Shooting formats explained well to laypersons.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Not a complete treatment, they skipped over VistaVision for example, but amazingly well done from an educational perspective, can't believe it's taken Youtube a year to show it to me, I am even subscribe to Stand Up Maths for much longer than that.

Shot entirely on film too.

Whenever anyone is asking me I'll be pointing them to this video from now on.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I used to shoot quite a bit of film, mostly 16mm, but also 35mm as I had an Arri SR2 and a 35BL. The problem today is that film has become a boutique sort of a thing. The costs are through the roof on raw stock and processing, transfer. Heaven help you if you want a positive struck off your negatine!

[Josh Jones]

I looked into it several times over the years. If you have a camera, that's a pretty big chunk of the budget there. Also, no one seems to have a published price list. The one I found in Mass didn't seem unreasonable.

I would love to have a sound camera. You thought tape was an expensive format to store your music

[Ryan Gallagher]

That video talked about contemporary cost a bit, mostly in a $$ per second context and "ohh boy is it expensive".

Shortly after watching that one, the algorithm recommended this Kodak related one, primarily a bit of advertising but does dive into costs a bit deeper. You started seeing more Kodak tours when they relaxed their trade secrets rules and started encouraging visitors and content creators to come check it out. Destin's multipart tour deep dive on Smarter Every Day is definitely worth watching if you are not an industry insider already.

[Josh Jones]

A big chunk of it as well relates to what your desired output format is. I would want a one light answer print, ya know, something you can actually project. If all you want is a scan, its a bit cheaper.

[Jim Cassedy]

> " Shooting Formats Explained Well To Laypersons" <

Now, somebody needs to make a video explaining projection
formats to film makers.

[Julian Antos]

If you factor in the cost of inflation, the cost of camera stock, processing, and work prints hasn’t changed very much over time. Film has never been cheap, but you get your money’s worth.

I shoot a few 100’ rolls of “home movies” on 16mm a couple times a year and have a workprint made, and the satisfaction I take from projecting those prints for friends and family is well worth the expense. Much more enjoyable than sharing phone pictures and videos on social media!

[Ryan Gallagher]

I've never shot any motion picture film.... but for stills with any artistic intent, I find I very much prefer shooting on film. That cost/supply issue makes me be more selective and shoot with more intent, and it also prevents me from immediately disengaging with the world around me were I to be tempted to try to examine the typically too small screen for that instant gratification hit (which isn't worth looking at unless you are really second guessing your exposure).

[Ryan Gallagher]

A digital still camera with all the settings also available mechanically plus the ability to disconnect the screen (or a broken screen) would be a fun experiment. Use tiny memory cards and don’t carry a ton of them? Although I think most now let you disable the preview feature, it’s been a while.

[Jim Cassedy]

<edited>
I would love to have a sound camera.

In my high school years, when I was experimenting with 'making movies', I was
fortunate enough to acquire an Auricon 16mm single system (optical) sound
camera, and also lucky enough to be able to somewhat afford 16mm film.
This was long before Super8 sound was available so 16mm single-system
was about the only way to do sound-on-film at a reasonable price without
going through the whole double-system lab process. I even made a
couple of animated short sound films, by doing the animation in a 16mm
Bolex, (and keeping careful notes) and then, running the same raw stock
through the Auricon to add the sound track.

There was a big camera store in New York that had a bunch of old
Wall 35mm single-system newsreel cameras. I'm always sorry that I
didn't buy one, but at that point in my life,I had to make a monetary
choice between buying an old camera, or a new car.

But I did also make some short 35mm films, using a 35mm Bell & Howell
Eyemo. The Eyemo was one of the models that could take 1,000 ft magazines,
and had an electric motor drive. I could only afford 35mm Black&White film stock,
and except for two projects that were funded by someone else, I developed the
film myself, and printed the 'release print' in the Eyemo. I had found an old
'bi-pack' 35mm film magazine that allowed me to run both the negative &
positive print stock through the camera together. The end results were far
from theatrical quality, but it was still a thrill to be able to see your own film
on an actual movie theater screen.

Once, I even took some "home movies" on vacation with the Eyemo. It was
very inconvenient, since the Eyemo is heavy to lug around, and even as I
was doing it, I thought it was a crazy idea. A couple of years ago though,
I encountered a tourist in Las Vegas doing the same thing. We had quite
a conversation, and now at least I know I wasn't the only person to try such
a crazy extravagance.