looking for an excellent condition Bolex super 16mm camera package....

[Adrian Correia]

anyone out there have any leads? Thanks!

[Steve Sherrick]

The RED just doesn't cut it anymore huh?

Check out these guys. They may have some leads.

http://www.provideofilm.com/a_data.htm

[Jon Carr]

Why a Bolex?

[Adrian Correia]

I just want an affordable way to shoot film again.....and I may be using it on a feature to shoot some flashback b-roll to separate it from the Red footy. Do you thins there is a better, affordable super 16mm alternative?

[Jon Carr]

I would rather go with an ARRI S with a modified super 16 gate if your not doing sync sound. But that's just my taste in 16mm. You can pretty much get any Bolex and send it to these guys to convert it to super 16
http://www.cameraspro.com/super16.html

[David Rasberry]

There is an Arri S super 16mm conversion with PL mount and 15-150 Angie on Ebay right now.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Arriflex-Super-16mm-Camera-pl-mount-Ang-15-150mm-zoom_W0QQitemZ180396683101QQcmdZViewItemQQptZFilm_ Cameras?hash=item2a007aef5d&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

Also several Eclairs

[Stephen Williams]

AFAIK that Arri S has been on Ebay for a very long time. It's a very difficult camera to convert properly, there are a few horror stories from cameras converted in the UK. You might want to arrange a film test before purchase.
Bolex on the other hand is much easier to convert.

[Brandon Kraemer]

I've got a beautiful 16mm Rex 5 Bolex with a nice set of 3 primes 12/25/75 and an Angenieux zoom lens, but sorry it's NFS. I love this camera, very reliable, I highly recommend them. Good luck finding one, you'll never want part with it, and there are no software builds to contend with!

[Charles Angus]

Why a Bolex?

Because Bolex's are sweet!

[Jeff Barklage]

Dieter @ ProCam is the BEST Bolex repair facility in the USA.

[Adrian Correia]

thanks guys...as always you rock

[Florian Stadler]

Don't do Camera's Pro, he is slow, unreliable and does shotty work. Go with JK and you will not regret it.

http://www.jkcamera.com/Super16.htm

JK had to redo the conversion that Cameras Pro did on mine.

[Nick Gardner]

Aaton ltr s-16 cameras are going for dirt cheap right now, and it's a nice camera to own or have on your desk when you are done.

Nick

[Roberto Lequeux]

I am also interested in shooting some old S16 for a flashback and have some basic questions about S16.

I guess the Bolex would be more than reliable enough after being serviced and modified so I suppose that wouldn't be an issue. But what would be the costs of some old S16 stock? And what about the lab costs? I guess all I would need to print would be about 10 minutes of footage, or less.

[Charles Angus]

I've found about a dollar a foot (that's CAD, though, YMMV).

Edit:
Just noticed you said print... I've usually done an HD-SR scan.

I shot and printed on S16mm a while ago at Technicolor Vancouver (one of the only colour 16 labs in Canada, I believe). I think it was a few thousand for a finished print of an 8 minute film, including neg cutting and optical sound.

[REINHART PESCHKE]

I have a great Bolex package for sale
i can send you pics
e-mail me at : rayteam@verizon.net

[Steve Gal]

By the way, that Arri S is our conversion and I welcome anyone to come and give it a test. It is a true S-16 conversion in everyway. We also had to correct a few upgrades done by Van Diemen. That Arri S just sold on Ebay but I do have more. I also have S-16 Bolex's as well.

check out
http://duallcamera.com/store/Cameras_Super16mm.shtml

[Guy Bofdart]

I do not understand people who dhoot on video to look like film! It will NEVER look like film. Film still the best in so many points. No very good serious productions are shoot on video. Red camera doesn't open any doors either. Make a movie is hard, but selling it is harder. Trust me. I go very often to the Cannes Filn Festival and the first qustion than buyers ask you is: How did you shoot your movie? You say video and they will not take a look at it. If you say on film they will take a look at it. It's so simple. As simple as the Oscar winner 'Hurt locker' was shot on Super 16mm...
If you are serious about film making you must shoot on film. Cameraspro.com make very good Super 16 conversions for any 16mm cameras.
Video is a waste of money and time...It's almost useless if you want to sell your production.
Guy Bodart
Film director/DP

