# film, but related.



## bribrius (Feb 10, 2015)

With 35mm Film Dead Will Classic Movies Ever Look the Same Again - The Atlantic


thoughts?  read this yesterday. still kind of tossing it around.


----------



## Light Guru (Feb 10, 2015)

The article you link to is more then 2 years old and 35mm film is definitely not dead. 

Kodak and Hollywood finalize deals to save movie film The Verge


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 10, 2015)

Damn.... now I gotta go bury the 35mm film I have.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I never realized it was dead.  I guess that explains the smell.


----------



## Light Guru (Feb 10, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Damn.... now I gotta go bury the 35mm film I have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You might have zombie film, so if it's dead it doesn't really matter.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 10, 2015)

Light Guru said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Damn.... now I gotta go bury the 35mm film I have.
> ...




I was curious as to why expired film was selling on ebay for so gawd-blessed much these days.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

Ok. Before I say what I am about to say, I have used film. Quite a bit actually. Now. That out of the way.... Am I the only one who doesn't miss 35mm - like AT ALL?

And as far as the film industry goes, what's the big appeal? 25 years ago if you asked a cinematographer "hey, how would you feel about a camera that had more resolution and greater dynamic range in a package slightly smaller than your current rig" don't you think that would be appealing? Now that this is available with digital (that nasty bad word), they're all snobby about it! What if Kodak came up with a super high definition 35mm film stock in 1990. Would we be reminiscing about the good old days of grainy images with only a few stops of latitude? Raving about it's inherent, ethereal superiority?

I can understand making artistic choices that embrace film, but to hold onto it for the sake of holding onto it is just absurd.


----------



## timor (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Ok. Before I say what I am about to say, I have used film. Quite a bit actually. Now. That out of the way.... Am I the only one who doesn't miss 35mm - like AT ALL?
> 
> And as far as the film industry goes, what's the big appeal? 25 years ago if you asked a cinematographer "hey, how would you feel about a camera that had more resolution and greater dynamic range in a package slightly smaller than your current rig" don't you think that would be appealing? Now that this is available with digital (that nasty bad word), they're all snobby about it! What if Kodak came up with a super high definition 35mm film stock in 1990. Would we be reminiscing about the good old days of grainy images with only a few stops of latitude? Raving about it's inherent, ethereal superiority?
> 
> I can understand making artistic choices that embrace film, but to hold onto it for the sake of holding onto it is just absurd.


Apparently you wrong. But don't worry, for super sharp non-grainy pictures Hollywood will still use digital technology. I am sure about it. And don't worry (again), eventually equipment for cinema film projection will crap out and that will be the end you waiting for. Perhaps still in our life... And then who cares, old movies are boring, no matter if made on film or digital, no matter, how superior... Eh


----------



## limr (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> I can understand making *artistic* choices that embrace film, but to hold onto it for the sake of holding onto it is just absurd.



Did you even read the article about the problems with preserving the *artistic* choices and quality of older movies when they are converted to digital? And how they have to convert to digital because many labs have stopped printing the movies on film? And how they've found that digital archives were more fragile and more expensive? So...artistic choices, practicality, finances...how exactly is that holding onto film just to hold onto it?


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

you all know of course, the nails are going in the coffin on it. it is all going digital. Unfortunate as film does have a distinct quality.  happy they managed contract with kodak. wonder how long those contracts are goo for..


unpopular said:


> Ok. Before I say what I am about to say, I have used film. Quite a bit actually. Now. That out of the way.... Am I the only one who doesn't miss 35mm - like AT ALL?
> 
> And as far as the film industry goes, what's the big appeal? 25 years ago if you asked a cinematographer "hey, how would you feel about a camera that had more resolution and greater dynamic range in a package slightly smaller than your current rig" don't you think that would be appealing? Now that this is available with digital (that nasty bad word), they're all snobby about it! What if Kodak came up with a super high definition 35mm film stock in 1990. Would we be reminiscing about the good old days of grainy images with only a few stops of latitude? Raving about it's inherent, ethereal superiority?
> 
> I can understand making artistic choices that embrace film, but to hold onto it for the sake of holding onto it is just absurd.


history. Photography and the film industry both have a very strong artistic and cult like following. The idea it is just about the final image I attend with the Walmart mentality. And it clearly matters otherwise people wouldn't be screaming they want to shoot their movie in film not digital.  Again, those that say it is just about the final image. Are shortsighted at best.  Like photography, digital cheapens the film industry. The real lovers of the industry (Quentin Tarantino for example) I fully expect to get upset.  The ones just in it to make a buck of course they don't care .
Quentin Tarantino Reopens New Beverly But Is 35mm Sustai Thompson on Hollywood

I am somewhat a tarantino fan.   He will operate and lose money on 35mm before lets it go. If anyone loves the industry it is him.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

timor said:


> And then who cares, old movies are boring, no matter if made on film or digital, no matter, how superior... Eh



Simply because I embrace digital doesn't mean I don't appreciate old films. Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

As for projection, meh. If old films were worth preserving on the basis on their story merit, then it does not matter how they are maintained or projected.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Like photography, digital cheapens the film industry.



