Making a 35mm short film | Lab & scanning process
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Watch our new feature film version online here: bit.ly/3yItqd2 🎟
After 7 weeks in UK cinemas our full length Fence film is going online. DON'T MISS IT!
Thanks for all the support guys! Don't forget to follow the action :)
FB: / thefencefanpage
Insta: / thefencefilm
Twitter: / thefence_film
See you on September 2nd!
A brief insight into our experience of making a short film on 35mm. We really wanted to share our experience with people and we hope you enjoy it.
Check out Cinelab for everything film: www.cinelab.co...
Thank you for watching!
My theory as to why film looks better is because it is technically "less perfect" than digital. What I mean is that digital currently can portray reality very accurately, but that itself is the problem, because watching a movie is all about escaping reality, and film has that certain artistic, or other worldly look to it that does exactly that, it doesn't look exactly like reality, and that's exactly what you want when watching a movie.
Awesome analysis!!
@@100VideoProject Thanks! I would be ok with film makers shooting digitally if they might consider adding a film look, which would simulate grain and even the unique contrast that film creates, or maybe simply building that feature into smart TVs to turn that on or off, since I realize some people like the clean grain free look
@@lander77477 yeah I was thinking about how some people do edit their videos to look more grainy, but not sure how it differs from the real film.
@@100VideoProject Right, I have a 15 year old version of photoshop and it has a feature that simulates film grain, but it does not really look like real film grain, but I would have to assume that in 15 years, there has to be more realistic film grain simulators.
@@lander77477 it has, i can guarantee
Every time I feel like digital has caught up with film I see something like this and I can see the difference a mile off. Great work guys.
Also have to consider the difference between a black magic pocket camera shot by someone who is decent with cinematography and color corrected and graded by himself who can get by doing it himself vs comparing shooting on an Arri Alexa with a highly experienced director of photography color corrected and graded by the best in the industry. These guys shot with care because they had limited amount of resources and time between setups so forced it to be thought out so if someone did the same with an arri Alexa is should look the same and then they went to a professional company to have the film developed and color timed and processed the same as someone would hire a professional company to color grade footage out of an Alexa. Major advantages they had here was it forced them to think about everything and the weight and limitation of limited film stock forced careful planning. Most people get lazy when shooting digital
@@soundbreaker2485 Yeah I get that with film you're forced to put effort in to each shot (lighting, choosing the right stock for the right conditions etc). With digital you can just point and shoot even in the biggest of productions (See - Gavin and Stacey). But while I do actually like the digital look, some times I'll spot a new Hollywood production (Where I imagine the digital/film cinematographer time/talent pool is similar) shot on film and it stands out a mile.
I doubt I'd ever choose to shoot anything on film, but I wish I had it in me
@@guksack Guys, I'm a novice wannaby cinematographer and I just can't see the differences. Could you show me and indicate some books and videos where I can study?
It's not about "catching up" even though film definitely has its benefits. It has an organic look that cannot be replicated. It has personality. Even just the process of it is an experience many love.
I really cannot. I mean I dig film, but this actually looks 100% digital or at least what most movies accomplish digitally these days. It looks like a waste of effort. Tarantino, Nolan.. all those "film" guys, yeah their movies look digital to me.
There’s something special about the way a film looks using film. It seems like a lot of work to get a result but if done well the result speaks for itself. Even on a low budget 35mm production a film still LOOKS like a film. Wish they’d go back to this. But I can see the convenience of modern cameras. They just don’t have the same feel as film.
latitude and grain!
@@xpez9694 super late but thank you for pointing this out! Going to do some research on latitude
Just because something is *"easier"* doesn't mean it's better...
Nice but a lot of the perceived complexities are overblown and I think its important to point this out for any student seeing this. There are other 35mm cameras and some are very small, like the Aaton 35III which is barely bigger than a kitted out Red or Blackmagic. You can also use much smaller dollies and sliders if you want with the Pana cam. Film is used all the time as of 2020 and is common, esp. in the US. Look at the new Star Wars movies and the Walking Dead (16mm) for a small sample of film based projects, plus any Aronofsky, Paul Thomas Anderson, Spielberg or Scorsese movie.
