ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

10 years ago - Rob Munday

Thanks for replies guys.
I don't hate digital, I've used it before and I will again. I'm using film because my short is a riff on French new wave movies and will use in camera effects such as stop-motion and various frame-rates. I'm not cutting on film or projecting on film but I think ideas are tied to how you make them. One idea I had became a cut-out animation and there was no other way it could have been realised. Is there not the space for using different mediums like in other artforms. Electric guitars are great but so are guitars, fine artists get their pick - shouldn't we too?
I know people don't come out a cinema raving about the format the film was shot on but aren't all the elements of film tied together?

10 years ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

You may not be able to polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.

Dan, you're a professional glitter-roller.

9 years, 11 months ago - London Film Academy

Hi, London Film Academy here (referenced as Fulham Film School in Allan McKenna's post above), an interesting debate. Here at the LFA we certainly dont 'ban' digital but have been mainly shooting on Super 16mm historically with a smaller amount of digital courses available. We have now however launched a number of additional digital courses makng it a 50/50 split between film and digital http://londonfilmacademy.com/courses

10 years ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Sounds like you've decided already, so hope it goes well :)

10 years ago - Alève Mine

Wouldn't stop-motion and frame rate variation be feasible on digital cameras?

10 years ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Quote from that article... 'Nobody will know that you were able to buy an extra two days of filming by shooting on an Alexa but they will know if you are the rare independent film that was shot on actual film.'

That kind of sums it up, they'll know because you will inevitably tell everyone hoping to create a good production note for the press kit - and maybe some punters will care, for sure. Most won't, much like they don't give a crap whether you shot on Arri or Panavision, which brand of generator you used, they just want it to be 'good'. Most will care about the story and other production values - and if the advocate in the linked article concedes that for the cost, he could get extra shooting days - that's a BIG DEAL! Especially when you can see in real time if you need to relight, boom in shot, no scratches or bloom, those 2 days may actually be more productive days too!

The article also suggests not needing to pay some overpriced guy to apply filters to look like film stock - is he really saying he's not going to grade his film? Surely not, so then yes he is. He's creating a cost out of something he's already paying for/doing.

Financially, it doesn't stack uis Artistically it's questionable. Production-wise it takes from the rest of the film if it's costing you 2 shooting days. By all means, experiment away, but remember it is not going to make a bad film good, and the audience almost universally don't care! If your aspiration is to make expensive hobbyist films I cannot argue with your motive and wish you all the best. If you're wanting to make a living from making movies, get frank with yourself and maybe try it as an experiment and the experience - but there's a reason in the audio world we no longer buy piano rolls, wax cylinders, 78's, LP's, and CD's are on their way out - technology has improved, so people use it :)

10 years ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

BTW if anyone does want to edit on a steenbeck I know a place near York with a couple sitting unused, likely very cheap :)

10 years ago - David Graham Scott

I shot my first serious film on standard 16mm but that was back in the mid 90s. Mind you, even then it was a cheaper and much less time consuming idea to shoot on video...probably u-matic or super-Vhs back then.
It was a real labour of love but I'm pleased with the results. Shooting on grainy black and white stock captured the atmosphere i wanted perfectly. The film is here if you're interested:
https://shootingpeople.org/watch/43269/Hanging-With-Frank

PS You say you're shooting on film but do you intend to cut on it too? I'm guessing you'll get the footage digitised and edit on a computer. I went down the old fashioned route again but that was 20 years ago when Steenbeck edit tables were easier to find!

10 years ago - Sean McConville

Rob,

Here is an article about someone who chooses to shoot on film. I plan to shoot a feature on film so I found it encouraging and inspiring. http://www.indiewire.com/article/alex-ross-perry-indie-filmmakers-can-afford-to-shoot-film-20150827?utm_medium=sailthru_newsletter&utm_source=slDaily_newsletter

10 years ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Don't shoot on film! Your budget is unbalanced if you're getting people to work for cheap/free just so you can shoot in a self-indulgent format. Especially as (if you've any sense at all) you're going to a digital workflow for post anyway. If you really want to sync and edge, good luck to you. Going to print an optical soundtrack too?! Then how will you exhibit in 16mm? Maybe 1% of cinemas can show 16mm, and maybe 10% of those still have projectionists who can handle that kit!

28 Days Later was shot on DV, and DV sucks by current standards. The technical format limitations certainly wasn't what made that a great film.

Spend the money in a more balanced fashion, get an Alexa or RED or similar, or even shoot on a Canon DSLR, and spend the cash on essentials - your crew and shoot! Get decent catering, pay everyone something, get more production design, audio post, decent lighting setup, whatever. Make 28 Days Later, not a format fetishist piece nobody will want to watch!

