Is analog film making a comeback for movie making

faberryman · Aug 7, 2021

guangong said:
The cost of storing feature films as digital is extremely expensive. By transferring feature films shot on digital to film and storing in abandoned mines saves a huge amount of money. So film is not just used for shooting movies, but the bulk of it is more likely used for storing films.

This article gives a glimpse of the issues involved in archiving movies and television shows on both film and digital media. Storing films and digital transferred to film in a cave is not a panacea.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-lost-picture-show-hollywood-archivists-cant-outpace-obsolescence

This National Endowment for the Humanities grant proposal outlines the archiving efforts of the University of Arizona in preserving negatives shot on nitrate film, including those of Ansel Adams.

https://www.neh.gov/sites/default/files/inline-files/University of Arizona, Planning for the Sustainable Preservation of At-Risk Film.pdf

Don_ih · Aug 7, 2021

halfaman said:
https://www.red.com/shot-on-red

or

There is a recent and wonderful Spanish movie shot entirely in 16mm color film stock ("Lo que arde", 2019) but it is a mere curiosity. I won't say 16 mm is a trending fashion on professional filmmaking, and amateurs seem more focused on 8 mm. I think 16mm was historically a format used on TV broadcasting.

Digital or film are just tools to record images. They are not good or bad by themselves, there are only good or bad cinematographers. Like in photography...

I only posted to show film is being used for large commercial productions, including television shows. I said nothing about digital, and it's obvious that many, many things from twerking videos on TikTok to superhero movies in cinemas are being shot on digital. However, the ability to scan even 8mm film at extremely high resolution is making a difference for aspiring filmmakers to undertake small to medium projects at a low overhead using inexpensive equipment and then attain some form of distribution (maybe even just as a YouTube video). For some of these people, the format itself is part of the story they want to tell.

AgX · Aug 7, 2021

guangong said:
For shooting film I use Arriflex and Beaulieu. Arriflex built for battlefield conditions. For all mechanical, B&H 70 and Kodak 100 are extremely well made. Never drawn to Bolex. For me, they try to do too much, fad ins and outs, etc., which makes them overly complex. Also, viewfinder too squinty.

The acamies that trained cinematographers on film I know of used Arriflex cameras.

Robert Maxey · Aug 7, 2021

awty said:
Its fantastic younger people are enthusiastic about film, we should be full of encouragement and positivity.

I agree with you. That said, very few film school graduates will likely ever shoot actual film. Too costly, far more work and with each passing year, it seems there are fewer theaters with projection equipment. Luck and well wishes to all those who want to work with film.

Bob

removed account4 · Aug 7, 2021

I believe at RISD some of their film department still projects the thesis work ( 16mm ) at the local theatre that still has the equipment.... could be wrong, that was a few years ago that I am quoting about ...

Robert Maxey · Aug 7, 2021

To be fair to teachers and their students, a beginning film maker needs to know all about digital cinema, because this is where the future lies. This is where employment lies. Understanding film is all fine and good, but that is not where the jobs are. And a new graduate has no clout in the industry.

In my world, 70MM would be used far more than 35mm.

Again, I wish anyone interested in film great luck and keep the interest in film alive. We need more film lovers out there.

Bob

removed account4 · Aug 7, 2021

Robert Maxey said:
To be fair to teachers and their students, a beginning film maker needs to know all about digital cinema, because this is where the future lies. This is where employment lies. Understanding film is all fine and good, but that is not where the jobs are. And a new graduate has no clout in the industry.

In my world, 70MM would be used far more than 35mm.

Again, I wish anyone interested in film great luck and keep the interest in film alive. We need more film lovers out there.

Bob

pretty much bob you said it, whether it is still or moving. digital is pretty much where the money is, film is where art might be, but might be less and less as the minutes move into years.

