I posted a tweet on Twitter recently, asking filmmakers (indie and otherwise) their thoughts on shooting on film or High Definition) if they had a a budget of $15 million dollars. The reason I chose this amount was arbitrary except for two things: 1) it’s the amount I’m going after for my next project and 2) it’s enough money to where the cost of shooting film is negligible.
A big reason why indie filmmakers like myself have shot in HD is because of the cost. You don’t pay for film stock, processing, development, or final assembly. Most if not all movies shot in film have a digital intermediate (DI) prepared for editing anyway. That said, there are many indie filmmakers who have expressed an interest in shooting film if given the chance and the money to do so.
So I asked, “Say you’ve got a budget of $15M to shoot your film. What do you do: shoot in film or HD?”
The answers came to me on Facebook and Twitter and I wanted to post them here and open up the conversation to a wider audience. After I tallied the replies it became obvious that I could have easily titled this blog, “Film vs the RED Camera.” The replies went like this:
@CarterMason – HD – But I would be damn sure my DP was good with HD
@Bekemeyer – HD. No question. But, not the HD you and I are used to. Go RED.
@LeStew – HD
@FistFulofMedia – Definitely HD
@MrBarnard1 – That’s serious money. Many important reasons to shoot 35MM
@MrRaphe – Depends on the type of film made. If a lot of CGI and junk is needed then HD. If it’s a sleepy drama. Film.
@Warriors_mu – If I have $15M, then 35MM. More natural look. Only shoot HD to save $$$.
Then I asked: “If you shoot HD would you go RED or Panavision’s Genesis HD?”
@LeStew – for me I’d do RED but I’m not sure what Genesis is.
@MrRaphe – we’re still in a market where the bulk of end line theatrical distribution is on film. Start there, end there, unless you can’t.
@Bekemeyer – ask @Bremer what he thinks about Genesis vs. RED. But, I think he’d say RED. Not sure though.
@tenpagyatso – if my wife directs then 35mm, if not then HD.
@Alliecine – I’m a sucker for film 
and $15M is enough to do so
@Alonsomex – depends on the screenplay and the amount of shooting the director wants. Also, bring a good HD Director of Photography (DOP), I recommend myself.
@Bremer – totally depends. For what [you are doing] I’d say #red. I think genesis would cost a lot more.
@LeStew – I also think it depends on [the] project. If it’s an action thing that needs more set then HD, but if it’s 2 guys in a room then film.
@MrBarnard1 – considerations for 35mm include primary deliverable, universal acceptance, production standards, and long-term storage.
@DustinPearlman – more than the budget it depends on the story/film. Money wasn’t an object for Fincher and he loves the Viper/HD…
@DavidAGerhardt – It all depends on the project, but there’s just something about film. HD is almost TOO real. Film has character, if you’ve got money.
@jokeandbiagio What @indiemoviemaker did on Mission X is brilliant: Use creative to allow for all sorts of cameras. Smart guy!
@wannabef - @angelobell I used to think it was a budget thing until I had to edit some 35mm TV spots recently – I forgot about all the dirt and hair!
@angelobell – @wannabef, funny how we still use the term “check the gate” LOL
@wannabef – @angelobell Ha! We’ve jokingly said “check the gate” on many of our HD commercial shoots. I think it’s evolved to “check the chip” lately.
===================
On Facebook I asked the same question and got these responses:
Lucas McNelly
RED
Kevin Huie
It really depends on what elements are required for the script, but I would prefer 35MM
John W. Bosley
I would shoot on the RED. Some have commented it is better than 35mm. That way I don’t have to spend time developing. Plus you end up cutting digital at the end so you might as well just stay digital the whole way. Plus it’s great for compositing.
Brian Spaeth
HD – you can get so much more for your budget, and 95% of the people in the world won’t see the diff, especially when you get to the high-end cams.
John W. Bosley
Totally agree with Brian. And I would say with todays film biz being the way it is and the fact that more peope are watching stuff via the internet that probably 95% of people will watch your film HD on the internet or DVD/Bluray.
David Baker (aka @indiemoviemaker)
I would never shoot in film. The cost of the film is not a problem at that budget level. It’s just the flexibility in so many other areas. Nobody knows the difference [between film and HD] at the high end HD level.
John W. Bosley
True, flexibility also is one of the most important things a filmmaker needs. [When] Lucas finished shooting Episode I of Star Wars [he] figured out he should have just shot the whole thing HD.
Dustin Pearlman
Film is still more sensitive to light, has a better “look” out of the box, and gives that warm feeling inside. I love the RED and would like to use the D-21, but both require MUCH more lighting, which costs money and time too. Gotta look at the whole picture. At the end of the day, there is no right or wrong answer. Budget alone shouldn’t dictate format. Are there effects/comps? Do you plan theatrical release? The question should be 2D or 3D…haha
Dustin Pearlman
We are talking several many stops. One can easily rate 5219 at 1000 ASA, The RED, in my experience is closer to 200 ASA when shooting Tungsten, that is a huge difference…
Angelo Bell
Dustin, I agree that budget shouldn’t dictate format, and with an arbitrary amount like $15M, budget is no longer an issue. Many indies (like myself) have gone with HD mostly because it’s cheaper for our $$$ needs. But without budget constraints the question is: why would one choose one format over the other? Just curious
Dustin Pearlman
No, in an ideal world budget alone shouldn’t dictate format. However, just because you CAN shoot film, its not instantly the answer. However, It usually is still the best for archival reasons, light sensitivity, ability to handle extremes in weather and contrast ratios, and its superior slow motion abilities to name a few. With $15M you will have … Read Moreplayback, so that HD argument is irrelevant. However, HD is good when you need to instantly know what the final product can look like (something us DPs abhor – nothing worse than having a dipshit client telling you to change your key:fill ratio or asking, “is this too dark?”), it is great for focus pullers (they can stand by a large monitor with a FIZ unit and know with 100% confidence that a shot is sharp), it is great for heavy effects work, it’s freeing to not have to worry about your shooting ratio (but this can lead to laziness and a looser vision by filmmakers for the final product), and you can go much longer between reloads.
HOWEVER, the reason I will always love film is that you have to wait a day until you know for sure that you got everything perfectly. That delay provides such a thrill that can never be imitated with HD. It adds an element of excitement and danger to our already stressful jobs and I love and miss it. It’s like when we were in school. You didn’t get your grades right away, you had to sweat it out a little and wait a bit before finding out your score…
David Baker
So many filmmakers focus way way to much on kit and film. My only real care is “story & character” We are technical obsessed, I just wished we were more script obsessed. Film is a canvas that is no longer needed. I like to advance with the times.
Dustin Pearlman
David, you are right that Directors should not have to stress about the technical aspects of format, however as the head of a production he or she should understand what the differences are and how such choices will effect their telling of the story. Education and not ignorance is important. Once you have the knowledge of the tools, you can sit … Read Moreback and trust your fellow craftspeople and focus solely on story and character. To say film is “no longer needed” is just inflammatory. Film will always serve a purpose. Yes, less people will use it, but that’s mainly because of the conglomerates who own the studios/media. The bottom line is more important than asthetic to Wall Street.
David Baker
I guess I am “Inflammatory”!
I never stress about the technical aspects! And I disagree! Directors SHOULD know and educate themselves about every technical aspect of a production. Real directors want as much control as they can get. Demystifying the process is crucial for that.
My comment addressed filmmakers who get OBSESSED by technical. As a director, yes, you can get the technical people and just focus on your story, but you are limiting yourself, relying more on others when you dont get technical. That’s a big mistake. It effects your story telling if you dont know what you cant and cant get technically…. Read More
I personally don’t care what canvas my paint is on. Sure, some canvas changes from project to project, but I don’t personally see the need for “film” in a digital world. If you need celluloid, cool, you use it! Will it make your movie any better? Behave!! Maybe 7 years ago we could say HD was not as good, but we are now at a stage where the audience could not tell the difference! Film is DEAD!
I am just not into the romantic horseshit view of movie making on film. Lets face it, most movies are bad, whether shot on DV or studio Panavisions. Could I possibly make a decision one day that would make me shoot on film? Maybe if I wanted an old Hollywood musical look, or a 70’s dirty style cop drama on film. But I have seen that look created on digital too.
You have a passion for film. Cool. I have a passion for characters and stories. And yes, the look, style of my film, but I don’t need film. Like to see your argument why it is better than digital? Lets agree to disagree. :0)
David Baker
Dustin, just read your reasons for shooting on film. Disagree that’s good enough reasons. but hey, don’t mean I am right! Great post Angelo!
James Rhodimer
As a director, I would have to first fall in love with a DP and his/her work. Then I’d ask him what he/she prefers since he/she is the expert between us.
