Great video....but saying it costs $0 to shoot on an Epic or Alexa is not true - when shooting with those cameras you blow through TONS of media, and still have to spend $$$ storing all of that.
Slight factual error at 2:34. The exposed particles are not washed away, it is all of the unexposed particles that are washed away, leaving behind a negative image, where the dark parts og the image is bright, and the lighter parts become dark. The film is then reverted to give a full image Now there is reversal film, which changes that by turning the film strip into a positive, but they are much less common, and generally don't pose the same quality as a regular film negative.
sometimes I just wonder how so many great explainers just made some and then dropped out as the channel didn't get enough traction. This was a great video and I got what i wanted. thanks for making this .
Yes, I also feel the same. When many audiance are inclined towards entertainment and put their curiosity about how things work aside, we have fewer people to support makers of these type of videos.
Very cool video, by the time i got into photography- very rarely do video, the world had already predominantly shifted to digital. I do however, have a lot of respect for how things were done and this video educated me a lot, so thank you for that. I was absolutely shocked that Star Wars Force Awakens was shot on film, i remember film movies as a kid having all the weird circles and pops and artifacts etc. and that film has absolutely none of that and if i hadn't been told I'd never know it was shot on film and i think that says a lot for its viability these days! If a movie maker prefers the look of film, then rock on, clearly it can hold up in 2016 and i do appreciate the creativity that comes from a different 'look' then is the norm.
Film should and will remain a viable option for filmmakers in the coming future, just as pencil drawing remains even in the age of photoshop. The problem is that the same industry that made film cameras and spools so expensive so as to centralize the industry in Hollywood (which is just a continuation of what Edison did) is the same industry that abandoned the format because their predecessors choked the price of the format. That's capitalism for you. But even in this age of 12k processing, film retains qualities yet to be matched by digital, in terms of color fidelity and conveyance of depth. There is a reality to analogue formats that digital will only ever be able to replicate, not match. Beyond that, film is a discipline. There is a skill and intimacy of the format that dictates a rhythm and style of filmmaking that isn't required by digital. Some might say good riddance, but its that methodology and rhythm that has defined filmmaking for 100 years, and has produced some of the greatest works of human history. To toss it aside just for commerce would be a grievous error.
And none of that gets into film preservation, which, to this date, remains the most secure and reliable form of maintaining movies in the highest quality format. In 100 years, we might lose thousands of films to the cloud, but a well preserved film reel will still be good to run.
Polyester film is only used for projection prints. Polyester is much stronger than acetate and therefore if it jams in the camera it does not break like acetate and would run the risk of damaging the camera. Acetate is still used in camera for shooting your negative. Polyester prints stocks can be used in camera, and indeed a number of amateur filmmakers will use it in 16mm camera. It is not as light sensitive and you do not have day light or tungsten balanced polyester film stock, but it can be used. It is an exception not a rule.
Film is not going away. Were oil paintings substituted by acrylics? Were acrylics substituted by markers? Its will be an option to capture images just as VHS, super8, 16mm minidv, DSLR and even your phone. I really dislike when people want to bury film.
This analogy is a little bit wrong. oil, acrylics and markers achieve a different look when painting an image. While filming in digital doesn't change much from analog... besides cost. and convenience. and quality
I'm either blind or can't tell the difference between digital and analog, or if there was any substantial difference then it can be easily reproduced with digital effects
REALLY great video nice clear idea transition and well written and visually it's just enough so that it keeps the attention without taking too much of it
It's surprising how expensive 70mm cameras are still because I assume they use this format. Can you get bigger than medium format digital sensors outside of NASA cameras?
+charding4000 Hey, Thanks! Man, you know, I had both of those in an earlier version of my script, but I had to make some really tough editing choices for the sake of time. There are just far too many fun things to talk about with filmmaking.
+Aaron Hawkins Thanks, I’m glad you liked it. The bonus video is still in the works, but I think it shouldn’t be too long before you can expect to see it.
"Begging the question" does not mean the same thing as "asking the question." Begging the question comes from philosophy and means that one is assuming to be true what they're attempting to prove. I hear and see people making this mistake very often.
Very nice video but I am still confused mostly about the 35mm format. When I first looked into that a couple of weeks ago I was surprised that there can be audio on the film but what I don't understand is the weird crop that is sometimes applied. Especially the 35mm academy film which I thought was 36x24mm in image size like the "full frame" digital sensors but it is apperiently 24x16mm o__o
Oh and I think the Hasselblad Xpan is a really interesting stills camera but does it simply expose a wider part of the film? Aren't there gaps on the film which form single frames? Or is it just one ongoing piece?
