im planning on making a horror film with a classic horror film style, like talking 16 mm, would the quality of the film subtract from the overall viewing experience, or set a mood all it's own? My goal is to set a mood for the film by using classic horror filming styles, anyone think this is a bad idea?
classic horror film
- Thread starter Jerred long
- Start date
Nope.
Sounds great.
- Just begin with a decent story.
- Get some decent actors.
- Shoot some nice sequences.
- Record some pleasant audio.
No one will care about the film quality if any of the above suck.
No amount of cool visuals are going to save suck@ss story, acting, shots or audio.
GL!
Sounds great.
- Just begin with a decent story.
- Get some decent actors.
- Shoot some nice sequences.
- Record some pleasant audio.
No one will care about the film quality if any of the above suck.
No amount of cool visuals are going to save suck@ss story, acting, shots or audio.
GL!
Yeah, what exactly is "classic horror style"? How classic are we talking?
Shooting 16mm wouldn't detract from the picture at all, if anything, it'd create a more desirable look. "BlacK Swan" was shot primarily on 16mm, as are many other films. It's certainly preferred over shooting HD, but with 16mm, you're still going to have all the issues associated with shooting film (more time, more money, etc.).
I think the "look" you want to achieve will be more to do with your lighting technique; the use of shadows and silhouettes has been used extensively in horror since the birth of the genre, especially in the classics (presuming we're talking "Nosferatu" classic, as apposed to "Texas Chainsaw" classic).
Shooting 16mm wouldn't detract from the picture at all, if anything, it'd create a more desirable look. "BlacK Swan" was shot primarily on 16mm, as are many other films. It's certainly preferred over shooting HD, but with 16mm, you're still going to have all the issues associated with shooting film (more time, more money, etc.).
I think the "look" you want to achieve will be more to do with your lighting technique; the use of shadows and silhouettes has been used extensively in horror since the birth of the genre, especially in the classics (presuming we're talking "Nosferatu" classic, as apposed to "Texas Chainsaw" classic).
I'm talking evil dead/night of the living dead/scanners/ there's something about the style and look to the retro horror films that seem more uncomfortable and eerie than high definition quality
I wish there was more classic horror. I love all of the old style films, i'm constantly buying films that people think are now rubbish and not scary at all, but there's so much to love about the old films.
If you're thinking that shooting on 16mm will make the picture look bad, as in "Grindhouse", chances are it wont. It'll give you some of the atributes (grain, etc.), but you wouldn't want to shoot on really old film stock(which would give you the "Grindhouse" look).
Most of "Planet Terror" and the faux trailers were aged digitally, while "Deathproof" (and some of "Planet Terror") was aged physically, by printing the film and then leaving it outside, dragging it through sand, etc.
I don't know about your experience in shooting film and what-not, so I'd suggest starting shooting digitally then adding the film effect in post. Shooting actual film could get expensive!
I'd also say that, to me, the 'feel' of "Evil Dead" is much different to that of "Scanners". Could just be my opinion, but it doesn't really clarify for me what you are aiming for?
Most of "Planet Terror" and the faux trailers were aged digitally, while "Deathproof" (and some of "Planet Terror") was aged physically, by printing the film and then leaving it outside, dragging it through sand, etc.
I don't know about your experience in shooting film and what-not, so I'd suggest starting shooting digitally then adding the film effect in post. Shooting actual film could get expensive!
I'd also say that, to me, the 'feel' of "Evil Dead" is much different to that of "Scanners". Could just be my opinion, but it doesn't really clarify for me what you are aiming for?
You'd have to spend $60,000 to get a video camera that looks as good as 16mm. Personally, I don't think any video camera looks as good as film -- but I'm partial to the aesthetic. 16mm is about 2k resolution and 14-15 stops of latitude. Try and find a video camera that can do that.
Saw this today, and thought you might find it interesting:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/great-films-too-painful-to-watch-twice,55558/
In particular, during the first segment when they are discussing the influence of Vietnam war-journalist style, that showed up in many films from the period you are talking about.
Also, I recommend watching Shadow of the Vampire if you have not already seen it.
The two films in bold are, to me at least, worlds apart, having seen Night of the Living Dead and, although not having seen Scanners, I am familiar with Cronenberg's work.
So, if I were you, I'd look at perhaps an era of horror films that either one of those films and then make something of that style, that is, if you're aiming to emulate a particular era of horror, which is the impression I'm getting.
I think it's an excellent idea.
The media you use to shoot will not add or subtract from
the overall viewing experience. It's how the media is used
than can add or subtract from the overall viewing experience.
16mm is a long proven format than can look really good and
can look terrible or excellent. Digital is the same.
You will set the mood by your directing style, by the lighting,
by the audio design, by the production design and art direction
and by the editing. If all that is excellent then your choice of
media (super 8, 16mm, VHS, digital) won't make much difference
to the overall viewing experience.
The Canon T2i shoots at 1080p, wouldn't that look as good as 16mm or at least close? It is full HD, and only $1000.
It's because since the film, especially low budget film of the 70s and 80s, is old looking. The more low budget the picture looks, the more murkier it looks, and the more murky, the more eerie looking.
Is it possible that the filmmakers of the 70's and 80's
had the talent and creativity to deliberately make the
picture look murky because they knew that the more
murky, the more eerie looking?
Or is it just that the film of the 70s and 80s, is old looking?
had the talent and creativity to deliberately make the
picture look murky because they knew that the more
murky, the more eerie looking?
Or is it just that the film of the 70s and 80s, is old looking?
Not all 70s and 80s films. Star Wars and Apocalypse Now, are very clean and bright looking, compared to say, The Thing, or Cujo. Horror films have the murky look because it's eerie. I wish more horrors of today would use that look instead of going for brighter clear picture, which is not very eerie.
Seriously though it seems you can go with the canon T2i instead of the $60,000 one you mentioned. I bought the T2i and showed it to a DP, and he played around with it for 10 minutes then told me that it had everything in it I would need for a camera to shoot a real movie with.
Seriously though it seems you can go with the canon T2i instead of the $60,000 one you mentioned. I bought the T2i and showed it to a DP, and he played around with it for 10 minutes then told me that it had everything in it I would need for a camera to shoot a real movie with.
Last edited:
Yes, it will do pretty much anything you need, BUT with a LOT of "workarounds" involved. I'm shooting a short on my 5dmk2 in two weeks, first film on the new camera, and I have a LOT of concerns. We'll see how it goes.
I rather like that quote!
I find it interesting the discussion here about an "older style" camera having a better "look" for the project then a new modern HD camera-almost as though there is such a thing as looking "too good"