9 years, 11 months ago - Daniel Cormack

Digital is coming on leaps and bounds, but film is still better. It will also benefit the project through attracting better talent, particularly in the camera department, but I also think a lot of actors appreciate the aesthetic qualities of films over digital. There is also an element of discipline required with film that is not always present in the digital workflow.

Short films are always short of money and in my opinion you should think about what benefits the people most in making the film. You can start the budget by working out how much it will cost to pay everybody their rate and then working out what you can afford with what's left, but this is a complete nonsense approach and defies the whole logic of why people engage in these endeavours. Yes, the script is the most importand thing and it's fine if you want a lo-fi look to the film, but otherwise you should aspire to put together the best package you possibly. The 'pay everybody the going rate brigade' are only qualified to talk about how to make bad films and lecture other people while looking down their nose about how much better they are in the morals department.

10 years ago - Allan (Mac) McKenna

What possible subject requires 16 mm rather than digital Rob? You don't say. When I first began flirting with film round about millenium time, I came across the oft-heard (and usually rather aggressively voiced) idea that 'even the worst 16 mm is better than the best digital'. Some film schools - like Fulham for instance - ban digitals altogether. Which sounds extraordinary to me. Surely the latest digitals must be getting ever and ever closer to mimicking 35 mm?

9 years, 11 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

I think editing on film is easier. Cutting on the computer is a waiting game, waiting for everything to boot up, to render, it's annoying.

Editing screenplays is even easier by hand. It's easier to read and scan a printed page.

The problem with film is space, that film can spoil, etc. But, if you're experienced, you probably can deal with all that.

As for acting, I'd prefer to rehearse it to death. When shooting digital, you sometime end up with jerks who think it's easy to fix in post. Then you have the extra expenses of crew, location time, etc, and the more takes you have the longer post takes.

That said, I hardly ever get a chance to work with film. So, my experience is mainly limited to digital. Perhaps I'm being a bit nostalgic.

One advantage of digital is you can do really long takes, which is great for documentary. These would also require rehearsal in fiction, but it's worth it in the editing room. I love taking this for granted, not having to worry about changing reels or about having enough lead time. Maybe that's the reason I shoot digital.

9 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Interesting that you say it's easier to edit on film Vasco, have you ever done so with sync sound? That always seemed like a time leech, doing the sync and edge. I guess you can start on the picture cut, but finding clips in bins is surely slower than their digital equivalents, and being able to scrub a whole movie on a timeline without changing reels has to be a plus, let alone the lack of neg cut :).

9 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Cutting on film: I certainly miss my upright moviolas. I prefer cutting on film, but I certainly couldn't argue that it's faster than digital. The problem with digital is that it's too fast. Young editors don't think through a scene before they start cutting. They just throw shit into the timeline to see what sticks. Not everyone, mind you, but the editors that started on film, I've noticed, tend to take a first cut much more seriously than those that started editing after the "digital revolution."

Both have their good and bad, but it's the "work arounds" of digital that kill my enthusiasm for editing. There always seems to be something to fix, and it really screws with the momentum of keeping your head in the cut. In the early days of Avid, I'd add a day a week to the schedule for fixing tech issues. It's not that bad today, but things do crop up a bit too regularly. The only problem on a moviola is changing the light bulb.

10 years ago - Rob Munday

Thanks for the link David, actually saw it a few years back - very effective film. I'm not cutting on film (although I have in the past). Interesting to hear an actors viewpoint, hope the performers in my film won't feel short-changed by the process.

10 years ago - Jamie Kennerley

I hear you Rob - good luck with it. Sounds like you're doing things in a good way.
J

9 years, 11 months ago - Franz von Habsburg FBKS MSc

Yes, I heard one top producer refer to a lighting problem and said "No problem. We'll fix it ADR" !!! A fat lot HE knew! I loved my S35mm Mitchell BNCR. 35mm grain size is around 2 micron. Sony best is around 4 micron. The new digital Bolex BOASTS 5 micron. You do the math for resolution! All the Names can rehearse properly and peak for film. Roman Polanski told me he will not use actors who haven't trod the boards. One ignorant actress, being interviewed at the Oscars said "Thanks but I must rush now. If I'm unlucky I'll find myself sitting with a bunch of editors."! Film schools today don't bother teaching the math of cinematography any more but lensing is lensing.

10 years ago - Dan Selakovich

"Paddy, I absolutely agree that film is no way to polish a turd"

Hey! Watch it, there! That's what I do for a living! ;)

10 years ago - Marlom Tander

Is the film cost the issue? Or is it your shooting ratio?

Frame24 sells process paid 100ft rolls for 55 quid, say 3mins per roll, 440 for 8 rolls.

If you really want to shoot on film then anything you can do to reduce your shooting ratio will save you money PDQ.

