Hi...next semester I have the choice between a "film" class or a "digital" class...which one would you recommend me?
or what are the big differences?
thanks a lot for those who will repluy :-)

Everyone says that film is pointless to learn right now. Basically Digital will be the only thing taught within 10 years.

But really, if you know film, you can figure out digital pretty easily. From what I know, digital is film but 1000 times easier. That said, why not take film? You're not going to get a lot of chances to work with film and how to light and edit it, I imagine. So I'd say take the film class just for the experience.

I'd take the film class, especially if it's 35mm. My bf is a DP. He's in a 35mm class and also made an HD film for another class this semester. He just finished a big 35 project and he says there's just something about working with film. I agree fully, from my filmmaking experience as well.

I don't think that film will ever be obsolete, and if it should go that way, at least you can remember the good ol' days, lol.

it's actually a 16mm or a super 16mm...i forgot. is there a big difference between the 2...i know that super 16mm looks better...but how much better?
And I agree...im a little bit more tempted to take film because there's something "magic" about it eehehe

There's something magical about cave paintings as well but Film is dead and at the current price per foot then good riddance.

And there's nothing magical about sending your blood sweat and tears to the lab and hoping they don't fuct it up!

Take the digital class and you can actually concentrate on storytelling without worrying about a cat hair in the gate.

Super 16 is the same film as regular 16mm, but the 'super' format uses all of the film's surface for image, resulting in an aspect ratio that's almost but not quite 16:9. That extra eats up space normally used by the soundtrack, so you gotta record sound separately.

The vast majority of European television is still shot on regular 16mm, and with the digital conversion, Super 16 will be used instead. We still shoot a lot of television on 35mm stateside.

Super 16 can be blown to 35, too.

There is a completely different approach to shooting with film instead of digital. You have to make sure each shot counts, which we all should always do. With the instant gratification of digital, it's easy to get away from that economy of shooting. Actually setting the f-stop instead of clicking a dial till it looks good in the LCD. No need to white balance.

There are a lot of variables and heartbreak with film, especially since you have to wait for the processing. Personally, I love waiting for the processed film to come back, just like when I get pics back from one-hour photo places...how will it look? Did it come out as I hoped? You can hold it, feel it with your hands, before and after you capture image.

It's just...different, and I think an opportunity to try it is worth taking. There is also that sharpness of digital...the reason we can tell if something on TV's been shot digitally or not...no amount of Avid filters can recreate that actual film feeling we all are accustomed to...but they keep trying, which in and of itself says that plenty of people still prefer a film image over a digital.

I saw an Australian feature shot on a REDone this summer, and it looked damn good, in an almost-forgot-it-was-digital kind of way. Most, if not all, truly independent features (not "indie") will make the jump to digital just for cost concerns.

All the same, Red, I disagree with your logic...just because they make electric can openers doesn't mean the world is going to stop using manual ones. Plenty of people still use film in their still cameras, too.

Sorry for the long post, I love me some celluloid.

Good luck with your decision!

Learn film while you can - before it's gone. Your film skills will easily transfer to HD - not very well the other way around. My 2 cents.

Why stop at film then? Why not take a flipbook class? I hear it's a magical experience.

I get your point but I can't wait until it's dead. Film stock has been an expensive barrier that kept film schools filled to the brim with rich kids. Digital evens the playing field.

Well, I used to be all obsessed with learning film but then I realized I'm poor. So I can use my ****ty camcorder that barely works to make movies and actually express myself, or be obsessed with the "film look" for some reason and sit around doing nothing. This isn't 1960's Sweden. You aren't best friends with Sven Nykvist. Go pick up whatever you can and make something. Even if it's a damn flipbook.

But, like I said, the oppurtunity is there to use film, so might as well. Just don't get hung up on it like some maniac unless you're rich.

I would say go for the film class just because you might never work with film again. There is something special about using film, and the fact that it costs makes you really try to get the best out of every take. I worked with 16mm about a year and a half ago, and it was a really great experience for me, and i learned a lot, (various other clichés)...

I would say that the biggest difference comes from knowing that every foot that goes through the gate is costing you money. It makes everything feel a little more serious on set.

At the end of the day I would say that you will probably work more with HD over your life, but passing up the chance to use film is something that I know I might regret.

What do you want to do? If you want to be a DP, learning film fundamentals may be a great starting point. I know it's being laughed at, but there really is something "magical" about loading a film camera.

But I agree... One hair in the gate, and your entire day of shooting is toast. Plus there is the occasional mishap of the camera assistant opening a can after 12 hours of hard work. Oops.

But that's also part of the fun.

Going back to your long term goals, if you plan on independently producing your first feature, then it might serve you well to learn HD and then find a talented DP in the class. Become friends with that person. Do some projects together. Then eventually shoot a first feature in HD... With some practice under your belt, you'll know how to really make the format work.

And if you haven't heard, The RED camera is changing the world!

I know I have a tendency to think in terms of a first feature and filter all decisions through future career goals. But you have to. The world of filmmaking is pretty challenging.

Start thinking of your feature now!

I absolutely agree that 35mm will never go away completely. Considering artistic matters, can you imagine CITIZEN KANE being done in digital even if digital had existed in 1941? Did great painting ever go away just because photography was invented?

Of course the huge factor here is expense (as well as some other logistical matters) when shooting in 35mm. Which brings me to this...
Anyone know the best prices one can find these days on 35mm film, equipment, etc.?

I'm planning a feature production a couple of years from now, and it's looking like I'll have some major bucks to do it. I want it to be something really special (and don't we all?). I'm tempted to consider 35mm for artistic reasons while also being tempted toward digital for money reasons.

So what kind of deals can you find these days on film stock, cameras, and other equipment, and where should a guy look?

Thanks...

Film will never full on die I don't think, but I'm sure that it will keep fading until it is rarely used. If you think about it, its more expensive and harder to perfect than HD I mean it almost seems like a no brainier. That's not to say I don't like film. I still shoot 35mm stills, they just seem to have such an amazing feel to them, same with 35mm film. We'll see what happens, but in 5 years maybe 10... film= done.

Ah the old film vs digital thread. How I've missed you.
First of all, you should take the film class. It's sorta like learning to drive a manual before learning an automatic, because once you learn how to do film, you can do anything.
Plus, film is hardly dead. Looking at all the major movies that have been made in the last year, digital is actually the one that is closer to being dead. Only about 4% of films made each year (on average) are filmed digitally, and this number hasn't grown very much. It's actually dropped this year for some reason.
So anyone who says you won't be working in film once you get into the industry is just silly. You will work with film. Chances are you will even work with Super 16, which is what that class is teaching right? It may be 16mm, but they're pretty close in terms of quality and identical in terms of technique and film stock and such. Anyways, plenty of recent movies were shot on Super 16, so not even the smaller film stocks are dead.
The market in which film is actually dead is just the consumer market and live TV (of course), because it's easier for a consumer to just push "go" and film. But in the professional world, film will be king for a long, long time.

I disagree. Look at photography, film has steadily been on its way out and some of the major companies stopped making film cameras and film altogether.

Film will gradually become too expensive to use. It's simple economics. The less film is used and purchased the more expensive it will become.

I have never bought into the idea that you have to learn film before moving on to digital. And this is coming from someone who learned photography on film first. Digital will eventually look as good or better than film. Look where digital was eight years ago compared to today.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Landogarner,

Sorry in advance for the long rant... But here goes.

I would first like to say that I love what digital has done for the amateur market. It makes it so amazingly easy and accessible for anyone to learn how to make movies.
One of the problems with digital is that there is a gigantic difference between the high end and the low end cameras. Even if you compare the Sony PMW-EX1 to the Red One, which for those of you who don't know, the Sony is a pretty top notch camera. But it's not a cinema camera. The small sensor size, low maximum resolution (compared to the Red One that is), low dynamic range, pretty heavy compression, lack of interchangeable lenses, and chroma subsampling all make the EX1 an inferior camera.
Film doesn't have this problem. For 16mm cameras, right off the bat there is the Bolex H16. Obviously there were consumer geared 16mm cameras, but it's tough to find them anyways. The Bolex has a variable shutter, interchangeable lenses (which also means manual focus and f-stop settings), slow motion, fast motion, single framing, fades, dissolves, and reverse motion. So what about the high end cameras? They have the same stuff, because in film, if I may quote Kodak, there is no compromise.
So by learning on film, one gets a hands on experience that will carry over to the professional world, be it digital or film, because whatever you learn on in the film world, the technical knowledge will carry over. Film is a great way to learn filmmaking. So many people have this idea that in order to understand something they must only understand the latest and greatest. But they fail to realize that while they might have the technical knowledge to tackle a project in the modern world, they lack a deep understanding of the medium.

Also, by working with film physically, you understand the concepts of filmmaking better because you have can have a one-on-one relationship with the project. Plus it is easier to teach creative filmmaking because one can literally do anything they want with the film. I did a project where I put bleach on my film to give it a weird deteriorating look. One begins to want to experiment with it because you can never know what the exact effects could be. Some people have even tried to bury their film in their backyard for 15 years. I'll repeat myself. One can literally do anything. It is very different than applying filters in Final Cut Pro because the effects are always predetermined. Many people think that just because they can do CGI or color grading that the digital medium can "do anything." Well unfortunately CGI or color grading doesn't give you a better understanding about the medium, it simply allows you to cover your own mistakes and essentially become a sloppy filmmaker. I'm not implying that anyone who uses CGI or color grading is sloppy, but it can be slippery slope, especially if you learn on this medium. One could potentially start to get a mentality that one can simply fix everything in post. When one gets this mentality, one starts to get less and less careful with their production, and therefore, more sloppy. However, when one learns on a medium that firmly states "Every shot counts. Be careful. Make sure the shot is in focus, properly exposed, and framed, because if you mess it up, you'll be wasting film," you are required to know this stuff and be able to apply it in the real world. Also, when it comes down to editing, physically editing the film is awesome because you get used to the fact that every edit should be carefully decided upon. One cannot simply apply the shotgun theory by closing your eyes and squeezing the trigger, like you can with nonlinear and nondestructive systems.

Because you HAVE to know everything about the camera and the workflow, you WILL learn it and apply it to everything you do in your professional filmmaking life.

Film schools do not try to develop a bunch of amateurs, they try to develop a bunch of professionals. The equipment and creative control that you get with film is unmatched by the digital world yet. And will continue to be unmatched until digital turns into a physical medium that reacts to light... Wait. We already have that. It's called film.

I have a CD I just released on HD cameras, the interviewees shoot both on HD and film but it's a resource of technical information on HD cameras mostly. Please visit http://www.hdcameracomparisonguide.com for audio clips, industry news or to purchase the CD.

Hello All

I will offer my 2 cents worth. While I have no problem with RED, or any other digital platform, there are hidden costs associated with digital that on larger projects such as features, and longer running shorts, you are spending money for onset DIT's, storage, redundant storage, LTO backups, the time it takes to manage all of the files costs money, lots of it is most cases. All that and you are left with an image that is substandard when you compare it to film stock. When you look at it, most of it comes down to money. While you do have the ability to see your last shot in seconds, that seems to be the only upside to me. Dollar for dollar, I could get a project made for the same dollar as if I shot on RED.

I have also started a company, Off Campus Production Services that assists film students produce their films buy going to various vendors that students have to go off campus for such as film stock, processing, telecine, camera packages, etc. We have recruited several top shelf companies and have been able to get much better rates than a stand alone film will get on their own. It is proving to be successful in saving students a substantial amount of money while at the same time introducing them to a more professional environment where they are treated with more respect that most are used to.

Thank you for your time.

Sean Main
www.offcampus.us.com

Take the film class. For all of the reasons listed above. Yes, there is a cost involved, but I highly doubt you will be required to shoot a feature film in your first class. We've shot a total of 7 rolls for two short projects this quarter, all covered under the $200 lab fee. Great experience and not a bad deal.

Check out the work on the Nontraditional Films Blog.

Tim
MFA Candidate, School of Film
Ohio University

Nontraditional Films Blog