How Movies Are Shot On Film In The Digital Era 

The beat you used in this video in the beginning actually was used by one of my favorite artists Justin Stone ft Adrian Stresow “NoMe”

Hey, great to see somebody appreciating the Apichatpong Weerasethakuls films! He once gave me a ticket to one of his screenings and I had a short chat with him. He is a very nice person and his team very friendly. I also remember that you once took inspiration for a short you filmed from one of the Romanian movies of the new-realist wave there. It’s nice to see not so well known, artistic cinema being given a place here in this channel! Keep it up!

you guys need to check your filtered words my comments and replies gets auto deleted for some reason

my fave film to be shot on film will be either Call Me By Your Name or Last Night in Soho.

For me, it's got to be Once Upon a Time in Hollywood'.

Technically digital cannot match film at present. Most people who watch films in a cinema are actually watching 2k files that are upscaled to 4K and they do not look that good. 35mm film has a resolution of about 8k minimum.

Yes, who doesn’t want blind terror when they have thousands of dollars and years of their lives wrapped-up in a film production?

@@bighands69 lol. Ok dude.

@@bighands69 5.6k if I recall correct

@@jc-px8ox Nope. The bare minimum for pixel scanning to capture what is considered of a good enough level of detail for a solid film image is 8k. Until we have 8k projectors and 8k content to test that in a theatre we have no way of knowing for sure.

There really are only a few labs left, all of them do good work. There should be no “journey” to the quality of a lab in 2022.

@@CinemaRepository Well, you're mistaken. If you're a cinderblock of a production company like Warner, for example, what you say holds true. If you're an artist or a small production with a music video or ad, not so much. They all do good work, yes - but still, one might be better suited for particular needs than another. Its not all same same.

@@runinair12 What labs do bad work in 2022? Have you used them? I have.

@@CinemaRepository I was going to say, to my knowledge there's literally two UK labs left - Kodac(I-Dallies) and Cinelab. Are there any others?

@@Razzer666 Yea only two in the UK, 7 state side and a few in central europe.

That would be a great video!

Yes, I agree

@@quickfilmmakingtips2870 Yes definitely, I would really to know the history of Filmmaking where it's been and the future of it and how it can evolve or has Filmmakers evolved it so much that there's no innovation will the industry standard for be 24fps or will it change to a higher frame rate.

+++

The channel Analog Resurgence may be of interest to you. Though his focus is primarily film photography, he has quite a few videos on film cinematography as well.

It's really difficult to find information on filmmaking on super 16mm or 35 mm

Same! My DP had her own Aaton A-Minima. It was a really useful decision to shoot S16, and the cost really isn’t as prohibitive as people think.

Its not about crazy its about money

The actual huge costs were in post production back in the film days. Getting a film actually shot on film 'in the can' wasn't as expensive as one might think (there's tricks and schemes you were able to do to get free film), but the roadblock was the expense for post production if you ask me. It was the most frustrating part. I actually still own a used Frezzolini LW16 news camera with 12-120 Angenieux zoom lens from the 70's (similar to the CP16) that I bought for $1200 back in the mid 90's, which was a bargain, but a pain to load and use at times. I had the mickey mouse ear magazines and I remember spending a half hour in a dark closet a few times trying to unscrew the lid on the magazine to retrieve the exposed film. The images that 'cheap' 16mm camera produced was astonishing.

@@simpleetfunky7062 Hit up my channel “cinema repository” all about shooting on film.

Interesting. Can you explain a bit more why the color red looks better on film? Is it more saturated and rich?

@@Pantano63 The chemical process of producing colors in film has a far greater detail than digital has. So while digital can do very high contrast ratios it cannot have the subtle differences that film has when it comes to color. In the real world you will see that many things have color differences. You can have two shades of a color even though they look similar your eyes can pick the differences. Someday there maybe digital processes that can surpass film but we are not there yet.

@@bighands69 Do you have any kind of studies or information that prove that film has better colour? Everything I've ever found or heard that was an actual study with empirical evidence showed that something like the Arri Alexa is better than film in every technical way.

@@TechnoBabble The reason why digital gets used is all down to handling costs and ease of use. I could go through a mountain of specifications in regards to the chemical process of film but I tend to find when doing that on comment sections that people are not really interested.

@@bighands69 So that's a no I assume? I asked for a study on the colour specifically. If it were so obviously better than there would be a completely irrefutable study done that shows that... unfortunately for your weird hatred of digital, that's not the case. I'll gladly be proven wrong if you can show any sort of empirical evidence to support your claims though.

Don’t forget that motion picture film and still film are two vastly different products, not even made in the same factory in some cases.

@@CinemaRepository there are a few

There is usually a video tap, which acts like a monitor for digital cameras. The difference is, it's mostly used for framing and playback, so you can't light just by looking at the video tap because the video quality is pretty bad. You'd have to rely on light meters. Focus pullers have to rely on markers, but some experienced pullers can judge distance just by eye

Focus pullers use tape measure to measure from the focal plane on the camera to the actor or object being shot. All cameras have a focal plane mark to measure from. Then it's a matter of pulling the focus by looking at the marks on the lens. In the days of film, directors weren't 100 percent sure how their film would look until it was processed by the lab and focus pullers can only pray everything was in focus. If you watch old sitcoms (or even some movies) shot on film now remastered in HD, you'll see a lot of out of focus shots (probably because they move so fast during production).

thank you for your explanation ! it makes way more sens now ! I can’t imagine how stressing it it must have been ! but so interesting tho

@@DyenamicFilms if you watch Magnolia (1999), a lot of the shots filmed on a longer lens are slightly out of focus, but still noticeable. Imagine how they reacted when they saw the dailies. I would’ve fired the 1st AC cause it kept happening LMAO

i think professional camera man have the experience or knowledge about what iso fits what film

Every Quetin & Nolan's movies are edited in software and then optically cut on films as per the edited result.

Sadly nobody edits on film anymore. The last big studio film to do so was the Indiana Jones 4 in 2012. They did for secrecy reasons. The process of no digitization is very simple. There are dozens of books and countless videos about “the photochemical process” related to motion picture film. Sadly the cost is exorbitant, which is why nobody does it. Scanning and recording out, creates a much better product.

Exactly, why is it a better option filmming and scaninng into digital afterwards for edition than filmming digital at the very beginning? How does the scann work?does it varies the colour and grain? When the big productions swapped cutting-pdx?

I think he meant that they adjust aperture on digital camera to preview exposure. Main (film) camera keeps aperture DoP want for artistic reason.

Yes, this is absolutely true... in theory... You can't always have the exact aperture that you want, but it's true that we're gonna try to stay at the aperture that's right for the mood and storytelling. Now, depending on the budget and the type of lighting required, you might not have access to lights that are bright enough to, for example, keep a lens fairly closed during a night scene. This is why many indie films and videoclips on a smaller budgets use visual elements that are naturally cinematic for free, hence the endless scenes of rain-over-neon-lights with bokeh, and so on. People often think that bokeh is "more cinematic" when starting out. The truth is, it's just easier to deal when you're on a tight budget, because if you keep the lenses open, the set design doesn't have to be nearly as precise as if you want to shoot with everything in focus. It's not hard at all to hide certain aspects of the set design, or even to blur people in the background who haven't been asked to be extras, with shallow DOF. However, if can become a cheap trick rather quickly and you get over the "wow" factor of bokeh quickly as well. Lastly, people do not thing that we do aperture pull as well as focus pulls - even tho aperture pull are far less used, it's totally possible to do them on professional lenses where the focus won't ever be affected. For instance, if you transition from a dark to a bright room, which transition is almost always covered with a white gradient because it's extremely hard to do, you could pull if off "eye-like" with the right aperture pull. You can also do a number of effects such as gorgeously smooth and controlled fade-to-black, the old school way, or POV of a character opening their eyes by putting a cardboard cutout in front of the lens, etc Aperture can be used for so much more than controlling exposure, and it's not really an exposure control tool in the first place. Even still photographers of a high level would not touch the aperture to expose, but they have the major advantage of being able to change the shutter angle at will, which we can't without creating unnatural blur!

@@jas_bataille I appreciate the in-depth response! Must be nice those who do stills to be able to change the shutter lol. People always talk about the exposure triangle in cinema, and I'm like, No--the triangle there is ISO, light levels, and audience size lol