Jurrasic Filmmaker?

K

kin0pic

Hello Everyone,

This is my second post, but I wanted it to be my first. I'm sorta 'new' to filmmaking, I shot a few things in video back in the 1970s (when it was horrible to do so) and shot a little Super8 back in the 1980s. I was very much interested in filmmaking in those days but for a variety of reasons I did'nt persue it. Well strange things happen and now at 42 I found I've been bitten by the bug again. I had always wanted to shoot in 16mm, but back in the 1980s 16mm equipment was too cost prohibitive for me, and I am a 'buy it own it' kind of guy, I just did'nt have the nerve to rent equipment.

Anyway, I started seeing 16mm film equipment for sale at prices I could afford on ebay and for the past four or five years now I've been buying cameras and other equipment here and there building up my studio. But now that I've got most of the equipment that I need, I come here to see what other filmmakers are into and after a perusal of these threads I feel something between a dinosaur or maybe Rip Van Winkel. Here's what I'm going to start my production with in the spring of 2006:

FILMING: 16mm cameras; Bolex H-16s (I wound up with a bunch of 'em, but three I paln on using have been up-graded with Som-Berthiot zoom lenses with dogleg finders so at least I will have reflex viewing), a Mauer set up at 60Hz (Pilotone) for sync sound, and a Mitchell 16 (needs servicing probably won't see use in this up-coming project),

SOUND: Nagra set up at 7isp with Sennheiser microphones (one shotgun and one omni) with boom.

EDITING: I got several 16mm viewers, 4 and 6 gang syncronisers, squak boxes, rewinds with long spindles. The creame d'la creame a Moviola AH-77 six plate flatbed editing console (state of the art -- as I remember it anyway). Sound editing consists of a recorder and three deck mixer (make I cannot recall at the moment) that handles 16mm magnetic tape film (or magfilm).

WOW! I thought I was set up pretty decently, but I come here and everyone is talking about DV, HDTV, doing sound in DAT, editing on Avids, PCs, and even Ipods(!??) Am I behind the times or what?! What I need to know I guess is this--> Just how bad in trouble am I really?

I signed on here as Kin0pic, but now I wonder if "Jurassic Filmmaker" or even Rip Van Winkle might not have been a more appropriate handle. O, well I'm glad to be here anyway. Ya'll please excuse me when I post from time to time talking about all this old stuff. LOL!

Best regards!

kin0pic_studio
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
There are lots of guys here who mainly use film and 16mm is a good format.

The talk is mainly digital because video is a cheap easy progression for most film makers; you start shoting on mini-dv and editing on your computer, eventually moving up to HD is logical, it's the way of working you most understand.

I'm 42 myself, well for a couple more days anyway. Film isn't my medium, HD is.

There are, however, some real film experts here. Scott Spears is an excellent cinematographer and Indie (founder of the board) works exclusively on film as well. Sonnyboo is another real film guy, kt is a film woman ... I think you get my point, there's a lot of them.

Welcome to the board.

Oh, and one more thing, there's quite a lot of us "old lads" about as well. It's not all fifteen year old camcorder geeks (not that there is anything wrong with being either 15 or a camcorder geek)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
kin0pic said:
Hello Everyone,

This is my second post, but I wanted it to be my first. I'm sorta 'new' to filmmaking, I shot a few things in video back in the 1970s (when it was horrible to do so) and shot a little Super8 back in the 1980s. I was very much interested in filmmaking in those days but for a variety of reasons I did'nt persue it. Well strange things happen and now at 42 I found I've been bitten by the bug again. I had always wanted to shoot in 16mm, but back in the 1980s 16mm equipment was too cost prohibitive for me, and I am a 'buy it own it' kind of guy, I just did'nt have the nerve to rent equipment.

Anyway, I started seeing 16mm film equipment for sale at prices I could afford on ebay and for the past four or five years now I've been buying cameras and other equipment here and there building up my studio. But now that I've got most of the equipment that I need, I come here to see what other filmmakers are into and after a perusal of these threads I feel something between a dinosaur or maybe Rip Van Winkel. Here's what I'm going to start my production with in the spring of 2006:

FILMING: 16mm cameras; Bolex H-16s (I wound up with a bunch of 'em, but three I paln on using have been up-graded with Som-Berthiot zoom lenses with dogleg finders so at least I will have reflex viewing), a Mauer set up at 60Hz (Pilotone) for sync sound, and a Mitchell 16 (needs servicing probably won't see use in this up-coming project),

SOUND: Nagra set up at 7isp with Sennheiser microphones (one shotgun and one omni) with boom.

EDITING: I got several 16mm viewers, 4 and 6 gang syncronisers, squak boxes, rewinds with long spindles. The creame d'la creame a Moviola AH-77 six plate flatbed editing console (state of the art -- as I remember it anyway). Sound editing consists of a recorder and three deck mixer (make I cannot recall at the moment) that handles 16mm magnetic tape film (or magfilm).

