Jump to content

RIP Film?


Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

+1 Marc regarding everything you're saying, and, I would say, in terms of an aesthetic choice film will never die, it will just become more and more of a niche thing. At least it is still viable for higher end productions and there has been somewhat of a resurgence in the popularity of even super16 in the last few years (aranofsky?).

With Deluxe closing its branch in Melbourne down, and the closing of Panavision as an independant entity in the last year or so, digital has really become a be all and end all sort of situation here. Costs and logistics have meant nearly all productions now rely on digital. Film schools have also begun switching over to an all digital production cycle (this will be the last year that the VCA will allow its students to shoot film), which means there will be no up and coming camera people with the discipline and eye that you can only develop using film, it's something that not only affects the way they will work, but also the way they "see" shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. I think film could completely go away. If Fujifilm and Kodak decide it's just not economically viable to keep their film plants running, that's pretty much it.

Here's a chart showing 10 years of Fujifilm's stock price:

http://bit.ly/KBcuIU

We all know about Eastman Kodak:

http://www.google.com/finance?cid=10501

I'd guess that the plants making film were subsidized by consumer film consumption. As that goes away, motion-picture film becomes something that shareholders might not get excited about as much as we do. Kinda like 3M and magnetic tape.

Besides, making and processing silver-nitrate film is pretty ecologically icky. Oh well. On into the future...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will really kill off 35mm motion picture film is the end of printmaking. For every big film made hundreds of identical prints were struck, a big money-maker for film labs. With film used only as an acquisition medium the amount of film needed may very well not be enough to keep the factories doing that very complex process going, and the ones that do keep going may see the quality of what they produce drop. A similar thing happened years ago in the making of the lacquer disks used in cutting LP masters: the quality that has to be accepted today in a lacquer blank would have been unacceptable back when LPs were common. The process of making both lacquers and film is so complex that it requires huge volume to fine tune to perfection. Will high-end productions still want to shoot film when the quality and consistency of the film stock and processing is less than what it is now? I guess we'll see.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that the new Wes Anderson movie "Moonrise Kingdom" was shot on super 16. The article i read mentioned that film was used both for aesthetic reasons (a 70s look), and for ease of use in somewhat remote locations. they used an Aaton Minima for many of the shots. The director is quoted as saying he shoots with a single camera, old school style. One thing though: with the main Aaton camera (forget the model) 16mm loads give you up to 20 minutes with a big mag. and the director often has long takes. fun for sound. On the other end of things, "Promrtheus" originated on 35 and looked fabulous. Lots of CG of course, but the images were outstanding. Not much chance of a film shoot in my my market these days, but damn, film still looks good. I noticed that "The Hunter", shot in Tasmania, also originated on film. FWIW

Chris Newton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that the new Wes Anderson movie "Moonrise Kingdom" was shot on super 16. The article i read mentioned that film was used both for aesthetic reasons (a 70s look), and for ease of use in somewhat remote locations. they used an Aaton Minima for many of the shots. The director is quoted as saying he shoots with a single camera, old school style. One thing though: with the main Aaton camera (forget the model) 16mm loads give you up to 20 minutes with a big mag. and the director often has long takes. fun for sound. On the other end of things, "Promrtheus" originated on 35 and looked fabulous. Lots of CG of course, but the images were outstanding. Not much chance of a film shoot in my my market these days, but damn, film still looks good. I noticed that "The Hunter", shot in Tasmania, also originated on film. FWIW

Chris Newton

The Aaton Xtera has an 800' 16mm mag that can do 22min runs. This is how they achieved the long take in 'Hunger' (Steve McQueen).

Prometheus was shot in 3D on RED Epic, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other end of things, "Promrtheus" originated on 35 and looked fabulous. Lots of CG of course, but the images were outstanding.

No, no -- Prometheus was shot entirely on the Red Epic in 4K 3D, as far as I know. Jim Jannard of the Red Camera company has been talking about this frequently in the last year. A shot from the set:

1-charlize-theron-prometheus-behind-the-scenes.jpg

I'm told it's a beautiful-looking movie, but I haven't seen it yet. As a long-time Technicolor employee, I was sorry to see digital make its inroads so fast, but I blame the economy more than technology, per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still shooting film commercials..... did another a few days ago.... less yes, but still kicking.... I was very happy to do it I must add.... seems so.... relaxing...

Last year I had a 6/7 month run where I did mostly film shoots, but the last 8 months only a hand full have been film. I miss film.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Opera hasn't died then film as a medium won't die is my never humble opinion. That said, shooting film on a LA commercial is fading fast this year. Film is dead! Long live film.

Crew

Ya, but Opera doesn't require a massive factory. I still think the analogy to magnetic tape is more appropriate. I don't know for how long manufacturing film will remain viable. I'll guess for a few years. But I don't know about 10.

Maybe some rich film fans will create something similar to The Impossible Project, but for motion film. The TIP gang bought the last Polaroid factory and now produces new instant-photography film. Totally cool:

http://www.the-impossible-project.com/

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heavy hitter, Christopher Nolan, gives one a glimmer of hope.

Chris is 100% correct in everything I know, from my experience at Kodak and at Technicolor. This is completely an economic decision, not a creative or technical one. And film still looks better. What's frustrating is when you have a $200,000,000+ budget movie insisting on shooting in digital when there is really no cost savings in the long run. Sure, you spend $2 million on film stock and $200K on dailies, but there are other added costs in digital -- much higher camera rental costs, a D.I.T. station, and so on -- which offset the savings.