+K3V0M Hey, these are some GREAT questions. So a full frame sensor is in fact 35mm, but it uses the VistaVision format rather than the academy ratio. VistaVision is like IMAX film, they turn it sideways to make more efficient use of the film (which is also how 35mm still cameras layout frames). And an important thing to note about film is that its light-sensitive on its entire surface area, not just in the frames you see after you’ve developed it. So really your only limit is the width of the film strip, so as long as you have the camera and lenses for it, you can make an image as long as you’d like. Thanks for asking, I hope that answers your questions.
+K3V0M xpan is a nice example. but there are cameras more diffrent than xpan like half frame cameras olympus pen ee. this is exact opposite of xpan :) and because of there are no frames in film, this camera has nice half frame shots. just search for samples in google. :)
Good video, but it has some problems. Like, why do you show the film having both a top and bottom "base"? It's not a sandwich. Your description of how film is processed is too simplified. You're essentially describing a reversal process. Motion picture film is processed into negatives, that get transferred to positive "intermediates", that get edited, etc.
35mm a standard for film and still photography?! NO TRUE! Still photography uses 35mm (24x36mm) and motion picture film is super35mm (aprox 19x25mm) comparable to digital APSC-C sensor...although there is a motion picture film similar to the one used for still photography called Vistavision, that was never a standard to shoot films and very few films were shot in that format
Well, the thing is 35mm stills and super 35 is the same format, it's just that Super 35 is exposed vertically in stead of horizontally. So a Super 35 frame is half of that of a stills 35. Stills 35mm came to be when Oscar Barnack of Leica took some motion picture film, loaded it horizontally and got a twice as large negative and voila - 35mm stills format.
Film doesn't really work by all of the exposed silver grains staying and the unexposed silver grains leaving. In modern film light interacts with the silver particles. However even with the silver "exposed" it's not what you see in the film. 1) The exposed silver is fixed and the unexposed silver is removed. 2) The exposed silver now acts as a little magnet to which dyes glob onto. (This is the actual image). 3) The dyes are set. If you look at modern developed film under a microscope you'll see a little clump/blob of dye and in the middle you'll see a teeny tiny little nucleus. That little pure black nucleus is the silver crystal to which everything clumped onto. There are a few reasons for this, most importantly, color film wouldn't be color if every layer was black and white so each layer needs a different dye color to glob onto the silver crystal (CMY). Also it results in massive cost savings since you only need 1/10,000th of the film covered in silver crystals. Maybe silver was used throughout the entire exposure once upon a time but dyes have long since taken over.
+Gavin Greenwalt Uh, not exactly. First of all, until the film is developed there is no 'silver' in the emulsion. Silver isn't light sensitive. Silver halide crystals are. When a silver halide crystal is struck by photons during the short imaging exposure a small nodule (just a few atoms) of metallic silver forms on its surface forming the latent image. When the silver halide crystals are bathed in the developer that nodule of silver allows the entire crystal it's on to be transformed into metallic silver. This happens in a basic (high pH) environment. By next bathing the film (or paper) in a weak acid (low pH) this process is quickly halted or "stopped." Now you've got exposed regions transformed into metallic silver by the developer but there's still unwanted, unexposed silver halide crystals in the film. If left there and exposed to light, those crystals will eventually transform into metallic silver as well, leaving you with an extremely poor (or no) useful image -- watch the movie "The Killing Fields" to see this played out quite dramatically. The "fixer" is a solution which dissolves and removes the unexposed silver halide crystals leaving the metallic silver that forms the image behind. In black&white film, this is a negative. Repeat this process by projecting light through the negative and focussing onto either photographic paper or another film and you get a positive image. You're right that the image of color film is formed of dyes, and that the silver image determines where the dyes are distributed. But if you do look at completely developed color film you won't see the silver at all. It was "bleached" (or made soluble) and washed out of the film during processing. That silver is recovered, as well as the silver extracted by the fixer through very nasty but also very efficient reduction reactions. Unless it's traditional black & white film or paper, there's no silver in your film once it's been completely processed. Also, dyes are not light sensitive at all. If it's photographic film, every square millimeter is covered in one or more layers of emulsion completely filled with silver halide crystals... That hasn't changed. You're on the right track that dyes form the color image which you see in the final, developed film, but your understanding of the role of the silver halide, silver image and the formation of the dye-based image is incomplete. The HowStuffWorks website has a pretty detailed and accurate description of how this process works. electronics.howstuffworks.com/film.htm
+Tom Cardinali You're right about the chemistry of metallic silver and the crystal transformation / wash cycles which I glossed over but while every mm has silver grains, they're very sparse. The how stuff works article is a little misleading in that regard. Find some microscopic photos of developed and un developed negatives. They're quite barren.