If your other costs are low and you have easy access to the location then maybe shoot over 6 days, taking it slowly with a lot of rehersals might allow you to trust to a 1-2 take approach. That cahones of steel :-)

TBH, I'm with Allan.

10 years ago - Claire Pie

Hello Rob,

I have just shot a project in 16mm myself. I don t think it is madness, It is definitely a lot of fun. Of course that depends what you are looking for and why you want to shoot on film like you already explained.
For the coast, you can look out for deals: when getting the film you can find places that include processing as well (they have deals with labs). For the kit, ask for quotes (panavision, arri, movietech etc..) explain your situation and your project and they are likely to help beginners or students.. Depending on what you are doing you don t necessarily need much kit.. If you have more question, please ask.

Have a good day!
Have a good day

10 years ago - Dan Selakovich

I shot my film digitally, and everyone that's seen it thinks I shot on film.

Look, you won't find a more diehard film guy than me, but sometimes you have to face facts. Your film won't be better because you shot on film. It will be better because you have enough time and money to get the coverage you need. If you're here asking us about film costs, you probably don't have enough money to shoot on film. Keep in mind too, you'll need a cameraman or assistant that is experienced in changing out mags, loading, clearing the gate, etc. Those people are getting harder to find these days. At least ones that work for little or nothing. Perhaps you have that covered.

I miss film terribly. I miss editing on film (I'm old, and started long before digital was a glint in the milkman's eye). In the end, are you going to forego that 4th take because your actor hasn't gotten there yet--all because you are shooting on film? Are you cutting digitally? If so, have you factored in those transfer costs? They are considerable.

If you have a good story, good sound, and good acting, people simply won't care that you shot on film or digitally.

10 years ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

Use what ever is right for the material...

Everything else has been said above. Nuff said.

Wozy

10 years ago - Jamie Kennerley

Hi Rob,

I think if you'd explained your reasons for wanting/needing to shoot film in your initial post this thread would have been about half as long... :-) In-camera special fx are a good reason for opting for film.

To answer your question about finances though - yes, the processing side for film has become much more expensive. It cost well over a million quid a year to run the Technicolour lab, so if the clients aren't coming in like they used to how were they going to cover their costs without putting the price up for everyone?

In my experience you should be paying a relatively small amount for your kit hire though. Most decent rental companies have SR3s sitting on the shelves that they'd be happy to get some rental for, as long as it's going out with an experienced focus puller (especially if you're speed ramping or doing other sfx that require someone who knows what they're doing...).

Here's a thought also - if you're looking at your budget and you're saying - "wow, this is going to cost 10K", then you're obviously not looking at a figure of say 7K and saying "This is ALL I have to work with" so why are you taking it as read that crew will be working for very little or nothing? Obviously because you've decided that... but why not be one of those producers who thinks it's important to get money to pay people? If anything, you could blag a camera kit, and if you shout loud enough about shooting on film then you could get excellent cut-rate deals on all your post aspects, leaving you more money to pay people for their time and skills. Unless of course, you just take all the freebies and reduce your budget accordingly, which many people do. Just a thought...

Anyway, good luck with it though. I'm sure we'd all be keen to see it!

Jamie

10 years ago - Holly Jacobson

Personally I hate acting in films where the filmmakers has scrapped together enough money to use film. There is one film school in London that always seems to insist on it I think. I'm sure it would be fine if there was a MASSIVE budget, but when cost is an issue it means everything is over rehearsed and you get one or two takes maximum (the best version usually having been in an unrecorded rehearsal). Digital films look amazing anyway imo.

10 years ago - Rob Munday

Thanks for the link Sean, great to see some clear headed thoughts and figures. And thanks Claire for the tips.
Paddy, I absolutely agree that film is no way to polish a turd and I'd be against anyone who thought that it was some short-cut to quality without spending time on the script and other parts of the production. I suppose it depends on what sort of film you're making, if I was making a dialogue heavy piece that required many takes I'd certainly take that into consideration. Yes, we no longer use wax cylinders or 78s but these are delivery methods not the methods of production and that is a key difference. Musicians hunt out old instruments not just for retro value but for the distinct sound they make and I'm sure if you told them to only produce music on technology made in the last 5 years they wouldn't be best pleased.
Hi Jamie, thanks for the reply. I sincerely wish I could pay everyone properly on this, I have applied for funds and will be crowdfunding to raise money also, but I'm at the awkward stage between doing no-budget no-crew work and wanting to move onto bigger fully budgeted projects. I hope this is a stepping stone as well as a good film. We have a great DoP on board who I have worked with before and everyone involved is there because of the script and the approach I'm taking. Every extra penny will go back into their pockets.
Thanks to everyone who's chipped in.