Don_ih · Aug 7, 2021

Sometimes, the way the subject looks on the particular medium matters to the person making it. Film making is a visual art form and nuance is very important. And while it may seem like you can easily mimic the idiosyncrasies of a particular medium via digital technology, when you're making a film, you probably want it to have more of a feeling of authenticity. People still paint with brushes, after all, even though they could all use graphics tablets.
And projection doesn't matter. It's very easy to get any film format scanned and then digitally projected (edited before that, as well).

wiltw · Aug 7, 2021

faberryman said:
This article gives a glimpse of the issues involved in archiving movies and television shows on both film and digital media. Storing films and digital transferred to film in a cave is not a panacea.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-lost-picture-show-hollywood-archivists-cant-outpace-obsolescence

Some key quotations from that link

"So even if that tape is still free from defects in 30 or 50 years, all those gigabytes or terabytes of data will be worthless if you don’t also have a drive upon which to play it."
"Lee Kline, technical director at Janus Films’ Criterion Collection, regards data migration as an unavoidable hassle: “Nobody wants to do it, but you have to.”
" The fact that the studio had lost access to its own film after less than a decade is a sobering commentary on the challenges of archiving computer-generated work."
"Literally tens of thousands of motion pictures, TV shows, and other works would just quietly cease to exist at some point in the foreseeable future. "

All of the above reflect the realities of digital photography itself. Lots of images stored digitally, most of it never gets transferred by the original shooters, the storage media becomes technologically extinct with no way to read the data captured on the digital device, no one has any vested interested in continuing the migration to newer media other than the original shooter
...literally millions of photos taken over the past 20 years will become lost to historians and anthropologists in the future.

AgX · Aug 7, 2021

AgX said:
I myself was into making a movie on 35mm film, but to me it made no sense anymore, the moment there was no longer a practical chance to screen it from film.

jnantz said:
I believe at RISD some of their film department still projects the thesis work ( 16mm ) at the local theatre that still has the equipment.... could be wrong, that was a few years ago that I am quoting about ...

But are you making a movie just for the local students?

Don Heisz said:
And projection doesn't matter. It's very easy to get any film format scanned and then digitally projected (edited before that, as well).

Then making a movie on film does not matter either.

Robert Maxey · Aug 7, 2021

wiltw said:
Lots of images stored digitally, most of it never gets transferred by the original shooters, the storage media becomes technologically extinct with no way to read the data captured on the digital device, no one has any vested interested in continuing the migration to newer media other than the original shooter
...literally millions of photos taken over the past 20 years will become lost to historians and anthropologists in the future.

I have what I think are some amazing things on my old Syquest tapes. No way to get to the data unless I visit eBay and find a drive as well as the drivers for my system. Ditto my old 5-1/4" floppy disks.

I am sure all I need to do is spend a few hours, for a few days, with a few credit card transactions in order to access my old data. And there is always a potential for data corruption should I decide to see what is on my old tapes.

My father's Kodachromes can simply be held up to the light. Important images can be color separated and the negs properly processed. This way, color images will always be there regardless of the technology down the road.

Bob

Pieter12 · Aug 7, 2021

wiltw said:
...literally millions of photos taken over the past 20 years will become lost to historians and anthropologists in the future.

That might be a good thing for all of us.

faberryman · Aug 7, 2021

Pieter12 said:
That might be a good thing for all of us.

I agree. There is a place for curation. It is not true that he who has the most images at his death wins.

Robert Maxey · Aug 7, 2021

AgX said:
But are you making a movie just for the local students?

Then making a movie on film does not matter either.

Sadly, no. It likely does not matter. You/I/many others gathered here look at film and find plenty of reasons why it is better than digital. Digital folks look at film and fine endless reasons why digital is better than film. Studios like digital because it is more cost efficient and Tarentino shot Hateful Eight on 65mm film stock and no digital components for the Roadshow Release.

Theater owners who ditched their film projectors and installed digital are most likely not about to invest in 35mm/70mm equipment just to support a technology that is being handed its hat and shown the door.

The public likely cares not one whit about the technology, just the action on the screen or the digital download.

