Tired of hearing "Film is Dead?" Well So Are We!

[AgX]

A minor but important use for motion film will be archiving.

That is 3x the length of the master-negative. Nothing compared to hundreds or more release copies

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Kodak film/cameras (and Polaroid) for sale in the souvenir shop of the Wright Brothers Nation Monument, Kill Devil, NC.

 

[pbromaghin]

He's talking about certain off-topic discussions in "The Lounge". It's down at the bottom of the forumn page. Do not enter if you are easily offended.

Oops. Make that the Soap Box. The lounge is quite pleasant.

 

[MDR]

Most indie film makers can't afford to shoot on film and shoot digitally... Just FYI...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree but many Indie Production could afford film and choose Digital because they (director, etc..) believe or more likely the Producers believe they can't afford it, Das Leben der Anderen had a Budget of approx 2 Million and they were able to go Anamorphic and that's in Europe where Filmmaking is actually more expensive then in the US and there are quiet a few examples out there that show that you can use film for smaller Budget movies. The Red and also the Alexa Mafia as well as film schools are also sprouting a lot of anti film propaganda imo. Using short ends, not using the newest and coolest film cameras (not Arricam but instead an Arri BL2 with 2 perf mod Older Superspeeds or Standards instead of Master and Ultra Primes not to forget Ultra 16mm instead of 35mm) and a lot of indies could afford shooting film. Even for movies with a 250000 $ Budget film is still a viable choice.

I also have to say that the quality of Indie movies these days is going down faster than the Quality of Big Hollywood Productions the imo failed democratization of Filmmaking trough DV Cameras is mostly to blame for it in the past you had to invest in a movie nowadays everyone with a DV believes himself to be the next Kubrick the movies made this way lack any kind of production value and look like what they are cheap.

 

[StoneNYC]

I agree but many Indie Production could afford film and choose Digital because they (director, etc..) believe or more likely the Producers believe they can't afford it, Das Leben der Anderen had a Budget of approx 2 Million and they were able to go Anamorphic and that's in Europe where Filmmaking is actually more expensive then in the US and there are quiet a few examples out there that show that you can use film for smaller Budget movies. The Red and also the Alexa Mafia as well as film schools are also sprouting a lot of anti film propaganda imo. Using short ends, not using the newest and coolest film cameras (not Arricam but instead an Arri BL2 with 2 perf mod Older Superspeeds or Standards instead of Master and Ultra Primes not to forget Ultra 16mm instead of 35mm) and a lot of indies could afford shooting film. Even for movies with a 250000 $ Budget film is still a viable choice.

I also have to say that the quality of Indie movies these days is going down faster than the Quality of Big Hollywood Productions the imo failed democratization of Filmmaking trough DV Cameras is mostly to blame for it in the past you had to invest in a movie nowadays everyone with a DV believes himself to be the next Kubrick the movies made this way lack any kind of production value and look like what they are cheap.

I agree to a point, I don't agree that a $250,000 they could use film. I've been on $2,000,000 budget films where they were shooting on a Canon 5D II and that was because they could afford to get more footage, lens options, and tighter shots with it and less expensive lighting, over a traditional film camera. (I'm an actor also so this was what the crew told me, I didn't see the financial sheets).

If I were to shoot a film, and I could afford film, I would try to use as much Kodak XX as I could get away with

If I could have it specially made in 70mm, that would be even better! I would be the the George Lucas of B&W haha.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Kodak film/cameras (and Polaroid) for sale in the souvenir shop of the Wright Brothers Nation Monument, Kill Devil, NC.

View attachment 72384

As I travel around the souvenir shops in the area, I see lots of the Polaroid single use cameras but just those 2 Kodak single use cameras. I didn't even know there were Polaroid single use camera (the box simply says 400 speed color negative film). As far as the photographers I've seen in the area, most are using smart phones, a few were using dcameras and as far as I could tell there were no film shooters; not even the single use film shooters. Such is the consumer market today.

 

[MDR]

I agree to a point, I don't agree that a $250,000 they could use film. I've been on $2,000,000 budget films where they were shooting on a Canon 5D II and that was because they could afford to get more footage, lens options, and tighter shots with it and less expensive lighting, over a traditional film camera. (I'm an actor also so this was what the crew told me, I didn't see the financial sheets).

If I were to shoot a film, and I could afford film, I would try to use as much Kodak XX as I could get away with

If I could have it specially made in 70mm, that would be even better! I would be the the George Lucas of B&W haha.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree it's difficult to make a movie on film on less than a 2 Mio Dollar Budget but it's doable using a Canon 5DII as A camera for a 2 Mio Budget Movie is something I don't get. Some of the greatest Movies were shot with a single lens or very few lenses The Last Picture show only used one lens Cititzen Kane only used a few lenses. Richard Boddington a Canadian Director Producer shot all his films except his last one on film and he usually has a below 2 Mio Dollar Budget. I also fully agree with you about the Kodak XX thing

 

[clayne]

I was just listening to an article on Oregon Public Radio yesterday called "Digital or Die". First run theaters are being forced to switch over to digital projection by Hollywood. They are phasing out movies being shot on film. They want to be able to ship movies on a small hard drive for digital projection instead of paying the cost of shipping several large cans of film not to mention the expense of making all the film duplicates.

