I totally agree with you but what do you suggest Kodak do to convince filmmakers that film is better?
Kodak is making a big mistake. Confident that their product is still better than HD (and it is), Kodak figures that it's up to individual to figure it which is better.
Wrong.
It's up to Kodak to give every person who uses a camera a choice on what they want to use. As time goes on, more and more people believe that the only choice is digital because Kodak assumes that those who are serious will learn the difference. Wrong.
Eventually, people just won't know what they are missing, even as Kodak's product continues to offer a wonderful alternative (as evidenced by the images of letters that I currently have as forum pictures).
I totally agree with you but what do you suggest Kodak do to convince filmmakers that film is better?
Kodak should have an excellence in filmmaking award at each and every film festival. Even if the prize is just $250.00 in film stock, it would continue to raise awareness about film.
The images of the letters that I am posting on my forum I could not have done on DV. Perhaps the visual look I have created can be done in photoshop etc, but as the filmmakers of the movies "Winged Migration" stated in their movie, everything was done on location.
There is a filmmaking pride in using our real environment as a canvas rather than cyber creating it. It's up to Kodak to remind everyone that film is not outdated, it just has company now.
----------------------
Hey, I used digital eight on Saturday! My client accidentally cut off the final speaker at a roundtable discussion that he videotaped. To make amends, he put a white rubber glove on his hand, colored it to look like a chicken, and then spoke in an animated voice via the rubber hand chicken apologizing for the mistake as I videotaped.
That's what digital video is good for! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Actually, the quality of the image was quite good.
But in no way did it inspire me to want to shoot a story in video rather than in film. But as time goes on, people mistakenly believe that digital video has replaced film, rather than simply being an excellent additional new format.
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ August 29, 2003 05:46 AM: Message edited by: cameraguy ]</font></font>
Original Message reinserted by the moderator to keep the topic thread intact.
Posted By: cameraguy
Message:
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Advertise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Originally posted by Corey:
I totally agree with you but what do you suggest Kodak do to convince filmmakers that film is better?
I was in a camera store back in 1999 and someone walked up to the counter with an old 8mm wind up camera. He asked the store owner if he had film for it. He chuckled and said "you can't buy film for that thing anymore". He went on to suggest a video camera. I followed the guy outside and told him that film was available and told him where to get it. He was ecstatic.
In 2000 a friend who works at a drug store told me that someone came in looked around the store then came up to the counter and asked if they sold 8mm movie film!
When in another camera store i aksed the guy if he had any Super 8 cameras. He said no then said that he had a few people recently asking where they could get movie film. He told them you can't. I told him you can.
I think its a fairly common occurance of peop! le finding a movie camera and wanting to use it but don't know where to get film and then get turned off by an ignorant store owner or eventually they just give up from lack of info. The internet helps a lot but not enough by my experiences. I even tried to get one owner to stock a few rolls of K40 to see how long they would last. He wouldn't do it EVEN when I said that I would buy them if they didn't sell! [img]mad.gif[/img]
end rant
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ September 06, 2003 03:07 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
I just wish some of the people shooting video, would just try film, and I think advertising would definitely help.
There's so many people out there shooting video and trying to make it look like film in post. I've never seen a convincing example. Besides, shooting film is so much fun and I can't imagine living and never shooting film.
I read this on a DV forum the other day -
<font size="2.0" face="verdana, sans-serif">I don't understand how video can look more film like than film itself!I worked on a film project and shot some behing the scenes stuff with my GL2 of the same sets. The director is now kicking himself because the footage with the GL2 looks "better" and more "film-like" than the actual film footage.
Corey
All the director probably needed was a second camera
(perhaps a quiet Nizo) shooting cool, dynamic stuff that the bigger camera probably able to do.
Riding shotgun on a project (being left alone to shoot what you want), can be a very interesting experience. You can end up with angles that are really cool, because you are flexible to just grab and go.
<font size="2.0" face="verdana, sans-serif">I worked on a film project and shot some behing the scenes stuff with my GL2 of the same sets. The director is now kicking himself because the footage with the GL2 looks "better" and more "film-like" than the actual film footage. <font size="2.0" face="verdana, sans-serif">Obviously, they had a bad rank, the footage wasn't color corrected properly, or it wasn't lit and exposed properly to begin with...you cant shoot GL2 footage, and say it "looks like film"...I shoot footage with my sony trv-900, which is similar in quality to the GL2, and as nice as some of the video comes out, it still doesn't look like film...it's VIDEO...it's instant...it has a pleasing video picture...but it doesn't look like film, period.
Perhaps the GL-2 shot more close-up footage. Close-up can look real good. And the camera person was free to get several different angles.
A good director wouldn't have openly whined, that did their project no good. This therefore calls into question their own cognitive capabilities.
<font size="2.0" face="verdana, sans-serif">everybody knows film is cool, but it all comes down to cost, and newbie's fear of the mysterious process involved. locally (in norcal) it's really difficult for me to find "fun" films to shoot, even for free, simply cause everyone is shooting DV, and they don't even really understand the need for a DP, or what a DP does. anybody can frame up a shot, right?Originally posted by Alex:
Eventually, people just won't know what they are missing, even as Kodak's product continues to offer a wonderful alternative (as evidenced by the images of letters that I currently have as forum pictures).
re: kodak
i think kodak is doing a great job of marketing film, but they are definitely not spending time or money on the super 8 market. maybe it has something to do with the fact that no new cameras are being manufactured. also, at this point, kodak considers 16mm to be the entry point for "serious" filmmaking 9this is just my percept* hyping super16 as on origination format for 16:9/HD broadcast. super8 is just a very underground, niche sort of thing. i awareness of the format pretty much *has* to come from word of mouth, grass roots websites, mailinglists, etc.
in my experience though, kodak is handling their marketing very well. they are super-responsive, have sent me free film for tests, they have a senior tech rep stalking the cine mailing lists i'm on answering questions and so forth. i think they're doing the best they can.
as a result, film sales were actually up during the last fiscal year for them; i think the figure was about 18% over the previous year. not bad, considering.
But look at RR. He can't figure out how to use an autofocus Super-8 camera, so he badmouths the whole format.
Kodak should also be encouraging all of these "film schools" to actually offer film classes! Since Digital editing costs have dropped, it now makes more sense than ever to shoot film and edit digitally.
I'm not saying every project needs to be done with film, but to never have shot film is filmophobic.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks