So what cameras were big productions using in 2008?

This list is missing one huge capture format: FILM!

theres about 400-500 films released every year, and this list only covers the 10% that is digital. I would love to see a comprehensive list of every film and what film stock they used (bonus points if they could list lenses and any lab processes like skip bleach, CCE, push/pull, OZ, etc)

In the American Cinematographer magazine they list film stocks, lab proccesses and lenses, but its on a film by film basis, with only 3-4 films per issue. It would be nice if someone could organize all that info in one place like that list.
 
but amazing how many are digi and will increase...

But amazing how many are digi and will increase...


Alaska_steadicam said:
This list is missing one huge capture format: FILM!

theres about 400-500 films released every year, and this list only covers the 10% that is digital. I would love to see a comprehensive list of every film and what film stock they used (bonus points if they could list lenses and any lab processes like skip bleach, CCE, push/pull, OZ, etc)

In the American Cinematographer magazine they list film stocks, lab proccesses and lenses, but its on a film by film basis, with only 3-4 films per issue. It would be nice if someone could organize all that info in one place like that list.
Click to expand...
 
True there are many digi. But to me digital just isn't there yet. And don't get me wrong most movies I have shot have been digital. The movie I shoot next will be digital. I love the film shoots I am on, but they are few compared to digital. But there is still financial interest in shooting film.

Recently on a low budget film I have been prepping for this summer the producer called me and asked what it would cost to shoot film, after I gave him an estimate for other digital formats. After running the numbers for a movie of such a low budget film(low 7 figure period flick) it really doesn't cost more to shoot film, compared to a system like the D21 or genesis. That film will likely be 4perf anamorphic with a photochemical finish.

Old school celuloid capture and photochemical grading still trumps digital capture or even a DI of film originated material. Add to that there are new advancements in film. The vision3 film stock just dropped (5219, 500t) along with new cameras that allow for 2 or 3 perf movement (as apposed to typical 4 perf movement) allow even low budget film to shoot film cheaper or at least on par with most digital cameras.

Today you just can't get the same look of film unless you shoot film. With the exception of a few directors, film is still engrained.

Now when most projection houses are digital things will change. Most of kodak and fuji's business are in prints, as is the bulk of business a lab will do. When there are no longer 3-4 thousand prints made for blockbusters to subsidize the low margins on processing and manufacturing camera negative, kodak will have to raise prices on film as well as labs will increase the price of developing.

Developing costs 16-20 cents per foot now. If the labs volume decreases it may jump to 50-60 cents per foot or more. At that point digi might be cheaper than film capture.

But keep in mind this salient point, at current stock and lab prices, film (or any capture method) is no where near a major cost of production. On an an average 35million picture the cost of film and cameras is somewhere around 200-400k. It just isn't a huge concern at the average movie budget level right now. Only in big pictures, where the director has a call of capture method for artistic reasons, or in very small pictures where even a few thousand extra becomes a big concern (or even more telling, if a film is indie and doesn't have theatrical distrabution in place at the time of principle, some producers will opt out of film because if they shoot digital, they won't be burdened with the cost of film out for release prints, or even HD telecine for deliverables. They just grade the HD material and master to DVD and high def.

Film will be around for a good long time, I just hope the bulk of the industry waits until digital is ready for primetime before switching over.
 
Kind of ironic when movies are still shot on film, then projected digitally.

I think that's a good thing...I've lost count of how many really bad prints I've seen in the local movieplexes...especially when you get towards the end of the movie's run.

I know the quality of digital projection isn't quite there yet, but it's a welcome trend for me and will only get better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top