WOW! I thought I was set up pretty decently, but I come here and everyone is talking about DV, HDTV, doing sound in DAT, editing on Avids, PCs, and even Ipods(!??) Am I behind the times or what?! What I need to know I guess is this--> Just how bad in trouble am I really?

I signed on here as Kin0pic, but now I wonder if "Jurassic Filmmaker" or even Rip Van Winkle might not have been a more appropriate handle. O, well I'm glad to be here anyway. Ya'll please excuse me when I post from time to time talking about all this old stuff. LOL!

Best regards!

kin0pic_studio
Click to expand...

Firstly, welcome to indietalk.com! :hi:

Second, let me put your mind at ease. Although you are behind the times by a decade or so, quite obviously films were made using the cameras you bought, sound was recorded with the nagras you have, acquired through boom mics like what you have, and edited on flatbeds like you have - in one way shape or form - since the beginning of film. And I dont know, go back and look at the stuff that came out in the 40-70's... they did some pretty good stuff back then.

As technology and computer has progressed, things have gotten easier. Obviously everything from the cameras themselves which are now on the contemporary models almost entirely computer controlled, to the sound which is recorded digitally, to the film stock itself which computers have helped research to enhance, to the post production process and finally to the projection and distribution process.

In essence, computers and digitization in some way shape or form has taken over most of the industry.

What is done now in post is different and easier than it was before.

Once your film is processed, you then can have your film telecined to view the dailies, this is similar to how labs would quickly do contact prints of films for dailies before.

And of course this has spawned a whole new look at the telecine process. Because technically, once your film has been telecined, the need to remain on film only exists for theatrical distribution. Film festivals now accept entries on DVD and project them digitally, and the DVD market itself is huge. So what many filmmakers are doing at this point, at least in micro-budget or no-budget productions, are simply doing a one-light or best-light telecine process to say, mini-DV tapes or betaSP, and then directly importing them into their computers in a program like Final Cut Pro for Mac, or Adobe Premiere or Sony Vegas for PC. It may seem strange, but the whole process of cutting and splicing negatives is now out the window for many - so long as you remember it isnt really good enough resolution to be picked up for theatrical distribution... its standard definition. AND, you have total control at your computer for editing. AND, you can cut at your own lesiure and not worry about expensive post house sessions.

The next step above this would be called a Digital Intermediate. This is how most large budgeted movies are edited today. Essentially, the films are scanned at HD, 2k, or 4k, and then stored on hard drives at the post house. Now to be honest, this year is the first year you can really get your film scanned at HD resolution and edit it on your own computer (a REALLY beefy computer however). Otherwise, it takes the super high end equipment they have in the post house. Once the DI is done, they laser scan it back to film.

Now cutting neg is still the standard way of editing film and staying on film. Except now, its mostly all controlled in post houses by computers. And there is now a very simple way of cutting neg instead of shifting through reel after reel after reel looking for a scene. With keycode and timecode burns, essentially you have a telecine copy made of your film and take it into your personal computer. You put the clips together however you want in one of those programs I mentioned earlier, then once you're done, you tell the computer to spit out an edit decision list (EDL). You take this EDL to the post house and the magic begins... the appropriate reels matching the keycode are loaded.

But the traditional way of splicing and such will still work, its just much easier to go the route now.

I just shot a short on a Russian made hand wind 100' load k3 camera and am going to do a supervised telecine session Monday. So yeah you can still get the job done even with a hand winder. Would it help to have an ARRI or aaton with 400' mags and crystal sync and everything else? Sure. And I plan to step up to those soon.

Finally, So you dont get scared and think "oh god everyone is shooting in HD or this digital tape stuff!"

No, they're not. Video is still video. Expensive video cameras shot real well comes close to matching the beauty that is film which comes out of my $150 K3 camera.

But thats what they're trying to do, is make cinema with video cameras, and replicate the film look. Thats not to say digital doesn't have some MAJOR advantages.

Digita video, especially Mini-DV, gives aspiring first timers the opportunity to make an entire movie for less than $500 including the camera. The tape stock is like 5 tapes for $20, and they have direct connectability to your PC in the way of firewire port. Edit it digitally, burn a DVD, done.

Also, for documentaries, the ability to shoot on video is priceless. So many times what are they supposed to say "Excuse me folks I know you're rioting here but I need to reload, itll just take a sec, k?" No way. Plus, the cost of film to shoot a doc is rather high. With tape, they can shoot and shoot and shoot and worry about it later. I had a behind the scenes doc filming the production as we shot this 16mm/HD short and the guy shot like 11 hours worth. Thank GOD we have digital video.

But Mini-DV is standard definition. 525 lines.

