I'm in the process of developing my short script for fall production. I've raised financing, have a casting director looking for actors, and have a producer to handle logistics. However, I'm unsure what format to use, so I thought I'd ask for some advice. The producer, of course, can tell me how much the film or video will cost and how many shoot days will fit into my budget, but he's not particularly well versed in film formats as a creative choice. Neither am I, having come to directing from screenwriting.

Approximately half the film will take place in a dark basement and I'd like to light it so that most of the room is in shadows and only the actors are lit well. I've been cautioned against using DV, because of the dark set for fear of light artifacts, halos, etc.

Also, 90% of the scenes have child actors in speaking roles, so I think I'll need extra coverage to get the performance I want. I'll rehearse, of course, but who knows how they'll react once they're on set. If I'm shooting 6:1 or 8:1, how prohibitively costly would it be to shoot on 16mm?

This short should run 8 to 12 minutes.

Any and all advice is appreciated.

How large is your budget?

Currently have a $5,000 commitment. Will seek more financing if necessary. There are 4 locations within a single home, 2 principal roles, and 3 supprting roles (one scene each). One stunt, one special effect to be achieved through cut aways and lighting, some makeup/blood, a few costumes, one set to be built. Planning on a day for lighting and 3 days for photography. The producer is going to work out the money details, but I'm more interested in the artistic benefits that each format provides and whether shooting on film outweighs any cost savings from shooting on video given that half the film will be darkly lit.

I firmly believe that this film will be a festival darling and that it'll get me attention as a director. I know everyone says that and everyone thinks they're the exception, but people who have read the script agree that if I can pull it off, it'll win some awards at some festivals. Currently working on surrounding myself with talented and experienced crew so this first time director doesn't manage to screw up a great script. Any advice would be appreciated!

Thanks.

It sounds to me like you have the makings of and the desire to produce a short on HD or s16mm. But with the added cost of costumes, fx, makeup dept. and paying actors, you'd be pressed to do it for $5k.

Lets do a basic run down here. Lets say its a 10 minute short. I'm going to use 100' loads because thats what I have experience with and the cost isnt really reduced much by going with a 400', except that the wasted roll is reduced by going with more film per load (ie the threading and setting).

At a 6:1 ratio (which is a good figure), lets assume kodak neg at $37 including tax or shipping (its actually closer to 38 with shipping).

60 minutes = 3600 seconds of film / 147 seconds per usable 100' load (assuming your loader is spot on with the loading and you are conservative in shooting the first take).

= 24.5 rolls of 100'. x $37 = ~$907 for just the stock.

And after going through all this I just checked out the film calc http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/filmCalculator.html

and realized I was off by 300' somehow. But thats really marginal.

And that doesnt figure in the cost of renting the camera or the sound equipment.

Then you can assume at least .12 a foot for processing = ~ $300 . Now youre at $1200 before we even get to TK or post. Others can help you with post cost, but a one light TK will cost at least .15 a foot = $367.50 for just a one light TK.

You can see what I mean. You might end up nearing $3.5-4k just for stock, processing and proper post, just actual costs, not man hours to get there.

So the point is, making the jump to film is expensive, compared to shooting on mini-dv. You can probably shoot your whole short on DV for a cost of under 2-2.5k including everything.

HD will be less expensive than film most likely on the stock end, but rental will likely be just as much and post could cost just as much (clive would likely know about this).

I'm fairly new to film and HD myself so there are others on the forum that porbably know more about the subject than I do and hopefully theyll chime in.

WideShot. Truly great stuff. Thank you.

Just for clarification, my understanding is that you can now shoot on 16 and edit digitally without ever processing the film stock, at least not until you have some need for a film print, which might be never since most festivals allow for digital submission these days. Is this accurate?

Will HD provide similar contrasts in the darkly lit scenes to s16? These are the two formats I'm most interested in. We shot a feature last year on DV and while it worked fine for the aesthetic the director wanted, I think it would be suboptimal for my short film.

my understanding is that you can now shoot on 16 and edit digitally without ever processing the film stock

That would be handy... sadly, it's not the case.

You need to process the film, then have it transferred to a video format to edit on. (Unless you actually cut film)

After this point, is when you have options on what the final format is going to be... remaining in a video format, or being printed back to film after finished with editing.

:)

Thanks for all of the help. I've decided to shoot on super 16 and raise additional funds. I'll let you know know if that works and I'm sure I'll have a thousand questions moving forward.

You cannot ever edit the film or a scan of the film without actually developing the film. You could theoretically edit togother something that came off the video tap but that wouldnt be useful for a final product and it isnt the film itself. HD telecine is getting us a few steps closer, but the price will work out very close to a traditional post house working with actual film, in which the quality should be higher, because you're working with actual film. But then to project 16mm it gets complicated so the idea of going to the HD Scan then editing digitally then outputting to a D5 master and projecting from HDCam would be great. You also obviousdly have a huge advantage in working with your HD scan in an online status all the time too, like you would DV. Downside is you need the hardware to support it which right now you can have but its about the best you can afford on the market, plus at least 1TB of HDD space.

Also, 90% of the scenes have child actors in speaking roles, so I think I'll need extra coverage to get the performance I want. I'll rehearse, of course, but who knows how they'll react once they're on set.

Ouch. I've had some limited experience of shooting shorts with child actors on 16mm... it wasn't pretty. I'd definitely shoot HD rather than film, you're probably going to need all the takes you can get :).

Ouch. I've had some limited experience of shooting shorts with child actors on 16mm... it wasn't pretty. I'd definitely shoot HD rather than film, you're probably going to need all the takes you can get :).Were they trained/experienced child actors? I'm using a casting director to find them so I'm hoping they'll be experienced (e.g., fewer takes).

I'm not sure, actually... I was just AD-ing on those movies. I think they'd all done at least some acting before.

I shot a short on super 16 and telecined to HD. Plan on $300/hr or more to telecine to HD. For my short that worked out to ~$1200 with little to no color correction.

Also, I shot a short with experienced child actors, and am pretty sure you will not hit a 6:1 ratio. It depends on the age of the kids, but kids have an amazing ability to totally misunderstand even the simplest direction. (I have two kids of my own.)

On the aforementioned short I had a scene with a 8 year old kid that I cut out in post entirely because I couldn't make it work. On another short I had a 10 year old kid who was mostly great, but his manager had coached him on the part, and he was totally incapable of deviating from how he memorized it. He paused in all the wrong places and I couldn't get him to sound natural in a couple of places.

Hope that's useful.

Personally, I would choose to probably do DV. HD is a beautiful digital format, but the cost of post can rise pretty quickly, definitely worth considering.

I'm a film fan and would naturally argue for S16, but the presence of child talent warps all other considerations. I'd say shoot with HD or a 3-chip DV or DigiBeta system, just so you can afford to shoot the coverage you need without sweating over the film costs. When you've got more production experience and have a project that fits, then go for film.

it's definately in post that you rack the costs if you choose to work with HD.

You'd need to take your HD masters and have then copied and down converted to SD, which would allow you to edit on a your own system. This gives you an SD edit whose EDL you can then use to compile your full HD online.

I really don't see that it would be possible to do a full HD shoot, including post for $5000. You could easily spend that just on tape copying.

The only HD format that would sit easily on a $5000 budget is HDV.

However, if it was me I'd ditch all of the above options and shoot the whole thing on Standard Def Panasonic DVCPro50. You'd get an absolutley beautiful end product, it's SD so you can edit on practically anything, it's got all the advantages of shooting on DV (Cheap tape stock, no processing costs) and it looks as close to HD as anything I've seen. In terms of look to cost to ease of use it's by far the best format that money can buy at the moment and if I wasn't so hard up, it's the format I'd use almost exclusively.

I have a Sony HD camera from B&h photo video. It costs $2000 after rebate. It down converts during playback if I need it to, I can select letterbox, "cut screen"(knocks off a little on the right and left) and squash (ugly). So down converting is not really an issue. In fact, I am doing everthing in HD. I may want to remaster at some point. If you shoot in HD you can always down convert as you edit, it won't wast any time:yes: :yes: .

