Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?

[Andrew Reid]

Hollywood filmmakers have been lobbying for the survival of film for quite some years. Now the studios have bowed to pressure and signed new deals with Kodak for the continued supply of celluloid.

What's the point?

Read the full article: http://www.eoshd.com/2015/02/kodak-celluloid-film-saved-studios-oh-way-whats-point/

[odie]

since I'm born in '91 I have no emotional attachment to kodak...but after working with it...well there is a magic to it....professionally in LA shows like BREAKING BAD..TRUE DETECTIVE..BOARDWALK EMPIRE..are amazing visually...pick the right medium for the right job...(for me ..it's when you have actors..models...high end commercials...skin tones are important) (try it when you can it is amazing)

no reason to wish the death of a great medium..which built the industry 

[Andrew Reid]

Nah it's no longer the case. Digital has superseded it for skin-tones and even dynamic range.

What's the magic to having a film camera on set? It's just a tool. The magic happens in the image quality, the feel, the talent on the set.

[Jimmy]

A couple of years ago, you were championing shooting 1 second 4K raw with a Nikon v1 and said it was a good way to get focused on the art.... Now 12 minutes of film is too restrictive and cold?

I'm happy that film is going to be available. The more options the better....... In the right hands, it is still the most visually appealing image in the world, with a certain magic that I have yet to see with digital. I only had the pleasure to shoot 16mm at college, but it was and still is special.

[Jimmy]

Nah it's no longer the case. Digital has superseded it for skin-tones and even dynamic range.

What's the magic to having a film camera on set? It's just a tool. The magic happens in the image quality, the feel, the talent on the set.

​You answered your own question... The magic of having a film camera on set is the image quality and the feel.

[Andrew Reid]

A couple of years ago, you were championing shooting 1 second 4K raw with a Nikon v1 and said it was a good way to get focused on the art.... Now 12 minutes of film is too restrictive and cold?

​That 1 second 4K raw was great, reminds me of Lars Von Trier 12 frame rule in The Five Obstructions.

Film doesn't offer a restriction as extreme as that. It is just like digital but more expensive, slower to use, slower to handle in post, slow slow slow!

[Jimmy]

There are alot of valid reasons that most films are shot digitally.... But if a crafted film maker wants to use film and knows what they are doing, how is that a bad thing? It is like wanting to stop making pianos because it takes longer to tune, is heavier to carry and a digital piano can now recreate the sound (debatable).

To me, The Dark Night was, visually, one of the most stunning films of a generation.... Maybe it would look just as good in digital (if a 65mm digital cam even existed then). Why take away the choice though or be unhappy that the choice is now going to be available?

[Willy Busfield]

Using film can give an artist something to react to.  Something tangible and predetermined in look and feel.  If that feeling benefits the filmmaker then who cares if they use it. Skin-tones and dynamic range hold a very subjective importance.  The artist feeling inspired and reactionary has more value and film can force that value with certain filmmakers.  

Christopher Nolan's films feel cold because of Christopher Nolan, not because he's shooting film.  He has the best of the best loading and cleaning his cameras, it doesn't take any more time or thought on his part.  

I hope film never goes away.  Diversity and character in our tools as filmmakers is a beautiful thing that is being watered down by the ease with which technically pristine images can be captured.  

 

[Andrew Reid]

Agree that diversity is good thing, which is why we have digital!

It's way more diverse looking than film.

I don't begrudge Nolan his film cameras, but I do think it's time we moved on from it. Draw a line under the past.

[Jimmy]

You realise that film gets digitized right? You can stretch that image any which way you want.

Each film stock is just another "sensor", at the end of the day.. Just an analogue one with a look that some people think is right for them. Choice is good.

[Andrew Reid]

Indeed. And if projection is all digital, there's even less point in film!!

[Jimmy]

Your argument seems to be that there is no difference.... in which case, why care if something is shot on film or digital?

It's not your money or time.

[norliss]

Truth be told digital now makes more sense for a whole plethora of reasons: more practical, cheaper etc etc. I think Andrew makes a fair point about modern film stocks too: there's no comparison between the look of some of the more recent films compared with the best of the films from the 1960s, 1970s etc.

That said given the supposed superiority of digital, it's funny how much time and effort is made to make it look like film 

[Zigmars Zilgalvis]

I love it for stills and pretty sure BW film will outlive as all.

I do agree that film (definitely stills pro films like Portra) is not as cool looking as in the past days - like Agfa Optima or Portra VC, those where amazing. Velvia is cool but the price is too high for slides at this point. New gen film is sort of flat compared to old ones. Still great, but too clean too sterile. I say Kodak Ektar is only oldschool color film out there for stills.

