Making Movies

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by James Silverton, Sep 15, 2008.

  1. Hello All!

    I suppose I could do some Googling but can anyone tell me quickly if
    movies are made using film these days? The range of even still film
    appears to lessen all the time.


    --


    James Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland

    Email, with obvious alterations:
    not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
     
    James Silverton, Sep 15, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:05:44 +0100:

    >> Hello All!
    >>
    >> I suppose I could do some Googling but can anyone tell me
    >> quickly if movies are made using film these days? The range
    >> of even still film appears to lessen all the time.


    > I'm a bit out of touch now-a-days, but until recently the
    > majority was shot on film, even if it was going to be sent to ILM.


    >This is possibly not the best newsgroup as it deals mainly with stills.
    >It maybe worth posting to a video/motion picture type newsgroup.


    Any ideas for an active movie making group? It's not easy to find one.

    --

    James Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland

    Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
     
    James Silverton, Sep 15, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. James Silverton

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:43:47 GMT, "James Silverton"
    <> wrote:

    > Paul wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:05:44 +0100:
    >
    >>> Hello All!
    >>>
    >>> I suppose I could do some Googling but can anyone tell me
    >>> quickly if movies are made using film these days? The range
    >>> of even still film appears to lessen all the time.

    >
    >> I'm a bit out of touch now-a-days, but until recently the
    >> majority was shot on film, even if it was going to be sent to ILM.

    >
    >>This is possibly not the best newsgroup as it deals mainly with stills.
    >>It maybe worth posting to a video/motion picture type newsgroup.

    >
    >Any ideas for an active movie making group? It's not easy to find one.


    The newsgroup microsoft.public.windowsxp.moviemaker is quite active.
    The focus of the newsgroup is to provide help with using the free
    Microsoft moviemaker software, but posts touch on many areas of making
    movies.

    Pay particular attention to the posts of "PapaJohn" and visit his
    website at: http://www.papajohn.org/ . Also, read John Inzer's
    posts.

    It's a difficult newsgroup to follow because so many of the posts have
    to do with the same questions and problems. There's wheat mixed in
    with the chaff, though.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 15, 2008
    #3
  4. tony wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:44:04 -0400:

    >>
    >> Any ideas for an active movie making group? It's not easy to
    >> find one.


    > The newsgroup microsoft.public.windowsxp.moviemaker is quite
    > active. The focus of the newsgroup is to provide help with
    > using the free Microsoft moviemaker software, but posts touch
    > on many areas of making movies.


    Thanks, I'll lurk for a little while :) I would have supposed that the
    posters there might be convinced that film was dead! I really just
    wondered what was current commercial practice. Pixar does awfully well!
    --

    James Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland

    Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
     
    James Silverton, Sep 15, 2008
    #4
  5. James Silverton

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:49:54 GMT, "James Silverton"
    <> wrote:

    > tony wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:44:04 -0400:
    >
    >>>
    >>> Any ideas for an active movie making group? It's not easy to
    >>> find one.

    >
    >> The newsgroup microsoft.public.windowsxp.moviemaker is quite
    >> active. The focus of the newsgroup is to provide help with
    >> using the free Microsoft moviemaker software, but posts touch
    >> on many areas of making movies.

    >
    >Thanks, I'll lurk for a little while :) I would have supposed that the
    >posters there might be convinced that film was dead! I really just
    >wondered what was current commercial practice. Pixar does awfully well!


    While that group primarily works with camcorder output, the concepts
    of making the movie are the same.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 15, 2008
    #5
  6. James Silverton

    Me Guest

    James Silverton wrote:
    > Hello All!
    >
    > I suppose I could do some Googling but can anyone tell me quickly if
    > movies are made using film these days? The range of even still film
    > appears to lessen all the time.
    >
    >

    Even if 35mm film is superseded for "shooting" movies, movies shot now
    on digital are distributed to cinemas on (much more) film until
    superseded by digital projection. AFAIK outside the US, uptake of
    digital projection is very very slow, perhaps due to reluctance by
    cinema chains to invest in fast developing technology which may have a
    relatively short life-cycle before being superseded and/or reducing
    dramatically in price. I'd expect that once momentum in digital
    projection uptake builds, then the decline of 35mm film may become very
    rapid. Before digital still photography eroded 35mm film sales, I
    understand that movie use accounted for over 20% of 35mm film volume. I
    guess that's at least double now.
     
    Me, Sep 15, 2008
    #6
  7. James Silverton

    Ray Fischer Guest

    James Silverton <not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not> wrote:
    >Hello All!
    >
    >I suppose I could do some Googling but can anyone tell me quickly if
    >movies are made using film these days?


    Yes. Mostly.

    > The range of even still film
    >appears to lessen all the time.


