These are exciting times to be a cinematographer. On the one hand, digital acquisition has literally transformed the production and postproduction process. At the same time, film stock sales are going through the roof. And despite such setbacks as the WGA writers strike, all production is currently on the rise. Director of photography Bill Bennett, ASC, is a cinematographer based in Los Angeles, Calif. Bill specializes in shooting television commercials in the 35mm motion picture film format, as well as HD formats.

“When digital high definition cameras first became available, there was a lot of testing and shooting in situations where film had traditionally been the recording medium,” says Bennett. “In some cases, the digital cameras worked well and in others they didn’t. As cinematographers, we got the sense that producers were attracted to the “cheaper, better, faster” PR mantra that the digital camera manufacturers were pushing at the time.  Consequently, we found ─ and occasionally still do ─ find ourselves being told what camera to use, regardless if it is suitable for the project.”

Bennett says that these days, producers have a better understanding of the various systems and postproduction workflows, and as a result, camera systems ─ including film cameras ─ are being selected for their strengths, based upon the requirements of the production.  Panavision executive vice president of Worldwide Marketing Phil Radin agrees, “We are at a point in film technology that from an artistic perspective, you have more choices than perhaps any point in history. The main aspect is the artistic goal of the production, as well as taking into consideration the budget of the project. The first discussion is usually from the standpoint of the story, script, etc.” What format gives it the best texture? Is it 35mm, anamorphic, or Super 35, H.D.? Radin says some people are even using cell phones to make movies these days. “Yes!” laughs Radin. “That would be an ultra-low budget option or artistic expression.”

Budget is always a driving concern for producers, who sometimes limit a cinematographer’s choices based on limited perceptions. “I still love working with film,” insists DP Jeff Zueger of Spectrum Films, Inc. in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. “I love it as a medium, but I offer both Hi Def, as well as 35 to my clients. There is a perception that it is always cheaper to shoot on video, but that is not always true. You can shoot a spot on 400 feet of film, if you know what you are doing,” says Zueger.
“The trend is to work digitally,” says cinematographer Cira Felina Bolla, upon wrapping production on the indie feature, 7 Days of Yellow in Atlanta, Georgia. “But cinematically, film is the best way to capture a story.”

Bennett asserts, “Many factors come into play, but primarily budget. Having said that, producers are learning that when you consider the entire cost of a production ─ from shooting through postproduction and release ─ it might actually be cheaper and faster to shoot Super 16 than to shoot with a high-end digital camera.

Another cinematographer friend of mine, Anka Malatynska, just finished shooting a theatrical feature in Thailand using Super 16.  They originally considered shooting digital video; but in the end, they went with Super 16 film. It’s hard to beat the size of that camera, combined with the latitude and resolution of film. With today’s very fine-grained film stocks combined with excellent scanners like the ARRIScan ─ with up to 6k resolution ─ some say Super 16mm can look indistinguishable from 35mm film in the theater.