Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
I agree but many Indie Production could afford film and choose Digital because they (director, etc..) believe or more likely the Producers believe they can't afford it, Das Leben der Anderen had a Budget of approx 2 Million and they were able to go Anamorphic and that's in Europe where Filmmaking is actually more expensive then in the US and there are quiet a few examples out there that show that you can use film for smaller Budget movies. The Red and also the Alexa Mafia as well as film schools are also sprouting a lot of anti film propaganda imo. Using short ends, not using the newest and coolest film cameras (not Arricam but instead an Arri BL2 with 2 perf mod Older Superspeeds or Standards instead of Master and Ultra Primes not to forget Ultra 16mm instead of 35mm) and a lot of indies could afford shooting film. Even for movies with a 250000 $ Budget film is still a viable choice.

I also have to say that the quality of Indie movies these days is going down faster than the Quality of Big Hollywood Productions the imo failed democratization of Filmmaking trough DV Cameras is mostly to blame for it in the past you had to invest in a movie nowadays everyone with a DV believes himself to be the next Kubrick the movies made this way lack any kind of production value and look like what they are cheap.
I agree to a point, I don't agree that a $250,000 they could use film. I've been on $2,000,000 budget films where they were shooting on a Canon 5D II and that was because they could afford to get more footage, lens options, and tighter shots with it and less expensive lighting, over a traditional film camera. (I'm an actor also so this was what the crew told me, I didn't see the financial sheets).

If I were to shoot a film, and I could afford film, I would try to use as much Kodak XX as I could get away with

If I could have it specially made in 70mm, that would be even better! I would be the the George Lucas of B&W haha.

Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk