Kodak Motion Picture Film "Film. No Compromise." Documentary :: Excerpt

Please visit http://kodak.com/go/nocompromise to access each chapter of the full documentary film.

This is the longest-format branded content piece I've worked on to date. It's an excerpt from a documentary film created in 2009 at partners+napier, Rochester for Kodak's Entertainment Imaging division. The film features several well-known film professionals from throughout the production workflow talking about the reasons why film continues to be the gold-standard motion capture medium even as digital technologies progress within the industry.

Samuel Bayer, Lance Acord, Brett Ratner, Darren Aronofsky, Peter Lang, Trollback's Joe Wright, Saatchi & Saatchi's David Perry, Adam Kimmel, Melt Shefter, all discuss their reasons why thay would never compromise the filmmaking process by cutting film from the equation. The film features over 20 industry-leading pros that were shot in LA, New York, and London with teh help from doc director Henry Corra.

This film sits at the heart of a fully-integrated campaign to this industry that has manifested itself in print, online, and events that shows how a business-to-business campaign never has to mean boring-to-boring.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Kodak
• VISION
• VISION3
• documentary
• motion picture
• entertainment imaging
• hollywood
• film
• no compromise
• Partners
• Napier
• Rochester
• advertising
• commercial
• feature
• movies
• cinematography
• director
• Lance Acord
• Samuel Bayer
• Darren Aranofsky
• Brett Ratner

[isometric85]

@RegionalChronicles thats the beauty of film every thing is so uplifting and mystical... good side of digtial is bluray

[justincaryphoto]

I love Joe Wright's comment about S16's "quality being so fantastic". He's right and I've been preaching this to my buddies over the last couple of years. The quality of the negative has gotten better and the quality of the transfer devices have gotten better. I'm shooting a lot of 7201/50D with transfer being performed at 2K on a Spirit 2K. I shot an entire :30 spot on 400'/11min of S16 (over half @ 48fps) and it cost me $525 in film, process, transfer & shipping. Long live FILM!!!

[RegionalChronicles]

Digital has that Electronic and sterile feel to it (Like the movie "Sin City") I just hate how it looks on actors. Film has that Dreamy feel to it. The Actors and Scenery

and the Motion seem to flow much nicer to the eye. It's not about which format is easier (Believe me film is a bitch) But it's the over all quality that renders artistic value - and that will always be just a matter of opinion. (Films better) That's why I still shoot on film.

[TheForgottenFlesh]

Also I don't even understand why there needs to be "An elimination of film" or a war in general. It seems to me, if someone wants to shoot film or digital they should be allowed to and have the option to do so. There are tube guitar amps still as well as solid state. What I don't like is fans saying someone else is "WRONG" for shooting on a certain format (mostly hear that from the digital fans), there was a whole thread hating Arronofky for shooting 16mm on the REDuser fourm.

[TheForgottenFlesh]

Also Hollywood will never get rid of film, there's no incentive for them to toss all their development equipment, and switch over to a format that's unstable. Saving $20,000 to $100,000 on film costs isn't going to mean a damn thing when their overall budgets are $100 Million. I just got my lab estimate for my feature on 35mm and it's $12,000 for the process, neg cut, work and answer print. I'm all for both formats really and would love to see a marriage of the two.

[TheForgottenFlesh]

Also storing digital images is ridiculously expensive for studios. Hence why they always bring it down to film because it's stable and cheaper. 4k digital masters are $104 per running minute, with 35mm negative it's $8.83. And we all know from experience we have to keep buying the latest hardware to keep the digital files accessible and the thousands of hard drives for backups you have to buy EVERY year. It adds up. With film you pay upfront. Hence why it seems more pricey.

[TheForgottenFlesh]

Still don't understand why digital fans and film fans have to attack each other. Why can't both exist? Why can't there possibly be a marriage of the two? I think switching formats is the same as running away from the problems film has, so why not address those problems? Plus with the amount of money you spend on buying the latest digital camera, the sizeable computer, the DAT, DIT back ups and LTO tapes you could have just shot it on film.

[PictureHouseCinema]

@TheHandOfFear While I use digital I agree, digifans are too wrapped in their toys and don't get what makes a good film isn't the equipment. Good tools help but quality materials go even further. I've worked with film since I was 11yrs old. I now work with 8mm right up to 35mm. The most beautiful images I ever filmed were on Kodachrome 40 super 8mm in a Russian clockwork Quartz 8S-2 with Zenith lens and Kowa 2x anamorphic. I would far prefer to master all my filming on movie film.

[TheHandOfFear]

@iamboy1234 said "I wish you luck and hopefully you'll be lucky enough to never work with a digital fan boy, as you call them."

I have unfortunately. They do shitty work. They are more concerned with what equipment and techniques they are used to, what is the new 'hot' toy, what has some minor conveniences for THEM, etc., etc. Everything except what would actually benefit the end product - what would make a better film.

[TheHandOfFear]

@iamboy1234 said "...I'd rather spend the extra cost ... on other areas..."

Do some numbers on this. How far can that money really go spread out across the all the other aspects of your film? Not even noticeable.

Spend it on a single aspect? Slightly better costumes? Slightly better sets? It ends up being slight.

Spend it on shooting on 35mm? Every aspect of your film is enhanced in your final image. The costumes look better, the sets look better. I think that's money well spent.