Jump to content




Photo

GOODBYE FILM, HELLO DIGITAL!

film digital shooting arri film costs

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 Alexander Winfield

Alexander Winfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 24 January 2015 - 12:57 PM

As someone who loves film and the process of it all, and wanting a lucrative career in filmmaking, I would fight anyone who says shooting digital is better (than film) or anyone who puts film down for any reason because I believe film is superior. I still do, when it comes to the approach and the finished product.

 

Well, fast forward into reality, I was about to throw down $3,000+ on an Arri BL4 (plus extras), spoke to a few owners who were more than willing to sell. And although I had that driving force to shoot film and have a big ol’ bad camera, something was bugging me, something was holding me back.

 

Now, I am not a rich man, I’m just like you. But I started thinking, hmmm…most people can’t even tell the difference or don’t care about the difference in picture quality. They also aren’t helping me when I have to purchase, process and scan a 1000’ foot reel. Also, if I differ the costs to the client, then I price myself out of the market if I want to do any ‘for hire’ work. I’m also investing in a camera that will be hard to find parts. So what am I fighting for? Why do I want this uphill battle? Oh, right, the picture quality is supburb and digital still sucks. But it is getting better.

 

Now as nostalgic as Super 8mm is, digital surpassed it. I don’t know if anyone out there could tell me they would want to see a feature length movie on Super 8mm. And as economically as it is to shoot 16mm to a certain extent, digital passed it in regards to resolution and clarity. And it’s just a matter of time before 35mm is caught up with, maybe this year by the new Alexa 65.

 

With filmlabs dwindling in the world, and with Kodak one economic hiccup away from closing, why would I want any counterparty risk to be able to do my work? Yeah, yeah, Star Wars is supposed to be shot on film, etc. etc. etc. but if there’s an economic crash like is expected this year (possibly in the Sept. time frame), then Kodak will be gone, or will become super expensive. And if Kodak goes bye bye, then J.J. Abrams and team will be like, “Uhm guys, let’s do the George Lucas thing and shoot digital seeing that we can’t find any film. And Christopher Nolon might be crying in the bat cave.” And if there’s no film, then I doubt there will be any filmlabs.

 

(Note: If you do not think we are set for a market crash or for an ever spiraling down of the U.S. economy, I invite you to take any U.S. currency bill out from your wallet (if you have any) and I guarantee you, you will not find a bill printed past 2009 (that includes that new $100 bill with the blue stripe…if you’re looking for some tangible proof to what I’m saying that is). You’re money is already monopoly money, you just may not know it yet, shh….mainstream news doesn’t want you to know. To this, l will say one thing and quote J.P. Morgan himself – “Gold is money, everything else is credit.”)

 

So, do I want to buy a BL4 and possibly have nothing to feed it in the near future, and very limited places to process it when digital whom the masses have already accepted helps my wallet? Plain and simple, the infrastructure to shoot film is disappearing more and more everyday. Case in point, the two CVS stores that would develop my C-41 took their machines out last week. Now I have to travel or mail it somewhere. I don’t mind waiting for personal stuff, but for work and clients, I need it today.

 

Now, I will still shoot film for personal use, my old Nikon FG is still kicking, or if I find a 16mm camera at a garage sale, or if a friend is shooting a 35mm movie and needs my help or my own little project, but for my work and my dime, uh-uh, I rather keep as much of my money as I can and shoot digital.

 

What I do like about film is that it allows you be as artistic as you want to be, digital isn’t there yet, but it’s getting there on some level. And I’m not looking for a digital cam that will look just like film, that a pipe dream, but if I can find something I can at least work with, that could be something. I did see one video recently that got me thinking. It was footage shot with the Blackmagic production camera and here’s the link…

 

 

Is the footage perfect? No, but it does have a different feel I think from the Alexas-Reds-Sonys-Genesis of the market. I could do something with this, I can work with it. The camera housing is butt-ugly, I would have to get passed that. And if not this camera, then another, but the bottom line is, digital makes a lot more cents.

 

Where was my breakthrough you ask? I realized I was emotionally attached to film, and I needed to break that. It was clouding my mind from looking at things objectively. I didn’t want to do Blockbuster’s mistake and not foresee the trend and inadvertenly have my butt kicked to the curb by Netflix and Redbox.

 

Big deal, I can’t call myself a ‘filmmaker’ because I’m not actually shooting physical film through a 40 lb. iron movie camera, oh well, I’ll just have to let that title go for a lucrative career. I’m sure I can find something else to call myself, like, ‘the camera guy,’ or ‘digitizer of the world’, whatever, who cares, at least I’ll have work and food in my stomach as I enjoy my craft. 

 

 

Just sharing my journey, maybe someone else can relate.

Best regards,

Alexander


  • 0




#2 aapo lettinen

aapo lettinen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 24 January 2015 - 03:23 PM

I think one should really invest on lenses nowadays and preferably to a set which can be used with lots of cameras, both film and digital.  

Film cameras are so affordable nowadays that if you can afford the lenses and accessories the camera body is almost free compared to them, less than one basic prime lens purchased new   ^_^

 

It's mainly about what you want to shoot and which kind of productions you're involved in. If you just want to shoot film for personal projects then you could maybe be happier with a 16mm camera, maybe a model from Arri SR series. 

 

I myself have purchased lots of old lenses (old Nikkors and Russian lenses) which are very hard to find from rental houses. I also got two Konvas 1KCP:s for couple of hundred bucks (had to repair them myself but that was not overly complicated) and can shoot 35mm with them for personal projects and maybe 2nd unit if necessary. I have spent about 4 or 5 times more money to the oct18 lenses alone than to the two Konvas cameras so it is really more about the lenses which can be used with almost any camera and last many years than about the camera bodies which have their limitations and if digital you have to update them anyways at least every couple of years   :ph34r:   


  • 0

#3 Alexander Winfield

Alexander Winfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 24 January 2015 - 03:27 PM

I concur, lenses is it. That's where it's really worth it to invest your money.

 

Thanks!


  • 0

#4 aapo lettinen

aapo lettinen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 24 January 2015 - 03:43 PM

16171748547_a5fc60f61a_z.jpg

16171748777_b364320aea_z.jpg

16171748807_8d14506dd6_z.jpg

 

not suitable for sound shooting but perfect for picking up shots every now and then for documentary films  :lol:


  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2367 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 January 2015 - 06:14 PM

Why film? 

 

Because it takes true talent to shoot film and make it look good. With Digital cinema, you have a histogram monitor in your "digital village", plus a 4K monitor, and the ability to adjust LUT's on the fly on the camera output, allowing everyone around you to see exactly what the image is going to look like before you hit the record button… isn't that cheating? With Digital, you can mess up the shoot entirely and fix it in post. With Digital, you can shoot all day and all night without any extra cost, meaning you don't need great directors OR actors. Keep rolling and get bits of one performance, mix it with bits of another performance and magically the whole thing looks and sounds pretty. With Digital, still photographers are taking over the world of cinematography because they can shoot "masterpieces" with their MPEG2 still camera's. With Digital, there is nothing "special" about going to the cinema, it's a slightly higher quality version of the same movie you can watch 6 months later at home with your 2k/4k TV on BluRay. With Digital, we have put tens of thousands of people out of work, (cinema/labs/manufacturing), super talented people, most of which will be forced to change professions. With Digital, anyone can buy a camera and shoot anything they want, making "filmmaking" a common-man's activity, which has completely destroyed mid/low budget independent features forever. With Digital, filmmakers are flocking away from the big screen and into television and what they don't realize is, the tools which make cinema "easier" are the same ones which will eventually kill it. 

 

The sad part is, those of us who would rather shoot film (myself included) are forced to shoot digital because someone else thought digital was the answer to cheaper and better cinema. I'll say this much, I think MOST digital cinema looks like crap and because filmmakers today have no restrictions, they can do anything they want. This makes for horrible movies and so much MORE competition for small independents, most of them never see the light of day. Truly brilliant filmmakers aren't being recognized all because everyone can make movies today! Yipee isn't this new world so much fun! 