Printed on film! Not shot on film! Yes I realize there's some transition going on in the latter but not nearly at the rate the former is.

 

[clayne]

Huh?

My ultimate dream thread here is a flame war between Mustafa and sonofsand.

 

[Bob Carnie]

If we could bring Jorge out of the shadows I think Mustafa could give him a run for his money.

My ultimate dream thread here is a flame war between Mustafa and sonofsand.

 

[StoneNYC]

I agree it's difficult to make a movie on film on less than a 2 Mio Dollar Budget but it's doable using a Canon 5DII as A camera for a 2 Mio Budget Movie is something I don't get. Some of the greatest Movies were shot with a single lens or very few lenses The Last Picture show only used one lens Cititzen Kane only used a few lenses. Richard Boddington a Canadian Director Producer shot all his films except his last one on film and he usually has a below 2 Mio Dollar Budget. I also fully agree with you about the Kodak XX thing

That was a while ago, inflation, growing actor costs, probably that movie in today's dollars would be about 7-8 million.... Way different level.

The 5D isn't bad, the new 5D C (C for Cinema) shoots in 4K which is like double 1080i or whatever. It still shoots stills but is designed for movies, and costs double, but for 4K is still worth it and doable on a 2 mil budget.

Anyway this is digi talk, I just was explaining my comment more.

Shooting on XX does cost less than color though, because with B&W you don't have to have as much light to make a scene look good and don't have to worry about color temperature so you can use whatever light is available even fluorescents and not have to change them out for tungsten fluorescents etc.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MDR]

That was a while ago, inflation, growing actor costs, probably that movie in today's dollars would be about 7-8 million.... Way different level.

The 5D isn't bad, the new 5D C (C for Cinema) shoots in 4K which is like double 1080i or whatever. It still shoots stills but is designed for movies, and costs double, but for 4K is still worth it and doable on a 2 mil budget.

Anyway this is digi talk, I just was explaining my comment more.

Shooting on XX does cost less than color though, because with B&W you don't have to have as much light to make a scene look good and don't have to worry about color temperature so you can use whatever light is available even fluorescents and not have to change them out for tungsten fluorescents etc.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem with shooting with Super XX is that you won't get distribution since real B/W is something the audience and the cinemas in some markets won't accept. This was the reason that the girl on the bridge was shot in color and converted in post,the Artist was shot in color for convenience sake though. There goes our dream

 

[StoneNYC]

The problem with shooting with Super XX is that you won't get distribution since real B/W is something the audience and the cinemas in some markets won't accept. This was the reason that the girl on the bridge was shot in color and converted in post,the Artist was shot in color for convenience sake though. There goes our dream

The original Clerks was shot in B&W for lighting and cost reasons, a budget of $20,000-$30,000 something like that, however once shot, it was given about 200,000 to get edited by... I think it was Miramax... Something like that, or for over $3,000,000 in the box office, bit big for the box office but huge for a $30,000 movie, but then, it was a cult classic and has done much better on VHS/DVD sales etc, so it's made much more.

Anyway, again, it takes a RARE film to be shot in B&W and make it... Joss Whedon's interpretation of "Much Ado About Nothing" was just in box offices (limited distribution) and did about $3,000,000 and was shot in B&W BUT digital B&W on a RED camera and Canon 7D

Alas if Joss had only done it on Kodak XX


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MDR]

The original Clerks was shot in B&W for lighting and cost reasons, a budget of $20,000-$30,000 something like that, however once shot, it was given about 200,000 to get edited by... I think it was Miramax... Something like that, or for over $3,000,000 in the box office, bit big for the box office but huge for a $30,000 movie, but then, it was a cult classic and has done much better on VHS/DVD sales etc, so it's made much more.

Anyway, again, it takes a RARE film to be shot in B&W and make it... Joss Whedon's interpretation of "Much Ado About Nothing" was just in box offices (limited distribution) and did about $3,000,000 and was shot in B&W BUT digital B&W on a RED camera and Canon 7D

Alas if Joss had only done it on Kodak XX


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I am a huge Kevin Smith fan and weirdly enough whenever he gets a for him Big Budget the movies are not as good as his lower Budget stuff. I believe that a lot of DoP would give their right arm to shoot in real B/W unfortunately the Audience is mostly monochromophobic, good example is the Artist the Audience especially in the US was complaining about the lack of dialogue and color after watching a movie that was advertised as being a silent movie and B/W (digital unfortunately)

 

[StoneNYC]

I am a huge Kevin Smith fan and weirdly enough whenever he gets a for him Big Budget the movies are not as good as his lower Budget stuff. I believe that a lot of DoP would give their right arm to shoot in real B/W unfortunately the Audience is mostly monochromophobic, good example is the Artist the Audience especially in the US was complaining about the lack of dialogue and color after watching a movie that was advertised as being a silent movie and B/W (digital unfortunately)

I'm not really a fan of silent movies either though, as an actor I get lots of movies on DVD to vote on every year, including the artist, and I didn't finish watching it. But I do like B&W.

I couldn't for the life of me find out WHAT type of film Kevin used for clerks, just that it was 16mm...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MDR]

According to the View Askew Website David Klein used an Arri SR2 with Kodak Plus-X probably 7231 (Neg not Reversal Stock).

Dominik

 

[StoneNYC]

According to the View Askew Website David Klein used an Arri SR2 with Kodak Plus-X probably 7231 (Neg not Reversal Stock).

Dominik

Ahh thanks for the info, it certainly isn't XX that's for sure, and I THINK the MP version of Plus-X is different than still film plus-X but to me it looks similar to it. And I don't like Plus-X haha

Good to know what it is though, thanks.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wblynch]

Plus-X rocks. Would love to shoot MP Plus-X

 

[StoneNYC]

Plus-X rocks. Would love to shoot MP Plus-X

I have one roll of Plus-X left... I'll trade you for a roll of PanF+ anyday, or FP4+ or Neopan400 or Acros100 or HP5+ or Delta100 or Delta3200 or Panatomic-X or Verichrome Pan or 400TX or TMY even, which we all know I dispise, all of which I find much better than Plus-X yuck, this roll just sits in my fridge and mocks me for taking up space... Lol


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[clayne]

Why the heck would you hate PX? Great film. You have some weird film hangups, Stone.

 

[StoneNYC]

Why the heck would you hate PX? Great film. You have some weird film hangups, Stone.

Yup I do, can't explain it, just like what I like, could say the same, why do you like Plus-X ... Haha

We are all individuals anyway, please take my 120 Plus-X roll? Lol


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MDR]

MP Plus-X is more of the grand daddy of todays Plus-X the contrast was in a likelyhood changed a bit for Still photography use.

I personally would love to shoot on Kodak Super Sensitve Panachromatic from the 1930's that's just one gorgeous film, Plus-X and Super-XX are superb as well but they already have the look that was domininant in B/W mp photography from the 1960's to the 2000's and I prefer the look of prewar or just post war B/W cinematography with the exception of A Touch of Evil which I consider to be one of the best looking film noirs ever and Vargtimmen a superb film by Ingmar Bergmann.

I also consider Plus-X to be one of the creamiest in a good way films for still photography it can be extremely beautiful under the right conditions and is not suitable for everything but for Portraits and some Landscapes I just say wowwww.

 

[DREW WILEY]

As a still film, Plus X had a very long toe and was marketed esp for studio portraiture under soft lighting. Outdoors it could have a problem with
harsh contrast, since it was geared to highlight expansion rather than shadow separation. The closest thing I can think of to it would be Delta
100. Super XX was just the opposite - an exceptionally long straight line that would handle just about anything, but conspicuously more grainy
than most current films (though grain is sometimes a creative attribute). It has been functionally replaced by TMax400, though the two films
are certainly different in more ways than grain.

 

[StoneNYC]

As a still film, Plus X had a very long toe and was marketed esp for studio portraiture under soft lighting. Outdoors it could have a problem with
harsh contrast, since it was geared to highlight expansion rather than shadow separation. The closest thing I can think of to it would be Delta
100. Super XX was just the opposite - an exceptionally long straight line that would handle just about anything, but conspicuously more grainy
than most current films (though grain is sometimes a creative attribute). It has been functionally replaced by TMax400, though the two films
are certainly different in more ways than grain.

By the way when I say Kodak XX I'm talking about "Double X" not Super XX

I'm not sure what super XX Looks like since I've never had the opportunity to shoot it.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, and excuse me for interjecting a still film comparison, but that is what I am personally familiar with, and in some ways it does remind me of
the way certain art films deliberately employ anti-Hollywood filming strategies. The other nite my wife and I were watching the Chinatown classic, Chan is Missing, which deliberately utilized a gritty high-contrast black-and-white technique, presumably to give it an amateur movie look, as well as a slightly sinister look to complement the plot, but superbly effective in this respect. Sure refreshing to see what can be done
with a relatively low budget and some creativity, versus all this hyper-digitized, hyper-expensive blockbuster action-movie nonsense going on
lately. But probably no teenager these days would spend a dime to see a movie like Chan is Missing. Too nuanced.