experience. Home theaters and streaming services has changed that. The funding models and lower cost of production has changed movie making. It's a double edged sword where more people can participate in telling their story while there's less of a shared experience. With democratization of a medium, you'll see more awesome film makers along with more inane ones that just want fame and fortune. I work at a university department that teaching film making and I see a lot of aspiring film makers coming through our major. There are a lot of awesome student film makers that tell there story in 8 minutes as their final class project in a theatre. I'm sure it's going to be uploaded to Youtube where it's mostly viewed online. To me, the stories told by the students are more private and have less mass appeal. I think films are heading towards that direction. The world has less of a collective conciseness. BTW, we only teach digital cinema.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Seeing a movie used to be exclusively a communal experience. Home theaters and streaming services has changed that. The funding models and lower cost of production has changed movie making. It's a double edged sword where more people can participate in telling their story while there's less of a shared experience. With democratization of a medium, you'll see more awesome film makers along with more inane ones that just want fame and fortune. I work at a university department that teaching film making and I see a lot of aspiring film makers coming through our major. There are a lot of awesome student film makers that tell there story in 8 minutes as their final class project in a theatre. I'm sure it's going to be uploaded to Youtube where it's mostly viewed online. To me, the stories told by the students are more private and have less mass appeal. I think films are heading towards that direction. The world has less of a collective conciseness. BTW, we only teach digital cinema.

Lately, I've been watching these short electronically produced movies (CGI animation?) on Youtube.Pretty amazing what people are doing. No wonder my simple film stills can't compete with the power of PS.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cgi+animated+short+film

 

[jtk]

Lately, I've been watching these short electronically produced movies (CGI animation?) on Youtube.Pretty amazing what people are doing. No wonder my simple film stills can't compete with the power of PS.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cgi+animated+short+film

My "simple film stills" stand on their own to the extent that they're seen as worthwhile by others. PS has zero "power" without worthwhile images.

There's no merit (zip) in "simple film stills" that are not printed.

Strongly advise getting a good inkjet printer (i.e. Canon Pro).

 

[jtk]

Seeing a movie used to be exclusively a communal experience. Home theaters and streaming services has changed that. The funding models and lower cost of production has changed movie making. It's a double edged sword where more people can participate in telling their story while there's less of a shared experience. With democratization of a medium, you'll see more awesome film makers along with more inane ones that just want fame and fortune. I work at a university department that teaching film making and I see a lot of aspiring film makers coming through our major. There are a lot of awesome student film makers that tell there story in 8 minutes as their final class project in a theatre. I'm sure it's going to be uploaded to Youtube where it's mostly viewed online. To me, the stories told by the students are more private and have less mass appeal. I think films are heading towards that direction. The world has less of a collective conciseness. BTW, we only teach digital cinema.

Video work is shared, inherently communal. Nobody seriously shoots video without intent to share via Vimeo.