 

:sigh: 

 

Worst part is, nobody see's the end of theaters coming, but it's coming. The contracts are being written, the studio's are in negotiation, the deals are being done.  I give us maybe 5 years before it starts and another 5 before most of them are gone. We are literally seeing technology destroy one of the greatest entertainment industries that's ever existed. What people don't get is; Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan are not trying to save FILM, they are trying to save CINEMA and that's why both are shooting LARGE format, something you absolutely will never be able to get at home. 


Edited by Tyler Purcell, 24 January 2015 - 06:15 PM.

  • 0

#6 Bruce Greene

Bruce Greene
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 393 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 January 2015 - 06:36 PM

My feelings exactly Tyler...when they invented the light meter :)
  • 1

#7 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1143 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 25 January 2015 - 03:34 AM

The whole film-digital story would look different if video cameras had only 25 to 50 ISO speed.

 

From a film lab point of view:

 

Film making was and is a mutual compliance affair. The ones light and expose decently, the others develop and print within as narrow margins as possible. One shakes the clap, an other decides on synchrony. Finally, cinema people handle film and projectors on their own. The video-computer complex runs parallel to the film industry. Many have changed from the bumpy steel rails to the noiseless magnetic float ways. Point is that the electronic way appeals to puerile stages of development. Film is more adult, perhaps still pubertal, but not childish like the pre-chewed one-for-mum-one-for-dad stuff.


  • 2

#8 Josh Gladstone

Josh Gladstone
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Editor
  • Hollywood

Posted 25 January 2015 - 05:14 AM

I disagree that digital is the end of cinema. It may not be quite there yet, but one or two more cycles of Moore's law and sensors will be bigger and more sensitive, storage will be cheaper, processors faster, projectors brighter and cleaner etc etc. You can't stop active R&D! However it's not film, it shouldn't try to be, and hopefully both formats will be available for making movies far into the future. Plus, keep in mind that better image sensor technology, cheaper storage, etc does mean better quality film scans!

 

And I don't think theaters are going anywhere either. I mean, TV was supposed to be the death knell of the cinema, and I don't think Netflix et al are a bigger threat. They will co-exist.


  • 1

#9 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 6771 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 25 January 2015 - 07:35 AM

Moore's law doesn't really apply to sensors-- e.g. CMOS/CDD chips. You quite honestly eventually run into the limits of physics on them sooner or later (in terms of the physical size of the photo-sites etc etc.)

 

You know, the saddest thing about the whole goodbye film, or the rise of digital, is that in a hundred years, so much of the memories of every day will be gone. Just think, No more shoeboxes of photos to be found by your children when you die. No wedding film on 8mm, or vacations.

News too-- no 16mm footage of important events. Nothing physical which can be stored, seen, translated to whatever format is new.

 

I think that's the real shame in all of this. We're creative enough to adapt to any situation given to us in terms of shooting-- or at least we should be. But, man, think of how much we're already lost with the decline of the disposable camera.


  • 0

#10 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2264 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 25 January 2015 - 10:06 AM

Why film? 

 

Because it takes true talent to shoot film and make it look good. With Digital cinema, you have a histogram monitor in your "digital village", plus a 4K monitor, and the ability to adjust LUT's on the fly on the camera output, allowing everyone around you to see exactly what the image is going to look like before you hit the record button… isn't that cheating? With Digital, you can mess up the shoot entirely and fix it in post. With Digital, you can shoot all day and all night without any extra cost, meaning you don't need great directors OR actors. Keep rolling and get bits of one performance, mix it with bits of another performance and magically the whole thing looks and sounds pretty. With Digital, still photographers are taking over the world of cinematography because they can shoot "masterpieces" with their MPEG2 still camera's. With Digital, there is nothing "special" about going to the cinema, it's a slightly higher quality version of the same movie you can watch 6 months later at home with your 2k/4k TV on BluRay. With Digital, we have put tens of thousands of people out of work, (cinema/labs/manufacturing), super talented people, most of which will be forced to change professions. With Digital, anyone can buy a camera and shoot anything they want, making "filmmaking" a common-man's activity, which has completely destroyed mid/low budget independent features forever. With Digital, filmmakers are flocking away from the big screen and into television and what they don't realize is, the tools which make cinema "easier" are the same ones which will eventually kill it. 