Cheap photographers cheapen the photography industry. Cheap film makers cheapen the film industry. This appeal to tradition is not only rubbish, but is unsubstantiated given the number of bad films produced in film, and great films produced in digital. _Independence Day, Jurassic Park, Spice Girls ... _all shot on film.

One of the best films of all time, _Ida_, was shot in digital. This is hardly a "cheap" film, regardless if money wasn't wasted on silver halide!


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > And then who cares, old movies are boring, no matter if made on film or digital, no matter, how superior... Eh
> ...


I embrace digital. I see the difference as well. It comes down to a very cultish look of art and craft.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

Craft.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Like photography, digital cheapens the film industry.
> ...


Most of the new films need to be shot in digital for the special effects. Because they lack story line,  plots, or copied them from the past movies with remakes.  All they have going for them is the digital manipulation. Reminds one a lot of photography don't it?


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

bribrius said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



That's far from the case. It's been 15 years since any major film wasn't edited digitally, which involves scanning the footage and editing on a computer. Before that film printers were sophisticated enough that CGI special effects could produce special effects nearly as good as most today (with the exception of the latest generation of spectacles Fern Gully II: Avatar). Titanic was shot on film, and may have been printed (or even edited) optically. In fact the composition techniques we use in software like Fusion, After Effects and Nuke come from film printers.

Again, Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Plan 9 From Outer Space, And yes, IMO Star Wars - ALL shot on film and all lousy due to special effects taking center stage.

This is just bad story telling and bad film making, not bad technique.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

I've no doubt that if filmmakers who shoot with digital want the look of film for their projects, rather than the ultra-crispness of digital, it can be rendered in post production.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

(well, in the case of Jurassic Park, it didn't help that the film makers had a lousy, pretentious book to start with. At least the pages of pretentious science baloney was written out)


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 11, 2015)

I wanna see if I got this straight.

The medium should be condemned because some use it to create crap.


No?


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

Buckster said:


> I've no doubt that if filmmakers who shoot with digital want the look of film for their projects, rather than the ultra-crispness of digital, it can be rendered in post production.



That is one of the most obnoxious thing about so many film makers and digital in general. So many film makers aren't brave enough to actually take advantage of what digital has to offer for not other reason than film is what we're used it.

However, it's not always the case. _Ida _looks like film to an extent, but mostly because it's black and white.

Other film and cinematographers makers, such as Lars Von Trier, Jody Lee Lipes, Michael Mann have embraced digital cinematography. Even David Lynch has reversed his opinion on digital, stating he'd "Never go back to film".

As a photographer, I do not aim for a film-like quality in any of my work, and have found that much of what we desire from film is actually more in the lens than the sensing media.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


be nice you provided link to support your case. But regardless thanks for helping my case. A serious movie venture intended to be classic should have no business with digital manipulation. Sounding a lot like the claim of photoshop being the extension of the dark room. Really isn't the same thing though is it.    People that know, know the difference.  And the myriad of images turned out are discounted accordingly.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> (well, in the case of Jurassic Park, it didn't help that the film makers had a lousy, pretentious book to start with. At least the pages of pretentious science baloney was written out)


What a coincidence!  I just watched it again the other day, this time in 3D on my new 60" 3D TV from a Blu-Ray disc, and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Again.

I see you've moved on to heavily-opinionated film and book expert critic, since that whole heavily-opinionated faux-Photoshop-blur spotting expert thing didn't quite work out for you.  Good luck with that new career direction.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I wanna see if I got this straight.
> 
> The medium should be condemned because some use it to create crap.
> 
> ...



I don't know if you're talking to me or not. But of course I do not have this view. My point here is that crap is crap regardless of the medium. Film can be used to it's inherent qualities, but holding onto it, or insisting it's "better" for the sake of these qualities is absurd.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

Buckster said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > (well, in the case of Jurassic Park, it didn't help that the film makers had a lousy, pretentious book to start with. At least the pages of pretentious science baloney was written out)
> ...



I don't care about your big TV. And of course it's a matter of opinion. Grow up.


BTW - my career path is none of your concern.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

bribrius said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


Classic!  

Oh, how I love the "experts" encountered on this forum!!


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

imagine "it's a wonderful life " originally shot in digital with digital manipulations. would anyone even take it seriously?


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


Thanks. What I lack for in knowledge I make up for by being idealist with a really chitty attitude.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

bribrius said:


> imagine "it's a wonderful life " originally shot in digital with digital manipulations. would anyone even take it seriously?


Peer into your Magic 8 Ball and tell us, o' expert see'r of all things art.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

bribrius said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



What specifically do you want cited? (serious question)

What "manipulations" are acceptable then? The special effects in _Star Wars_ seem to be OK for most people. What about the opening sequence of _Citizen Kaine_? What about the planet colliding with Kirsten Dunst in _Melancholia_, or the child falling from the window in _Antichrist_? What about the mat paintings in Hitchcock films?

Special effects are used to propel a story along. It doesn't matter how the special effects are composed or composited. Any plot that relies on them is going to be garbage.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I've no doubt that if filmmakers who shoot with digital want the look of film for their projects, rather than the ultra-crispness of digital, it can be rendered in post production.
> ...