[Johnny Friday]

I do not understand people who dhoot on video to look like film! It will NEVER look like film. Film still the best in so many points. No very good serious productions are shoot on video. Red camera doesn't open any doors either. Make a movie is hard, but selling it is harder. Trust me. I go very often to the Cannes Filn Festival and the first qustion than buyers ask you is: How did you shoot your movie? You say video and they will not take a look at it. If you say on film they will take a look at it. It's so simple. As simple as the Oscar winner 'Hurt locker' was shot on Super 16mm...
If you are serious about film making you must shoot on film. Cameraspro.com make very good Super 16 conversions for any 16mm cameras.
Video is a waste of money and time...It's almost useless if you want to sell your production.
Guy Bodart
Film director/DP

Uh Oh....here we go. Video vs. Digital. Guess this will always be a stich in someones side. I'm sure someone will soon tell this cat that yes they were at Cannes and sold their film that was shot on video/red or arri digital or sony digital or ?

guess i should never have gotten those jobs with my video camera and give the $$ back.

[Guy Bofdart]

Even Florian Stadler who critized my conversions is shooting on video now. He is not a real DP . 95% of DP's are shooting on film.

To use a film camera, you need to learn how to use it,the film and the light!

I converted 2 cameras for Sonny Miller who is a real Pro.He is one of the cameramen who shot the James Bond movie 'Die another day'

He told me that he was my biggest fan about my work. This is a very serious reference. I converted hundred of uper 16 with any problem. Because I give 6 months waranty. Who will give you 6 months on his work? Why all the Pros are chosing Cameraspro? There is a reason. I am also a film director and DP and I know what a cameraman needs by experience. The other people who convert your camera never shot ONE FOOT of film in their entire life. How can you compare? The crew who built the Concorde are not the people who pilot it ! I build and I shoot! It's a big difference!
Guy Bodart
Cameraspro.com

[Johnny Friday]

Even Florian Stadler who critized my conversions is shooting on video now. He is not a real DP . 95% of DP's are shooting on film.

To use a film camera, you need to learn how to use it,the film and the light!

I converted 2 cameras for Sonny Miller who is a real Pro.He is one of the cameramen who shot the James Bond movie 'Die another day'

He told me that he was my biggest fan about my work. This is a very serious reference. I converted hundred of uper 16 with any problem. Because I give 6 months waranty. Who will give you 6 months on his work? Why all the Pros are chosing Cameraspro? There is a reason. I am also a film director and DP and I know what a cameraman needs by experience. The other people who convert your camera never shot ONE FOOT of film in their entire life. How can you compare? The crew who built the Concorde are not the people who pilot it ! I build and I shoot! It's a big difference!
Guy Bodart
Cameraspro.com

.....makes sense now! Applause, thank you very much for your insight on reduser. Now back to video........just us point and shoot drones. lighting doesn't matter anyway!

[Guy Bofdart]

John

Yes, sold your video camera. I know I am right. A simple example. How do you know Charlie Chaplin , old documentaries on the first War? It's because it was shot on film. If they were shot on video, you would never know Charlie Chaplin and all those great artist.

I can assure you that you will never sell any feature on Video in Cannes film festival.

You can sell short or documentaries. But video is not film and cameras are not reliable. It's a fact!

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

John

I tried video and I can tel you that it doesn't work for a feature. Too much contrast, fake colors, needs a lot of corrections. Cameras not reliable by hot,humid or cold temperature. low life batteries etc...

Guy

[Johnny Friday]

John

Yes, sold your video camera. I know I am right. A simple example. How do you know Charlie Chaplin , old documentaries on the first War? It's because it was shot on film. If they were shot on video, you would never know Charlie Chaplin and all those great artist.

I can assure you that you will never sell any feature on Video in Cannes film festival.

You can sell short or documentaries. But video is not film and cameras are not reliable. It's a fact!