 

The sad part is, those of us who would rather shoot film (myself included) are forced to shoot digital because someone else thought digital was the answer to cheaper and better cinema. I'll say this much, I think MOST digital cinema looks like crap and because filmmakers today have no restrictions, they can do anything they want. This makes for horrible movies and so much MORE competition for small independents, most of them never see the light of day. Truly brilliant filmmakers aren't being recognized all because everyone can make movies today! Yipee isn't this new world so much fun! 

 

:sigh: 

 

Worst part is, nobody see's the end of theaters coming, but it's coming. The contracts are being written, the studio's are in negotiation, the deals are being done.  I give us maybe 5 years before it starts and another 5 before most of them are gone. We are literally seeing technology destroy one of the greatest entertainment industries that's ever existed. What people don't get is; Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan are not trying to save FILM, they are trying to save CINEMA and that's why both are shooting LARGE format, something you absolutely will never be able to get at home. 

 

Very well said, Tyler.  Sadly, you are 100% right on.  When I watched To Kill A Mockingbird last week on TCM, I thought of all the true craftsmen that it took to make that and other films of the period (Ben-Hur comes to mind) - and how at least half of those positions are now digitized.

 

 

You know, the saddest thing about the whole goodbye film, or the rise of digital, is that in a hundred years, so much of the memories of every day will be gone. Just think, No more shoeboxes of photos to be found by your children when you die. No wedding film on 8mm, or vacations.

News too-- no 16mm footage of important events. Nothing physical which can be stored, seen, translated to whatever format is new.

 

I think that's the real shame in all of this. We're creative enough to adapt to any situation given to us in terms of shooting-- or at least we should be. But, man, think of how much we're already lost with the decline of the disposable camera.

 

Just think of all the 16mm films some of us watched in high-school.  Or better yet...the many of hours of NASA footage that were shot solely for the Mercury and Apollo programs.

 

Between the physical media and the cinema, we are losing what I consider to be American cultural treasures.


  • 1

#11 Josh Gladstone

Josh Gladstone
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Editor
  • Hollywood

Posted 25 January 2015 - 10:08 AM

Moore's law doesn't really apply to sensors-- e.g. CMOS/CDD chips. You quite honestly eventually run into the limits of physics on them sooner or later (in terms of the physical size of the photo-sites etc etc.)

 

You know, the saddest thing about the whole goodbye film, or the rise of digital, is that in a hundred years, so much of the memories of every day will be gone. Just think, No more shoeboxes of photos to be found by your children when you die. No wedding film on 8mm, or vacations.

News too-- no 16mm footage of important events. Nothing physical which can be stored, seen, translated to whatever format is new.

 

I think that's the real shame in all of this. We're creative enough to adapt to any situation given to us in terms of shooting-- or at least we should be. But, man, think of how much we're already lost with the decline of the disposable camera.

 

I think Moore's law does apply. Here's a paper by Intel that's all about CMOS scaling and Moore's law. And here's another one called "Moore's Law: A CMOS Scaling Perspective", but that one's behind a paywall.

 

But anyway, I get your point about maxing out the physical capacity of CMOS/CCD chips. But if you think we've reached some sort of technological end point, you're crazy. Sensors will get bigger or some new technology will be developed, and they will continue to get better and more sensitive.

 

And memories will be different in 100 years. Instead of finding a shoebox of your parent's photos, you'll find an old hard drive of theirs filled with jpegs, or an abandoned flickr or social media account, or you'll find their old neuro-crystal memory-cube or whatever in their closet and that will be the thing.