You should definitely show them how to do it right.  I'm sure they just need an expert like you to show them the way.

I know I'm looking forward to finally seeing a great film that changes the whole paradigm, just as soon as you make it.


----------



## limr (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> That is one of the most obnoxious thing about so many film makers and digital in general. So many film makers *aren't brave enough* to actually take advantage of what digital has to offer for not other reason than film is what we're used it.



And one of the most obnoxious thing about the digital devotees is their assumption that they know the motivations of people who still prefer film for movies or for photographers. We're called dinosaurs, Luddites, snobs, pretentious hipster idiots. And look, now we're told we are cowardly.



unpopular said:


> I don't know if you're talking to me or not. But of course I do not have this view. My point here is that crap is crap regardless of the medium. *Film can be used to it's inherent qualities, but holding onto it, or insisting it's "better" for the sake of these qualities is absurd.*



So...film has inherent qualities and it's okay to choose film for those qualities, but it's NOT okay to think those qualities are better? If they weren't better for my purposes, why would I choose it? And wanting to hold onto those qualities because then we would have NO choice...how is that bad?


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

Buckster said:


> I know I'm looking forward to finally seeing a great film that changes the whole paradigm, just as soon as you make it.




I don't need to do it. Lars Von Trier and Pawel Pawlikowski already has.

Plus I am not a film maker, and the paradigm has already shifted. And unlike you, I've at least taken a few classes in the subject - while you two just watch Jurassic Park.

I can't even believe that I'm debating that shooting on silver somehow inherently makes a story better. Seriously. This is ridiculous.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

limr said:


> And one of the most obnoxious thing about the digital devotees is their assumption that they know the motivations of people who still prefer film for movies or for photographers. We're called dinosaurs, Luddites, snobs, pretentious hipster idiots. And look, now we're told we are cowardly.



Did you even read what I wrote? No. I am calling digital film makers and photographers who mimic film cowardly. This has nothing to do with people who use film.



unpopular said:


> So...film has inherent qualities and it's okay to choose film for those qualities, but it's NOT okay to think those qualities are better? If they weren't better for my purposes, why would I choose it? And wanting to hold onto those qualities because then we would have NO choice...how is that bad?



I said "for the *sake* of these qualities", not for the sake of artistic intention. An excellent example of this is in _Blue Valentine. _Where both film and digital were used through the film intentionally.


----------



## limr (Feb 11, 2015)

Are you including me in the "you two" statements? Because I don't know where you got the assumption that I agree with everything said in this thread. I was replying specifically to YOU about the original article that was posted. The article discussed the difficulty in archiving movies shot on film because labs aren't producing film copies anymore. They also discussed how the process of digitizing some older films has resulted in a degradation of the image quality.

I never said a word about story-telling, but simply responded to your assumptions about film users. Don't put words into my mouth.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


all of them (should keep you busy).   With manipulations it sounds like we are down to familiar kicking dead horse on if how matters and where that line is drawn. And in the end you will say all manipulations are okay in whatever form while I will be a little more reserved and questioning on that judgment. Do we even need to go down that road?


----------



## limr (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Did you even read what I wrote? No. I am calling digital film makers and photographers who mimic film cowardly. This has nothing to do with people who use film.



Yes, I did.



> That is one of the most obnoxious thing about so many film makers and digital in general. *So many film makers aren't brave enough to actually take advantage of what digital has to offer for not other reason than film is what we're used it*.





unpopular said:


> I said "for the *sake* of these qualities", not for the sake of artistic intention.



What's the difference?


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I know I'm looking forward to finally seeing a great film that changes the whole paradigm, just as soon as you make it.
> ...


But you know SO MUCH about it, you might as well be.  After all, how hard could it be for someone of your expert caliber in all things artistic to write and make an exceptional film?  I mean, you've even taken classes in it.

It's win / win for you AND the world of movie-goers who would LOVE to see something truly worthy for a change.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> I am calling digital film makers and photographers who mimic film cowardly.


"Digital film makers and photographers who mimic film are cowardly."  Got it.  

So glad there's no nuance at all.  It's always so good to have sweeping all-encompassing expert facts like that to draw from and rely on.

Thanks!


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

Buckster said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Buckster. I don't see you adding much here, aside from questioning my opinions (ironically, you're questioning my opinions as opinions). So unless you actually have something to add here other than just personally attacking me, go somewhere and grow up. Or just watch some crappy movie on TV.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I know I'm looking forward to finally seeing a great film that changes the whole paradigm, just as soon as you make it.
> ...


you know what is wrong? You just lost your way. Go get your film camera out of the closet and give  it a big hug and kiss. Sleep with It beside your pillow tonight and things will make more sense in the morning.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


I'm not attacking you at all!  Just the opposite!  I'm praising you on your expert knowledge and deep well of facts, and your willingness to educate the rest of us with them!


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

Buckster said:


> I'm not attacking you at all!  Just the opposite!  I'm praising you on your expert knowledge and deep well of facts, and your willingness to educate the rest of us with them!



Grow up.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


it would probably be one shot in digital.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

bribrius said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Like Jurassic Park?


