35mm: Cost?
- Thread starter ilmagic88
- Start date
Varicam/S16mm/Cinealta Comparable
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.
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.
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.
Code:
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 82860Notes:
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.
Last edited:
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
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
scottspears said:
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?
Last edited:
According to IMDB, Open Water was shot with a Sony PD150. So was Dancer In the Dark, Two Brothers, 28 Days, and many others.Zensteve said:
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
...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.
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.
Last edited:
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...
...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...
...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
..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...
...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...
...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
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
...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
Last edited:
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.
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
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)...
--spinner
...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)...
--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.
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 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.