 

I think we're going to actually have the opposite problem than what you predict. It's not that we won't have these memories to go through, it's that we'll have too many! You'll probably end up going through thousands of your grandparent's selfies and food photos and whatnot, and it'll just be so overwhelming nobody will want to go through it. 


Edited by Josh Gladstone, 25 January 2015 - 10:10 AM.

  • 0

#12 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2264 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 25 January 2015 - 10:45 AM

As someone who loves film and the process of it all, and wanting a lucrative career in filmmaking, I would fight anyone who says shooting digital is better (than film) or anyone who puts film down for any reason because I believe film is superior. I still do, when it comes to the approach and the finished product.

 

Well, fast forward into reality, I was about to throw down $3,000+ on an Arri BL4 (plus extras), spoke to a few owners who were more than willing to sell. And although I had that driving force to shoot film and have a big ol’ bad camera, something was bugging me, something was holding me back.

 

Now, I am not a rich man, I’m just like you. But I started thinking, hmmm…most people can’t even tell the difference or don’t care about the difference in picture quality. They also aren’t helping me when I have to purchase, process and scan a 1000’ foot reel. Also, if I differ the costs to the client, then I price myself out of the market if I want to do any ‘for hire’ work. I’m also investing in a camera that will be hard to find parts. So what am I fighting for? Why do I want this uphill battle? Oh, right, the picture quality is supburb and digital still sucks. But it is getting better.

 

Now as nostalgic as Super 8mm is, digital surpassed it. I don’t know if anyone out there could tell me they would want to see a feature length movie on Super 8mm. And as economically as it is to shoot 16mm to a certain extent, digital passed it in regards to resolution and clarity. And it’s just a matter of time before 35mm is caught up with, maybe this year by the new Alexa 65.

 

With filmlabs dwindling in the world, and with Kodak one economic hiccup away from closing, why would I want any counterparty risk to be able to do my work? Yeah, yeah, Star Wars is supposed to be shot on film, etc. etc. etc. but if there’s an economic crash like is expected this year (possibly in the Sept. time frame), then Kodak will be gone, or will become super expensive. And if Kodak goes bye bye, then J.J. Abrams and team will be like, “Uhm guys, let’s do the George Lucas thing and shoot digital seeing that we can’t find any film. And Christopher Nolon might be crying in the bat cave.” And if there’s no film, then I doubt there will be any filmlabs.

 

(Note: If you do not think we are set for a market crash or for an ever spiraling down of the U.S. economy, I invite you to take any U.S. currency bill out from your wallet (if you have any) and I guarantee you, you will not find a bill printed past 2009 (that includes that new $100 bill with the blue stripe…if you’re looking for some tangible proof to what I’m saying that is). You’re money is already monopoly money, you just may not know it yet, shh….mainstream news doesn’t want you to know. To this, l will say one thing and quote J.P. Morgan himself – “Gold is money, everything else is credit.”)

 

So, do I want to buy a BL4 and possibly have nothing to feed it in the near future, and very limited places to process it when digital whom the masses have already accepted helps my wallet? Plain and simple, the infrastructure to shoot film is disappearing more and more everyday. Case in point, the two CVS stores that would develop my C-41 took their machines out last week. Now I have to travel or mail it somewhere. I don’t mind waiting for personal stuff, but for work and clients, I need it today.

 

Now, I will still shoot film for personal use, my old Nikon FG is still kicking, or if I find a 16mm camera at a garage sale, or if a friend is shooting a 35mm movie and needs my help or my own little project, but for my work and my dime, uh-uh, I rather keep as much of my money as I can and shoot digital.

 

What I do like about film is that it allows you be as artistic as you want to be, digital isn’t there yet, but it’s getting there on some level. And I’m not looking for a digital cam that will look just like film, that a pipe dream, but if I can find something I can at least work with, that could be something. I did see one video recently that got me thinking. It was footage shot with the Blackmagic production camera and here’s the link…

 

 

Is the footage perfect? No, but it does have a different feel I think from the Alexas-Reds-Sonys-Genesis of the market. I could do something with this, I can work with it. The camera housing is butt-ugly, I would have to get passed that. And if not this camera, then another, but the bottom line is, digital makes a lot more cents.

 

Where was my breakthrough you ask? I realized I was emotionally attached to film, and I needed to break that. It was clouding my mind from looking at things objectively. I didn’t want to do Blockbuster’s mistake and not foresee the trend and inadvertenly have my butt kicked to the curb by Netflix and Redbox.

 

Big deal, I can’t call myself a ‘filmmaker’ because I’m not actually shooting physical film through a 40 lb. iron movie camera, oh well, I’ll just have to let that title go for a lucrative career. I’m sure I can find something else to call myself, like, ‘the camera guy,’ or ‘digitizer of the world’, whatever, who cares, at least I’ll have work and food in my stomach as I enjoy my craft. 

 

 

Just sharing my journey, maybe someone else can relate.

Best regards,

Alexander

 

If you are attempting to do freelance cinematography as a career, then I fully understand the economics of your choice of digital over film.

 

But I must say, regardless of the fact that you say you love film so much, your certainly don't come across as a person who cherishes its rich history as much as some others on this forum.  You seem to be measuring its usefulness based solely on picture quality when there is much more to it.  Tyler expressed a lot of the nuances in his post.

 

Now as nostalgic as Super 8mm is, digital surpassed it. I don’t know if anyone out there could tell me they would want to see a feature length movie on Super 8mm. And as economically as it is to shoot 16mm to a certain extent, digital passed it in regards to resolution and clarity. And it’s just a matter of time before 35mm is caught up with, maybe this year by the new Alexa 65.

 

Because it is Super8.  It has nothing to do with what other format has surpassed it.  16mm and 35mm have always had better picture quality.  We didn't need digital for that.  Yet, there are filmmakers who want to operate outside of the box and use a different look or format.  And yes, there are audiences for that sort of thing, small though they may be.  You will find many of those types of filmmakers in the experimental realm - a very important part of the cinema - which it sounds like you have yet to explore.

 

Why would you want every film to have virtually the same look and feel to it?  It would be like the museums of the world displaying only Monet's paintings: lovely to look at, but I want to see something different when I go to MoMA.

 

But that's exactly what's happening with this look of digital cleanliness.  Everyone is all about resolution and clarity because this society is constantly chasing this dream of perfection in all of its forms.

 

Meanwhile, everyone has forgotten that there is true beauty in imperfection.


  • 1

#13 Dan Finlayson

Dan Finlayson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Boston

Posted 25 January 2015 - 01:50 PM

And memories will be different in 100 years. Instead of finding a shoebox of your parent's photos, you'll find an old hard drive of theirs filled with jpegs, or an abandoned flickr or social media account, or you'll find their old neuro-crystal memory-cube or whatever in their closet and that will be the thing.

 

You'll find their old hard drive...  and it won't turn on because it is not an archival format and will have long-ago lost all ability to store data.  And that flickr account?  As much as I love flickr, I wouldn't bet on it existing in 100 years, much less maintaining 100 years of photos.


  • 1

#14 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 6771 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 25 January 2015 - 01:52 PM

The irony being that the best materials for archival are actually those first to fall to digital.


  • 0

#15 Alexander Winfield

Alexander Winfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 25 January 2015 - 02:01 PM

Where are the drive ins?

 

Tyler brought out a point I didn't want to, the end of cinema. By the way you can go watch Intersteller on glowgaze.com (I didn't see it). The point is, the general populace don't care if it's film or digital, they just want to be entertained. It's us, who care so much, and granted, I like to think we're artists.

 

There will always be some sort of show somewhere, a nickelodeon, a drive in, but if productions are putting zillions of dollars into a movie, and because it's available online immediately, then they won't get all that money back. Many companies hope to get money from DVD sales, that will decline for sure. The newer generations don't pay. And following that trend, theaters will close down. Truth of the matter, older generations are starting to not pay either. I know plenty 40 year olds, family and kids, who won't pay to go to the theater, and won't pay for the dvd, don't pay for premium cable, maybe they have netflix for the kids. Follow that trend. Are the remaining people enough to sustain a multi-plex? I guess we'll see.

 

Personally, I think maybe the way to make money in the future with movies is advertising. You can watch it for free but will have to deal with some ads, or pay to not have the ads. And on this platform, you'll have a much better quality, like a quicktime. Free will be the only way you can make money in the future, it looks like.

 

So do we all understand the point? That the public as a whole DON'T CARE if it's 1080, 2k, 4k, 6k, red, epic, dragon, film, digital, video, sony, alexa, viper, 2-perf, 3-perf, 4-perf, anamorphic, 5-perf, maybe they care about IMAX, but all they know is it's bigger, and maybe better sound. We're the only ones that care, they've been trained not to due to society and culture.

 

Sometimes I feel like taking the money I was going to spend on a camera and equipment and relocating to Maui and forget about all this crap. What started out as a labor of love for years is now a frustration. Seems easier, I buy a boat and just fish all day or be a beach bum. Instead of trying to impress the 90% plus people that would watch my movie and not even care.

 

Before, an author could write a book and hopefully sell it, even if you had to self-publish it. But then Print on Demand came out and now everyone is an author. Then Kindle and Nook arrive so we became over saturated with books, and now, digital books are offered for free so the author trying to make it, good luck.

 

If I make a movie now, IN THIS TIME, on my own, like a Napoleon Dynamite, how will I make money, the industry is so over-saturated with movies because digital made everybody a movie maker. On top of people just used to watching things for free. Hard to compete.

 

I think the only medium left, unless something new comes out, where one could be a storyteller and have some shelf-life to their work are graphic novels, but that's a niche market, but it could grow.

 

Alexander

 

p.s. - Nice cams Aapo


  • 0

#16 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2264 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 25 January 2015 - 02:13 PM

And following that trend, theaters will close down. Truth of the matter, older generations are starting to not pay either. I know plenty 40 year olds, family and kids, who won't pay to go to the theater...

 

Now 40 year-olds are part of an "older generation?"...

 

Sometimes I feel like taking the money I was going to spend on a camera and equipment and relocating to Maui and forget about all this crap. What started out as a labor of love for years is now a frustration. Seems easier, I buy a boat and just fish all day or be a beach bum. Instead of trying to impress the 90% plus people that would watch my movie and not even care.

 

What is your true motivation for wanting to make films?  Are you looking for money, approval from the general public or do actually have something to say?  Your answer to that question (which you need not share here if you don't want to) will guide the rest of your decisions regarding this entire issue.


  • 0

#17 Josh Gladstone

Josh Gladstone
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Editor
  • Hollywood

Posted 25 January 2015 - 02:53 PM

 the industry is so over-saturated with movies because digital made everybody a movie maker. On top of people just used to watching things for free. Hard to compete.

 

I just completely disagree. People watch more now than they have ever before, and that will probably only continue to increase. There is an enormous demand for content right now.

 

And I'm not sure I agree that digital made everyone a movie maker, but even if it did, why would camera format make it hard to compete against them? That shouldn't have anything to do with it.


Edited by Josh Gladstone, 25 January 2015 - 02:58 PM.

  • 0

#18 Oron Cohen

Oron Cohen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tel-Aviv/London

Posted 25 January 2015 - 03:29 PM

If I make a movie now, IN THIS TIME, on my own, like a Napoleon Dynamite, how will I make money, the industry is so over-saturated with movies because digital made everybody a movie maker. On top of people just used to watching things for free. Hard to compete.

 

I fully agree with what Tyler and most of the others have said. 

 

I would add that actually I think nowadays if you go ahead and make a film, maybe it would be a good idea to shoot on 35mm as it could be something that could potentially differentiate you from the over-saturated crap movie makers you're talking about.