Guy

yes, but i will never be able to aquire the knowledge i forgot in film school since film is slowly drying up in most major markets that actually hire dp's. Filmmaking is not film or video. I'm sure i could site you many examples, but you already know. YOu are in an industry that supports only film, so you are offended and trying to hold onto what you know. Nothing wrong with that. but you might also consider film or video is not an either or....but what's best for the job at hand. i'm sure some wise folks might tell you the same.

[Guy Bofdart]

John

You know that I am right! I understand your opinion and respect it. But take a look around you and all good production (I am talking about features) are shot on fil...Because it's better. Video ,sometimes, can give you a good picture, but the result is always cold, without life....It's a fact! Only a few features were shot on video. Even Georges Lucas was critisized for the result of 3 last Stars War! Flat pictures!

Steven Spielberg said : 'The day when we will not get film in the camera, I will no shoot anymore'

And what is your answer about old movie conservasion against Video? As I said, we would never knew who was Charlie Chaplin....

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

Yes, I support shooting on film to have a good master and use a serious equipment. I support digital transfert , EFX etc....100%

I am just again shooting video to looks like film. He will never look like film.

Guy

[Johnny Friday]

Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Miami Vice, Collateral, Knowing, Superman Returns, There will be blood, Starwars episodes 2 & 3, The Game, The book of Eli, Pirates of the Caribbean: on stranger tides, The lovely bones, Superbad......

Oh...and Avatar

.....sorry if i missed hundreds more, but aren't these films shot on video or a significant portion shot on video? Guess video is not really dead now.

[Johnny Friday]

Done....i think you have no point here. Most will agree that film and video are up for the job at hand. To point blank shoot down video when your profession depends on film is rather obvious on this forum. If you've paid much attention in the past three years then you will have seen a quite revolution in video/film production. But some dogs just cant learn a new trick either...so be it. Respect your view, but i'm open to film and/or video having shot both. Sure makes sense for me as an independent to shoot what i can actually afford and work with.

[Guy Bofdart]

Some of those film were shot in part with video. The '300' were shot on film, Gladiator too and I am pretty sure than Pirates of Caribeans were shot on film.

There is room for video effects...Of course video is not dead. But the film still better!

But what is the interest to shoot on video? Once upn a time in Mexico was shot on video...It's yellow...Where are the colors?

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

I understand you very well! I saw so many guys comming back to film too

If your job is to shoot commercials etc...Video is great!

If my job is to shoot features, film is better. Bu as you must know, you need a very good DP to shoot on film. I saw so many gainy video and films too....

There is room for the two formats, but for different works

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

By the way, the super production AVATAR lost the Oscar against a Super 16 film Hurt Locker. I have it on blu ray and it's very good...

Take care
Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

By the way, 'Pirates of the Caribbean" was shot on film. Some shots whith Panavision and other shots with Arriflex cameras. Please check!

Try to have good information!

Guy Bodart
Cameraspro

[Joe Taylor]

Hey Guy, that dude says that "There Will be Blood" was shot on video when in fact it was photographed in anamorphic 35mm all the way, baby! ppssst. You ought to call him on it before somebody else does!

[Johnny Friday]

yep, my bad....in fact one of the big all film productions where i believe it went through all photochemcial finish....ok, you got me on that one

[Guy Bofdart]

Hello Joe

Yes, of course, you are right! Those pictures are too good to be on video. And I saw them shooting the 'Pirate' with 3 Panavisio/Camaflex Platinum and other models too.

I know that 'Chaos 1' was shot on HD and Chaos 2" with a red camera. It's kind of sharp, but doesn't look great. I like hose movies, but ...Why video to get a flat picture. I really do not understand. Troy, Alexander, 300 and other great productions don not play with video. Video and film are very different and video can be very useful for some effects etc...But for a very good look, no one very good video camera cannot be compared to even an old Mitchell 35mm. Film still the best. But people do not get it. It's sad!

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

John

Do not worry, everybody can make mistake. We were only talking about film and video ...between friends!

Guy

[Andy Jarosz]

Well this went south fast.

[Gunleik Groven]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Bolex-H-16-M-16mm-camera-/190449544271?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item2c57ad6c4f

http://cgi.ebay.com/Professional-BOLEX-16mm-MOVIE-CAMERA-W-Angenieux-Zoom-/390240343513?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item5adc2315d9

http://cgi.ebay.com/Bolex-Rex-16mm-Camera-/130437727532?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item1e5eb1c52c

http://cgi.ebay.com/Bolex-16mm-Camera-/250701661832?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item3a5efbc688

http://cgi.ebay.com/Bolex-H16-Deluxe-16mm-Movie-Camera-w-B-H-1-F2-5-Lens-/290480704773?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43a1ffcd05

http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=m570&_nkw=bolex

[Tim Hole]

Guy just in case you hadn't heard we don't shoot video around here its called Digital Cinema. There is a difference! But I really hope you are not saying the people on these forums are not real DP's because they shoot RED, because that would be arrogant and ignorant. The only people I have ever met that rally against digital are the people who define their income by film. Most other people like the characteristics or don't. Both are still available, both do a great job.

As I'm sure you are aware the film stocks are getting finer and the characteristics are getting closer to digital. They still have a very discernible look, however the line is almost too fine to judge on many occasions between film and digital.

To state that someone won't look at a film because it is shot digitally was maybe true two or three years ago...the world is changing.

[Guy Bofdart]

Tim

Come back on track . VIdeo, digital is the same crap. The red camera or other digital stuff dop not have the HD and latitude of film. They do not look like film.Too much contrast, fake colors etc...Real directors and DP shoot on film. Low budget movies are shot in digital...Except Avatar ,that I do not like at all and the last 3 Stars war from George that not a lot of people did not like either.

Digital is not an evolution itself and never replace film even if film will be replace by digital or other crapy cameras.

If you have money you shoot on film. If you want to play with little cameras without any money ,you will shoot on digital.

Any good productions are shot on film. Low budget or some directors shoot on digital because they think it's cheaper or easier. They are wrong!!

Watch 'Once upon a time in Mexico' from Robert and you will see a yellow saturated movie. Why? to correct the crapy digital result, they have to work a lotin post production to try to make it look like film and it doesn't look like film.

Check digital movies and you will see faces burned by the light, grainy spots when the DP is trying to shoot in the dark. We do not have that kind of thing on film.

Also, the motion picture equipment is much more reliable than any HD or Red cameras.

I lear my job in 67 with Tonino Delli Colli on the set of 'Once upon a time in the west' a Sergio Leone novie .Shot in Spain and in Cinecitta. Tonino was a great DP. He won an Oscar for 'The life is beautiful a few years ago.

I work several years for Cinecitta, I made features and sonme documentaries (For my own pleasure) and won several Awards in Europe for my work. So, please do not try to tell me what is the best in motion picture!!! I tried everything. Panavision, Arriflex, Mitchell, Cameflex with Claude Lelouch (One man and a woman), Pathe Webo, Bolex R16 and of course Super 16, Arri SR I,II,III S16 ,Eclair NPR S16, Aaton Super 16mm , I shot on 2 perf cameras Techniscope 2.39, Scope 2.35, reduced scope 2.0 etc....

What is your experience on film and video?

Thanks
Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

Gunleik

Why do you show us several links of old Bolex cameras on ebay??

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

Tim

Tell me what good movies were shot on digital? I say good by the quality of the picture not about the action or story.

Yes, 95% of the Pro DP do not want to hear about digital .

Just look around you. All big production and even small productions are shot on film.

Alexander, Master and ommander, Troy, Gladiator, Titanic and Robin Hood. Robin Hood is a brand new realease. Why they choose film and not digital if it's so good?

Are those director idiots? I do not think so! Think about all the reasons of choice!

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

Joe Taylor

About what web site are you talking about? Are you sure that you have the right one?

Try Optical Electro house and the Kodak site . You will see that we have the same opinion about video.

What do you think that you can shoot on digital and how much it will cost you. Film price is nothing compared to the entire production. Nothing at all. And Digital is flat as a pancake. It's a dead picture. If you cannot see that, you are not a real DP. I am sorry!