    There is no digital technology that can match 70mm movie film.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 16, 2008
    #7
  8. James Silverton

    Me Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > James Silverton <not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not> wrote:
    >> Hello All!
    >>
    >> I suppose I could do some Googling but can anyone tell me quickly if
    >> movies are made using film these days?

    >
    > Yes. Mostly.
    >
    >> The range of even still film
    >> appears to lessen all the time.

    >
    > There is no digital technology that can match 70mm movie film.
    >

    "If you shoot at 4K, but want a “film look”, then you finish at 2K and
    add some grain. It’s easy. It looks like film. However, if you finish
    and screen at 4K. the result is like shooting in 65mm, like the old
    epics used to do. It’s pretty exciting, and will have a major impact on
    indie filming – but we could see no reason why you couldn’t use these
    cameras for any type of movie. I’m seriously considering using RED for
    The Lovely Bones."

    (Peter Jackson after trialling prototype "Red One")

    So there you have it - if you shoot at half resolution and add grain
    (and approx APS-c sensor) you can get (35mm) "film look". At full
    (12mp) resolution without grain, the "result is like shooting in 65mm".

    Tell me why theory should show Peter Jackson wrong.
     
    Me, Sep 16, 2008
    #8
  9. James Silverton

    No Spam Guest

    "James Silverton" <> wrote in message
    news:6bxzk.211$...
    > Hello All!
    >
    > I suppose I could do some Googling but can anyone tell me quickly if
    > movies are made using film these days? The range of even still film
    > appears to lessen all the time.
    >


    Watch the closing credits of a movie, you'll see shot on Eastman Color, or
    Fuji Color etc...

    The short answer is many movies now are hybrids, CGI is digital but it is
    often exposed back to film stock. The main part is film.
     
    No Spam, Sep 16, 2008
    #9
  10. No wrote on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:09:07 -0400:


    > "James Silverton" <> wrote in
    > message news:6bxzk.211$...
    >> Hello All!
    >>
    >> I suppose I could do some Googling but can anyone tell me
    >> quickly if movies are made using film these days? The range
    >> of even still film appears to lessen all the time.
    >>

    > Watch the closing credits of a movie, you'll see shot on
    > Eastman Color, or Fuji Color etc...


    It sounds to me as if we are in the midst of a revolution especially
    when you hear words like "never" :) I wonder what the situation will
    be 10 years hence. I have not been inside a theater projection room in a
    long time but I suppose they still deliver film reels for use on the old
    projectors.

    --

    James Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland

    Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
     
    James Silverton, Sep 16, 2008
    #10
  11. In message <gana1s$696$>, Me <>
    writes

    >" but we could see no reason why you couldn’t use these cameras for any
    >type of movie. I’m seriously considering using RED for The Lovely
    >Bones."
    >
    >(Peter Jackson after trialling prototype "Red One")
    >
    >So there you have it - if you shoot at half resolution and add grain
    >(and approx APS-c sensor) you can get (35mm) "film look".


    The Red One is a digital movie camera that isn't up to full 35mm film
    camera capabilities, but it's getting there. The key thing is that when
    it goes on sale the camera is going to be priced at about $17,500 --
    that's less than what it costs a film company to *hire* a Panavision
    35mm film camera for a month's shooting. Indie moviemakers are creaming
    their jeans over what they'll be able to do with it, and the big guys
    like Jackson are also very interested in it as its compact size allows
    it to be used in places where the bigger Panavision cameras won't fit.

    > At full (12mp) resolution without grain, the "result is like shooting
    >in 65mm".
    >
    >Tell me why theory should show Peter Jackson wrong.


    People who have worked with the Red One prototypes are finding its
    tonal range and colour response to be different to 35mm Eastman film
    stock, but they can use that for their own ends as they learn its
    intricacies. The Red One can't do some tricks 35mm film cameras can do,
    like overspeed for slowmo effects -- it's stuck for the moment at 30fps
    maximum at best resolution. The next generation of digital movie cameras
    will have more capabilities.
    --
    To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
     
    Robert Sneddon, Sep 16, 2008
    #11
  12. James Silverton

    Me Guest

    Robert Sneddon wrote:
    > In message <gana1s$696$>, Me <>
    > writes
    >
    >> " but we could see no reason why you couldn’t use these cameras for any
    >> type of movie. I’m seriously considering using RED for The Lovely
    >> Bones."
    >>
    >> (Peter Jackson after trialling prototype "Red One")
    >>
    >> So there you have it - if you shoot at half resolution and add grain
    >> (and approx APS-c sensor) you can get (35mm) "film look".