My prediction: in time, no more film will be used and only historians will cry about the loss of film. The iPhone will become the new Panavision.

Bob

Robert Maxey · Aug 7, 2021

Pieter12 said:
That might be a good thing for all of us.

I occasionally look at old slides and prints I find via Mr. Google. It is fascinating. These images are family gatherings and routine family life in suburbia, shopping centers, parks, other places we all know well. It would be a shame to lose these images because they often tell a great story.

Bob

Pieter12 · Aug 7, 2021

Robert Maxey said:
they often tell a great story.

Unfortunately, not all stories can be told. And some only matter to a very few. Without context, most photos are just poor records of frivolous events and people and places. Unless they have some significant historical or artistic merit (oh, no, here we go again) they just as well should disappear into oblivion.

DMJ · Aug 7, 2021

If I remember correctly the most expensive thing 20 years ago was to send the films to Fotokem in Los Angeles for color correction. Almost $1000 per minute. The university had a deal with them and students didn't have to pay for it.

Pieter12 · Aug 7, 2021

DMJ said:
If I remember correctly the most expensive thing 20 years ago was to send the films to Fotokem in Los Angeles for color correction. Almost $1000 per minute. The university had a deal with them and students didn't have to pay for it.

One of the premier color correction specialists I know has done very well for himself financially. He had following and moved around between post-production houses in Los Angeles. An excellent eye for color and a joy to work with.

removed account4 · Aug 7, 2021

AgX said:
But are you making a movie just for the local students?

from what I remember the RI School of Design ( Bauhaus school here in RI ) used to ( not sure if they still do ) have their film Master's Degree Candidates present their film project / Thesis in a local theatre. The Columbus Theatre in Providence was the last of the baroque movie palaces to keep their 16mm projectors. ( it survived throughout the 70s and 80s &c by showing porn, which used to be shot and shipped as 16mm film ). They used to not show porn for whatever time period it was ( a week, a few days ? ) and let RISD in to project the short ( or long ) films. It was the local art school students that showed it. Their audience was the other students, faculty and the jury that they had to present their thesis to. Maybe at a later date the same films would have appeared in film festivals &c, not sure, but it was for a local audience. now they show music too
https://columbustheatre.com

faberryman · Aug 7, 2021

Those anthropologists who spent their formative years out at the dump sorting through everybody's garbage to try to pull together a snapshot of our culture during the time period the dump was being filled will, in their old age, move on to Facebook and Instagram

wiltw said:
Some key quotations from that link

"So even if that tape is still free from defects in 30 or 50 years, all those gigabytes or terabytes of data will be worthless if you don’t also have a drive upon which to play it."

"Lee Kline, technical director at Janus Films’ Criterion Collection, regards data migration as an unavoidable hassle: “Nobody wants to do it, but you have to.”

" The fact that the studio had lost access to its own film after less than a decade is a sobering commentary on the challenges of archiving computer-generated work."

"Literally tens of thousands of motion pictures, TV shows, and other works would just quietly cease to exist at some point in the foreseeable future. "

All of the above reflect the realities of digital photography itself. Lots of images stored digitally, most of it never gets transferred by the original shooters, the storage media becomes technologically extinct with no way to read the data captured on the digital device, no one has any vested interested in continuing the migration to newer media other than the original shooter
...literally millions of photos taken over the past 20 years will become lost to historians and anthropologists in the future.

I am a little surprised you didn't mention this quote:

"Up until the early 1950s, filmmakers shot on nitrate film stock, which turned out to be not just unstable but highly flammable. Over the years, entire studio collections went up in flames, sometimes accidentally and sometimes on purpose, to avoid the costs of storage. According to the Film Foundation, a nonprofit founded by director Martin Scorsese to restore and preserve important films, about half of the U.S. films made before 1950 have been lost, including an astounding 90 percent of those made before 1929."