Angelo Bell
Good point. So you would be agreeable to either HD or 35MM format, so long as the DP was capable of superior work in that format?
James Rhodimer
yeah. it’s more about the artist and what that artist is best and most comfortable using.
Dustin Pearlman
[Jim] In 2009 a DP better be comfortable in both formats.
Dustin Pearlman
David, we don’t entirely disagree. I stated that the director needs to be educated on format choice and technical aspects. That being said, you’d be surprised at how many don’t do the research. They have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. They hear things like 24p, DI, and 4K and think they know what is best for their show, but there are so many factors in the format equations that it is hard enough as a cameraperson (from DPs down to Loaders) to keep up on these instantly changing technologies and it is our job to!
I use that term a lot with producers. A camera is just a canvas. People are mystified by new technology and they act like they are these strange beasts who hide in the woods. Before booking my first RED show, some in production were worried because it was a feature and I hadn’t had any experience with it. I told them that it was JUST a camera. I’ve shot more than my share of HD and all of that translates. Lighting is lighting. Lenses are lenses. Period. Needless to say, everyone was very pleased when they saw dailies.
I hate to say this, but shooting film (at least in the studio world) is almost a waste because they are insisting that filmmakers go through a DI. Aside from the ability to shoot 2 or 3-perf (instead of 4, which lowers raw stock/processing costs), the studio obtains their Theatrical, DVD, and Digital Cinema masters all in one session. This cost savings is great for the bottom line, but the photochemical finish is still the greatest advantage of shooting film. It is the most organic, highest quality, and most interesting manner to finish a film (you are once again allowing some uncontrollable variables effect your image as compared to the overly controlled environment of the DI suite)…. Read More
I can go on about film, but I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else to shoot it. It is just a format. I don’t have any bizarre passion for film, because I, like you, care most about the story. Nobody is going to sit through a shitty story just because it was shot on film. However, just because an audience can’t tell the difference that is NOT an argument to weigh in your decision. The general public has never cared about quality. Look at the fidelity of mp3s and CDs. It is god awful. Piracy wouldn’t be so popular if more people could appreciate the amazing compression of Blu-Ray and the beauty of a fresh 35mm film print. The people are not inherently correct and THEIR ignorance shouldn’t justify your educated stance. Analog by definition is superior to digital, but the marketing geniuses have swayed the masses. Why do you suppose true audiophiles use their tube amps and play phonographs? Maybe someday I’ll have a projector in my house…haha
Angelo Bell
Dustin you raised a point that I think is critical. You mentioned that it is hard enough for DP’s-down-to-loaders to keep up on the instantly changing technologies — and it’s their JOB to do so. Thus I don’t think it’s incumbent upon the director to keep up on format technologies and nuances. Directing is about storytelling. Developing characters… Read More. Studying emotion and soliciting emotional responses from the audience. IF, as a director, I’m constantly refining my techniques, studying the methods actors use to get into character and so on — I want a DP who’s doing the same thing in HIS/HER field. I want to be able to speak in layman’s language and have the DP understand, i.e. “I want the Saving Private Ryan look here.” Or, “Here I envision a surreal look like the dream sequences in Gladiator or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” — and I want the DP to understand, lay it out for me and tell me what the shooting options are.
Dustin Pearlman
I think that is also what David is worried about: directors obsessing and focusing too much of their energy towards format/technical issues of camera. The director has bigger fish to fry. There is a reason that a smart director surrounds him or herself with strong craftspeople. You should trust that they have your back and will make the correct … Read Moredecisions on your behalf.
As for speaking in layman’s terms, yes. I believe in talking with broad strokes, that way the creative juices flow all the way down the chain of command. If a director is overly specific, then the DP has little room to inject style. Same thing with a DP to the Gaffer and Key Grip. The more people that can positively contribute, the better the end result will be. I’ve found it keeps people happier too. If I tell my Gaffer precisely how to light a scene, then why give out that title? Just call him/her an Electrician…
Angelo Bell
Great great comments everyone – thank you for your thoughts!! I’m going to add these to the blog!!
===============
From all this I came away with a few treats for consideration — the poignant and adamant stance on the film vs HD thing is personal preference. I agree, at the high end studio level it is hard to determine the difference between Film and HD. However, what does that say for the thousands of HD films shot every year with prosumer level HD cameras?
