I do, but it depends on what the project is and how I want to create the images. It is getting harder and harder to justify the choice either artistically or financially as electronic cameras advance.
I did once to learn. I wouldn't do it again, as I learned what I needed to. I hate the look in 4k, and would always opt for digital both artistically and financially.
The knowledge, experience, and skill-set needed to shoot film well is significantly different than for electronic cameras. The artistry and creativity needed to create appropriately evocative images to further the storytelling is the same.
I don't like the look of film grain in 4k. Dancing noise in ultra high def is not pleasing to my eye. In 2k or lower it doesn't bother me as much. On a business perspective I also do not like the price tag attached to producing in film, either!
Thank you for the info. Just a couple of other questions, if I can. Was is 16mm or 35mm? Was it transferred in 4K? Where were you watching it when you formed your impressions: on a grading monitor or was it projected and if projected, Film, 2K or 4K projector?
What I have shot on was 8mm film. However my 4k impressions were from mainstream movies produced on film and projected at 4k in a theater. For instance one of the strongest negative impressions for me was "A Good Day To Die Hard". Realize that film grain is a stylization. Film imparts color and texture that is not natural; people are just used to it. In some cases it looks great. My personal preference has been moving away from it as projectors and TVs provide ever more clarity, and as I work with clean Epic footage. Incidentally, the coloring I put on is not natural either. With a digital system I get a vanilla slate to color as I desire, as opposed to stylized color from film, for better or worse.
Thank you all for sharing your take on this format. In answer to Andrew's question my project is about capturing street life situations with real people following Dziga Vertov's kino eye principles. This entails minimal crew to observe people actions in one take without a video assist. Check out http://youtu.be/m_LGliNGDpw for an example I shot on a Beaulieu R16.
A Beaulieu R16! haven't even heard anyone mention one of those in a really long time. Lens? Film stock? I watched "Man With a Movie Camera" a few months ago. Interesting enough picture to see again. Struck me that it is somewhat of a mix of documentary and "reality TV" genres. Different than either and with slow filmstocks, all of the interiors need lots of lighting, as do a lot of the exteriors because of latitude. Just as with his hand-cranked camera, the Beaulieu is not completely unobtrusive. I tried to watch the link you posted but it would only play 1 second of black. I thought, "interesting approach to shooting, with a very consistent image and a very even handed approach to the wonderful dark humour of the story" :-) or is there just an issue with youtube?
I still shoot film quite often, not only for motion but also for stills. Sadly most of this year has been D-Cinema but I've still probably rolled a few tens of thousands of feet of Kodak.
Daniel I think you have achieved what you were aiming for. Much of your short certainly feels like Vertov's work. I was quite surprised at that. having recently watched "Man With a Movie Camera" again, much of the form and artistic sensibilities are there creating a different viewing experience than is usually the case with current productions. Congratulations!! The handheld sections took me out of the "Vertov" feeling. That could just be my reaction to the style since Vertov did not use handheld cameras although if he were working today he might well use them. Thanks for posting the piece.
I still do. It really depends on the project and budget and with the advent of such great digital technologies, as someone mentioned before, it's getting harder and harder to justify shooting on it. I shot the last bit of Fuji film on a 35mm feature I did in Austria last year right around the time that Europe's Fuji headquarters closed. I also just shot a 16mm B&W short on double-x combined with Vision 3 500T for some night exterior.
I do, but it depends on what the project is and how I want to create the images. It is getting harder and harder to justify the choice either artistically or financially as electronic cameras advance.
I did once to learn. I wouldn't do it again, as I learned what I needed to. I hate the look in 4k, and would always opt for digital both artistically and financially.
I'm a child of the video age. Never shot on film.
We just finished Fuji's last project on super 16.
Cory, what was it that you did not like about the film originated images you are referring to?
The knowledge, experience, and skill-set needed to shoot film well is significantly different than for electronic cameras. The artistry and creativity needed to create appropriately evocative images to further the storytelling is the same.
Dan. It really is kind of sad when a way of seeing is gone. Assuming no NDA, what is the project?
I don't like the look of film grain in 4k. Dancing noise in ultra high def is not pleasing to my eye. In 2k or lower it doesn't bother me as much. On a business perspective I also do not like the price tag attached to producing in film, either!
Thank you for the info. Just a couple of other questions, if I can. Was is 16mm or 35mm? Was it transferred in 4K? Where were you watching it when you formed your impressions: on a grading monitor or was it projected and if projected, Film, 2K or 4K projector?
What I have shot on was 8mm film. However my 4k impressions were from mainstream movies produced on film and projected at 4k in a theater. For instance one of the strongest negative impressions for me was "A Good Day To Die Hard". Realize that film grain is a stylization. Film imparts color and texture that is not natural; people are just used to it. In some cases it looks great. My personal preference has been moving away from it as projectors and TVs provide ever more clarity, and as I work with clean Epic footage. Incidentally, the coloring I put on is not natural either. With a digital system I get a vanilla slate to color as I desire, as opposed to stylized color from film, for better or worse.
Cory, thanks for sharing the additional information on the basis of your opinion.
Thank you all for sharing your take on this format. In answer to Andrew's question my project is about capturing street life situations with real people following Dziga Vertov's kino eye principles. This entails minimal crew to observe people actions in one take without a video assist. Check out http://youtu.be/m_LGliNGDpw for an example I shot on a Beaulieu R16.
Just realized I still have Kodak Vision 2 film in my fridge. Should probably use it soon.
A Beaulieu R16! haven't even heard anyone mention one of those in a really long time. Lens? Film stock? I watched "Man With a Movie Camera" a few months ago. Interesting enough picture to see again. Struck me that it is somewhat of a mix of documentary and "reality TV" genres. Different than either and with slow filmstocks, all of the interiors need lots of lighting, as do a lot of the exteriors because of latitude. Just as with his hand-cranked camera, the Beaulieu is not completely unobtrusive. I tried to watch the link you posted but it would only play 1 second of black. I thought, "interesting approach to shooting, with a very consistent image and a very even handed approach to the wonderful dark humour of the story" :-) or is there just an issue with youtube?
Oops sorry about the link issue. this one should work http://youtu.be/m_LGliNGDpw
I still shoot film quite often, not only for motion but also for stills. Sadly most of this year has been D-Cinema but I've still probably rolled a few tens of thousands of feet of Kodak.
Daniel I think you have achieved what you were aiming for. Much of your short certainly feels like Vertov's work. I was quite surprised at that. having recently watched "Man With a Movie Camera" again, much of the form and artistic sensibilities are there creating a different viewing experience than is usually the case with current productions. Congratulations!! The handheld sections took me out of the "Vertov" feeling. That could just be my reaction to the style since Vertov did not use handheld cameras although if he were working today he might well use them. Thanks for posting the piece.
I still do. It really depends on the project and budget and with the advent of such great digital technologies, as someone mentioned before, it's getting harder and harder to justify shooting on it. I shot the last bit of Fuji film on a 35mm feature I did in Austria last year right around the time that Europe's Fuji headquarters closed. I also just shot a 16mm B&W short on double-x combined with Vision 3 500T for some night exterior.