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not attacking you at all!  Just the opposite!  I'm praising you on your expert knowledge and deep well of facts, and your willingness to educate the rest of us with them!
> ...


You first.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

3:46

Those things on the top of the camera that's where they keep the FILM. Not sure how they got all those fancy special effects since they didn't shoot it digital.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

And all those CGI sequences in _Tree Of Life_ definitely made is a lousy film... oh wait, it was shot on silver.

Now I'm all confused!


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

Now I am really thinking. Should I like the pre-marriage story that was shot in _Blue Valentine _better than the post marriage story that was shot digital?

It was shot digital, so it must be inferior. Too bad I can't think of it as one complete film anymore.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> 3:46
> 
> Those things on the top of the camera that's where they keep the FILM. Not sure how they got all those fancy special effects since they didn't shoot it digital.


Not that it really matters, either way, right?  I mean, film or digital, it's just a crappy movie made by that crappy uninformed hack, Spielberg, who just wishes he could be you.

Wow!  I just thought of something!  You should remake Jurassic Park with NO special effects, to prove your point about how they totally RUIN the movie.  That would show them!


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> 3:46
> 
> Those things on the top of the camera that's where they keep the FILM. Not sure how they got all those fancy special effects since they didn't shoot it digital.


I didn't like that movie.  They should have shot that one in digital


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)

bribrius said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > 3:46
> ...


And with clay-mation and puppets dressed as art students.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Now I am really thinking. Should I like the pre-marriage story that was shot in _Blue Valentine _better than the post marriage story that was shot digital?
> 
> It was shot digital, so it must be inferior. Too bad I can't think of it as one complete film anymore.


well clearly it makes a difference or Hollywood wouldn't have directors refusing to shoot in digital.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

bribrius said:


> I didn't like that movie.  They should have shot that one in digital



Not what I am saying at all! _Tree of Life _is one of my favorite films. I enjoyed _Casablanca_, which was certainly shot on film. My favorite film of all time _The Sweet Here After _was shot on film. Every major David Lynch film was shot on silver.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

Buckster said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > 3:46
> ...


NO.  That movie was bad enough with the special effects.  Entire series reminds me of Godzilla remakes (but at least the original Godzilla was a original idea)


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

bribius - I think we're getting out of hand here. I never said that there is no place for silver, only that holding onto it for the sake of it seems silly to me. It's like saying "if I had a color film that had the dynamic range and b/w film, the resolution of 70mm film and the ability to obtain the color sensitivity and saturation of slide film, I wouldn't use it ... not because it wouldn't fit into my artistic vision, but simply because it's better for no particular reason"

And that's the kind of mentality that I hear a lot, just that "digital sucks, period" and that film is just "better, period".


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

It makes sense for Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez, and certainly others even outside the whole roadhouse thing. I just really do not care for the appeal to tradition in film making, like the only place for digital is James Cameron or Michael Bay.

Digital has a look as unique as film that can be used to teh advantage. You've seen this a lot in films like Martha Marcy May Marlene and Contingency - a film that would not have even been possible without digital (and not due to special effects either).


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> It makes sense for Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez, and certainly others even outside the whole roadhouse thing. I just really do not care for the appeal to tradition in film making, like the only place for digital is James Cameron or Michael Bay.
> 
> Digital has a look as unique as film that can be used to teh advantage. You've seen this a lot in films like Martha Marcy May Marlene and Contingency - a film that would not have even been possible without digital (and not due to special effects either).


it is all good. We are using digital right now. If we had to type this on a typewriter  and mail letters that would be different (though the quality of correspondence perhaps higher).

Spielberg is a interesting case. I almost wonder if he shot film to give his work more credibility. Lets face it he is a genius of the art and craft of special effects but takes his ideas from previous productions. He is a master of what he does though.

 “In the 84-year history of Oscar, no Academy Award-winning best picture has ever been made without motion picture film.”)

PREMATURE BURIAL FOR 35mm FILM Leonard Maltin


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

Well, the reason why Stephen Spielberg used film for Jurassic Park is because no other option was available then.

Other fine examples of his cinema, like Transformers: Age of Extinction, does have some footage shot using Digital IMAX, along with 35mm and 70mm, so he's not exclusive to film.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Well, the reason why Stephen Spielberg used film for Jurassic Park is because it wasn't available then.
> 
> Other fine examples of his cinema, like Transformers: Age of Extinction, does have some footage shot using Digital IMAX, along with 35mm and 70mm, so he's not exclusive to film.


Have you seen Django Unchained? Take a look. I sort of enjoyed it but it also has some great cinematography.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

DJANGO UNCHAINED - Anamorphic is Tarantino s preference - how DP Robert Richardson shot masterpiece spaghetti southern - EOSHD
if not pure genius, real damn close..


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

"Tarantino originally wanted also to use an analogue process for the film’s release in cinemas but reality got the better of this.

Instead of the photochemical finish Tarantino wanted, the film was mastered in 2K digital. The release needed to get into as many theatres as possible – most of which now have fully digital based projection systems. The film was shot on Kodak Vision3 500T 5219, 200D 5213. A digital intermediate was used in the editing process."


course here is the sad part, they had to fruck with it so i couldn't see it how it was intended...after all that work..