    >
    > The Red One is a digital movie camera that isn't up to full 35mm film
    > camera capabilities, but it's getting there. The key thing is that when
    > it goes on sale the camera is going to be priced at about $17,500 --
    > that's less than what it costs a film company to *hire* a Panavision
    > 35mm film camera for a month's shooting. Indie moviemakers are creaming
    > their jeans over what they'll be able to do with it, and the big guys
    > like Jackson are also very interested in it as its compact size allows
    > it to be used in places where the bigger Panavision cameras won't fit.
    >
    >> At full (12mp) resolution without grain, the "result is like shooting
    >> in 65mm".
    >>
    >> Tell me why theory should show Peter Jackson wrong.

    >
    > People who have worked with the Red One prototypes are finding its
    > tonal range and colour response to be different to 35mm Eastman film
    > stock, but they can use that for their own ends as they learn its
    > intricacies. The Red One can't do some tricks 35mm film cameras can do,
    > like overspeed for slowmo effects -- it's stuck for the moment at 30fps
    > maximum at best resolution. The next generation of digital movie cameras
    > will have more capabilities.


    I expect that the frame rate can only go up as development continues.
    Tonal range and colour response are arguably better with digital. With
    digital still from raw files, replicating kodachrome, fuji etc is
    trivial. "Different" isn't a limiting factor if the original data is
    recorded accurately.
    I'm surprised that Sony haven't disclosed that they are working on this
    - it would seem natural that they would want to pursue this market as it
    would seem to tie in neatly with their TV camera/sensor/dslr technologies.
     
    Me, Sep 16, 2008
    #12
  13. In message <gapbeq$e18$>, Me <>
    writes
    >Robert Sneddon wrote:


    >> The Red One is a digital movie camera that isn't up to full 35mm
    >>film
    >> camera capabilities, but it's getting there.


    >I'm surprised that Sony haven't disclosed that they are working on this
    >- it would seem natural that they would want to pursue this market as
    >it would seem to tie in neatly with their TV camera/sensor/dslr
    >technologies.


    Sony already has a film-industry-class digital movie camera on the
    market. It costs a lot more than the Red One and takes proprietary
    lenses (it's Sony, what did you think they would do?) whereas the Red
    One uses stock 35mm movie camera lenses that can be easily hired for a
    shoot. Many cinematographers have favourite lenses in their own shooting
    boxes that can also be deployed on set as needed, plus filter mounts
    etc.

    The workflow for this kind of all-digital film shoot will need shaking
    out -- no more chemical development of filmstock on-set, but safing the
    data records with backups etc. and producing "rough cuts" for end-of-day
    review is going to be necessary. A Red One camera produces terabytes of
    RAW data each day; that's a lot of hard discs to be kept organised,
    duplicated, logged etc.
    --
    To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
     
    Robert Sneddon, Sep 17, 2008
    #13
  14. James Silverton

    Me Guest

    Robert Sneddon wrote:
    > In message <gapbeq$e18$>, Me <>
    > writes
    >> Robert Sneddon wrote:

    >
    >>> The Red One is a digital movie camera that isn't up to full 35mm
    >>> film
    >>> camera capabilities, but it's getting there.

    >
    >> I'm surprised that Sony haven't disclosed that they are working on this
    >> - it would seem natural that they would want to pursue this market as
    >> it would seem to tie in neatly with their TV camera/sensor/dslr
    >> technologies.

    >
    > Sony already has a film-industry-class digital movie camera on the
    > market. It costs a lot more than the Red One and takes proprietary
    > lenses (it's Sony, what did you think they would do?) whereas the Red
    > One uses stock 35mm movie camera lenses that can be easily hired for a
    > shoot. Many cinematographers have favourite lenses in their own shooting
    > boxes that can also be deployed on set as needed, plus filter mounts
    > etc.


    Okay - I didn't know that. What's the (sensor) format of the Sony
    camera? Does is use Sony Memory Stick too? <g>
    I see that there's even an F mount plate for "Red" - but that would
    presumably exclude use of Nikkor "G" (electronic aperture) lenses,
    though some clever individuals have apparently figured out how to get
    them working on Canon SLRs, so probably not insurmountable.
    >
    > The workflow for this kind of all-digital film shoot will need shaking
    > out -- no more chemical development of filmstock on-set, but safing the
    > data records with backups etc. and producing "rough cuts" for end-of-day
    > review is going to be necessary. A Red One camera produces terabytes of
    > RAW data each day; that's a lot of hard discs to be kept organised,
    > duplicated, logged etc.


    That's probably why Peter Jackson was trialling them. Weta Studios who
    he works with have the gear and expertise - I doubt it would have
    presented the slightest problem to him/them.
     
    Me, Sep 17, 2008
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ablang
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    469
    Ablang
    Dec 21, 2004
  2. Ablang
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    648
    Ablang
    May 6, 2005
  3. Ablang
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,046
    Ablang
    Sep 14, 2005
  4. so57th
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    515
  5. Making time lapse movies from photos

    , Dec 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    567
    Mark²
    Dec 30, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page