As for motion pictures... like that has ever been available for people like us (students, enthusiasts, freelances, small studios etc...). Maybe 16mm back in the day.

Just check out Interstellar in proper 4k projection... that's the piece of analog capture beauty. Or Baraka... just saying... we never got chance to use it so what is the point of "choosing" digital when film was never really the option.

And that is for serious work of course, now with digital the freedom is unbelievable. Just remember - where there many more good poems written when pens became available? Same goes for filmmaking.

And i do respect your opinion, i am just not as happy about the fact as you are. Nostalgia i guess. However if you compare Se7en and Girl With the Dragon Tattoo... at least for Fincher... is there even a comparison for feel, quality and basically everything picture-wise? Hard not to like his analog stuff more.

 

 

 

 

[Daniel Acuña]

Film is going to stay for people who want to use it (obviously it's not everyone), it's just another option ou there for "some" filmmakers. One of the main reasons people still want to shoot with film, apart from it's look, it's because of the workflow, they are used to it, (shooting, and then watching the dailies later, etc..). Some DPs hate the way digital works (I am not talking about how it looks) but because now they have 12 people watching on a screen what the DP is doing and giving remarks on his work, he has much more pressure, especially if actors are not happy the way they look. With film everyone would trust the DPs knowledge and experience.

In the end it's still just a tool to tell a story, if the directors thinks that it is going to help him tell the story because he prefers the look, the workflow, and what it means to shoot film, then so be it, who are we to tell if something is better!

I really don't see what the fuss is all about, we should be happy that film will still be around as an option to shoot a movie.

[odie]

http://vimeo.com/83774924    here's a director dp working with (super cheap) super 8mm  (i support the artist and whatever choice he or she makes)

 

for me kodak film...watching first dailies...well it was love at first sight...the unexplainable...

 

for practical reasons use both digital and film keep them both competitive and evolving

[theryaner]

You should just delete this post because you aren't making any sense. You've been pushing the organic feel of images for years now with anamorphic lenses and praising cameras/lenses that aren't too clinical because they have a "film-like" look, and now you're telling them to stop promoting film stocks for good? What's wrong with giving filmmakers the option of using their preference of image acquisition, digital isn't going anywhere so this news will have ZERO effect on what you're doing. Also, you don't see the benefits of meticulously planning and visualizing a scene when working with film's limitations? Movies these days are shot so haphazardly and sloppy because people have an infinite amount of recording time and a ridiculous amount of flexibility in post to fix their mistakes later. I personally work better under limitations, shooting raw on the BMPCC with 20 mins per card kinda' reminds of film so it makes me work more carefully. Anyway, it feels like you're making a stand against film just to have an excuse to write something.

[Andrew Reid]

You should just delete this post because you aren't making any sense. You've been pushing the organic feel of images for years now with anamorphic lenses and praising cameras/lenses that aren't too clinical because they have a "film-like" look, and now you're telling them to stop promoting film stocks for good? What's wrong with giving filmmakers the option of using their preference of image acquisition, digital isn't going anywhere so this news will have ZERO effect on what you're doing. Also, you don't see the benefits of meticulously planning and visualizing a scene when working with film's limitations? Movies these days are shot so haphazardly and sloppy because people have an infinite amount of recording time and a ridiculous amount of flexibility in post to fix their mistakes later. I personally work better under limitations, shooting raw on the BMPCC with 20 mins per card kinda' reminds of film so it makes me work more carefully. Anyway, it feels like you're making a stand against film just to have an excuse to write something.

​You do make many good points.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have the choice.

I am saying, let's not pretend film and 'the past' is somehow magical and better than the latest digital technology. That's not true. Creatively, you can do more today.

These elitist dinosaurs in Hollywood wanting to shoot film... I don't get it. It gives them zero benefit.

[theryaner]

​You do make many good points.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have the choice.

I am saying, let's not pretend film and 'the past' is somehow magical and better than the latest digital technology. That's not true. Creatively, you can do more today.

These elitist dinosaurs in Hollywood wanting to shoot film... I don't get it. It gives them zero benefit.

​Yep, I totally don't approve of the whole film is objectively better than digital statement either. There's certainly pros and cons to both mediums, I prefer film but I do recognize that it's not a fair statement with today's digital technology to say that it's better.

[Willy Busfield]

The only person being elitist is you, by thinking the medium they are choosing to use isn't good enough.