A
Alex
Guest
all movies should be made digitally from now on! theres no sense in doing it the old ways still, and everyone who does dunno what they're doing!
G
Guest
Guest
Elephant is shot in 35mm
Elephant is shot in 35mm
-- from HBO Film Newsletter
The makers of Elephant were determined to shoot the film in a real high school. Producer Wolf was able to secure the school system’s permission to use a recently de-commissioned high school in northeast Portland. The school’s furniture and fixtures were still mostly intact. "In pretty short order we had the whole place looking like it was a normal school again. We wanted it to be as real as it could be," Wolf explains.
Elephant filmed for twenty days in November 2002. The film marks the third collaboration between Van Sant and acclaimed director of photography Harris Savides, who shot Van Sant’s Finding Forrester as well as Gerry, which earned Savides a 2002 Independent Spirit Award nomination. Shot in 35mm, Elephant is remarkable for its pictorial beauty and detail: the vistas of land and sky; the long tracking shots that quietly follow the students; the patient observation of a human face. Yet it is also a very immediate and authentic portrait of an environment, and the people within it.
Elephant is shot in 35mm
-- from HBO Film Newsletter
The makers of Elephant were determined to shoot the film in a real high school. Producer Wolf was able to secure the school system’s permission to use a recently de-commissioned high school in northeast Portland. The school’s furniture and fixtures were still mostly intact. "In pretty short order we had the whole place looking like it was a normal school again. We wanted it to be as real as it could be," Wolf explains.
Elephant filmed for twenty days in November 2002. The film marks the third collaboration between Van Sant and acclaimed director of photography Harris Savides, who shot Van Sant’s Finding Forrester as well as Gerry, which earned Savides a 2002 Independent Spirit Award nomination. Shot in 35mm, Elephant is remarkable for its pictorial beauty and detail: the vistas of land and sky; the long tracking shots that quietly follow the students; the patient observation of a human face. Yet it is also a very immediate and authentic portrait of an environment, and the people within it.
Alex you Dunno
Alex you Dunno
Oh my dear Alex, you have so much to learn in this world. Have you ever shot on film? Of course you have because if you hadn't then you wouldn't have been so STUPID to make such a remark. So tell me, how easy is it to achive pure black with DV or HD for that matter? Whats the resolution of Film compared to HD? Oh and by the way what is the cost of Renting an HD cam, HD deck, 3t hard drives, an Offline and Online editing suite, and a crew and DP that knows how to make video look good?
I shot a short on 16mm (6 min) cost- $890
A friend shot a 35mm short (12min) cost - $6,000
Another friend shot HD (7min) cost - $8,000
The 16mm looked better than the HD did and there are reasons for that.
1. The DP under lit (ok party foul, it might have looked better if he hadn't of screwed up. Point being: Not everyone is a Robert Rodriguez)
2. They couldn't afford an Onine edit (Point being: HD is to expensive)
3. IT LOOKED LIKE VIDEO! (point being... IT LOOKED LIKE VIDEO)
I mean sure you can make a print of an HD film, sure you might have to do an online edit with film, my major point being is that HD doesn't cost any less than film. Compare the cost of Star Wars EP1 and 2 to the cost of LOTR. WHo spent more? Good ol lucas did. Which series was better by a land slide? LOTR!!!
Film may never die, it's like any other art form. There may be other mediums, but what medium is better is up to the artist and the audience that the art is for. To judge others and call them stupid for liking the look of one thing over the other is like trying to define art.
Alex you Dunno
Oh my dear Alex, you have so much to learn in this world. Have you ever shot on film? Of course you have because if you hadn't then you wouldn't have been so STUPID to make such a remark. So tell me, how easy is it to achive pure black with DV or HD for that matter? Whats the resolution of Film compared to HD? Oh and by the way what is the cost of Renting an HD cam, HD deck, 3t hard drives, an Offline and Online editing suite, and a crew and DP that knows how to make video look good?
I shot a short on 16mm (6 min) cost- $890
A friend shot a 35mm short (12min) cost - $6,000
Another friend shot HD (7min) cost - $8,000
The 16mm looked better than the HD did and there are reasons for that.
1. The DP under lit (ok party foul, it might have looked better if he hadn't of screwed up. Point being: Not everyone is a Robert Rodriguez)
2. They couldn't afford an Onine edit (Point being: HD is to expensive)
3. IT LOOKED LIKE VIDEO! (point being... IT LOOKED LIKE VIDEO)
I mean sure you can make a print of an HD film, sure you might have to do an online edit with film, my major point being is that HD doesn't cost any less than film. Compare the cost of Star Wars EP1 and 2 to the cost of LOTR. WHo spent more? Good ol lucas did. Which series was better by a land slide? LOTR!!!
Film may never die, it's like any other art form. There may be other mediums, but what medium is better is up to the artist and the audience that the art is for. To judge others and call them stupid for liking the look of one thing over the other is like trying to define art.
M
mark
Guest
Great for low budget shoots
Great for low budget shoots
Well all that may be true unless you don't mind sacrificing a little quality for affordability. If you don't show with high end cameras you can still get reasonably good quality picture from cameras like the Panasonic DVX100. We recently shot a short film with that camera and the total cost of the film was aroudn $10,000 for a 20 - 30 minute film (still in editing). That includes all productions costs and not just the cost of the digital tapes (which aren't really that expensive at all).
Of course, we already owned the $3,000 camera so that helped but still...the quality is good enough if you don't have loads of money to go around
Great for low budget shoots
Well all that may be true unless you don't mind sacrificing a little quality for affordability. If you don't show with high end cameras you can still get reasonably good quality picture from cameras like the Panasonic DVX100. We recently shot a short film with that camera and the total cost of the film was aroudn $10,000 for a 20 - 30 minute film (still in editing). That includes all productions costs and not just the cost of the digital tapes (which aren't really that expensive at all).
Of course, we already owned the $3,000 camera so that helped but still...the quality is good enough if you don't have loads of money to go around
D
Digigenic
Guest
I love film and I love digital...why don't we keep them both around, ha.
Even though as an artist I can say this, the people who manufacture the film stock and the CCD or CMOS sensors will not utter such a phrase, because their main objective is to provide products that will be the most cost effective. And from the looks of it, the manufacturers are going to side with digital. Some already have in an alarming way, take a look at Kodak for instance, 14,000 jobs gone; film go bye-bye.
Again, I love film, I've always admired it's rich and beautiful textures...but now, so much of what we see in film utilizes the DI process to achieve such quality imagery. Digital is showing promise one way or another...we'll just have to be thankful that for the moment we still have a choice between the two. I think it's funny how people battle over it though.
I'll say this, about 10 years into the future, for sure 20, give or take a few years, nobody will have the same luxury of choice we had, because digital or a form of media that is even more remarkably immediate will be the only choice. And believe me, as we progress deeper into the rapid currents of a technologically driven society, immediacy will be the only result that one expects from anything, especially if it’s expected to entertain.
Good Day
Even though as an artist I can say this, the people who manufacture the film stock and the CCD or CMOS sensors will not utter such a phrase, because their main objective is to provide products that will be the most cost effective. And from the looks of it, the manufacturers are going to side with digital. Some already have in an alarming way, take a look at Kodak for instance, 14,000 jobs gone; film go bye-bye.
Again, I love film, I've always admired it's rich and beautiful textures...but now, so much of what we see in film utilizes the DI process to achieve such quality imagery. Digital is showing promise one way or another...we'll just have to be thankful that for the moment we still have a choice between the two. I think it's funny how people battle over it though.
I'll say this, about 10 years into the future, for sure 20, give or take a few years, nobody will have the same luxury of choice we had, because digital or a form of media that is even more remarkably immediate will be the only choice. And believe me, as we progress deeper into the rapid currents of a technologically driven society, immediacy will be the only result that one expects from anything, especially if it’s expected to entertain.
Good Day
M
mark
Guest
I know what you mean but I believe that some things will never die. While economically digital will certainly completely replace film eventually, there will still be those artists who refuse to convert and even new artists that want to experience the way the old filmmakers used to do it.
Film will never die, however it will certainly become less mainstream. Just think of other technologies that have come that surpass previous technologies but are still used widely today.
For example, black and white film...although long since proven to not be as realistic as color film, it is widely used as an artistic medium in both still and motion picture photography.
How about records? Even with modern technology some people love the use of good 'ol fashion records instead of modern technologies like cd's and mp3's.
Mankind has always had a certain sense of nostalgia and I don't think that will end anytime soon.
Film will never die, however it will certainly become less mainstream. Just think of other technologies that have come that surpass previous technologies but are still used widely today.
For example, black and white film...although long since proven to not be as realistic as color film, it is widely used as an artistic medium in both still and motion picture photography.
How about records? Even with modern technology some people love the use of good 'ol fashion records instead of modern technologies like cd's and mp3's.
Mankind has always had a certain sense of nostalgia and I don't think that will end anytime soon.
A
aPerfectCircle
Guest
why we gotta discriminate? :lol: can't we all just get along!
-user preference-
-user preference-
FullSaileee
New member
RE: Film or Video
RE: Film or Video
Hello All,
Interesting conversation we all are having here mind if I say a few things.
Well to begin I would like to say both mediums are great depending on what your story calls for this is why you would have a DOP so he can help you get the most out of the story on to the screen, lot of people disagree with FILM I can truly understand that due to the cost and all. I have shot close to 45 shorts and about 2indi's the biggest question that I have always been asked is "how much will it cost?" This seems to the main factor these days with choosing the medium, but you have to understand digital is still very far away from where film is, majority of the people who disagree with this are usually people who have not shot film and it’s understandable the fact is film is expansive. I remember back in college one of my professors told me " FILM IS LIKE MAKING LOVE AND VIDEO IS MORE LIKE A ONE NIGHT STAND" what he meant by this quote was that video is much easier and does not take much effort to do compared to Film. Anyways back to the subject of why digital is still a long time away is because all theaters in USA are film projectors and there are hardly any digital projectors unless we go to independent theaters where they showcase indi's and if you have not yet noticed all the movies shot on HD had to be printed on film so they can be distributed in US and be played nationwide and usually this takes up the cost twice as much. but a true artiest would know when to use the proper medium this is what shows his professionalism, and to be knowledgeable of both formats makes you even more desirable in the industry.
RE: Film or Video
Hello All,
Interesting conversation we all are having here mind if I say a few things.
Well to begin I would like to say both mediums are great depending on what your story calls for this is why you would have a DOP so he can help you get the most out of the story on to the screen, lot of people disagree with FILM I can truly understand that due to the cost and all. I have shot close to 45 shorts and about 2indi's the biggest question that I have always been asked is "how much will it cost?" This seems to the main factor these days with choosing the medium, but you have to understand digital is still very far away from where film is, majority of the people who disagree with this are usually people who have not shot film and it’s understandable the fact is film is expansive. I remember back in college one of my professors told me " FILM IS LIKE MAKING LOVE AND VIDEO IS MORE LIKE A ONE NIGHT STAND" what he meant by this quote was that video is much easier and does not take much effort to do compared to Film. Anyways back to the subject of why digital is still a long time away is because all theaters in USA are film projectors and there are hardly any digital projectors unless we go to independent theaters where they showcase indi's and if you have not yet noticed all the movies shot on HD had to be printed on film so they can be distributed in US and be played nationwide and usually this takes up the cost twice as much. but a true artiest would know when to use the proper medium this is what shows his professionalism, and to be knowledgeable of both formats makes you even more desirable in the industry.
D
Digigenic
Guest
:lol:
Loved the analogy on film and video...
...but, I feel like such a slut now...
Loved the analogy on film and video...
...but, I feel like such a slut now...
LOL. After that, I don't think I'd trust anything that guy said.