----------



## timor (Feb 11, 2015)

Bad and boring movie is a bad and boring movie. No matter, what medium. And Hollywood is about 3/4 crap lately. Maybe it is so, as I am not dazzled by outrageous color and brain cutting sharpness. Doesn't matter to me, if I see the movie in the IMAX or Youtube, first I want story, then actors play and then photography. So I am not putting anything in your mouth Joe, if I want Kodak to survive a bit longer is for TMY and TMX and, OK, DXN for small format.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2015)

timor said:


> Bad and boring movie is a bad and boring movie. No matter, what medium. And Hollywood is about 3/4 crap lately. Maybe it is so, as* I am not dazzled by outrageous color *and brain cutting sharpness. Doesn't matter to me, if I see the movie in the IMAX or Youtube, first I want story, then actors play and then photography. So I am not putting anything in your mouth Joe, if I want Kodak to survive a bit longer is for TMY and TMX and, OK, DXN for small format.


 I kinda care.

bring back technicolor!!!!!   Technicolor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

you know, this really all amounts to money.  You only want to spend money watching netflix, go to the movies hardly ever, and spend the least possible on your movie ticket.   well then you get to watch digital. I am guilty of it too.. If i was going to the movies once a week and forking out 25 bucks a ticket then maybe they wouldn't have sold off the film projectors. 

Eventually, to see a real film you will either have know somebody important or give up your first born child, or maybe just have a lot of extra $$$$ to blow on tickets for special viewings. I don't think anyone in hollywood actually thinks digital is better.  It is cheaper to make, cheaper to distribute. No different than a digital camera.  Saves money, less work. Less props, less everything, probably less shooting time, more manipulation less setup and edit time. Easier to mass produce for movie houses.    It isn't that anyone actually thinks digital is better.  They just think no one deserves to watch a actual film. 

Think about this, they shoot film, they keep the FILM for themselves. Run off a few for the private collection, archive one.  THEN they distribute it out to the public in digital format. 

so which is really better?  Well they sure aren't going to give the good copy to us. 

i dont think they are doing anyone any favors in going digital. Hell no. Just saving money.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2015)




----------



## unpopular (Feb 12, 2015)

Buckster said:


> You should remake Jurassic Park with NO special effects



You're clearly not following this conversation.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 12, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > You should remake Jurassic Park with NO special effects
> ...


I'm clearly not caring that you think any of this is a really big deal or that you're the expert you think you are on any of it.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 12, 2015)

Buckster said:


> I'm clearly not caring that you think any of this is a really big deal or that you're the expert you think you are on any of it.



I'm sorry that you're too juvenile to see what is an opinion versus what is fact, or that you're so insecure to be threatened by my views. However, I'm not about to declare something is "in my opinion" because you can't tell the difference. That's really not my problem.

Saying you "don't care" is such baloney when you've polluted this and other threads just being nasty and exclusively replying to me without actually adding anything constructive.

I know you don't think I'm an expert (neither do I), yet you never really add anything substantial to contradict my views  so I have to scratch my head a little. If you really can spot problems in my views, then why don't you actually challenge anything with an intelligent post? I know you're thinking about your bokeh test, which I agreed that some of my previously held views were wrong. I'm glad I was able to boost your self esteem a little over the last two years.

Now, if you just don't like my attitude or my personality, don't be so entitled to think I'm about to change because of you. Again, that's not my problem. There is an ignore button, please feel free to use it.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 12, 2015)

One good thing about cinematic film like 500T and Double X it looks fantastic when used for still photography


----------



## unpopular (Feb 12, 2015)

gsgary said:


> One good thing about cinematic film like 500T and Double X it looks fantastic when used for still photography



I have heard that. Do you have experience?


----------



## gsgary (Feb 12, 2015)

unpopular said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > One good thing about cinematic film like 500T and Double X it looks fantastic when used for still photography
> ...


Got 300feet of double X and Orwo UN54


----------



## timor (Feb 12, 2015)

unpopular said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > One good thing about cinematic film like 500T and Double X it looks fantastic when used for still photography
> ...


I do. For me Double X it is the best, most versatile general purpose film. (I don't shoot colour). Some time ago I shot over 250 feet of tests (in 12 - 18 frames pieces) and have to say if anything is "professional", this material is.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 12, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I'm clearly not caring that you think any of this is a really big deal or that you're the expert you think you are on any of it.
> ...


Now, THAT'S a real knee-slapper!  



unpopular said:


> I know you don't think I'm an expert (neither do I), yet you never really add anything substantial to contradict my views  so I have to scratch my head a little.


Scratch your head on this classic example of you trying, as always, to pretend you're an expert and getting it turned around and stuffed back up your whazoo:
What to do about ugly background Photography Forum



unpopular said:


> If you really can spot problems in my views, then why don't you actually challenge anything with an intelligent post?


Been there, done that, see above.



unpopular said:


> I know you're thinking about your bokeh test, which I agreed that some of my previously held views were wrong.


Actually, you didn't.  You just went on to make another unsubstantiated BS faux-expert view right after that, in the very same thread even, and got shot down for it as well.