I was just going to type this! I actually own Aaton 16mm and 35mm cameras and I was like, hey wait a second lol. The Panavision Panaflex Gold II in this video is probably the heaviest/largest sync sound camera still available for rent these days. Bigger by far than the any of the 90's cameras. Heck even an Arricam would have been a lot easier to deal with. I love my Aaton 35III 3 perf camera and shoot with it on a regular basis. When you show digital people the camera can be the same size as an Alexa, they change their tune fast.
What about the iconic Arri 2c?! now thats a small porable 35mm cinecam!
@@SanderAM Yes it is but its not useful if recording sound. The Aaton is very quiet.
@@SanderAM Kubrick's favorite run and gun.
Exactly, Arri 235 or IIC for MOS are similar size and weight as a digital package and Arricam LT or Panavision XL2 for sync sound are much smaller and lighter than an old Panaflex and therefore can run with smaller dollies, cranes steady-cams etc. Also remember these professional rigs are using PL or Pana mount lenses which is a big reason to use these cameras, professional cinema lenses especially anamorphic lens's are much larger and heavy so you need to compare apple's to apple's. An full Alexa with Panavision anamorphic lenses, batteries, transmitters follow focuses etc is nothing like running around with a Canon 5D with a canon still lens. An Arri 235 or IIC with a 400' mag and belt battery with a good cine lens is not that far off of running with an Alexa mini with a good cine lens and a v-mount battery IMHO.
It's crazy how up until 8-10 years ago 35mm ruled production, I didn't even know film was being shot then. When season 13 of SVU happened, I noticed something different with the image quality.
It's cool that you did this video, I always wanted to know how 35mm productions worked
Film > Digital. No contest.
its always funny to get into this argument again! LOL...but the thing is once the film is scanned its digital as if those were log frames from an ARRI Digital camera. It has grain.. but most people use degrain software.. or they want more grain... And if you are shooting 35mm film the film frame registration is spot on perfect so once its scanned the difference is splitting hairs...Since both Digital Arri and Film Arri can capture 24 fps. I understand the economics of shooting film and understand the differences I just think this difference is becoming smaller and smaller every year. Its seems like film is similar to the idea of making an album on 1inch mastering analog tape. It has a warmth... But the best colorists and telecine people could take a digital capture and throw their magic sauce of color and grain and I absolutely know you couldnt tell the difference. I know because they have to do it all the time on movies that have VFX shots that require wire removal or set extensions and all of that CG stuff that has to conform to the look of the film footage! Anyway the image capture quality has more to do with lenses.
there is no point of shooting on film in digital age cuz ultimately it's going to be converted into digital and viewed in digital. Also digital cameras have myriads of benefits over film cameras. While i don't see any benefits film has to offer over digital. I would prefer cheaper and smaller BMPCC 6k on any given day over this big thing with a white brick on top of it.
@@xpez9694 I thought the same as you. Digital is just catching up and there’s no point in film anymore. And... I just watched a Christopher Nolan film in analogue format. I take back what I originally thought about film. Digital is not catching up until there is such thing as a camera that can capture 16k resolution. That 70mm format I watched made digital imax look like shit.
@@Vaikartana24 film always has better texture. Get over it. A movie shot on film will have better texture and look more cinematic on bluray.
@@SixthDream I don't think so. Film is grainy, darker and difficult to work with. It looks more blurry than digital when you pause it. I don't know what texture you are talking about.
Digital is sharper, vibrant and easier to work with. You can import footage from your camera to the computer and edit, colour grade, add vfx instantly to it. While you have to get your film developed from somewhere which is a real headache. As it extremely rare to find film processing labs. In my country, India there is not a single film processing lab in the entire country. And ultimately shooting on film becomes pointless because ultimate it's going to be edited, projected/viewd in digital.