In summary, while it’s try that you need a good DP for HD you also need a good DP for film, with its many variances and speeds.
So let’s get back to the question: With a budget of $15M, would you shoot on film or HD? With the exception of David Baker, who stated he would “never shoot on film,” it appears that many of the folks who responded would base their decision on a combination of theme and story.
There was a time when I felt exactly like David. I would say, “fuck film.” Digital filmmaking helped me get to where I am — where ever that is. I would never have been able to complete the number of films I’ve made (12) without it. And there’s a big part of me that understands that the primary difference between film and HD is pure aesthetics. It’s what we’ve gotten accustomed to seeing. But with filters and lenses aesthetics may not be an issue any more.
But there is a part of me that wants to shoot film. Perhaps for the experience, perhaps it’s because there is this “thing” among indies — bragging rights, per se. Yeah…I made a short. I shot it in film.
Either way, $15M is enough to shoot whatever you want, and whatever YOU want is the best thing for YOUR film.
Tags: 35mm, cinematography, film versus HD, film vs RED, red, red one, shooting in film
Just shot tests comparing S-16 Vision2 50D to RED. The RED has a lot to offer, but there was seriously no comparison with the film. We did an exposure series and were able to get usable results from the film from -3 to +4. The RED didn’t look as good at normal exposure as the film did (even) at +4. The RED footage became unusable in my opinion at +2 and -1. Too hot and the highlights go, to dark and the noise get crazy. Admittedly 50D is a slow stock, but the results were extraordinary. I plan to post soon on REDuser.
This is my reply to Dustin Pearlman, since this blog posts misrepresents my bigger picture point! Its not about getting the last word but I dont want someone Implying I am not a smart director!, when they just go off on one on their own! ]
Dustin, dont be so bloody patronising! You missed the point completely but I am not going to spoon feed you.
Its clearly obvious if you have a hot script, surround yourself with the best crew in the world, best kit, then its hard to screw up a movie. Whatever it is shot on! Teach me my friend!
I dont know what world you come from but I come from a world where most movies are BAD. Low budget with no crews, and BIG budget with all the best crews. So why is that? We need better SCRIPTS!
I just made a very simple point, and you go into patronising “guru” mode! When I get the budgets that can afford the best people, then I look forward to colloboratinig with very talented and skilled people. You “asume” too much. If I didnt want collaborators I would become a painter!
At the level I am at now, I have to rely on my judgement about the shots I want, the look I want etc, as I don’t have the top pros around me. I only have my vision. But the stories I have at the moment, dont require the best DOP in the world!
When I get budgets, I want EXPERTS in their fields to help me realise my vision. At this time, I cant afford experts, so I trust a lot of my own judgement until I can work with best people in the world. Simple as that. And that can work if you focus on a SCRIPT charater story, rather than a visual spectical.
I want to create big budget movies one day to work with a bigger canvas, but to counteract that, I want to shoot tiny cassavettes style flicks in a room, where I do camera, production design etc etc. And if that makes me a control freak because I want to wear a lot of hats on small films, then so be it.
To be fair to you, posting online can lead to misinterpretation. I think that is what we have here. I think we are all on the same page. But sometimes communicating like this is a shit way to do things. (Sighhh) Life is too short for bitching about stuff we probably already agree on. Which is time wasting and not smart.
Angelo, I did not want to post on your blog like this, but I did send you a message. As I said, I dont need the last word, but I dont want on your blog when someone has misrepresented my point, and implied I am not a smart director! Who hell is he!! Speilberg!
MPR, well said!
[...] For the Full Story, Click here: http://www.angelobell.com/2009/10/film-vs-hd-with-15m/ [...]
When speaking at a college once, while showing my film, a student asked me, “what’s the going price for film stock in our state?”
My response: “I don’t know and honestly I don’t care…”
I ended my answer by stating: “shooting on film stock is like driving a Model T in a NASCAR race…” I still believe that!
I’d shoot an appropriate format for the content. Whatever my DP says, I’d be cool with it …
Personally I’m over the “film look” and my current feature was shot 30fps 720p (equivilent resolution, they say, to shooting Super8 back in the day). Film is the past to me, it’s the look of an era.
With insane ISO levels coming out of DSLR nowadays I’d be glad to shoot a number of photographs per second, after all, isn’t that what “film” used to be? Many professional photographers use DSLR, film is dead to them. Cinema, projectors, inertia, keeps film alive as a distribution format. But for how much longer?