+Tom Cardinali Nope, I was wrong on bw I thought it had moved over to a dye based process to recapture all of the silver but apparently it is still using full silver metal/halide grain. My bad.vitaleartconservation.com/PDF/film_grain_resolution_and_perception_v24.pdf
+Gavin Greenwalt The B&W technology you're thinking of is that of chromogenic films which use the same C41 process as Kodacolor color negative. It was intended to make B & W photography more accessible to average consumers because they could take it to their local drugstore and have it processed in their mini-labs right along with the more common color film. It's tonal qualities of it didn't compare well with traditional B & W films like Tri-X, Plus-X or T-max for serious photographers and was eventually discontinued.
![How Does Film ACTUALLY Work? (It's MAGIC) [Photos and Development] - Smarter Every Day 258](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TCxoZlFqzwA/mqdefault.jpg)
![How Does Film ACTUALLY Work? (It's MAGIC) [Photos and Development] - Smarter Every Day 258](/img/tr.png)
Why has this channel stopped uploading? Your two videos are really good!
Great video....but saying it costs $0 to shoot on an Epic or Alexa is not true - when shooting with those cameras you blow through TONS of media, and still have to spend $$$ storing all of that.
Slight factual error at 2:34.
The exposed particles are not washed away, it is all of the unexposed particles that are washed away, leaving behind a negative image, where the dark parts og the image is bright, and the lighter parts become dark. The film is then reverted to give a full image
Now there is reversal film, which changes that by turning the film strip into a positive, but they are much less common, and generally don't pose the same quality as a regular film negative.
sometimes I just wonder how so many great explainers just made some and then dropped out as the channel didn't get enough traction. This was a great video and I got what i wanted. thanks for making this .
Yes, I also feel the same. When many audiance are inclined towards entertainment and put their curiosity about how things work aside, we have fewer people to support makers of these type of videos.
Very cool video, by the time i got into photography- very rarely do video, the world had already predominantly shifted to digital. I do however, have a lot of respect for how things were done and this video educated me a lot, so thank you for that. I was absolutely shocked that Star Wars Force Awakens was shot on film, i remember film movies as a kid having all the weird circles and pops and artifacts etc. and that film has absolutely none of that and if i hadn't been told I'd never know it was shot on film and i think that says a lot for its viability these days! If a movie maker prefers the look of film, then rock on, clearly it can hold up in 2016 and i do appreciate the creativity that comes from a different 'look' then is the norm.
Very informative, thanks for making this. :)
Film should and will remain a viable option for filmmakers in the coming future, just as pencil drawing remains even in the age of photoshop.
The problem is that the same industry that made film cameras and spools so expensive so as to centralize the industry in Hollywood (which is just a continuation of what Edison did) is the same industry that abandoned the format because their predecessors choked the price of the format. That's capitalism for you.
But even in this age of 12k processing, film retains qualities yet to be matched by digital, in terms of color fidelity and conveyance of depth. There is a reality to analogue formats that digital will only ever be able to replicate, not match. Beyond that, film is a discipline. There is a skill and intimacy of the format that dictates a rhythm and style of filmmaking that isn't required by digital. Some might say good riddance, but its that methodology and rhythm that has defined filmmaking for 100 years, and has produced some of the greatest works of human history. To toss it aside just for commerce would be a grievous error.
And none of that gets into film preservation, which, to this date, remains the most secure and reliable form of maintaining movies in the highest quality format. In 100 years, we might lose thousands of films to the cloud, but a well preserved film reel will still be good to run.
Yes!! Forever fighting for analog ❤️
@Afif Abdullah and quentin tarantino
Polyester film is only used for projection prints. Polyester is much stronger than acetate and therefore if it jams in the camera it does not break like acetate and would run the risk of damaging the camera. Acetate is still used in camera for shooting your negative. Polyester prints stocks can be used in camera, and indeed a number of amateur filmmakers will use it in 16mm camera. It is not as light sensitive and you do not have day light or tungsten balanced polyester film stock, but it can be used. It is an exception not a rule.
Wow! What an interesting, informative and enjoyable video. Congrats. I learned a lot from just this one, short presentation.
same me too have realized,,, from Bangladesh
Very well explained. 😊
Film is not going away. Were oil paintings substituted by acrylics? Were acrylics substituted by markers? Its will be an option to capture images just as VHS, super8, 16mm minidv, DSLR and even your phone. I really dislike when people want to bury film.
This analogy is a little bit wrong. oil, acrylics and markers achieve a different look when painting an image. While filming in digital doesn't change much from analog... besides cost. and convenience. and quality
I'm either blind or can't tell the difference between digital and analog, or if there was any substantial difference then it can be easily reproduced with digital effects
The best video explaining the film.
Bravo
Until Christopher Nolan dies, film might still live on... Hopefully we don't abandon it
I don't think it will be abandoned. More people are now interested in this classic style of photography.
REALLY great video nice clear idea transition and well written and visually it's just enough so that it keeps the attention without taking too much of it
Very nice explain
This was a very interesting and informative video about how film works. Well done.
loving the way you put it together, easy and fun t follow, yet very informative.. looking forward to more of your stuff :)
great video thanks for the efforts
loved the ending :) thankyou for your work!
A great video overall! Very informative!
It's surprising how expensive 70mm cameras are still because I assume they use this format. Can you get bigger than medium format digital sensors outside of NASA cameras?
+mrjimmyos there are no consumer electronics like that but possibly there are some for professional use (other than nasa) . just an opinion.
***** That's true it is a professional thing. Hasselblads look interesting too
Whoa the cost of shooting 10min of 35mm costs 1.5k?! What if you shoot on short ends?
Great video.. loved it.
The question is, if Film wasn't so expensive, would it still survive?
Great
Simply Inspiring!
65mm, 5 mm is used for audio
Make more videos, you're gonna go far.
thank you
Great video. But, why no mention of Vistavision and Technicolor?
+charding4000 Hey, Thanks! Man, you know, I had both of those in an earlier version of my script, but I had to make some really tough editing choices for the sake of time. There are just far too many fun things to talk about with filmmaking.
+What Is. . .I agree and I understand. Thanks for the reply. Keep up the good work. I look forward to future videos!
+What Is. . . I would LOVE to see a video about 3 strip Technicolor...
+What Is. . . Well, someday you'll just have to make What is: VistaVision and What is: Technicolor videos. ;-)
Great video, concise and well put together. There is somewhat of a great irony that this is on CZcams if you catch my drift. 😉
It'll be great to do that video on RGB.
Great info! Where's the bonus video that you refer to? I don't see it on your channel. I'd love to watch it!
+Aaron Hawkins Thanks, I’m glad you liked it. The bonus video is still in the works, but I think it shouldn’t be too long before you can expect to see it.
+What Is. . . Can't wait to see it :)
Why did you stop uploading?
Still shoot with my Minolta 35mm slr
Nice video! Thanks for making it. :)
"Begging the question" does not mean the same thing as "asking the question." Begging the question comes from philosophy and means that one is assuming to be true what they're attempting to prove. I hear and see people making this mistake very often.
+Jeremy Smith Shut up, nerd.
@@BigDumb name checks out
Thankyou :)
how does visual art incorporated into film?
Hi what does tertiary part in ott film mean?
Post the referred video's link in the description
Very nice video but I am still confused mostly about the 35mm format. When I first looked into that a couple of weeks ago I was surprised that there can be audio on the film but what I don't understand is the weird crop that is sometimes applied. Especially the 35mm academy film which I thought was 36x24mm in image size like the "full frame" digital sensors but it is apperiently 24x16mm o__o
Oh and I think the Hasselblad Xpan is a really interesting stills camera but does it simply expose a wider part of the film? Aren't there gaps on the film which form single frames? Or is it just one ongoing piece?
+K3V0M Hey, these are some GREAT questions. So a full frame sensor is in fact 35mm, but it uses the VistaVision format rather than the academy ratio. VistaVision is like IMAX film, they turn it sideways to make more efficient use of the film (which is also how 35mm still cameras layout frames).
And an important thing to note about film is that its light-sensitive on its entire surface area, not just in the frames you see after you’ve developed it. So really your only limit is the width of the film strip, so as long as you have the camera and lenses for it, you can make an image as long as you’d like.
Thanks for asking, I hope that answers your questions.
+K3V0M xpan is a nice example. but there are cameras more diffrent than xpan like half frame cameras olympus pen ee. this is exact opposite of xpan :) and because of there are no frames in film, this camera has nice half frame shots. just search for samples in google. :)
how they use to make copy of these films
Good video, but it has some problems. Like, why do you show the film having both a top and bottom "base"? It's not a sandwich.
Your description of how film is processed is too simplified. You're essentially describing a reversal process. Motion picture film is processed into negatives, that get transferred to positive "intermediates", that get edited, etc.
I suppose you don't understand what the term "begs the question" means.
Film academy-friendly-monologue-memorize-demonstrate
35mm a standard for film and still photography?! NO TRUE!