Sure, there are things that are easier on video than film, but if you want a good-looking video you're going to have to invest almost as much time lighting it and setting everything up as you would to shoot on film. And, frankly, unless you're a masochist I don't see the point of intentionally making life harder for yourself than you need to.
FullSaileee
New member
Hello all,
I guess the notion of FILM is not understood in this forum and the ideal are set very low as far as standards go. The forum talks greatly and highly about Video and compares it to Film when the best of critics don’t even say the two in the same sentence. I don’t know what video format people on this forum are talking about, the clear reality of the matter is that video is just a immature way of looking into the industry.
When in comparison to HD the highest quality is 1920 x 1080 is comparison to 35mm film the calculations are 4096 x 3112 – 4K that is 50mb per frame. How can you compare such significant number, that is what is wrong about illiteracy about video and film. If everyone can take a moment and actually go to college and study they will understand and appreciate film much more. A film is a product of hundreds of people and there efforts. A video can all be done by one guy for example if you have seen “Once upon a Time in Mexico” you would understand what Robert Rodriguez did while playing around with HD format.
Video is a technology that is coming of age and age will follow along with it and will catch to the 35mm but it is surely not happening in our times. We are professional for this day and age and we should look at the highest and most reliable technology out there but not forget that the past technology is there for a reason.
I guess the notion of FILM is not understood in this forum and the ideal are set very low as far as standards go. The forum talks greatly and highly about Video and compares it to Film when the best of critics don’t even say the two in the same sentence. I don’t know what video format people on this forum are talking about, the clear reality of the matter is that video is just a immature way of looking into the industry.
When in comparison to HD the highest quality is 1920 x 1080 is comparison to 35mm film the calculations are 4096 x 3112 – 4K that is 50mb per frame. How can you compare such significant number, that is what is wrong about illiteracy about video and film. If everyone can take a moment and actually go to college and study they will understand and appreciate film much more. A film is a product of hundreds of people and there efforts. A video can all be done by one guy for example if you have seen “Once upon a Time in Mexico” you would understand what Robert Rodriguez did while playing around with HD format.
Video is a technology that is coming of age and age will follow along with it and will catch to the 35mm but it is surely not happening in our times. We are professional for this day and age and we should look at the highest and most reliable technology out there but not forget that the past technology is there for a reason.
Many of us have shot both video and film, which is precisely why we understand the differences and the costs and limitations of both film and video.
It's also well worth remembering that whereas you'll get the full resolution of your original HD footage out to the final projection, even if you assume that the original film really, actually, has 4k resolution (highly debatable and heavily dependant on film stocks), you'll never get that to the final print because of the analog film reproduction process... you'd have to scan the original film in at 4k, do everything digitally and then output direct to your release prints from the digital footage. In most cases your release prints will be fourth generation analogue copies, with all that entails.. it's unlikely they'll have noticeably better image resolution than 1080 line HD direct to film or from a digital projector.
Finally, it's also worth remembering that a huge part of your movie's lifetime income will come from home video, which isn't going to go beyond 1080 line HD for a long, long time. Even DV footage doesn't look bad on a DVD if it's shot carefully.
It's also well worth remembering that whereas you'll get the full resolution of your original HD footage out to the final projection, even if you assume that the original film really, actually, has 4k resolution (highly debatable and heavily dependant on film stocks), you'll never get that to the final print because of the analog film reproduction process... you'd have to scan the original film in at 4k, do everything digitally and then output direct to your release prints from the digital footage. In most cases your release prints will be fourth generation analogue copies, with all that entails.. it's unlikely they'll have noticeably better image resolution than 1080 line HD direct to film or from a digital projector.
Finally, it's also worth remembering that a huge part of your movie's lifetime income will come from home video, which isn't going to go beyond 1080 line HD for a long, long time. Even DV footage doesn't look bad on a DVD if it's shot carefully.