removed account4 · Aug 7, 2021

wiltw said:
All of the above reflect the realities of digital photography itself. Lots of images stored digitally, most of it never gets transferred by the original shooters, the storage media becomes technologically extinct with no way to read the data captured on the digital device, no one has any vested interested in continuing the migration to newer media other than the original shooter
...literally millions of photos taken over the past 20 years will become lost to historians and anthropologists in the future.

hi wiltw
this is a real problem I agree. I do historic preservation photography ( document bridges, buildings, &c for archives before they are torn down or altered beyond recognition ) and the last IDK 10 years most all of my assignments have been to shoot them with a digital camera and give pigment prints. as someone interested in what the purpose of what HABS/HAER/HALS photography is meant for/was meant to be, shooting on digital media makes me cringe, but unfortunately that is the day and age we live in, where a crappy cellphone image is "good enough" and that archives are archiving digital media thinking that the next EMP from the sun will not harm whatever back up its been done on. oh well
it will just be 20 years of blankness. not much we can do about it but do ourselves a solid and photograph what we care about on incorruptible media.

awty · Aug 7, 2021

Robert Maxey said:
I agree with you. That said, very few film school graduates will likely ever shoot actual film. Too costly, far more work and with each passing year, it seems there are fewer theaters with projection equipment. Luck and well wishes to all those who want to work with film.

Bob

The same thing happened with vinyl records, little over 10 years ago it was just about dead, now its highly profitable and going from strength to strength. They started off getting old press's out of moth balls now they are making brand new presses and associated equipment. Again is happening right now with still film, largely driven by the younger generation who are super keen. My children all are keen film photographers and so are some of their friends, I see young people regularly using film cameras around 50/50 with digital. Never see anyone my age using a film camera.
Movie cameras are starting to go up in price, difficult to find a later model 16mm camera for under a grand, 8mm is still quite cheap and plentiful. The small format will largely be driven by the young, who just want to make short movies.
I see a verging marked for theaters to start showing larger format movies on film, with streaming and every second house hold having a big LCD screen and a sound system their not enticed to going to the theaters any more. People will pay up to see something special they cant see at home. Film still looks better than digital, its easier on the eye, just the way analog music sounds better to the ear. If there is money to be made from movies being shot in film they will make them. A few more million on a big budget movie wont break it.

Arthurwg · Aug 7, 2021

jnantz said:
hi wiltw
this is a real problem I agree. I do historic preservation photography ( document bridges, buildings, &c for archives before they are torn down or altered beyond recognition ) and the last IDK 10 years most all of my assignments have been to shoot them with a digital camera and give pigment prints. as someone interested in what the purpose of what HABS/HAER/HALS photography is meant for/was meant to be, shooting on digital media makes me cringe, but unfortunately that is the day and age we live in, where a crappy cellphone image is "good enough" and that archives are archiving digital media thinking that the next EMP from the sun will not harm whatever back up its been done on. oh well
it will just be 20 years of blankness. not much we can do about it but do ourselves a solid and photograph what we care about on incorruptible media.

I have a Baldus print from 1856 hanging in my house. Looks great. I also have an Atget from the turn of the century. Also looks great.

Robert Maxey · Aug 7, 2021

awty said:
The same thing happened with vinyl records, little over 10 years ago it was just about dead, now its highly profitable and going from strength to strength. They started off getting old press's out of moth balls now they are making brand new presses and associated equipment. Again is happening right now with still film, largely driven by the younger generation who are super keen. My children all are keen film photographers and so are some of their friends, I see young people regularly using film cameras around 50/50 with digital. Never see anyone my age using a film camera.

As I understand the vinyl record resurgence, there is a waiting period. If you have a band and want to release an LP, you have to wait. There are either more or as many pressers today, as there were back in the golden era of records. There are hundreds of people making fountain pens these days. Some are UGGH to truly fine quality.

Let us hope this trend continues.

Bob

Don_ih · Aug 7, 2021

AgX said:
Then making a movie on film does not matter either.

You're missing the point: it matters to the people making them. You are not them.

Is analog film making a comeback for movie making

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency