Hey all, I have a quick question:

How much does 35mm cost? (dollar amount per hours worth of film, etc). Where can you get it at good prices?


What about 16mm ?

Thanks

- MRBS

One Hour of 35mm Kodak Film: $2900
16mm Kodak Film: $1600

And that's unprocessed. Plan on spending arond .12 per foot.

There are always deals to be had on film so you can do it cheaper. Go to my site www.scottspears.net
and click on the Filmmaking Page. There's an article on Buying Short Ends which is a great way to save money on film.

Scott

Don't shoot on film. FILM IS DEAD as far as low budget indi features go! It puts you $250,000 in the hole for a 90 min feature. Hi-def Panasonic Varicam or better is the only way to go. The bottom line is making money here. Most movies go straight to DVD anyway. You can make $750,000 with a horror, comedy or urban movie just going straight to DVD. With that kind of margin why spend an extra 1/4 million??? Bump it up to film if it actually makes it into theaters.

Hi Def is good but at the moment not always readily available. In the UK it's quite difficult to find hire companies with complete kits! Getting there tho!

Hi Def is good but at the moment not always readily available. In the UK it's quite difficult to find hire companies with complete kits! Getting there tho!

Move to LA. There's a few rental companies with Varicams. There's DP's with Varicams too. I guarantee you there's SOMEBODY in the UK with a Varicam or the 1/4 million dollar Sony. Put up an ad on CraigsList.com if it's still free to use the site in the UK.

Thanks for the advice Blade.
I totally agree- why bother with Film?

I am asking because a friend of mine is starting production on his film and I am the executive producer and he's trying to shoot on film for the first time.

I'd like to go HD but due to cost I might go with an new Canon XL2 instead.
I can get a nice lens for it, or maybe rent a 35mm lens since it accepts those.

Why go film?

Because the people who buy your finished movie, distributors, still want film product over video, even Hi-Def. Hi-Def is making inroads, but film is still king. Film is not dead. Just look at the Indie movies (not documentaries) that make it to the theatres and youll see that film dominates by a 10 to 1 margin. I'd say it has at least ten years of life left in it.

35mm camera package are in general cheaper than HD. A film out from HD or DV will cost about twice what a print will cost.

That said, if you're just starting out and have minimum funds, then DV and Hi-Def is a viable option. I say use what you have at hand to make the best movie. Get the best talent, crew and script possible and if it's good, it will sell. The problem is that the majority of video movies aren't very good, but that's true of most film projects too. DV and HD just make it cheaper and you end up losing less money.

Scott

Hi Guys, as you know I'm based in the UK.

My company is in the process of acquiring a Hi-Def camera kit, we're still negotiating so I can't say which we are going with.

However, in the meantime we can not only get hold of a camera without any problems, Panasonic or Sony, we've also got three years experience of working with the format and have Pinewood trained Hi-Def DOP.

We've also got incredible connections for Hi-Def post production, with a new Avid Adrenaline we can source as soon as they are launched here in the New Year.

If you want to shot on High Def in the UK, contact us and we'll sort you out.

Why go film?

Because the people who buy your finished movie, distributors, still want film product over video, even Hi-Def. Hi-Def is making inroads, but film is still king. Film is not dead. Just look at the Indie movies (not documentaries) that make it to the theatres and youll see that film dominates by a 10 to 1 margin. I'd say it has at least ten years of life left in it.

35mm camera package are in general cheaper than HD. A film out from HD or DV will cost about twice what a print will cost.

That said, if you're just starting out and have minimum funds, then DV and Hi-Def is a viable option. I say use what you have at hand to make the best movie. Get the best talent, crew and script possible and if it's good, it will sell. The problem is that the majority of video movies aren't very good, but that's true of most film projects too. DV and HD just make it cheaper and you end up losing less money.

Scott

That is not completely true about what buyers are looking for. The main thing they want is some name talent. They also want horror, urban or comedy genre. They want lighting that was done RIGHT. They want to hear a pro job of sound too. The warm "look" of film is not a requirement. If your film is going straight to DVD then why deal with the huge extra cost? You gotta keep your budget to between 300,000 and 500,000 to make money.

Camera package cost is just the tip of the iceberg! A feature done on 35 mm will cost you about $250,000 in film stock, telecine, processing, extra crew, extra lights & power, extra days to shoot because of extra time to light. A 46 minute digital tape is $78.00.

I actually have a friend who works in distribution...

He's told me on a number of occasions that for their company, it breaks down like this...

Films shot on film (whether 16mm/Super16/35mm) normally go to the top of the heap of films screened due to the fact that based purely on numbers, the percentage of films shot on film are usually better than those shot on MiniDV or DV.

In other words film is still taken a bit more seriously because the percentages are better that the filmmaker(s) did their homework over the DV/MiniDV film.

Having said that...

He's also told me that DV/MiniDV is catching up FAST! They still get a lot of crappy DV/MiniDV films but more and more are being made well.

The most important thing he tells me (strictly for their company mind you) is the story. Is it something that we want to see? If it's something that's already been done, you need to do it a whole lot better to get distribution... Of course they would prefer a name actor or two but he tells me that this is not their number one priority when selecting films to distribute. They want a great story first and foremost. Then great acting, great directing, great cinematography, and of course editing.

He says that his company is always on the lookout for the next great director anyway hence, the reason they look at so many films... But they do screen films on film first...

He says the biggest problem they have with Indie films is the story/screenplay. Many films are shot well, acted well enough, and look okay but the premise of the film sucks. The stories are shallow or copy too many other known films. He would rather see something new even if it's the same old story... Tell it in a different way... One that grabs the audience and you will get distribution.

When I asked him about what other filmmakers have told me about doing horror flicks, urban flicks, etc., he told me to watch getting known for films like that unless that's all you ever want to do...

So don't despair, just make a great film...

filmy

DV/MiniDV

It's gotta be Panasonic Varicam quality or better. With accessories the Varicam is like $120,000.00 Even the $26,000 Panasonic camera doesn't cut it. It pixelates.

Of course when shooting with Hi-Def you have to try to avoid certain camera moves to avoid the video look.

It's gotta be Panasonic Varicam quality or better. With accessories the Varicam is like $120,000.00 Even the $26,000 Panasonic camera doesn't cut it. It pixelates.

Of course when shooting with Hi-Def you have to try to avoid certain camera moves to avoid the video look.

Like I said in my post... The friend I have says that as long as the film is a great film and technically sound, they don't care what it originates on...

By the way, I saw "Tortilla Soup" on the big screen (shot with the SDX-900) and I didn't see any pixels... In fact, I had no idea it was shot on video until after I saw it...

filmy

Can anyone suggest any idie films to check out... as in ones that were made for less than $500,000 that earned 3/4 mil to 1.5 mil. I'm curious as to the look of some of these.

Can anyone suggest any idie films to check out... as in ones that were made for less than $500,000 that earned 3/4 mil to 1.5 mil. I'm curious as to the look of some of these.

Open Water is still in some theaters... Made on MiniDV for $130K sold for 2.5 Million I think... So far it's made over 24 million at the box office...

filmy

Yes, here is an "Open Waters" post from earlier, with some loose details. << here >> (http://indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=4447&highlight=open+water)

However, I'm not sure what Mr Blade_Jones actual recent question was.

I'm thinking that it was to name some indie-films made on actual film, within his quoted budget brackets.

Film snuffing out in about ten years or dead already? What if Monet, Degas, Munch, Picasso, Klee, etc. decided that because silver halides clump together to compose a picture that their choice of 'clumping medium' (pigment) was obsolete. What would 'The Scream' or 'Guernica' look like as a photo document? As the old theorum states, 'nothing is lost, just transformed' and that, to me, is the artist's job, to transform their chosen medium-be it paint, FILM, video, clay, etc. If your only consideration is to get something to sell then,certainly , pursue the cheapest way. But on the other hand, if you actually want a work to say something about YOU, (I'm not talking about your resume) show us what you can do with your (any) medium which makes us say, 'that's the ONLY way it could/should have been done'.

I think everyone knows already that I'm a big fan of High Def and that for all kinds of reasons I think High Def is one of the most exciting things to happen to indie film making since the first lightweight 16mm cameras were developed in the 1930's.

However, that said, High Def is a creative choice or as is more often the case, a budget choice.

Film isn't dead and it's unlikely too as a medium, because it has unique visual qualities. Given a big enough budget, 35 mm Film is going to out perform High Def; given a tight budget, it often works the other way round.

What makes High Def interesting is that it is the first digital format that can stand up to a full size cinema screening, without the picture falling apart. So, if a cinema distribution is on your wish list, but you have a small budget, High Def is a good choice.

The other factor that makes High Def a good choice is that the High Def TV market is just about to boom and as it current stands, distributors are taking a keen interest in any High Def product. However, that said there is a lot of mis-information out there about High Def and it's worth doing some serious research. For instance, although Final Cut Pro HD, can edit High Def footage, it can't take the image in at full resolution. The only way to do that is to purchase a High Def video capture card, current retail price £15,000.

I think the thing to remember is that although format is important, it's not as important as what you do with it. Script is more important than format, as is performance, as are basic production values and good sound. In fact, more important than all of these, is understanding where your film belongs in the marketplace and the rules that buyers apply.

Film won't be dead in ten years and probably be around for 50 years, but I think it will not be the predominate medium for the entertainment programing we watch. I love film and am a film die hard. (Ask my friends.) I think HD is an interesting format and you can use it to make some great work, but on the a purely technical level of resolution 35mm film is better than HD. What drives me crazy is that I feel HD is being shoved down our throats by manufacturors and cheap producers who have bought the hype that it is better than film, but really the only reason they've use it is because it cheaper. I saw "Collateral" and was very impressed by the look that was acheived, but there was still some nasty motion smear which bothers me.


Finally I'll say, if yu don't know what you're doing, you can make just about any format look like crap and on the inverse, if you have the time and expertise, you can make most formats very good looking. (Ok. maybe not pixel vision.)

Scott

I agree with Scott, I think far too many people pick HD as a cheap substitute for film.

I'm really looking forward to the time it becomes just another creative choice.

One of the things that concerns me about the change over to video as the film industry's primary profesional production tool, is that I was working in the sound recording industry when it went from expensive analogue formats into cheap digital, about ten years ago.

If I listen to my showreel, there is a marked downturn in overall quality of recording, post digital. This is using the same sound engineers and studios I'd always used. Personally I think it had to do with the way that digital speeded the process up. An engineer could do four or five times the amount of work per day and the equipment was more forgiving than the older analogue systems, so all around less care was taken.

Not only that, a few years into the process a lot of the old expensive enginners got replaced, with kids fresh from college, who were cheaper. You could do that with the new equipment and still just about maintain broadcast quality.

I see the same thing happening to the UK TV industry now, too much stuff shot on low format cameras, by camera ops who have been trained to leave the camera on auto. The costs of production are being driven down and with it standards.

I sincerly hope that Hi-Def isn't going to do to cinema, what DVCAM has done to the TV industry.

When you consider that most films lose money and when you consider that most filmmakers are REALISTICALLY aiming to go straight to DVD, you can't ignore the enormous costs of film. $250,000 is a lot of money to gamble in the name of "art". Money doesn't grow on trees.

most filmmakers are REALISTICALLY aiming to go straight to DVD.
Aiming for DVD? If you make a feature you should be aiming for a theatrical release. Shooting film is a step in the right direction in getting a theatrical release. Money doesn't grow on trees, yes, so in this case you would try to raise additional funds, assuming you want to shoot on film. Raise the funds for the format you want to shoot on. HD should be a creative choice, and not a film substitute. Don't forget the cost of the blow-up to 35mm. The budgets aren't going to be that much different.

$250,000 is a lot of money to gamble in the name of art.

Historically, people have given up more then money (like their lives) to exert their right to expression (One of those forms being art).

Historically, people have given up more then money (like their lives) to exert their right to expression (One of those forms being art).
Have fun going broke. If I've got $400,000 to work with then one of the things that's gonna get cut out is FILM. For most films $150,000 is just not enough to make a movie without racing through it, running out of time to get all the shots you want, not being able to afford the great (expensive) location, etc.

Aiming for DVD? If you make a feature you should be aiming for a theatrical release.
Straight to DVD movies that get picked up are making 3/4 million to 1.5 million bucks.
Hi-Def can always be bumped up to film if someone is really interested.

Have fun going broke. If I've got $400,000 to work with then one of the things that's gonna get cut out is FILM.
Well you are posting in the 35mm film forum, so there may be some that here that would not ;)

Have fun going broke.

Hey Blade,

I AM broke, but I've managed to be creative about finding other resources to FUND the work I want to show the rest of the world. Sure I want to make money off my film so I can pursue future projects, but making money was not the incentive to create the piece in the first place.

ps-I was stating a FACT , perhaps you could respond with something more than sarcasm. :tongue:

Hey, this is a fascinating discussion.

There are some interesting points being raised.

For instance like indietalk I always aim to make a film of a good enough quality on a good enough format to be able to secure a theatrical release. This is mainly because although the real money is in DVD's and global TV sales, the returns in those areas increase exponentially if the film has previously had a theatrical release.

However, being a realist, I also know that even high budget films struggle to get a theatrical release and for an indie, sometimes the cost of that release can destroy the payback from the other sales, causing the film to make a loss.

The trick with any film, is to weight the budget against the lowest reasonable expectation for the film in the market place. You make commercial decisions whilst you are writing and in pre-production. So, for instance, if you have a $200,000 budget, you might chose to invest in 35mm, go for an inexpensive no name cast, but ensure that you pay incredible attention to the quality of your images and the strength of your script. This is what Australian filmmakers have been doing for years. On the other hand, you might chose to cut back to High Def and put your $400,000 into securing a mid-level name actor to work in a commercially safe genre movie. Or finally you might, get your script right, choose Hi-Def and still work with an unknown cast on a high quality, visually challenging project, that you think will play well in certain markets, Europe for instance and not spend all of your $400,000, but go for a larger margin of profit from your lo/no budget film.

There are a lot of factor to bring into play and some of them are answered by asking the question "What kind of filmmaker am I?" A question I ask myself every time I start writing. However, beyond that question is the ever present, how is this project going to work commercially?

ps-I was stating a FACT , perhaps you could respond with something more than sarcasm.
Well I'm not gonna DIE for the film look. For me the LOOK of 35mm isn't worth a whopping 1/4 million dollars. I'd rather spend extra time getting awesome looking dolly moves, more shots and more time per scene, more expensive locations, have a telephoto lens to use, etc. I hate cutting corners because of time constraints.

Well I'm not gonna DIE for the film look.

Well of course YOU'RE not going to die-many others already sacrificed to give US freedom of expression. And I was talking generally.

Apparently you're not capable of replying without being flippant. You proclaim film is dead-Were you appointed the King of aesthetic arrest-a medium is a medium is a medium-as I stated earlier, I truely believe it is the artist who transforms the medium therefore the tools she/he chooses are not obsolete.

You tell me to have fun going broke (apparently because I'm using....fiiillllmmmm :scared: ) You assume alot. How do you know I'm not creating a work that will break new ground? By the way, and this is a beautiful thing....I animate hand-drawn cel, so I have the OPTION of putting it on anything -so if it ends up on a digital medium, do you forsee me making a buck , oh great Barometer of Moving Media!!!!

:clap: Wooooh!!!! Let me put you up on a pedestal then! Don't hold back with that ego dude. You are going places Mr. Feelgood! You're a mover and a shaker! You're everyone who's anybody! The road to Hollywood goes through YOU!

Hells bells, I sure hope you're not a SCREENWRITER, because that was about the biggest load of cliche-riden crap I've read , EVER. And they call me...Miss Feelgood!

This was a civil discussion, c'mon guys!

I apologize for disrespecting your forum, Indietalk, but i believed i asked some relevent questions.

I'll be OK as long as no one starts talking about my mom.....then it's gloves off.

C'mon you two. Kiss and make up!

Consider it done, Clive.

Scooter, you're right.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Bird

Don't shoot on film. FILM IS DEAD as far as low budget indi features go! It puts you $250,000 in the hole for a 90 min feature. Hi-def Panasonic Varicam or better is the only way to go. The bottom line is making money here. Most movies go straight to DVD anyway. You can make $750,000 with a horror, comedy or urban movie just going straight to DVD. With that kind of margin why spend an extra 1/4 million??? Bump it up to film if it actually makes it into theaters.

Dude, video is video, film is film. It all boils down to: is the concept/ writing/ other elements good enough to warrant film? For certain projects of mine, I would never dream of ever even thinking of shooting them on video, they're just too fucking good. Film looks better than video, even when it's only on DVD. Film is the essence of cinema, and although today's video can look very good, it just doesn't even come close to real 35mm film. Call me a weirdo, but I personally would rather take a $250,000 pay-cut and shoot on film than make a crapload of extra money using video. Even if I would only break even on it, and not make a profit...

Making a movie on 35mm film is my wet-dream, I just don't get why one would pass it up if they could attain the funds...

No offense, but only fat guys with too much money and a total lack of vision use 35mm! If you can afford one minute of 35mm, you can afford a very high quality miniDV camera which is indie film, so to speak.

No offense, but only fat guys with too much money and a total lack of vision use 35mm! If you can afford one minute of 35mm, you can afford a very high quality miniDV camera which is indie film, so to speak.

I do not forsee this thread ending well. http://www.stevenrichards.com/images/smiley_creepy.gif

No offense, but only fat guys with too much money and a total lack of vision use 35mm! If you can afford one minute of 35mm, you can afford a very high quality miniDV camera which is indie film, so to speak.

This has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read on this site.

Kids, the above comment by amfx22000 is his/her opinion only.

My opinion is that comment is so rediculous I cant even believe it was made in sincerity.

See, this is me staying off this thread....tra-la-la-tra-la-leeeeee

I think I'm going to go lock myself in a closet...

This is what I have as a rough estimate of costs for a 6 week feature shoot between:
Varicam, S16mm --> HD , Cinealta, 35mm--> HD
(Columns 2 and 3 appear repeated because I am also studying 720p vs 1080p in post - not included here)
Shoot ratio is 10. For Varicam/Cinealta, stock/process is tape cost.


Film finish length = 90min, Shoot ratio = 10
1 2 3 4 5
Varicam Arri SR1 Arri SR1 Cinealta Aaton III
720 24p S16mm S16mm 1080 24p 35mm

Finish Format DVCPRO HD 720 DVCPRO HD 720 HDCAM 1080 HDCAM 1080 HDCAM 1080
HD Engr (DIT) (6) 5000 0 0 7500 0
Camera Package 24000 5000 5000 24000 17000
Stock and Process 1600 12636 12636 1600 45360
Telecine (7) 20000 20000 20000
Downconvert (8) 500 500 2500 500

Subtotal Camera 30600 38136 38136 35600 82860





Notes:
1 Varicam rates online comparable to Cinealta? No need to downconvert into Final Cut Pro HD
2 Camera Package deal (Arri SR1), Stock from MediaDistributors, Process from Forde Labs, Telecine from Modern Digital
3 Camera Package deal (Arri SR1), Stock from MediaDistributors, Process from Forde Labs, Telecine from Modern Digital
4 Cinealta rental at 12k/month from www.hdstudiosla.com * 2.
5 Camera Package from Able Cinetech (Aaton35-III), Stock from FilmEmporium, Process from Forde Labs, Telecine from Modern Digital
6 Need better estimate of cost for HD engineer and extra equipment needed
7 Telecine by Modern Digital (base quote)
8 Downconvert --> 720P for editing in Final Cut Pro HD, possible to do 1080p online conform later. For Cinealta, downconversion estimated a bit more because of deck rental (downconvert is usually less expensive at post house doing the telecine)



This is with the idea of going 1080p --> 35mm blowup, or just exhibiting a 720 or 1080 tape.

I have included a line for an HD Enineer (Digital Imaging Technician) for the HD cameras. These engineers probably won't accept the $50/day or $75 day I'll pay a 2nd AC and everyone else.

I can get a good deal on an Arri SR camera but I don't have similar relationships with the HD vendors. I am guessing I can get a Varicam for less money than Cinealta, but I can't find a better deal online.
For a 6 week shoot I have taken the monthly package rate * 2, as there are often unexpected charges and equipment required during the shoot.

I would use mostly the same lighting package and crew for either HD, 35mm, or 16mm. I have worked with both 35mm and 16mm crews and the crew/lighting requirements are not big a difference as some would have you believe. The difference is the cost and the final look of the film! I wouldn't skimp the lighting package or crew for an HD film because I want the same lighting and shots, "corrected" for HD.

Cost doubles with 35mm. But.. for Varicam, S16mm Arri SR, or Cinealta, the costs are roughly comparable by my estimates. Assuming the whole production budget was $100k you save $8k by using Varicam. I realize you can do a bare bones Varicam shoot without an engineer, but if I used Varicam I would want to do it right, and not chip away at everything else.

In my mind the huge benefit with Varicam is in post. You can firewire the 720p footage into Final Cut, and potentially finish the film in final cut to a DVCPRO HD tape, w/out the cost of a 1080p online.

I just shot a $350,000 HD feature with the Varicam and for fun I did a Super-16 budget and it came in between $15,000-20,000 (depending on some different variables) more than the Varicam budget. In the end they needed some extra cameras and we decided not to go that route.

Super-16 has made some great strides in the past few years with many TV shows like "The OC", "Law and Order: Trial by Jury", "Gilmore Girls", Veroncia Mars", to name a few.

I'm gearing up to shoot a Super-16 feature in July.

Scott

I just shot a $350,000 HD feature with the Varicam and for fun I did a Super-16 budget and it came in between $15,000-20,000 (depending on some different variables) more than the Varicam budget. In the end they needed some extra cameras and we decided not to go that route.

Scott

Okay, so based on your experience, for a $350k feature it costs $15k or 4% more to shoot S16mm.
How were power requirements for Varicam? Did the camera crew constantly have to adjust for backfocus? Was it great to review shots on set? Did you get the exposure latitude and depth of field that you wanted? And finally.. are you finishing on 720p with Final Cut Pro HD or upconverting to 1080 for an online edit?

I wanna see amfx22000's graph comparison of vision between fat guys with 35mm cameras and skinny dudes with mini DV's. Then maybe tubby women and shrew housewifes.....perhaps disenfrancised malcontents and kings......:D

Open Water
According to IMDB, Open Water was shot with a Sony PD150. So was Dancer In the Dark, Two Brothers, 28 Days, and many others.

I have a PD170, myself. Trust me, if the movie's good (unlike mine), it'll make money.

...okay, the way I understand it, and from observation (sort of) when you shoot on video and transfer to film, the video takes on the characteristics of film. Now, its not as good as initially shooting on film, but it doesn't look that bad.

...also, if the quality of film just seems to be better, it probably has something to with the fact that people who can afford film, have probably had more experience and can come up with the money to spend on film. We newbies can't afford that...

...I think when you are new or strapped for cash, you need to use video. There is no reason to not tell whatever story you need to because you can't afford film stock.

--spinner

When you acquire on video, the latitude pales in comparison to film. Also, the DoF and the way the light plays with the lens is very different in film cameras, specifically in high quality 35mm stuff with cooke primes etc.

When working with film, there is no question about resolution or latitude. It is maximum, a benchmark if you will.

When you acquire on HD, you are acquiring at roughly 1/4 the resolution of 35mm film.

DV is 1/7th the resolution of HD.

So when you put video on film, regardless of how good the camera is, it won't have the basic levels of latitude nor the traditional light play that we are used to seeing with film cameras. If you are the worlds best DP with a good Varicam, Viper, etc you can make a super clean looking 16mmish image. But when compared side by side in real life with a projected 16mm image, there will be a difference.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of video is not cost but the ability to see exactly what one will get. Video taps promise a good idea, but certainly not precisely what you will get in a film camera, and of course, exposure wise you don't have any idea via the video tap how it will turn out, you need experience and calculations for that.

In the end, my personal opinion is shoot your demonstrative work on video, shoot your epic on 35mm with a million or 2 budget.

I want you to be honest about this, now. How many features have you seen in your local theater shot on DV? How many shot on HD? 16mm? s16? 35? Scope?

If you don't know these answers you need to find them out. Theres a reason why nearly every major film made today is made on film. Why everything you see in the cinema is on film.

It is not easy to shoot film, nor is it cheap. Thats why not everybody in the world is making movies that go into Edwards Cinemas.

But if you are willing to work hard, raise money, network yourself, and determine the least expensive most efficient way to get there, it is possible.

Again, my personal opinion but I absolutely would not shoot any type of serious feature on anything less than HD/16 and even then it would be a comprimise but one I would live with.

I bought a 16mm camera and I am currently shooting a short with it. I have done an expensive camera/lens/focus/stock test and I now have back one set of dailies.

It is so beautfiul to look at my work projected on film. The latitude is just amazing. The detail is amazing. I NEVER WANT TO SHOOT STANDARD DEF MINIDV EVER AGAIN. If it were just cheaper to do 16mm>HD I might do that, and I am looking into it.

Hi, Wideshot!

..lately I've been watching a lot of music videos to help me focus on my project, but I am finding that many are obviously done on film...

So when you put video on film, regardless of how good the camera is, it won't have the basic levels of latitude nor the traditional light play that we are used to seeing with film cameras. If you are the worlds best DP with a good Varicam, Viper, etc you can make a super clean looking 16mmish image. But when compared side by side in real life with a projected 16mm image, there will be a difference.


...I don't dispute the quality of the film vs. video, I guess when I watch something cinematically, I look for whether or not I am moved by the story. I want to come out affected and I tend to forgive the difference between film and video...


But if you are willing to work hard, raise money, network yourself, and determine the least expensive most efficient way to get there, it is possible.

...this is where I am, first big important project. There is NO way I could possibly afford film. I get video enough to be able to put out some good work (I think). I wouldn't want to not be able to put out this story simply because I couldn't afford a film camera.

...I hope what I am able to do is move people, make them feel something or change an opinion, which is one of the goals of my project. If people come out changed, then I am successful. Not that how the product looks isn't important. It is, but at this point as I am changing careers, I am going to do the best job with that which I have. It's the only option I've got. And I don't have the heart not to do it because my equipment isn't film...

--spinner :cool:

1. Drink one bottle of wine
2. Open the window
3. Scream: "FILM OR DIE"



TRUE OR FALSE:

0) S16mm has a 2k resolution which blows 720/1080p out of the water and destroys the pretensions of HD sucka-DPs

1) a brilliant filmmaker is brilliant on film or video

2) a brillliant filmmaker would never choose video

2.5) Unless he was broke

2n+1) Film festivals are a conspiracy to rob you of entry fees

2n+2) Film festivals will accept HD projection.. why go to 35mm?

3) film is a conspiracy by studios to keep indie filmmakers broke

4) Varicam/720p is a conspiracy by studios to keep indie filmmakers obscure

4.5) HD is a conspiracy by the tech industry to make you prop up the stocks of AAPL, MSFT, Panasonic, Sony, etc.

5) MiniDV is for wusses

6) It is hard to hit marks on S16mm

7) Russell Crowe is spoiled

7.1) Tom Cruise is insane

7.01) George Lucas shot Star Wars ep3 on HD Cinealta, but GEORGE LUCAS HAS BEEN MAKING SEQUELS OF THE SAME FILM FOR 20 YEARS. WHO GIVES A F****.

3) Most indie filmmakers are hopeless


prime+3) The audience is at home. Don't worry about theatrical

sqrt(-1) Find your audience. 10k DVD buyers will fund your film.

..."power to the people who punish bad cinema..." Cecil B. Demented

--spinner

Are you sure that was one bottle of wine, good sir? :lol:

Funny quiz! Id like to answer/debate some of those here, but I think some of the users on this forum could do well researching those answers.

I think that we, as filmmakers, need to distance ourselves from what would be easiest, or what we *think* the audience would want to see. We need to accept reality and be creative from there. It would easiest and cheapest to shoot a feature on Mini-DV with 35mm optics. Would it hold up well on a 100' screen? Not at all likely. Thats asthetics. Thats why I salivate to shoot in scope. Shoot in scope with an appropriate budget and equipment and crew and there is no question about quality, resolution, aesthetics, etc. Zero question. THAT is easy. It just costs money and you have to know WTF you are doing.

Somewhere in between is a comprimise, UNLESS your project lends itself to a lesser format. For instance, would the video camera scenes from blair witch have been believable if it had been scope? No. Would the gritty feel of 28 days later have happened with scope? No. Then flip the coin. Would the Snows of Kiliminjaro have been amazing on Mini-DV? Would Braveheart have been the same on High Def? Or 16? or Beta? Ask yourself these questions. Ask yourself how quality impacts the audience. How that guy or girl sitting in the seat needs to be in total awe when you show the beautiful panorama in the second act. Or how the crisp real feel of HD just won't quite cut it for the period piece you are thinking about. Or maybe it will. Those are questions you have to ask yourself. And accept that as reality you cannot escape. You cannot shoot Braveheart on Mini-DV I'm sorry.

Now you can make a movie that will get a lot of attention on Mini-DV. You might even sell some DVD's. But it most likely will never see your local cineplex. Shoot that same thing on 16 or s16 or HD and you might have yourself something. Shoot that same thing on 35 or scope and its a potentially serious contender.

Which is why you see guys like indietalk, who saves his nickels and dimes and shoots on film. I havent seen him talk here. I have talked to Boo though and he agrees, if he had the money he'd shoot everything on film. Of course that doesnt necessarily make sense for his teeny 3 minute shorts.

The point is, when you do finally reach that point where you are ready to make the next step, and shoot something for real, something that will be a keeper, look at film. At least look at HD. Its real expensive. But its worth it.

Would the Snows of Kiliminjaro have been amazing on Mini-DV? Would Braveheart have been the same on High Def?

...oh, come on! Nobody is that dumb. I was never arguing the virtues of mini dv over film. All I meant was, if you are starting out, that is a good way to get out there. My project is a documentary. Digital video will work in this case...

...if everyone could afford film, everyone would use film. I just think that if you have something to say, that should count for something. Of course the technical quality of what you put out has to be good. I hope my stuff will be...

...tell your story as best you can, in the best way possible...hopefully it won't suck, hopefully it will do what you want it to in the fashion you want it to...

--spinner

Right. And if you followed what I was saying (at least I hope I was!), my sentiment is that you should shoot a short or a doc or a super lowbudget feature on mini-dv, hone your craft, tell your story, get some contacts, but don't expect to shoot Braveheart or Snows of Kiliminjaro or Lord of the Rings on Mini-DV.

And Docs, who was talking about docs? Documentaries are in a totally different category. Although I live in a very small population at the moment, a guy who lives about 5 miles away is an award winning doc maker. He used to shoot on film, back in the early 80's. I saw some of his 16mm stuff (he had a k3 too oddly enough), and it looked pretty good. Then he switched to mini-dv, then bought a Sony beta or digibeta or something... a 15k camera. Now he's offing that for HD. There is no way, in a million years, that he could have shot in the jungles of Borneo with headhunters having to stop every 5 minutes to reload. There's no way he could have shot in Costa Rica with film, being back in a jungle for weeks at a time. I mean he could have, but consider what it would entail. Thats why I advocate digital every time now for docs. I would like to see HD stuff more and more though, I think its important that we capture some of the rare stuff happening in the world, as it happens, unstages, and unedited in high quality... and digital allows that.

Regarding traditional filmmaking however, it is not about what you can afford. Just remember that. Look at just about every first major film every good filmmaker ever made.

Did they spend their own money?

Or did they spend someone elses (or multiples of someones)?

Most filmmakers do not spend 500k of their own money, let alone 1, 3, 50, 100 million. Lucas and Speilberg and Redford types may, but rarely anyone is born rich enough to fund their own first film.

Hence, the hard work ethic to chase money, producers, investors, etc.

There is an unwritten but very well known rule in the industry, never use your own money.

And my addition to that rule is, when you use someone else's money, make sure you use it wisely.

TRUE OR FALSE:

0) S16mm has a 2k resolution which blows 720/1080p out of the water and destroys the pretensions of HD sucka-DPs (Completely true, but at that level the resolution isn't the issue it's the overall look of the film HD and S16 look completely diferent. Where it get's insane is someone choosing to use HD, only to then try to make it look like film)

1) a brilliant filmmaker is brilliant on film or video (True, I believe 90% of the format issues are bogus)

2) a brillliant filmmaker would never choose video (Nah, I'm brilliant and I love video)

2.5) Unless he was broke (I am)

2n+1) Film festivals are a conspiracy to rob you of entry fees (Setting up a festival is what filmakers do to make some money when they can't get it making films)

2n+2) Film festivals will accept HD projection.. why go to 35mm? (Festivals aren't issue, it's distributors and what they'll accept)

3) film is a conspiracy by studios to keep indie filmmakers broke (film is an illusion, all films are really made by hundreds of people in third world sweat shops making million and millions of tiny drawings)

4) Varicam/720p is a conspiracy by studios to keep indie filmmakers obscure (It's the Betacam VHS of our age, but I love it)

4.5) HD is a conspiracy by the tech industry to make you prop up the stocks of AAPL, MSFT, Panasonic, Sony, etc. (True)

5) MiniDV is for wusses (It's the video equivalent of the the Casio VL-Tone synth, nasty but charmingly retro)

6) It is hard to hit marks on S16mm (Ah, film, shallow depth of field, constant need for light, wish I'd shot it on HD)

7) Russell Crowe is spoiled (Should have kept him in the fridge)

7.1) Tom Cruise is insane (If only)

7.01) George Lucas shot Star Wars ep3 on HD Cinealta, but GEORGE LUCAS HAS BEEN MAKING SEQUELS OF THE SAME FILM FOR 20 YEARS. WHO GIVES A F****. (So, so true ... even HD can't make poor dialogue work)

3) Most indie filmmakers are hopeless ;)

Well, that was fun

...God, I love this site!!!

...Thanks, Wideshot, for all the advice. Now if I can just figure out how to get my little documentary/promo onto the site...I am on dial up and don't know the first thing about how to put it on here anyway.

...damn, I need broadband...(grumble, grumble)... :D

--spinner :cool:

2) a brillliant filmmaker would never choose video (Nah, I'm brilliant and I love video) :D

2.5) Unless he was broke (I am) :yes:


3) film is a conspiracy by studios to keep indie filmmakers broke (film is an illusion, all films are really made by hundreds of people in third world sweat shops making million and millions of tiny drawings) :D

5) MiniDV is for wusses (It's the video equivalent of the the Casio VL-Tone synth, nasty but charmingly retro) :lol: ...hey,...


7) Russell Crowe is spoiled (Should have kept him in the fridge) Can we put him there now???


3) Most indie filmmakers are hopeless ;) I know I am

...probably wasn't supposed to answer your answers but they were such fun answers...

--spinner

I just saw a hilarious commercial for a paper towel brand - a real estate agent wipes a large glass window with the towel, and then later tells the home buyers that the windows are in "high definition - the latest thing" - and of course they nod.

I have shot a lot of video and HD. Also 35mm and 65mm. I understand your points, but I don't believe in quibbling about cost. If you treat filmmaking as a business, the cost of stock is cheap.

For that "cheap" video cost, you get a video. For that "expensive" film cost, you get a theatre-grade movie, which you can sell, to make your cost plus profit. Just try selling that video. What do you want to drive? A Hyundai or a Cadillac? Caddy for me.

Also, since many think film is dead, film equipment is cheap right now. I just picked up another Mitchell BNC, for a song. No computer required to view or edit. You can hold film up to the light, for goodness sake.

Just my opinion, no offense meant.

I actually have a friend who works in distribution...

He's told me on a number of occasions that for their company, it breaks down like this...

Films shot on film (whether 16mm/Super16/35mm) normally go to the top of the heap of films screened due to the fact that based purely on numbers, the percentage of films shot on film are usually better than those shot on MiniDV or DV.

In other words film is still taken a bit more seriously because the percentages are better that the filmmaker(s) did their homework over the DV/MiniDV film.

Having said that...

He's also told me that DV/MiniDV is catching up FAST! They still get a lot of crappy DV/MiniDV films but more and more are being made well.

The most important thing he tells me (strictly for their company mind you) is the story. Is it something that we want to see? If it's something that's already been done, you need to do it a whole lot better to get distribution... Of course they would prefer a name actor or two but he tells me that this is not their number one priority when selecting films to distribute. They want a great story first and foremost. Then great acting, great directing, great cinematography, and of course editing.

He says that his company is always on the lookout for the next great director anyway hence, the reason they look at so many films... But they do screen films on film first...

He says the biggest problem they have with Indie films is the story/screenplay. Many films are shot well, acted well enough, and look okay but the premise of the film sucks. The stories are shallow or copy too many other known films. He would rather see something new even if it's the same old story... Tell it in a different way... One that grabs the audience and you will get distribution.

When I asked him about what other filmmakers have told me about doing horror flicks, urban flicks, etc., he told me to watch getting known for films like that unless that's all you ever want to do...

So don't despair, just make a great film...

filmy

I have a screenplay for a full length feature film, a social impact film, that I guarantee is original. Have only tv production experience, and nothing more recent than 7 years ago. So this would be my first directing experience. Am 25 right now and have a great vision for the film I want to do, and I would prefer to shoot it in 35mm. Would love to hear advice about how to get this project going.

Just thought your post was something that connected with me. Thanks.