Thread: Camera?
View Single Post
Old 04-23-2016, 10:37 AM   #18
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preston Hashagen View Post
I saw some other footage tests for the canon scoopic and they looked good while others had a lot of lines and blotches so I assume that came down to film type and such because a couple tests I saw looked wonderful.
All that shows is that the skill, experience and talent of the filmmaker is
important. A great, top-of-the-line camera using a sensitive film stock in
the hands of a first timer will not result in amazing footage. An inexpensive
super 8 camera using the same film stock in the hands of talented person
with some experience will look quite good. The "film type" isn't the culprit
in the tests you have been looking at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preston Hashagen View Post
I'm only worried about not having a range to shoot with. I'd want some things to look crips and clean yet clearly on film while others such as the western I'm going to start writing out soon, to look more gritty and similar to the older Clint Eastwood style films but wouldn't want to have to own 5 different cameras lol.
You don't need different cameras, you need to learn how to use film. It has
a very different learning curve than analogue video or digital. I know you
are putting a lot of hope in the camera and film type. I think that is misplaced.
Your first tests may well be poor. That doesn't mean you need a different
camera or film stock. It usually means you need more experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preston Hashagen View Post
I also looked up film prices and it was sort of hard to find, maybe because I did it on my phone and Kodak made me look through a catalog but am I correct in that 1 reel of 16mm is roughly $45? It said it was 50ft so how long would that last at 24fps?
Check B&H Photo in NY and Spectra Film and Video in L.A. 100Ft of Vision3
(the same film stock used to shoot “The Hateful Eight”) is $56. 200ft is $222.
16mm has 40 frames per foot. That means a 100ft roll runs 2min, 47sec at
24fps. Most filmmakers use a 400ft roll in a magazine – it's cheaper at $221.

Learning to shoot on film is expensive, isn't it? And it's challenging.
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote