A few weeks ago Ayz and I were talking over IM – and at one point we ended up on the subject of film vs DOF adapters. Ayz has impressed a lot of highly professional people with his short film White | Red | Panic, which was shot on a tiny little HV20 (no kit was used), and he gave the short an amazing look with color work, and an eye for beautiful shots. At the time of our chat, I just had received the 16mm back from Burbank, and was surprised at how slow, regarding turn-around time, it all was. (Not to mention a bit expensive, but that wasn’t really surprising). I think from the time I dropped off the 4 small reels for telecine, I had to wait around a week to get the 15 minutes of footage back. And as beautiful as the footage looks, as unique and nostalgic a feel as 16mm film gives – the workflow is just not something I am used to. Ayz, although he has had a lot of success outside of film (and with next-to-nothing budgets), was saying he had decided that he needed to shoot a feature on film – that all his favorite films were shot on 35. And I should make clear that I don’t think people shouldn’t use film… I don’t think film has no benefit. I’m just thinking out loud and interested in people’s perspective on this. But I was wondering – how do I word this – okay, one of my favorite films is Days of Heaven, I think it’s beautiful, I love the slowness and anti-climatic unfolding of the story, I love the sounds and the editing. And I wonder if I would love any of these things less if Terrence Malick happened to, in 1978, have access to a Viper – or even an SGPro, and had made a decision to shoot digitally? I know that something about the image would feel different – maybe the weight or grain would be slightly off if compared side by side. But I’m just asking – would it really make or break the movie itself? I guess, at this moment, I have almost no interest in shooting a feature or even a short on celluloid. I think it’s very interesting having mixed formats to play with; 90% of For Thousands of Miles is filmed on HDV, but the 15 minutes of 16mm we have to use really stands out against the rest of footage, but so does the Mp4 in it’s own low-quality / personal way. I’m interested in hearing people’s thoughts on this – what’s your favorite film? Was it shot on film? And what do you think would be the difference if it had been shot digitally?
Pop-upView Separately

A few weeks ago Ayz and I were talking over IM – and at one point we ended up on the subject of film vs DOF adapters. Ayz has impressed a lot of highly professional people with his short film White | Red | Panic, which was shot on a tiny little HV20 (no kit was used), and he gave the short an amazing look with color work, and an eye for beautiful shots.

At the time of our chat, I just had received the 16mm back from Burbank, and was surprised at how slow, regarding turn-around time, it all was. (Not to mention a bit expensive, but that wasn’t really surprising). I think from the time I dropped off the 4 small reels for telecine, I had to wait around a week to get the 15 minutes of footage back. And as beautiful as the footage looks, as unique and nostalgic a feel as 16mm film gives – the workflow is just not something I am used to.

Ayz, although he has had a lot of success outside of film (and with next-to-nothing budgets), was saying he had decided that he needed to shoot a feature on film – that all his favorite films were shot on 35.

And I should make clear that I don’t think people shouldn’t use film… I don’t think film has no benefit. I’m just thinking out loud and interested in people’s perspective on this.

But I was wondering – how do I word this – okay, one of my favorite films is Days of Heaven, I think it’s beautiful, I love the slowness and anti-climatic unfolding of the story, I love the sounds and the editing. And I wonder if I would love any of these things less if Terrence Malick happened to, in 1978, have access to a Viper – or even an SGPro, and had made a decision to shoot digitally?

I know that something about the image would feel different – maybe the weight or grain would be slightly off if compared side by side. But I’m just asking – would it really make or break the movie itself?

I guess, at this moment, I have almost no interest in shooting a feature or even a short on celluloid. I think it’s very interesting having mixed formats to play with; 90% of For Thousands of Miles is filmed on HDV, but the 15 minutes of 16mm we have to use really stands out against the rest of footage, but so does the Mp4 in it’s own low-quality / personal way.

I’m interested in hearing people’s thoughts on this – what’s your favorite film? Was it shot on film? And what do you think would be the difference if it had been shot digitally?