FullSaileee
New member
Hello All,
Well Mark after reading your last reply, you leave a serious doubt in my head about how much time and research you put in to actually replying your answers. Don't take this the wrong way I am not trying to attack you or disrespect you about your knowledge on film and video, I just think you need to do more research before you reply to your answers. Well anyways here is what you wrote" even if you assume that the original film really, actually has 4k resolution (highly debatable and heavily dependant on film stocks), you'll never get that to the final print because of the analog film reproduction process" First I would like to say how can it be dependent on film stocks? The only difference the film stock will make would be if it’s more or less grainer depending on the T-grains it’s got nothing to do with resolution unless you are shooting a different format but for instance like super 16 or 35mm but even then only difference would be depth of field. Well back to the 4k resolution you have to understand this is what is captured what makes you think they will capture it at a 4k and print it to 1080? Instead it’s printed 601k and if you don't know what that is it’s uncompressed. I can break this down even more but I don’t see the need to talk about digital intermediate prints making this a longer debate with further a due I would like to say there is no way I am saying I know everything about filmmaking cause I don’t. The thing about filmmaking is you are always learning new things this is what makes this field exciting everyday in and out.
Well Mark after reading your last reply, you leave a serious doubt in my head about how much time and research you put in to actually replying your answers. Don't take this the wrong way I am not trying to attack you or disrespect you about your knowledge on film and video, I just think you need to do more research before you reply to your answers. Well anyways here is what you wrote" even if you assume that the original film really, actually has 4k resolution (highly debatable and heavily dependant on film stocks), you'll never get that to the final print because of the analog film reproduction process" First I would like to say how can it be dependent on film stocks? The only difference the film stock will make would be if it’s more or less grainer depending on the T-grains it’s got nothing to do with resolution unless you are shooting a different format but for instance like super 16 or 35mm but even then only difference would be depth of field. Well back to the 4k resolution you have to understand this is what is captured what makes you think they will capture it at a 4k and print it to 1080? Instead it’s printed 601k and if you don't know what that is it’s uncompressed. I can break this down even more but I don’t see the need to talk about digital intermediate prints making this a longer debate with further a due I would like to say there is no way I am saying I know everything about filmmaking cause I don’t. The thing about filmmaking is you are always learning new things this is what makes this field exciting everyday in and out.
The grain is what determines the maximum resolution of the film stock. Grain is film's equivalent of 'pixels': the smallest unique colored object in the film; like a pixel in digital video, one film grain is one color with little variation. Shoot grainy, high-speed film and there's no way you're getting 4k resolution across the film, whereas if you shoot very low speed, small grained film you may do so (but I doubt that many movies will make the sacrifices required to do that due the extra lighting, etc).
Seriously, you seem to be making assertions about film when you don't even understand the process by which light that goes into the camera ends up as light coming out of the projector onto the movie screen.
Seriously, you seem to be making assertions about film when you don't even understand the process by which light that goes into the camera ends up as light coming out of the projector onto the movie screen.
D
Digigenic
Guest
:roll:
Full Saileee,
The significance of film in its’ form and function has already been acknowledged in this forum and in many other forums many times before.
But, you insist that we're uneducated or ill informed because we don't share your perception of film, or express it to the degree that you deem agreeable.
Everybody in this forum understands the notion and/or expression of film in their own way. To many of us, it’s a personal understanding, so you can't expect us all to relate by the same set of standards or beliefs.
Lastly, digital video is not an immature way of looking into the industry.
If anything, it’s a premature way of operating within the industry...but, the general videographer doesn't really operate within the industry, so it doesn't really matter.
Full Saileee,
The significance of film in its’ form and function has already been acknowledged in this forum and in many other forums many times before.
But, you insist that we're uneducated or ill informed because we don't share your perception of film, or express it to the degree that you deem agreeable.
Everybody in this forum understands the notion and/or expression of film in their own way. To many of us, it’s a personal understanding, so you can't expect us all to relate by the same set of standards or beliefs.
Lastly, digital video is not an immature way of looking into the industry.
If anything, it’s a premature way of operating within the industry...but, the general videographer doesn't really operate within the industry, so it doesn't really matter.
Similar threads
- Panasonic
- Live Webinars
Network Sponsors