Excellent video. I've always liked the look of Panaflex film cameras but there is hardly anything on the web about them. It's really nice to see one in action, and I can't wait until I can give it a shot.
There is quite a bit about them online, just gotta research better. That particular camera is a Panavision Gold II, which is the camera Panavision gives away for cheap when people need one. They have 4, perf, 3 perf and 2 perf versions available and generally only charge for the rental of the lenses if you get one. I personally haven't shot on one because they're cost prohibitive from a size/weight aspect. We use ultralight Aaton 16mm and 35mm cameras, which are no bigger than an Arri Alexa.
I remember back in the days when digital first came out, I went to a meeting at Panavision and the conclusion was digital is made of square pixels and film is made of circular grains - which is more like how our own eyes function. So film is easier on the human eyes. But having worked with 35mm film on my first film, and digital on my second film, I would choose digital any day unless I have a big studio backing me. It's just not worth the incredible hassle, especially cleaning up and scanning the footage - that was an insane amount of work.
This video made me allmost cry. I miss my early days in cinema industry. I can't explain. But feeling on the set was just different. Feeling when you hold the roll in your hand !
Personally i wish that digital revolution in cinema never had happened.
Amazing work all around! May I ask how you got this opportunity in the first place?
Clearly not
The 35mm Short is a project provided to Third year students at Bournemouth University.
@@TheFilmGraduates how long did it take to film this whole movie really liked it asking as a young filmmaker good show
@@TheFilmGraduates they give you access to an panavision?
@@ConstantThrowing Obviously
Greetings from Torrance! Wish I had seen this back in 2019. My Dad worked for Panavision for almost 53 yrs. He drew the iconic logo as well as drafting the lenses by hand. No CAD back in 1956. His drawings would be sent to the machinists who would then build the lenses. Many still used today. Everything done by hand back then. I know that film will one day totally go away, but there is such an appreciation for the quality and warmth of film. Its not about making the sharpest or highest quality look. We don't need to see every pore on a person's face. There is a "Look" that only film can produce. That gets us involved with the movie without being a distraction. My hope is that future students will appreciate "Film cameras" and hold on to those disciplines of maintenance, setup, care, and most of all, making every shot count. Wishing the best for all of you!
Greetings from Palos Verdes. Paul was your dad Tak? He was a legend at Panavision. One of the first employees and early pioneers of the legendary camera company. RIP.
@@boomy332211 Hi Mike! Yes he was! Sounds like you also worked at or worked with Panavision. He loved the industry, loved meeting with people. I had the honor of working at Panavision during my summer and winter breaks. Worked with a man named Don Earl who at the time was the only caretaker of the 65mm cameras. I asked Dad why the company keeps such old cameras that nobody uses. He just said "Because they are important" Never understood until much later in life and never appreciated until "The Hateful Eight" came out. Then I understood what Dad meant. Thank you for remembering him after all these years!
I’m a film student at the moment and absolutely adore film cameras, most of all Panavision ones - I love shooting on celluloid, I’m intrigued by it, I wish I had the budget to shoot all my projects on it 😩 plus our school is mainly digital, using Alexas and Sonys, but I’m hopeful that some day I’ll be able to shoot a full length project on a Panavision camera - something I’m sure your dad made an enormous contribution to, I’m sure you’re very proud of him 😊 from London :)
@@ChrisTailor Greetings Chris! Thank you so much for your thoughts about film! Digital is the future, but so much was learned by film. One of the things I learned about Panavision was that some directors would ask for a specific lens by serial number. Certain lenses would give a "Look" that the director wanted. I can only share what was told to me, but my best advice is to take many, many notes. Even down to the serial numbers of the camera and lenses you are using. No two lenses, even if they are the same specification are identical. Take advantage of all the things a digital camera can do, but remember, the quality is only as good as the lens that is being used. Good luck to you and all your endeavors!
@@paulmiyagishima7655 I will definitely heed that advise, Paul. Thanks 😊
Those are some very fresh clean looking soldiers
What was the "norm" for about 110 years is now a "curiosity" since (mostly) 2010....dunno what to think about that.