I think digital has got such a buzz going, it's become a tidal wave that's impossible to stop. All the post facilities around town are just inundated with excess data on projects, too, because people are shooting 5-6-7 hours a day of footage with multiple cameras instead of the usual 2-3 hours of material per day.

I also believe that the single worst factor of everybody shooting digitally is, it used to be when they rolled on film, every frame was sacred. Everybody on the set tensed up and was acutely aware, every second we rolled was dollars going down the drain in terms of raw stock, developing time, dailies, and so on. There was a greater sense of urgency when people were shooting film. I can recall being on the set of 4-camera sitcoms, and the post supervisor would mutter to the director during a pause, "$12 a second! $12 a second! $12 a second!" which was about what it cost to have 4 film cameras keep rolling during a reset.

But digital images are "free." People blithely chatter away, reframe the camera, everybody kind of relaxes... it's all much too casual. I really hate the loss of respect I see on a lot of sets, just in terms of people not paying attention and taking it more seriously. I was on a set last weekend where I swear, half the crew was sending text messages and getting email during a take. I'm amazed our mikes didn't pick up key clicks and finger-swipe noises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: the film-rolling "tense-up" on set--it's too late. The culture of filmmaking (in most cases) has changed, and many younger directors I've worked with are specifically hostile to the notion that what's going on when we are rolling is all that different from when we aren't rolling (and of course we're rolling most of the time!). They don't want all that old-time Hollywood getting-rolling crew call-and-response+bells+lights stuff, just a sort of endless flow. It's their movie..... There WERE people who shot film this way, back in the day, (Maysles etc) so it isn't really a new idea. But now with digital it's affordable by virtually everyone.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed working on film sets, it's not just about tensing up, it was about being "in the moment", especially as a boom op, you and everyone on set, not just the actors, would just switch on as standby was called, and like marc said, everyone treated each frame as sacred, you would will yourself to do your best second by second, maybe i'm a sadist, but I liked that kind of "don't you dare fuck up" kind of moment. Now its more of a "blergh, we'll get it eventually" kind of atmosphere, which is fine I suppose, but I miss the discipline. Haha, sometimes, when I am mentoring new boom ops, I get really irritated by how lackadasical they can be sometimes, not checking frame size, watching rehearsals and memorising dialogue, checking shadows and rehearsing movement before shots.

Ya, but Opera doesn't require a massive factory. I still think the analogy to magnetic tape is more appropriate. I don't know for how long manufacturing film will remain viable. I'll guess for a few years. But I don't know about 10.

Maybe some rich film fans will create something similar to The Impossible Project, but for motion film. The TIP gang bought the last Polaroid factory and now produces new instant-photography film. Totally cool:

http://www.the-impossible-project.com/

Jim

actually i think polaroid, like vinyl is experiencing a resurgence, at least from what I have seen in the last 2 or 3 years in Melbourne, it's so easy to buy it nowadays, but its not in photography stores anymore... its in clothing and fashion accessory stores... and at stupid prices as well. It's all the do with the invasion of the hipsters i swear, and suddenly retro tech is fashionable again. I've been shooting with film since I was a kid (I only got digital couple years ago when a producer refused to hire me for promo stills because I was still shooting film, recently sold my hassleblad /sad face) and I was called a wanna be hipster by someone on the street the other day when i pulled out my leica m6... excuse me?! I've had this camera since I was 12!!!

>:( ok nvm me, I always get a bit flustered when i talk about stuff like this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<But digital images are "free." >

Mark, this is the biggest problem. Many producers think digital is cheaper than film, but i surmise not really. The money going down the drain in retakes and time spent on idiotic issues on set included in the digital post process and print to film probably equals if not more - a film based workflow.

I remember the CAS (Camera Assessment) a few years ago - when they had producers to assess costs of digital (various cameras and resulting workflows versus film) and the outcome was clear - everything starting from setup, lighting etc all the way down costed more than film.

I guess its got to do with the seriousness on the set as well as down the line, in post.

-vin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

having said this - with digital projection conquering cinemas, i wonder how people are still going to consider a film workflow for their project. i mean independent films, low-medium budget projects, etc.

why pay dolby a fat fee for mastering, DVD-RAM etc, and mix on a big stage, when cinemas are getting smaller (multiplexes) and have digital projection...

-vin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dolby Labs has moved on - their ATMOS is a way to reorganize their business model to account for the lack of licence and mastering fees for feature film. Atmos plans to (imho) "bring back the seriousness into the sound post process". But in the bargain - you have 360 degree surround, mix stages needing new monitoring, Protools 11 with Atmos compatibility, etc etc. This may be a long (or not so long) shot from them.

-vin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cried the first time I flew some tracks into PT from an 827. The kick just vanished. This was an 888. Now, I marvel at the sound of RME converters.

I cried louder when I made a splice from two reels of post BASF-Quategy tape and heard the difference. Paying 3X$ for reels of inconsistent crap. Heck, I was having more curl problems from bad cuts the last couple of years of tape was killing me.

You think Kodak can still make 500 with consistent quality going through bankruptcy, shrinking market, and toughening environmental regulations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the last time I did a film project (Kids Are All Right, 3 years ago), we had no problems getting consistency from Kodak 7289. Nowadays... I dunno. As far as I know, it's still OK.

We've seen more inconsistencies with labs, because they've shut down developer lines and cut back on people, so you don't always get the same guy and the same machine for developing film rolls from the same scene. We can fix that digitally in dailies, but it does take time and effort.

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...