Still photography uses 35mm (24x36mm) and motion picture film is super35mm (aprox 19x25mm) comparable to digital APSC-C sensor...although there is a motion picture film similar to the one used for still photography called Vistavision, that was never a standard to shoot films and very few films were shot in that format
Well, the thing is 35mm stills and super 35 is the same format, it's just that Super 35 is exposed vertically in stead of horizontally. So a Super 35 frame is half of that of a stills 35. Stills 35mm came to be when Oscar Barnack of Leica took some motion picture film, loaded it horizontally and got a twice as large negative and voila - 35mm stills format.
I feel totally sad for film now.
It contains many mistakes. Please correct it.
what an unconstructive criticism. check yourself smartass
@@pasjan1183 "layers of film" toplayer is not base. It is protective layer.
@@easykim502 now that, however, is great criticism. keep it up man!
F for FILMS
Film doesn't really work by all of the exposed silver grains staying and the unexposed silver grains leaving. In modern film light interacts with the silver particles. However even with the silver "exposed" it's not what you see in the film.
1) The exposed silver is fixed and the unexposed silver is removed.
2) The exposed silver now acts as a little magnet to which dyes glob onto. (This is the actual image).
3) The dyes are set.
If you look at modern developed film under a microscope you'll see a little clump/blob of dye and in the middle you'll see a teeny tiny little nucleus. That little pure black nucleus is the silver crystal to which everything clumped onto. There are a few reasons for this, most importantly, color film wouldn't be color if every layer was black and white so each layer needs a different dye color to glob onto the silver crystal (CMY). Also it results in massive cost savings since you only need 1/10,000th of the film covered in silver crystals. Maybe silver was used throughout the entire exposure once upon a time but dyes have long since taken over.
+Gavin Greenwalt
Uh, not exactly. First of all, until the film is developed there is no 'silver' in the emulsion. Silver isn't light sensitive. Silver halide crystals are. When a silver halide crystal is struck by photons during the short imaging exposure a small nodule (just a few atoms) of metallic silver forms on its surface forming the latent image. When the silver halide crystals are bathed in the developer that nodule of silver allows the entire crystal it's on to be transformed into metallic silver. This happens in a basic (high pH) environment. By next bathing the film (or paper) in a weak acid (low pH) this process is quickly halted or "stopped." Now you've got exposed regions transformed into metallic silver by the developer but there's still unwanted, unexposed silver halide crystals in the film. If left there and exposed to light, those crystals will eventually transform into metallic silver as well, leaving you with an extremely poor (or no) useful image -- watch the movie "The Killing Fields" to see this played out quite dramatically. The "fixer" is a solution which dissolves and removes the unexposed silver halide crystals leaving the metallic silver that forms the image behind. In black&white film, this is a negative. Repeat this process by projecting light through the negative and focussing onto either photographic paper or another film and you get a positive image.
You're right that the image of color film is formed of dyes, and that the silver image determines where the dyes are distributed. But if you do look at completely developed color film you won't see the silver at all. It was "bleached" (or made soluble) and washed out of the film during processing. That silver is recovered, as well as the silver extracted by the fixer through very nasty but also very efficient reduction reactions. Unless it's traditional black & white film or paper, there's no silver in your film once it's been completely processed.
Also, dyes are not light sensitive at all. If it's photographic film, every square millimeter is covered in one or more layers of emulsion completely filled with silver halide crystals... That hasn't changed.
You're on the right track that dyes form the color image which you see in the final, developed film, but your understanding of the role of the silver halide, silver image and the formation of the dye-based image is incomplete.
The HowStuffWorks website has a pretty detailed and accurate description of how this process works.
electronics.howstuffworks.com/film.htm
+Tom Cardinali You're right about the chemistry of metallic silver and the crystal transformation / wash cycles which I glossed over but while every mm has silver grains, they're very sparse. The how stuff works article is a little misleading in that regard. Find some microscopic photos of developed and un developed negatives. They're quite barren.
+Tom Cardinali Nope, I was wrong on bw I thought it had moved over to a dye based process to recapture all of the silver but apparently it is still using full silver metal/halide grain. My bad.vitaleartconservation.com/PDF/film_grain_resolution_and_perception_v24.pdf
+Gavin Greenwalt The B&W technology you're thinking of is that of chromogenic films which use the same C41 process as Kodacolor color negative. It was intended to make B & W photography more accessible to average consumers because they could take it to their local drugstore and have it processed in their mini-labs right along with the more common color film. It's tonal qualities of it didn't compare well with traditional B & W films like Tri-X, Plus-X or T-max for serious photographers and was eventually discontinued.
2:32 why do you lie? exposed silver reacts with light by darkening, not the other way around as you have presented.
Woah