It also not that more expensive to shoot 35mm if you shoot low ratio of around 5:1, you be surprised that if the film doesn't have special effects or anything fancy it wouldn't not cost much more then shooting on an Alexa/RAW workflow and might actually make your life much easier. 

 

Having said that, being a true filmmaker is first and for most about telling great stories.

I remember seeing the behind the scenes of "The Celebration", looking at DOP Anthony Dod Mantle, which made an amazing job lighting and lensing a story with a really cheap consumer DV Camera. another and more recent example is "Frances HA" which was a shot on a 5D, but again the story telling...

 

If you're a beginner though film could defiantly make you stand out from the crowd, and it a very very important tool in our Arsenal that I try to use all the time, and you be surprised how after a short talk with a director they suddenly change their mind and go for film. 

 

Here is a music video I recently shot on Super16: https://www.youtube....W-TG0oYvkGvlKcD 

it was so easy and intuitive shooting film, no menus, no buttons, optical view finder, just me and the camera...and I knew I could trust it, over exposing by 5-6-7 stops in the highlights, its film...it usually looks better than real life :-) and it does! 


  • 0

#19 Alexander Winfield

Alexander Winfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 25 January 2015 - 04:03 PM

 

What is your true motivation for wanting to make films?  Are you looking for money, approval from the general public or do actually have something to say?  Your answer to that question (which you need not share here if you don't want to) will guide the rest of your decisions regarding this entire issue.

 

I love this question, thank you for asking it Bill. It certainly made me look inwards and really assess what's going on, and if I still feel the same as when I started on this journey. It also deserves an honest answer. All of the above.

 

I guess what's bothering me is after writing scripts, learning all I can learn about filmmaking for last 15-20+ years, I see where the industry is heading and it looks like it's eroding. Maybe the industry needs to reinvent itself, maybe I need to do things differently and hopefully it will catch on.

 

In shooting a movie and let's say that movie is decent or even good, I can't see at the present time how to make money from it. It would be nice to be able to pay the crew and expenses, and have a little left over and not have to be in debt. Unless I'm shooting music videos or commercials which is fun and  where I get paid regardless, I don't know how to get paid in making a movie. If anyone has any insight to this in the present time we live in, please share your insight.

 

At the heart, it is storytelling what I want to do, sharing characters that are in my imagination with the outside world to hopefully inspire and illuminate, stories that encourage and are engaging, bringing new creativity to the screen, but I'm not going to go in debt for it.

 

Alexander


  • 0

#20 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 25 January 2015 - 04:15 PM

I think the answer is to make great and unique films that challenge viewers, whatever the format. Just tell interesting stories. Create an experience rich and complex enough that the audience can't consume it all in one viewing. I just saw PT Anderson's 'Inherent Vice' last night and I already know that I want to see it again. I got home and immediately rewatched 'The Master' on Netflix - it was still wonderful.

Shooting format is an important tool in creating that experience because it adds to the overall texture and mood of the work. You're selecting the shape of the frame, the size and texture of the canvas, the quality of the contrast and colors (if there are any), then creating the image to fit the frame you've chosen. I'm glad Anderson chose to shoot 'The Master' on 65mm and went back to 35mm for 'Inherent Vice.' 'The Master' needed an weighty historical grandeur as a vast backdrop to contrast with the tiny lost souls of its characters. You feel sorry for the larger than life charlatan Lancaster Dodd at the end as even he seems small and helpless against the tidal forces of time and history. In contrast, 'Inherent Vice' is a story told at a more human scale. I don't know what Elswit did to the film, but it had a grainy, murky quality that was perfect for the story.

As for making money while creating art, that's a different problem and an old one that predates filmmaking by hundreds of years. Maybe in these times of increasingly concentrated wealth, filmmakers will have to seek out patrons from other industries to finance their work as the great painters of old once did? As long as we get to keep making films for an appreciative film-literate audience, I'm not sure I care who foots the bill.
  • 0



Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Pro 8mm

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Zylight

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

The Slider

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

The Slider

Technodolly

Zylight

Pro 8mm

CineLab

Willys Widgets