Here's an idea: If you don't want anyone pointing out the fallacies in your faux-expert "opinions" worded as unassailable indisputable facts, stop making them, junior.  And when it's been dropped, don't pick it up again to keep it going, like you did just now, little man.  (since you like to repeatedly call people "juvenile", I'm sure you can take it as well as you dish it out)


----------



## unpopular (Feb 12, 2015)

WHAT FALLACIES?

Specifically? What fallacies?


----------



## bribrius (Feb 12, 2015)

timor said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Winding your own off a reel?  I dont even know how to do that, just heard of it.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 12, 2015)

bribrius said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


Very easy if you buy 100 feet rolls they will fit in a bulk loader


----------



## timor (Feb 12, 2015)

bribrius said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


Eh... it is easy. Or at least it would teach you how to keep cool (no sweating hands), be patient, precise without looking and not claustrophobic in small, totally dark places. Actually a good place to be to meet own soul, a opportunity, which digital imaging seems to be devoid of.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Feb 13, 2015)

timor said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...



Only fools don't use spools.

Lloyd 35mm Bulk Film Loader LL01 B H Photo Video


----------



## gsgary (Feb 13, 2015)

Ive got 3, 1 has kodak Kodalith 2556, another has Orwo UN54 (iso 100 cinematic film), last one has HP5 and the doubleX I will roll off the 300' as I need a roll


----------



## unpopular (Feb 13, 2015)

I used to roll my own film, it was fun to see how many frames I could cram into that canister!


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Feb 13, 2015)

unpopular said:


> I used to roll my own film, it was fun to see how many frames I could cram into that canister!



That was always the best part about shooting film!! lol.


----------



## timor (Feb 14, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > I used to roll my own film, it was fun to see how many frames I could cram into that canister!
> ...


Actually my approach is the opposite, 12 - 18 frames max used on 1 or two subjects in order to be not limited in exposure and development methods. And there is more considerations against packing cartridge to the max...


----------



## unpopular (Feb 14, 2015)

timor said:


> And there is more considerations against packing cartridge to the max...



Well, that's no fun at all!

But yes. Cramming 46 frames into one roll probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight.


----------



## timor (Feb 14, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Well, that's no fun at all!
> 
> .


And specifically ?  What is not ?


----------



## bribrius (Feb 14, 2015)

what is the price difference between rolling your own and where are you getting these rolls...


----------



## bribrius (Feb 14, 2015)

okay did a quick punch up. Depending on where you guys are getting it seems to be you save maybe thirty to fourty cents a roll, assuming you are cutting 36 exposure rolls. So i would have to shoot ten rolls of that a week just to save four dollars. Could be more i have to shoot if doing smaller with leaders etc...  This sound right?


----------



## gsgary (Feb 14, 2015)

bribrius said:


> okay did a quick punch up. Depending on where you guys are getting it seems to be you save maybe thirty to fourty cents a roll, assuming you are cutting 36 exposure rolls. So i would have to shoot ten rolls of that a week just to save four dollars. Could be more i have to shoot if doing smaller with leaders etc...  This sound right?


No I save lots more than that a roll of HP 5 costs me £50 and you can get about 20 rolls


----------



## limr (Feb 14, 2015)

Yup. HP5 in 100- foot rolls is $50 and change, so $2.50 a roll or so. Cheaper than buying pre-rolled. Kentmere is even cheaper.  Tri-X, on the other hand, went up to $100 for 100 feet, and now that means it's really not worth it to bulk roll Tri-X. I just buy that in bricks now.


----------



## Designer (Feb 14, 2015)

bribrius said:


> what is the price difference between rolling your own and where are you getting these rolls...


As usual, the cost factor seldom makes the decision any easier.  A hobbyist tends to spend money on stuff that doesn't actually make economic sense, but that may enhance his enjoyment of the hobby.

Besides the bulk roll, you will need a bulk roll loader and several reloadable canisters.  Then you need either a really dark room, or a changing bag just to load the canisters.  If you choose to develop the rolls at home, you're going to need some more stuff. 

I used to load up some short rolls 8 or 10 useable frames just to keep things moving at a fast pace.  Also, the short rolls don't drag on the floor when you hang them up to dry.

Of course, you're going to lose cost-efficiency with short rolls.


----------



## timor (Feb 14, 2015)

Designer said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > what is the price difference between rolling your own and where are you getting these rolls...
> ...


Some conscious words. Finally. I started to loose hope. But it is symptomatic. The downfall of film is not in it's lack of beauty, but in this all constant small prices to pay to be able to press the shutter. It is easier to squeeze $1000 from the customer every two years with the promises of... ? What they promise nowadays with new digital cameras ? Whatever. They always omit the part of personal learning and effort. The same as with film.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 14, 2015)

bribrius said:


> With 35mm Film Dead Will Classic Movies Ever Look the Same Again - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> thoughts?  read this yesterday. still kind of tossing it around.




This made absolutely ZERO sense to me: "Digital archiving is also more expensive than film. One study found that a 2K scan of a feature film would require just under two terabytes to store. In fact, digital archiving is so difficult and costly that Kodak has just announced film specifically designed for archiving digital formats."

I used to work as a theater projectionist. A TYPICAL feature film is made of up six to seven reels of 35mm film, with an average length of about 1,850 feet per reel (as few as 1,700 to as many as 2,000 feet is not unheard of). With the 1,850 foot per reel average, and most films six full reels and a half-filled 7th reel, let's say 6.5 reels x 1,850 feet. That is 12,025 feet of film stock per feature. I have ZERO idea how in the hell "digital archiving is more expensive than film". Who wrote this article? A 2-Terabyte hard drive today is $100 or so, while a 4-Terabyte drive can be bought for $139, on a daily basis, at retail. There's no way in hell that a person can buy 12,025 feet of ANY film stock for a hundred dollars, even by the railroad car load pricing...

Expense? A typical 35mm feature film on individual reels comes, and is shipped and often stored, in two film cans...a 4-reel can and a 3-reel can. These film cans have been standardized since the 1930's, and the cans last **decades** in weekly shipping from theater to theater. Even on cheap,thin, galvanized steel shipping reels, the cans and the film weigh about 40 and 35 pounds, for 75 pounds total (estimate from memory). The shelving alone is expensive, due to the weight that shelves must be able to support. A hard drive is the size of a cigar box. And weighs like two or three pounds or so.

My question is WTF fact-checked this article? According to the editing notes, in the first publication  of this article the cost of a print was said to be $50,000, which was then reduced to to $10,000 after somebody noticed the bone-headed mistake...maybe they ought to assign somebody who actually KNOWS something about film prints to give this a look-see once again.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 15, 2015)

Derrel said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > With 35mm Film Dead Will Classic Movies Ever Look the Same Again - The Atlantic
> ...


missed ya bud.... LOL


----------



## bribrius (Feb 15, 2015)

limr said:


> Yup. HP5 in 100- foot rolls is $50 and change, so $2.50 a roll or so. Cheaper than buying pre-rolled. Kentmere is even cheaper.  Tri-X, on the other hand, went up to $100 for 100 feet, and now that means it's really not worth it to bulk roll Tri-X. I just buy that in bricks now.


i shoot a lot of color. I want a 100 feet of fuji color for ten bucks.....

i am going to keep this in mind, might end up trying it. My worry is if i get stuck on hp5 and loading or starting to develop bw i am limiting myself to bw and shoving myself in a box getting too stuck on the developing side and not enough on the photo taking side.. which i don't want to be stuck in bw. I think enough of myself as a person i should be allowed to shoot color too!!!  LOL  I am willing to pay a extra buck a roll and five bucks to develop per roll to shoot color.  Can you imagine having to shoot christmas pics in bw?  "sorry hun i just really have to use up this roll and it cost a extra dollar to shoot color". 
if you are shooting at 2.50 a roll that is a game changer though for your shooting. i just dropped over fifty bucks at wally world buying 8/24 of fugji 800 and 8/24 of fuji 400.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 15, 2015)

Designer said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > what is the price difference between rolling your own and where are you getting these rolls...
> ...


i like to shoot. I am looking for ways to drive down the costs of shooting film. Time is money to though, i don't want to marry it just find ways to make it more affordable. If i am saving a hundred bucks for a hour work i am all for it. If i am saving ten bucks for a hour work i think i will pass. I would like to make film cheap enough i dont have to give it up again. That is why i stopped film the first time it was becoming a very expensive hobby. What saves me with digital is i am picking and choosing certain photos to send to print. what killed me with film is they all went to print. i should probably just shut up and listen to limr clearly they have stayed on the frugal side of this equation....


----------



## bribrius (Feb 15, 2015)

Amazon.com Ilford HP-5 Plus 400 35mm Fast Black and White Professional Film ISO 400 100 Roll Photographic Film Camera Photo


----------



## limr (Feb 15, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Amazon.com Ilford HP-5 Plus 400 35mm Fast Black and White Professional Film ISO 400 100 Roll Photographic Film Camera Photo



$10 cheaper at B&H: Ilford HP5 Plus Black and White Negative Film 1656031 B H Photo

If you want to shoot color, then that's great. There's no reason to limit yourself to B&W just for economy. It happens to work out well for me because I like B&W. But I also like to shoot some things in color. But you're right - if it's one thing I know, it's how to live (and shoot film) on a shoestring budget 

I tend to go Kodak for color, but Fuji is a nice film. I've recently become quite enamored of Agfa Vista as well. My suggestion for buying film is to get it only at B&H, Adorama, or Freestyle. It will be a lot cheaper than getting it at a brick and mortar store. If you're going to go to Walmart, check online first. Sometimes I think they run a sale but only if you buy online and then pick up in the store. Buzz got a bunch of Fuji Superia that way for something like $2 a roll. I just looked at walmart.com and that doesn't seem to be the deal anymore, but maybe something like that will come up.

