bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
For those who might be interested, there's an interesting movie out that looks at the massive wave of change sweeping through the world of movie-making. There's a big focus on the question: "Is this the end of film?"
I thought the relevance of "Side by Side" to those of us in the still-picture world was appropriate. We're struggling with the same issues, aren't we?
Here's the link for more info:
http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/08/3...eves-charts-filmmaking-advances.html?src=dayp
I thought the relevance of "Side by Side" to those of us in the still-picture world was appropriate. We're struggling with the same issues, aren't we?
Here's the link for more info:
http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/08/3...eves-charts-filmmaking-advances.html?src=dayp
kokoshawnuff
Alex
I honestly thought all major studio movies where already digital, but JJ Abrams was committed to making what he believes will be the last big budget movie made on film...the next Star Trek.
After that I don't know if anyone else will try.
After that I don't know if anyone else will try.
amateriat
We're all light!
That is, minus the CGI bits. (The first Star Trek of his was simply stunning.) By the way, The Hobbit is/was being shot on 35mm as well.
Most "blockbuster" Hollywood releases are essentially green-screen adjuncts to video games ("Resident Evil", et cetera). with so much digital composite work that you have to look rather hard for the "live" bits, be they shot on film or otherwise. And, since fewer people are bothering to hit the multiplex (itself part and parcel of the deterioration of the movie-going "experience"), and more than willing to wait until they can watch something on their tablet/smartphone/home flat-screen, the visual "quality" of a movie will matter less and less.
(A curious exception seems to be HBO: I know someone who works on the set of "Boardwalk Empire", the few episodes of which I've seen looked stunning. It was shot for the the "little" screen, but guess what? It's shot big-league style, in 35mm. Some people know the difference.)
- Barrett
Deejon
Member
I worked in Hollywood up until 2 years ago and, as of then, there were still quite high percentages of movies shot on film. Quite a bit of TV too actually.
Although it is expensive compared to digital, in the very grand scheme of big movie budgets, using film stock isn't usually a deal breaker.
Although it is expensive compared to digital, in the very grand scheme of big movie budgets, using film stock isn't usually a deal breaker.
sanmich
Veteran
question is: was it shot on film? 
grapejohnson
Well-known
I've just recently seen some episodes of this and was very impressed by the cinematography. I suppose that's why.
Does anyone know what kind of film stock they use for tv/movies these days? I'm imagining it's Kodak generally, but is it a slide or a negative film? What ISO? Does it matter? I don't understand anything about how they get that kind of stuff to work. After becoming interested in photography, it's hard to watch things anymore without wondering (especially with older things) how the hell they got the exposure right, how they focused so quickly and accurately, how they planned for shifts of lighting, etc. Do they shoot on 400 foot rolls? Forgive my ignorance, I just forget to read about this stuff until I see something about it like this.
corposant
Member
Most TV shows are now shot on digital, however pricier cable shows that can afford it (AMC's shows, some HBO) still use film. It's not just the cost of the film (not significant vs. renting an Arri digital camera), it's the time it takes to get it right and then scan/process.
Kodak Vision3 is industry standard in Hollywood - once you go abroad, Fuji is competitive with their MP film. MP Film usually comes in daylight or tungsten balanced film, which means you are using 200/500 in a studio and 250 in broad daylight. Cinematography has lot in common with still photography, and they get it right by being incredibly precise. When a movie shoots on location, they bring every conceivable lighting tool they think they will need (and then some), so no compromises have to be made (the white trucks you see in LA if you are ever here). That's why it takes so long to make a movie!
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
All taking stock for mainstream productions is CN - however not C41, but a related motion picture specific process. Kodak and Fuji still make CN stock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motion_picture_film_stocks
Reversal film is only on productions (mostly experimental film and music videos) that try to imitate a 60's/70's amateur look.
grapejohnson
Well-known
unrelated (again) but does anyone know what ingmar berman's "the seventh seal" was shot on? every single frame of that movie looks amazing, really high contrast b&w
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Most probably some European black and white film. Kodak did not have than much of a presence over here back then. I vaguely remember a Gunnar Fischer interview where he stated using HP4 on some motion picture, and many Bergman films have the Agfacolor look, so I'd consider Agfa and Ilford the most likely suspects.
David_Manning
Well-known
The Hobbit is being shot on dual Red Epic cameras for 3D. They are using 48-FPS frame rates, too.
fstops
-
That movie looks the way it does because of lighting and the skill of cinematographer -- that's why you have an academy award for best cinematographer not for best film or digital sensor.
grapejohnson
Well-known
i suspected it to be ilford