Of course I am against digital for the master. I am for digital transfer. But as you have much more experience than I have I assume that you are right!

For the last time! Digital is not as good as film. Period!

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

Here is my web site (Old) We are making a new one.
I do not talk about digital on my web site. But I will explain to people what is film on the new web site (In construction)

http://www.cameraspro.com/

Guy

[Joe Taylor]

I can think of a couple if I may. First of all there's a little movie out now that is considered one of the best film of the decade, The Social Network. Shot with a Red One. Another great two part movie, Che. Visually stunning. Red Prototype. Zodiac, Slumdog Millionaire, Knowing $50,000,000 low budget film, Winter's Bone, Public Enemies $100,000,000 budget, Collateral, Miami Vice, AntiChrist, District 9, Unbelievable, a good chunk of Tree of Life (Terrence Malick who is are hack, The Book of Eli.

These are off the top of my head, all highly regarded, many Oscar Winners and Contenders and this shot list makes your not-so eloquent argument "film and not video if it's so good," moot.

[Joe Taylor]

Try Optical Electro house and the Kodak site . You will see that we have the same opinion about video.

For the last time! Digital is not as good as film. Period!

Guy

Kodak says that? I can't imagine why. You win.

[Guy Bofdart]

Joe

Maybe I know you!!! I live in Green Valley (Henderson). Do you know Rusty Meyer (He acted in Silverado). We have a meeting every last thursday of each month. I talk to a guy who has a studio and a lot of equipment . Red one etc...Maybe it was you. That person told me : 'I wish to shoot on film, but I do not have the money for it"

Guy

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

FROM KODAK

http://www.reduser.net/motion/images/Blog/storyboard-banner.gif
Why is Film the archival media of choice?

(Ana Castro, Archiving, Digital Hype) Permanent link (http://www.reduser.net/forum/#)


http://www.reduser.net/motion/WorkArea/images/application/loading_big.gif
The Society of American Archivist defines Archival Media as ‘resistant to deterioration or loss of quality, allowing for a long life expectancy when kept in controlled conditions’.
If we try to apply this definition to the different types of storage media currently used in the motion picture workflow as it is structured today, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to find many media that fit this definition: other than film, that is.
Whether the production in question uses hard drives, CD’s , tapes or DVDs to store their content, there is always the very real probability that a hard drive will crash, that a tape will get scratched, that the format used will be obsolete and render the information unreadable in a few years (even if the information is still intact). What good does it do to have perfectly good information that you cannot access?
Film is a very mature technology compared to “digital.” We have had a long time to learn and apply those learnings along the way in order to make products that best meet our customers’ needs. Many years of research have gone into understanding and optimizing film formulations to ensure its archival properties. Motion picture film, if properly processed and kept under recommended conditions can last for several hundred years, no other currently used storage media comes anywhere close to that. In addition, the “filing” system is very simple and does not require much maintenance. Entire productions can be stored away for many years until someone decides it is time for a re-release or a special “coming out of the vault” edition.
One key feature of film has always been the long term stability and usefulness of the images. Three factors that make this possible are: 1) the stability of the image itself; 2) the stability of the base/support; and 3) the means to extract the image/information.
For well processed B&W films, the image is actually made up of metallic silver, which is VERY stable... providing Arrhenius predictions in terms of centuries. Color films use organic dyes for their images. Improvements in the dyes themselves and in the methods to incorporate these dyes into the films, have yielded large improvements in the stability of these images. Although not as stable as metallic silver, these new dyes can provide stability of many decades based on Arrhenius predictions.
The use of polyester for the film base provides a very stable material for the images. This has greatly extended the stability of films. Finally, since film images are optical (meaning what you see is what you get) it is VERY easy to see and extract the image... no complicated electronic format (that usually becomes obsolete) is needed.
For productions that originate digitally the amount of data that is generated is very large (much like me taking 15 still pictures of my daughter with my digital camera, whereas in the past I would probably have taken 2 with my film camera). The volume of data only helps compound the dilemma that follows once the production is finished and now content decisions have to be made as to what will be kept and what will not. If the ultimate intention truly is to preserve the content, then this content will likely be transferred back to film and be tucked away safely in a refrigerated vault until needed again. If the production was originated on film and the entire flow went through a traditional optical film process it is significantly easier to archive all the elements.
Furthermore, according to “The Digital Dilemma” report released back in 2007 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it costs almost 12 times more to store the digital master of a movie than it costs to keep a conventional film master. If, as mentioned before the production was originated digitally the cost of preservation becomes significantly higher especially when compared to the low cost of storing several reels of film and sound negatives from an all film production.
Not only is film the highest quality media, with the longest life expectancy and guaranteed access, in the long run, it is also the most inexpensive. So you tell me, why would you NOT choose film as your archival media?

[Matt W.]

a good chunk of Tree of Life

Is this true? I'm curious what your source is just because I'm such a huge fan of Malick and his collaborators, not because I have anything invested in this stupid argument, and am curious how he used digital in the new movie. Days of Heaven and the New World in particular had very interesting and slightly daring cinematography and almost all his movies are beautiful.

Has anyone here seen it, btw? I hear it's incredible but I'm wary of anything that has dinosaurs and Brad Pitt....

[Guy Bofdart]

Joe

You are no a fool !!! We are all friends talking about movie making. Everybody has his own opinion. But the fact is that film has a much higher definition than digital. Kodak and Fuji say that on their pages, because they are right and know about what they are talking about. I am talking about the master. Shoot on film and make a digital transfer and you will get a wonderful photography.

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

Matt

I agree with you. Film photography is far suprior than digital. I tried so many tests with still and motion picture cameras at the same time,same place,same minute of the day....Same shoot to see the difference between digital and film. Film was always better. I suggest people to try it !

Guy

[Guy Bofdart]

Hello Joe

I miss your message (Pop up blocker) Can you please sent it to guy@cameraspro.com or bodart@intermind.net ?

Do you go to the Tony Curtis Funeral at 11AM tomorrow at the Palm Cemetery

Thanks a lot

Guy

[Matt W.]

Matt

I agree with you. Film photography is far suprior than digital.

Guy

I never said that! (Even though I sometimes think it.)

They are two different media. Neither is good at being the other.

Kodak (manufacturers of the most advanced CCDs available, ironically) makes most of its money on print stock, hence why they promote film and its archival abilities so heavily. They do have a vested interest.

You're on a digital video forum so it's not very nice to tell people digital is no good, even if you honestly believe it and even if there are reasons to. I would use film if I could afford to, but I can't and there are benefits to digital on the micro-budget sets I work on, not in terms of image but in terms of speed. I have seen large budget movies that use digital well, too, in my opinion. If digital cameras didn't exist I would probably never have been hired on a set in any capacity.

If Malick is indeed using a large amount of digital footage, it's a big deal. He doesn't make choices half-heartedly and I trust his eye and experience far over my own (or anyone else here's). If it's for budget reasons it would make me sad, though. I will be sad the day Spielberg shoots digital.

[Guy Bofdart]

Matt

I agree with you. But Steven will never shoot digital. I know that for sure.
Digital has good stuff, but film still better. It's not my fault....I did not invent digital. I just see the result. I do not want to offend anybody here, but I do not want them to beleive that digital is better than film. It will be no honest for me to say that

Guy

[Erik Franzén]

Broad, general, strokes like "film is better than digital!" or "Apple is better than Microsoft" is complete and utter bullshit and they hold no meaning at all to anyone looking for useful information on the subject.
Anyhow, why the hell did this turn into film vs. digital? This was a nice thread that I genuinely wanted to read about Bolex S16 and film and then this crap got on? Really? Why is there that we cannot have a discussion about a medium without it turning into this vs. that? We know that RED makes beautiful images! We know film has an amazing aesthetic! We know that video cams can make beauty too!
So, no offence, but derailing a thread like this is just disrespectful to the original topic creator -- let's leave out the debate and focus on providing useful information and tips!
Keep it positive and let's not get all the negative mojo going - okay?

[Guy Bofdart]

Long life the Red Camera and film too. Happy? One complete the other. Digital help film and film stores digital.It's perfect!
Guy Bodart
Filn Director/DP/Engineer in Cinematography

[Tim Hole]

Guy I've no wish to argue with you as I see the benefit of film as much as the next 'level-headed' guy. My point is that times are changing and only people with a blinkered understanding of the industry will think otherwise. They both have their own aesthetic but to me when it comes to latitude the line is now getting very fine. This is something that has only just really started to happen.

If you want to stand hard and fast on the film front fine. I've shot film many times and personally I just prefer to shoot digital. My choice. Although 'Digital Cinema' and Video are not the same 'crap'. Maybe from your side of the fence it is, but for us the difference between raw and baked in/compressed footage is more than worth noting.

Don't think that we are film haters though, that is absurd but don't think that all DPs who shoot digital are 'not real DPs' that is laughable. I'm sure Jeff Cronenweth, Christian Berger, Anthony Dod Mantle, Steven Soderbergh to name but a very few that shoot digitally regularly would have something to say about that. David Mullen who has a lot of input on this site is very level about shooting both film and digital. They can live together but why spend so much time on a forum lambasting a format the forum was created for (Red is at the forefront of this digital growth) Or were you just in defence mode?

As far as a list of digitally shot films you know what they are so I won't list them...but here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_digitally

My argument is purely the fact that the next few years are going to very interesting for digital cinema, and the audience (who are the people that matter at the end of the day) won't care as long as the stories are compelling and it looks how the director/cinematographer envisioned it. Us non-DPs shooting on Epic/Scarlet will be having the time of our lives...

PS. Apologies to original poster this thread went very south.

[Nick Everett]

Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Miami Vice, Collateral, Knowing, Superman Returns, There will be blood, Starwars episodes 2 & 3, The Game, The book of Eli, Pirates of the Caribbean: on stranger tides, The lovely bones, Superbad......

Oh...and Avatar

.....sorry if i missed hundreds more, but aren't these films shot on video or a significant portion shot on video? Guess video is not really dead now.



By the way, 'Pirates of the Caribbean" was shot on film. Some shots whith Panavision and other shots with Arriflex cameras. Please check!

Try to have good information!

Guy Bodart
Cameraspro

Guy, the statement was the Pirates 4 is being shot on digital. Which it is. Red Mx 3D rigs... beasts!

[XiaoSu Han]

Errrr,

There Will Be Blood?
The Game?

[Sam Eilertsen]

Joe

You are no a fool !!! We are all friends talking about movie making. Everybody has his own opinion. But the fact is that film has a much higher definition than digital. Kodak and Fuji say that on their pages, because they are right and know about what they are talking about. I am talking about the master. Shoot on film and make a digital transfer and you will get a wonderful photography.

Guy

Others know more about this than me, but I'm pretty sure film can't resolve 5K, even 4K is questionable.

Also, might want to check out shot on red (http://www.red.com/experience).

Bolex's are super cool, although they can be a huge pain in the ass if they haven't been well maintained.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Who wants to be the one to tell Guy that Star Wars Episode I was shot on film not video?

It's ignorant to say that digital will never look like film. There is no magical property to film. I love the look but it's an empirical, mathematical, predictable response to light. Anything that is empirical and predictable can be emulated and replicated.

With sufficient characterization and research someone could make a 3DLUT for a digital sensor which 100% perfectly emulated any film stock in existence--assuming it the sensor had sufficiently wide color gamut and dynamic range. Color Gamut and Dynamic range are effectively guaranteed to natively surpass chemical sensors in the very near future. Then it'll just be a question of will and interest on someone's part to create that LUT and grain sample/simulator.

Never is a long time in the world of Moore's law. With enough processing power you could simulate the film crystals on a chemical level. It would be over kill but with Moore's law, simulating every crystal in every frame isn't that far off.

After all, almost every film now is scanned and run through a DI. That film scanner is converting the film into 'video'. Proof that the 'soul' of film can be captured and retained on a digital medium. ;)