Thx guys, great video!
Film rulez
Only videotoaster makes it possible.
Very insightful and fascinating stuff. Loved “The Fence” and I will be watching this.
i want a job in filming and editing , i just can't find nothing here in italy , i send my resume everywhere but no one answer , i have the skills and i do edit and film by my self
At 9:05 is that the focus puller just running along side the camera? Must be damn stressful having that job.
There’s something about the rendition of highlights in on that is just so wonderful.
Did you you use Super 35 or regular 35mm spherical and did you shoot on 4-perf or 3-perf?
We shot 3-perf spherical :)
1.85:1, Super 35, 3-perf
check out this guy's instagram @k3super16mm. he seems crazy
I’d have gotten Log scans and gone for a print film look.
As someone weened on film-this was great! Nice job boys.
I'm commenting again because this was actually super dope
its lots of efforts to make a movie & in the end public abuse it as flop or horible. respect for d unit
Awesome short and behind the scenes video! It lit a fire under me to make my own short on film. Hopefully 35mm but I'll settle for 16mm. Was just curious what the budget for this short was?
It's not entirely applicable as it was a university film. But it was approximately £4000.
0:53 Love this moment
if not mistaken that is the same Panavision camera that Empire STrickes Back was shot with....could be wrong but damn are those things gorgeous.
The Arriflex camera has been around for decades, its much more smaller and portable than this and gives you much more freedom. But I do respect using a big panavision camera, especially with some nice wide angle lenses that create that giant frame look that's iconic. I think films need more discipline in terms of production and creating the sense of seriousness in what they're doing. As opposed to now with digital cameras no one really cares what you're making.
Why does you "Film" look like a soap?`
Looks fantastic guys! So wonderful to see our generation using film for once rather than digital.
All that trouble;, and still edited on Premiere?
LOL yeah that part Kind of Nailed me as well ..... Ay ya yai ....
Quentine Tarantino gonna love you guys
I have a question. Can you connect it to a monitor to get a live view?
Yes but no play back 👍
It's funny how the dude says film isn't more expensive than digital, right after the two directors talk about how expensive messing up a shot can be.
Well, I don't like watching H.D. tv. I can't really explain why, but it looks too real. Then you might say,"Don't you want a good quality picture? An image that's very sharp?" The answer is yes........but. I like a wide screen and beautiful images.
I somewhat disagree with lander seven's comment about reality and being artistic. There's a time and place for very artistic films. What about Ken Burn's documentaries? His films are reality, but shot on film.
And yes, when you watch a movie you are escaping reality. But that's not why I like film. Let's take cartoons. What do you like better hand drawn cartoons or digital? Nothing beats the Flintstones and the Jetsons: hand drawn.
Oh.......and did you know that the movie RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, the part where the coal car went off like a rollercoaster was filmed in stop motion? They used of course 35mm film, but get this: They used a 35mm Nikon camera with a 250, 500, or 750 roll frame back. Yes, the door is made to be easily removed and put back on, and a special back that can hold a 750 frame roll of film was used. The figures were made from clay, then moved frame by frame one picture at a time, or so many pictures at a time ( they're the experts). Now the movie TITANIC, was film, but some parts were done by computer, no film or digital cameras, and no actors.
I think these days film looks better because people are reminded of iphone cameras or dslr vlogs / videos on youtube when they see digital. Even if it looks great, there's a subliminal stigma we all hold that makes digital look more ammeter and less like our idea of a "real movie."
Digital has made filmmakers lazy. Countless indie films on streaming services made without lighting or tripods. It's maddening.
All in the lens's of the camera. The emotional image that it picks up! Not many words were spoken, however, none was needed. The camera/lens captured it all.
Panavised focal lengths! : )
Still trying to wrap my head around this video, great in-depth exploration. You must have an amazing school with amazing resources correct? I've never seen younger people messing with a 35mm film camera EVER on the level that you all do professionally let alone output something that looks so good. Great work.
More excellent work lads
Watch our new feature film online here: thefencefilm.co.uk/ 🎟
After 7 weeks in UK cinemas our full length Fence film is going online. DON'T MISS IT!
OK, so it might sound like a stupid question but I'm serious: How exactly can you have a digital reference monitor when it shoots film ? Is there a prism that sends light to an external digital sensor ?
Marc-The-Canadian The rotating shutter is a mirror. When the light is blocked by it, it is reflected upwards, to a digital sensor which is used for reference.
@@igorsiekierka Thank you so much, I've been wondering for the past 2 years how it worked, searched on google and youtube but I guess I didn't use the right terms. Definitely learned something today !
Cheers
Marc-The-Canadian I feel you man. It’s so hard to find information about motion picture film. There’s tons of information on still photography with film that is easy to find but the motion picture angle feels near absent.
keeping film alive thanks for this explanation! Nice channel name. I’ll check you out. I love shooting film.
Hey! So about a year ago I asked if this camera can connect to a monitor, which it can. But if you can the image into a monitor, couldn’t you record this image onto a recording deck?
How to expose it perfectly
wow I'm both happy and sad I missed this period. I got into videography right when everything became digital, never used film. Seems like much more difficult and complex, but also a has an artist allure to it itself.
Today youtube is riddled with nothing but digital jittery, stuttering garbage 24fps videos. It's disgusting and painful to watch.
Is it true film process still in world
@@subbarajupaipuri3879 yes 100%
digital are breaty cool and it add many things and opportunity to young people and cinephiles
but film i have that feeling its kind of the real images the magic which a tracked the audience in the theater first time , film is something great and we should keep it verey will and admire it thank you fellas
Current digital cameras have more resolution, similar dynamic range, more flexibility, cleaner image, better low light performance yet there is still something missing. 35mm film simply has this natural look where edges are not razor sharp and color gradients are as smooth as seen with naked eye. Also there is something about reality being permanently captured by chemical film frame. Instead of just measuring voltages on silicon chip and writing them out.
Wish I was a trust fund baby.
Lol!
I think I saw me
if all movies were made with film. Some will be alot better (Talking about you Very dark pitch dark film)
I always enjoyed movie shot on film... as it looks more light captured and smooth motion ... looks so artistic...
What’s the music?
The telecine guy says insurance companies want digital putting on to film so there is a physical copy. Do they achieve that like in the 50's and 60's using the kinescope/telerecording process?
The Telecine Dude sounds 100% like Idris Elba
Film look so much better, how about shoot on digital then dump to film then rescan like they did For Dune?
I want to be a writer and director more than anything more than I want to breathe. I hate the way movies look nowadays. I want to use nothing but cameras from the 80s and 90s but I know absolutely fuck all about camera or actual film reals kinda scared to be honest but I know it’s good be worth it
you've made an excellent shorts
thanks!
Great video honestly sums up 4ish years of learning the film process wrapped up in one video. Great stuff!
Do you talk about the cost of shooting on film? What was your shooting ratio on set? How much footage did you purchase and how much did it end up costing for the film including process + scan. What about your budget overall?
real filmmakers use film,digital is only a big tv for home.
7:10 Not Just a load of data
Arriscanners are still the best
Spielberg still shoots on film. Wise man.
Christopher Nolan is brand ambassador for shoot a movie with 35mm & 70mm film camera
great..job
What application did they use in 5:22 to make the house look messed up??
This is the best video concerning filming using film.
Bring back 35mm film so we can enjoy movies again.
Great video. I was always intrested in film workflow and this opened up the process nicely.
As relevant now as when you first posted it.
I wish i could film a movie with a camera like that one day
This is awesome! Thanks for sharing!
scanner??- what if you have a projector at home, or a drive-in theatre?, no digital shit there!!, if you use film, go the whole 9 yards, and make a PRINT, not a disk!!
Looking at the Panavision website, I'm wondering if they still rent the Platinum and Gold Panaflex. It only lists the Millenium XL2, the lightweight and the 65mm for rent on the website. Still the best motion picture camera if you ask me. Best looking too.
I wanna watch the movie in the video
I read some where that film makers preferer to record on film for the main shots, and only use digital where it would be dangerous for the camera operator
Yes,many modern movies still shoot in film because its the real cinematic looks.digital looks tv series and very shakey.looks fake because thats why its called film look,just mimic the real film.
LOL. I started making movies on UA-cam in 2008 when I was 13 and my parents got me a £3000 canon XH A1. But then I got depression and now other millennials have over taken me. FML.
It's cool but i think it's weird that you want to shoot analogue but edit on a pc.
Still better than shooting on digital and editing on a PC. Film shows it’s details, even if it’s downgraded to 4k resolution. It’s still better than a 4k camera capturing 4k resolution. There would still be more detail coming from the film, even if they were scanned in 4k.
Shooting on film and editing on computers is how they have been doing things since the 80's.
I love the 70s and 80s movie look with low contrast and warm colours. Today they choose a super high definition clean look processing the shot material. I don‘t like it at all. Then you don’t have to shoot on an expensive analog Panavision and go directly for the digital shit.
Can u please explain how they remove other external noises captured through the boom mic and use the specific sound in the final footage?
35mm film, focal lengths produce warmer images. 35mm negative ultimate archival medium.
What lenses did you use?
Sorry bro, but that is not a "Piece Of Kit". Theirs nothing slang about it.
might as shoot it it on a sony video cam. 99% of people that watch movies could care less if its fim or digital or vhs.
This short film actually looks like a movie, I wish I have access to film camera.
Why they not making homemade
That will work against sjw
9:16 very spielberg camera move dont you think😝
May I know the camera and gear used in this short film
Am i the only one that didn't understand a thing about what Paul Dean explained?
Which camera is used ? Name?
commenting to find out as well
The telecine guy really knows his stuff!
5:05
Did you use 85b filter or color corrected/graded
How do you know how the image is going to look before you develop the film though ?
I have the same exact question! Pls answer
You don't. But that's part of the excitement of film. Even for consumer level still photography, you don't know how the picture will turn out until you develop it and each roll is limited to 36 exposures. That's why each photo is so precious, valuable and memorable and not something you can take hundreds of and dispose the ones you don't want.
That's the general idea. But to give you a more technical answer, modern film cameras for filmmaking usually have a digital video tap attached to them. This records a parallel video feed of what the camera is seeing from the same lens and outputs it to a live monitor for the director and crew to look at while the shot is being filmed. It also gives a rough idea of how the final film output will end up looking like once it is developed.
Metering. Notes. Experience.
You do it enough with a given film stock and camera setup, and you start to be able to predict what things will do to the image.
@@KKomalShashank Actually, you get a better idea the more you shoot.
The only thing Panavision I have are my Panivision T-Shirts and a Panavision Camera operators book.
Ditto
I miss so much shooting on film, film cameras are so much better to use
What is that? An old Gold or Platinum?
Lol I can tell that to the old guy with the red cap is the real boss there 😉
This is the rolls royce of movie cameras
is film not more expensive to shoot than digital?
The process,price,etc that it took for film is a wayy.. more than digital,and the most bugging thing is when you're have a wrong take,it's wasting the film roll
The cost is “front loaded” because whilst the film stock & processing is cheaper than recording media, shooting on film doesn’t require the computer hardware, hard drives, backup drives, archival drives that acquisition on a digital platform does. If the film it acquired digitally, that data also has to be migrated on a regular basis. Anyone who’s had a hard drive failure will know what I mean.
Down the line, the original camera negative (OCN) can be stored in a can indefinitely then remastered to whatever format is needed at that time.
Hollywood realised in the 1950’s that they could make money from their film libraries by re-releasing their films on TV.
Later on, they realised that audience churn followed a 7 year cycle, so they would make a decision whether to remake, make a sequel or simply go back to the OCN & re-release that film on VHS, DVD, BluRay or streaming services.
As far as set discipline is concerned, it should be no different to shooting digitally. Fix it in prep!