Browse > Home / Filmmaking / Blog article: AFM 2008: New Technologies and Low Budget Films

AFM 2008: New Technologies and Low Budget Films

November 21, 2008 by John Dugan 

I know that most filmmakers prefer film to digital, but after leaving AFM’s New Technologies and Low Budget Films conference, I am amazed at the extent to which this is true.  The panel, sponsored by the American Society of Cinematographers, almost unanimously agreed on this point – though it is worth noting that not one of the panelists were under 35.

The overwhelming question at the conference was whether shooting digital is actually cheaper.  Though the medium is far more inexpensive for recording, the panel widely believed that after factoring in the costs of storage, post-production, and the long-roll factor, film is actually cheaper than digital.

The long-roll factor is particularly interesting to me.  The panelists believed that digital commands less discipline on set compared to film.  Because the cost of recording is so cheap, the cast and crew operate under the notion that they have an unlimited number of takes to complete a scene.  I believe like most that digital is here to stay.  It is the director’s job to ensure that the long-roll factor does not affect the costs of production.  Thoughts?

The panel was comprised of an international group of cinematographers including:

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon

Filed Under Filmmaking
Tagged:

Comments

  • Like all relevant technological breakthroughs, digital filmmaking is a disrupter. It disrupts the status quo, the established way of doing things, and embroils the entrenched to defending their rapidly obsolescing methodologies by bolstering the credibility of the absurd (reducto ad absurdum). For how else can anyone legitimately challenge the notion that digital is the less expensive process? Digital storage costs have fallen so quickly, and continue to drop almost daily, and there are easy solutions for secure backups that are as inexpensive or less expensive than similar solutions for film.

    If you want to argue about the difference in look and feel, that is an aesthetic issue, and perfectly legitimate. However, trying to deflect the reality of a clearly lower-cost technology is disingenuous at best. Any director who can't find a way to shoot digitally for a fraction of the cost of film is irresponsible, lazy, or simply not trying - and producers who take the time to develop effective cost analyses will not be taken in by the cost argument.

    Digital is not the future. It is the present.
  • Yeah... I definitely understand where the argument is coming from. I firmly believe that digital is here to stay. However, If you are shooting at 4 or 5k, those raw files are ridiculously large. If you have a substantial budget, you are certainly not going to want to keep them on your desktop - security and redundancy are a must... and storage can get quite expensive.
  • Jake
    Personally, I like to tape all of my rehearsals. For me long roll has never been an issue. I would rather deal with the extra footage in post than risk the chance of missing out on a great take.
  • Mr. Blimp
    Long-roll factor should only be an issue if the production company is following the practice of filming rehearsals, or what amounts to what should have been rehearsal.

    This is something that has probably become the default practice since the digital format has entered the marketplace.

    There are probably a lot of production companies, directors, and producers now thinking that you might as well shoot it because you may end up getting something good on tape.

    I know that it has become a practice in the corporate world where I used to function as executives don’t usually have time to rehearse so it is done on the set and captured on tape, or direct to a storage device.
blog comments powered by Disqus