At the end of the day it depends heavily on the money you have and the production procedure you have in place.

HD or HDV is probably the best choice. Or DVCPro50 as Clive suggests. At this budget range just forget film totally. Far too muhc hasstle.

I'm a huge film fan (I own a Super-16 camera package), but unless you can more than double your budget, then you should consider HD or HDV because child actors can be film eaters. You could luck out and get the next Haley Joel Osment, but don't plan on it.

Scott

If you're only looking for Festival action from your short, from what I've heard, and please everyone - share opinions about this:

Festival programmers looking for short films care far more about the story and the script than the production values. Not to say, you shouldn't give a hoot about shooting on film or lighitng well or capturing great sound - but that a programmer will forgive shakey lighting solutions if the story, script and acting are stellar. If a director can deliver a good story, frame and shoot the scenes in a unqiue and appropriate manner, pull great performances from the actors on a low budget dv production, then she/he can most certainly deliver with more money attached.
So, for shorts - unless you've got plenty of dough to toss around - shoot digitally with a good 24p camera.

Anyone have any thoughts about this?

Not sure about festivals and shakey camera work but I'd say on almost any no or next to no budget films digital is the best way to go. It's cheap and enables you to make mistakes whilst also eradicating the very tricky post production which you get with films. Nothing beats shooting your scene, going home that night, rough cutting and showing peopl ethe next day. Something taht's very hard to do with film.

If you're only looking for Festival action from your short, from what I've heard, and please everyone - share opinions about this:

Festival programmers looking for short films care far more about the story and the script than the production values. Not to say, you shouldn't give a hoot about shooting on film or lighitng well or capturing great sound - but that a programmer will forgive shakey lighting solutions if the story, script and acting are stellar. If a director can deliver a good story, frame and shoot the scenes in a unqiue and appropriate manner, pull great performances from the actors on a low budget dv production, then she/he can most certainly deliver with more money attached.
So, for shorts - unless you've got plenty of dough to toss around - shoot digitally with a good 24p camera.

Anyone have any thoughts about this?

I would agree, but there is simply no escuse for subpar production techniques. On-camera mics and shooting scenes radically under or over exposed is just not OK.

Oddly after viewing as many films as I have and getting all the reports back from our screening & then judging groups that we have, my opinion has not changed one bit on this subject. Its all important from a basic standpoint - acceptable sound, visual, performances, storytelling. But if I had to choose two to be great, hands down its storytelling and performances.

NEVER accept a lower quality in anything. I know some guys who made a feature film. Superb script, brilliant performances, funny as hell.

The film looked like shite, badly lit and framed. In teh end they never sold it and 3 years work went down the tube.

Moral of the story... NEVER compromise.

See, my problem with HD, and forgive me if this a stupid thing to say (even for someone in the learning process I am) and any format near to that is the weird glossy effect it seems to give the finished product. I've only noticed this in low-budget stuff, but it seems that with higher-definition, you get this really clear but artificial effect that covers the film like plastic wrap.

I probably sound like I'm either mad, retarded, or a good combination of the two, but I find myself more attracted to films that look a little grainy, kind of like something from Slacker or Stranger Than Paradise.

Again, sorry to pipe in like this.

You could always add a film grain effect in post if it bugs you that much. There are several good (some expensive) tools for getting film-like effects with digital video. I'm still just authoring standard definition and don't plan any theatrical or festival releases anytime soon. When I start getting more experienced and serious, I will definitely want HD.

I watched some of my Canon XL1s footage upconverted to 1080p for the first time last week, and I was surprised at how good it looked. This is very workable for what I want to do this year.

I've only noticed this in low-budget stuff, but it seems that with higher-definition, you get this really clear but artificial effect that covers the film like plastic wrap.

