• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

How do I achieve look of...?

B

bboymute

How do I achieve film within film look, like those interview scenes from "Boogie Nights"?

I think those scenes in Boogie Nights were shot in 16mm but when I look at a feature films shot in 16mm they have different quality

thank you
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Those scenes were shot on 35mm film. I'd have to go back and look at them to tell you how to recreate them exactly.

As to costs: DV: 60 min tape. $6
35mm film: 60 min. $600 (and that's unprocessed with no sound and not transfered to video so you can edit it.)

You make the call and what you can afford. There are ways to cut those costs if you really want to shoot film.

Scott
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bboymute said:
I really want to shoot on film but I guess that depends on the cost
Click to expand...
The answer to your original question depends on what format you are shooting on.

You achieve that effect on film very differently than you would on video.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
look I want to achieve is -very grainy film look/old family film look- and if I can do this with DV then I guess I'll shoot on DV but from what've seen, I can always tell that it's shot on video. would 8mm achieve this look?

I appreciate your help
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shoot super-8 or 16mm reversal. Do you have a Bolex, or an old super-8 camera? (Assuming you are shooting MOS for these shots)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It can help if you clarify which parts you are confused about :)

old family film look
Click to expand...

Not that I know anything about actually using film... but that's almost certainly 8mm.

Back in the 70's there were no fancy camcorders available; rather the trusty 8mm camera, for recording family events. May have been Super-8... memory too fogged to recall if any sound.

There were waaaaay too many family gatherings involving "Get the projector!" for my liking... (family editing was even worse than cameraship)... but we lived through it ;)

Places like Disneyland, Universal Studios & even film trailers (used to have Star Wars highlights on 8mm) were sold legitimately at those places, for keepsakes... they sell DVD now for the virtual tour, but back then a family/tourist keepsake was on 8mm.

Kinda waffling now (like I never do :roll: ) , but for that "old family look" you are going back to the 70's... pre-VCR to when it was okay for a house to have an 8mm projector.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bboymute said:
Right now I am looking into super-8 but I'm totally confused with all these informations...

Any recommendations?

thank you
Click to expand...

If you want to achieve the look of old home movies then you should use a Super 8 camera. There are tons of very inexpensive and easy to use "Super 8" cameras (not regular 8) available at swap meets, pawn shops, garage sales, and of course on E-Bay.

These cameras use film which is available in 50ft length Super 8 cartridges which you can buy directly from Kodak, or other places like "Yale Labs" which will sell you film and provide process your footage http://www.yalefilmandvideo.com/

You'll want to shoot with reversal film, like the older VNF 7239 and 7240 color reversal stocks which was what most of those " Dad films the 1973 family trip to Disneyland" films were shot with.



Happy Shooting!

Wendell Scot Greene
Cinematographer - LA
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
scottspears said:
Those scenes were shot on 35mm film. I'd have to go back and look at them to tell you how to recreate them exactly.

As to costs: DV: 60 min tape. $6
35mm film: 60 min. $600 (and that's unprocessed with no sound and not transfered to video so you can edit it.)

You make the call and what you can afford. There are ways to cut those costs if you really want to shoot film.

Scott
Click to expand...

Just for basic info: 35mm 1000Ft. roll which lasts aprox 11 min costs about $600 direct from Eastman. Thus an hour of 35mm stock would be about $3500 without processing etc..

Ron
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
scottspears said:
Those scenes were shot on 35mm film. I'd have to go back and look at them to tell you how to recreate them exactly.

As to costs: DV: 60 min tape. $6
35mm film: 60 min. $600 (and that's unprocessed with no sound and not transfered to video so you can edit it.)

You make the call and what you can afford. There are ways to cut those costs if you really want to shoot film.

Scott
Click to expand...

I was just curious and searching the web for video to film transfer.

This one place that claimed to be the cheapest in cost quoted me 250 dollars per minute to transfer video to 16mm and 350 dollars (USD) for 35mm.

they told me that 3CCD cameras had to be used because their process would have a weird effect with single chips.

they also suggested some other kind of data processing in which they told me if I wasn't to do it, I would get lots of color bleeding in the process. Maybe you know what that is called. but it added another 120 dollars per minute of process.

So an hours cost of film is what you would pay per minute for video transfer. Seems redundant to transfer video to film if its gonna cost the same and you're not going to get the same quality.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
16mmfilmmaker said:
Just for basic info: 35mm 1000Ft. roll which lasts aprox 11 min costs about $600 direct from Eastman. Thus an hour of 35mm stock would be about $3500 without processing etc..

Ron
Click to expand...

Ouch. That means you have to get the shot exactly right each time or else it wil cost more film with each cut.
Shooting 1:1. The whole movie in one take. Need more flexibility, buy more negative.
Processing is about $.15 per foot and best light print $.35 per foot. 90 ft per minute, at 5400 ft = $2700 (USD) more for an hour of negative. Just processing and print. Want some sound in the movie? $.45 per foot = $2430 more for optical sound. Gotta shop around for optical sound.
Wanna see dailies? More money. Editing (with or without a telecine), cutting and conforming, your Christmas bonus is spent.
(these numbers are coming from a particular lab I've worked with but I see many lab prices are similar)
You have to appreciate what people put into a 35mm film originated movie because it's a lot of money and it's very careful work. Not ideal for newbies. Even dp's cost money.
16mm might be cheaper. I don't know.
Film is still the purest and prettiest of formats. I don't think film will ever die. Dv and HD are, for some people, used mainly because of budget reasons. It is that way for me, at least. digital video does hold up well, although a llittle blurry...
sorry for the long rant and correct me if i'm mistaken, but constructive criticism pls... just my $.02
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
darkavenger said:
16mm might be cheaper. I don't know.
Click to expand...

Having just worked with 16mm, I'll give you some figures. I worked with Kodak reversal stock, that runs about $25 a 100 ft reel. 100 feet comes to about 2 minutes and 30-45 seconds. Keep in mind, I did not work with sound.

Processing came to about $20 a reel.

EDIT: I did my own telecine transfer with my DVX100a. I don't know what is charged for that sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top