The thing that has made it possible for me to shoot more color is that I can get it developed cheaply. I'm lucky to have a local lab and that we've established a good relationship with the guys that work there.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 15, 2015)

limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Amazon.com Ilford HP-5 Plus 400 35mm Fast Black and White Professional Film ISO 400 100 Roll Photographic Film Camera Photo
> ...


i need a local lab.....Dwaynes photo is looking like a viable option..which i dread the thought of. 
i stopped at walmart to check on developing prices and where they send it. Too much $$ and they dont send back the negatives just a low res cd so forget that..

you loading your roll at night?


----------



## limr (Feb 15, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i need a local lab.....Dwaynes photo is looking like a viable option..which i dread the thought of.
> i stopped at walmart to check on developing prices and where they send it. Too much $$ and they dont send back the negatives just a low res cd so forget that..
> 
> you loading your roll at night?



You only have to load the bulk loader in the dark. Once the 100-foot reel is inside the loader, it's safe. You can roll the canisters in a lighted room. You put attach the film to the spool, put it into the canister and close it up, then a lid goes over the whole thing and you crank the film onto the spool. The only film that gets exposed is a small part that attaches to the spool (which isn't really usable anyway since it's attached to the spool and doesn't reach the shutter plane) and the part that becomes the leader, which is exposed anyway.

I just rolled my 100 feet of HP5. I've got another 100 feet of Tri-X in the fridge for use at some later date.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 15, 2015)

limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > i need a local lab.....Dwaynes photo is looking like a viable option..which i dread the thought of.
> ...


Thanks for the input. i don't want to use film for everything  (not sure why you do) but for enjoyment and a certain look it comes in handy.  Like my mother has a portrait of us kids from the late seventies. I would be hardpressed to mimic that with digital. But with a seventies film camera and seventies lens i can get it pretty damn near spot on. There is a feel and a certain look to film. Looking through my own photos, i can sorta see the difference over the years as i started with film and went to digital. Least I see the difference. Not so sure anyone else does. Instead of trying to recreate the feel of a photo digitally, i can just take it.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 15, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


you are right. Why is that. i have no idea but since i read this i started looking and it really is beyond my scope of reasoning.  i can see a year, few months, whatever. Some of that stuff i wonder how usable it is at all.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 15, 2015)

bribrius said:


> you are right. Why is that. i have no idea but since i read this i started looking and it really is beyond my scope of reasoning.  i can see a year, few months, whatever. Some of that stuff i wonder how usable it is at all.



I 'get' why it's in demand..... it can provide a look and feel that fresh film cannot.  However, it baffles me why people pay an arm and a leg for a look and feel they cannot see when they pony up. It's a crap shoot.  You may get a different look, but is it a look you're after?  Or do you just accept it?

Me, I wanna know what my images are going to look like in the end.  I don't want to spend my hard-earned disposable income on such a risk.

Now, I can understand someone subjecting fresh film to all sorts of environments that we normally wouldn't think of.  Like setting the film on the dash of your car for a week in the summer.  Yes, if you can create a look and feel you like, and then be able to replicate it.... that I could understand.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 15, 2015)

limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Amazon.com Ilford HP-5 Plus 400 35mm Fast Black and White Professional Film ISO 400 100 Roll Photographic Film Camera Photo
> ...



I can get Agfa Vista 200 and 400 for £1 a roll and for the price it is very good colours are about perfect


----------



## bribrius (Feb 15, 2015)

gsgary said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


where??


----------



## gsgary (Feb 15, 2015)

Poundland, everything they sell is £1


----------



## bribrius (Feb 15, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Poundland, everything they sell is £1


i didn't even think of checking he dollar stores..


----------



## gsgary (Feb 15, 2015)

bribrius said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Poundland, everything they sell is £1
> ...


Worth a look


----------



## limr (Feb 15, 2015)

I don't think I've seen film in a dollar store in many many years. I seriously doubt it's a viable option for this side of the Atlantic. Don't forget, bri, that Gary is in the UK and some film is cheaper there, plus he gets all his magic discounts.

Unless he wants to buy some for you and ship it over and you can just pay him. And if he's going to do that, then he can do that for me, too. Damn, Gary, you seriously have to start shipping us the filmz, yo!! And I want some ORWO at your club prices, too!


----------



## gsgary (Feb 15, 2015)

limr said:


> I don't think I've seen film in a dollar store in many many years. I seriously doubt it's a viable option for this side of the Atlantic. Don't forget, bri, that Gary is in the UK and some film is cheaper there, plus he gets all his magic discounts.
> 
> Unless he wants to buy some for you and ship it over and you can just pay him. And if he's going to do that, then he can do that for me, too. Damn, Gary, you seriously have to start shipping us the filmz, yo!! And I want some ORWO at your club prices, too!


Orwo cost me £47 for 100'


----------



## limr (Feb 15, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Orwo cost me £47 for 100'



Ah, HP5 is cheaper. Oh well 

And Bri, you can get Agfa Vista at B&H for about $2.92 a roll
Agfa Vista plus 200 Color Negative Film 1175239 B H Photo Video

By the time you convert pounds to dollars (a bit over $1.50 per roll) and add in shipping, you're not saving yourself much unless you relocate to the UK


----------



## gsgary (Feb 15, 2015)

limr said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Orwo cost me £47 for 100'
> ...


And then everything else you have to buy is much dearer than US


----------