Yup, you're nuts, but there is still hope. I'm really not sure what effect you are seeing, but I'm guessing it has to do with saturation, or sharpness. No matter what it is, if you have a decent quality recording, you can desaturate, soften, color correct, and even add film grain in post. I'm not suggesting that you must shoot HD, but you definitely do not need to fear it. You're not creating an image with a camera, you're creating an image with light. Once you get the right lighting and correct exposure, you can fine tune the effect later.

I think that the grain vs. no rain is an aesthetic thing. LOTR had that same glossy throughout and was shot on 35mm (for the actual film parts). I don't like film grain...it seems like a step backwards to me. The film stock companies have been trying for the entirety of their existences to get rid of the grain...now that digital is moving toward fulfilling their goals, people are waxing nostalgic for that thing that makes old film look like crap compared to new film.

If there's a specific artistic reason to use grainy film to aid the telling of the story, I'm all for it...but not as a meets all needs solution. Grain is an effect, use it to tell the story, not gratuitously. To me, it's just about like insisting that you prefer to communicate using telegraph.

Don't get me wrong, film still has the (massive) edge on digital as far as exposure latitude goes, but I've seen so many people adding film grain (which is easy to do convincingly using AE or Shake) to make their digital look more like film...I don't think it succeeds.

I'm a big fan of a clean image. I realize that it's a personal aesthetic choice, but it's my choice to make, just as liking grain is yours to make for your productions. I just felt compelled to speak for all of the chemists who poisoned their lungs over the past 100 years developing film with really tiny grains.

Yeah, I figured I was nuts.

I blame drinking.

I see where you're coming from on the clean image thing, and I can understand being annoyed by people who are clearly just going on a nostalgia trip. In my case though, I guess it's just a matter of what I'm used to.

LOTR was fine though, which makes me realize that I'm failing miserably in my effort to explain what the hell it is I'm trying to explain.

I wish I could cite a specific low-budget movie that's making me think of the overall effect I'm complaining about.

Debbie Rochon was in one I'm thinking of.

Lmao.

Eh, I should probably just shut up until I get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

Note, I never said you were wrong, just that I disagreed. I don't mind grain if there's a specific artistic reason to use it, just not on everything because it "makes it look more like film."

In film, you pick a specific stock to give you what you're looking for in terms of light sensitivity and color reproduction based on artistic needs. If all film folk would shoot for the same aesthetic that the "Film look through degenerating your footage" folks use, they'd shoot everything with really fast color 16mm film that had been left in the heat for 10 years before being used. Then they'd stack a crap load of filters on the camera to get that ever so (not so) subtle vignetting around the corners.

To me, it seems like folks who use unmotivated CG effects (even though they have the budget to avoid it). It's no longer got the too pristine look of video that lots of folks seem to hate, but it certainly doesn't look like film, just digitally treated DV. Has to be a reason!

In all of my shoots, I've chosen specific looks for the footage (within my abilties - or just over them). My budgets (generally <$25/shoot) don't allow me to even look at film, which I'd love to do. So I work within the limitations of the medium I use. I revel in the challenge. I strive to get a specific look that is neither video, nor film...but something that feels cinematic.

I'll reiterate a statement I've made many times. The film look doesn't happen in the camera, it happens everywhere but the camera, then the camera is setup to capture that cinematic moment. What happens in the camera is very important, but a home video of your cousin's birthday captured handheld by an amateur with a panavision 35mm camera will still look like a home movie (minus a lot of the wobbles due to the weight of the camera).

Something that feels cinematic.

I like that.

I couldn't agree with you more.

And I know you didn't say I was wrong. I guess I was just trying to make it clear that I am actually trying to apply a certain logic (however lopsided and poorly researched it might be) to my opinion.

No worries.

It's often hard to articulate something you absolutely know...but have never had to explain. You can point and say: "that! right there!" But words are hard to put to it. The plastic look articulated it well. It's the same look as when CG special effects aren't blended into the scene correctly and they stand out badly. I know precisely the look to which you're referring. Everything's got a too real sheen to it. That can be fixed with proper lighting and color palette choice and camera motion and makeup and... and... and...