HD (high def) is 720 lines or 1080 lines. 1080 is roughly similar to 16mm film resolution. And this is what many filmmakers are using now to replicate film in many instances. 24 frames per second, high quality optics... of course the cost of the cameras is rather high so you're more likely to rent than to buy but once again ... you're already digital. And stock is cheap relatively, and there is no processing or telecine or prints to worry about (unless you want to output to film for distribution at the end). But what are you doing? Youre paying just about as much if not more if you should decide to go to film in the end, and you have acquired it in video?

Video tape doesnt burn like celluloid. The light doesnt play with the optics of a video camera the same way as a film camera.

So basically, if I could sum it up, thats sort of whats happening now.

big budgeted features ... 90-95% are shot on film. If a film absolutely demands a huge amount of computer graphics (CGI) or green screen stuff they will shoot either parts of it (like Star Wars EP1-3) or entirely in HD like Sin City. So maybe a dozen or so good HD films will make the theatrical big circuit, A few breakthrough films will be made on 16mm in a year, a lot of foreign stuff will, a small handfull DV films like Open Water and 28 days later will be shot on Mini-DV. Docs - a lot of them will be shot on digital, which I explained above.

Finally, direct to video - just as the VHS market was big for the 80's and 90's, the DVD market is HUGE. So huge, big films might see 10-20% of their total revenue in dvd sales domestically and internationally. Smaller films might see more like 50-100% of their revenue, 100% if they go DTV. Smaller films of less than $1m through good DVD distrobution tactics, might recoup profits well exceeding double the budget of their film.

But thats a discussion for a whole nother time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks to everyone here for the warm welcomes and encouragement! As for working mainly in film, I'm not too worried on the production end, and I've always intended to edit the film myself (the "old way" I guess we might say) from the get go. I guess the only thing that really worries me is on the post production end.

With this feature I have planned for the spring, I intend to do it right. I'm going to go ahead and A & B roll it (although Lenny Lipton wrote of some interesting alternatives to that which I had thought about myself). Of course I'll want a 16mm print, but I'm also thinking about a few 35mm blow-up prints too. Certainly the project will go to vidoe eventually so a Telecine is simply going to happen. Now I'm not sure about where the technology stands today, but I (somehow) was led to believe that by going to Telecine first (ie. getting that good digital transfer) it would make the blowing-up to 35mm much simpler--even knocking out one or two of the intermediate processes that once before were the norm. Is my thinking correct here?

Also I have'nt really delt with film labs before, and I'm guessing that most film labs are set up much differently than they used to be. I just don't want them freaking out when I send them rolls of 16mm film AND Mag-Film (my audio) instead of DAT. Can they still work with MagFilm? Would the transfer between the mediums be too cost prohibitive?

And since I brought up the subject of a film lab, I've been thinking of Metropolis Film Labs in NYC. Anybody ever worked with them before, or have any good recommendations on other film labs? Thanks in advance for any and all advice!

Best regards,

kin0pic_studio
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kin0,

Those of us shooting minidv wish we could be you- we just can't afford it.

I worked on my first 16 mm shoot this summer and fell in love with it. I can't wait till I can buy my first Arri- or K3 for that matter.

Much of what we do on DV is an attempt to mimic film. We 'go hollywood' on camera movement and angles and do anything we can think of to change the depth of field issues and focus pulls.

You are ahead of the game equipment-wise. I think we can all agree on that. Telecine and digital editing will just make the post easier for you.

Welcome and best of luck!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm actually taking a different approach to the whole DV/Film thing...I don't have any aspirations of using film...I'm trying to make video look like really good video, not emulating film - beyond the fact that people have spent the last 100 years making film look great. I'm purely in this as a hobby, which means I get to do everything with what I have at hand. I own my camera and my budget comes from my wife...she's not going to approve thousands of dollars for film and developing, I can barely get away with an 8 pack of DV tapes for $30ish. ;) I don't believe that either format is inherently better than the other, just different. Please present us great stories shot on film...I will attempt to do the same for you on DV!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
don't apologize...your perceptions of it seem very on target. Most videographers are trying to get that "film look". I was trying for that until I studied the limitations of the format and decided that it would be easier to treat it as an entity unto itself. I'm applying information that I've gathered from not only filmmaking sites, but physics sites and photography sites to try to arrive at a look and feel that is cinematic, but not necessarily "filmic". Even with a higher end prosumer camera (Xl1s), I'm still only shooting 8mm movies with the DoF that is inherent to a capture medium of that size. The biggest difference is that I have a smaller contrast range and a different contrast curve. I'm finding what works for me within those parameters. I also don't intend to have to do a film transfer ever...More cinemas are getting dvd based digital projection to try to get more business when the box is waning. I've seen lots of stuff hit the theater that is filmed in 35mm that sucks. I've also seen little tiny box videos on the net that has kept me fascinated by its content and beauty. I think the audience is changing in what they will accept on the screen. I feel like I'm hijacking this thread now...I'll shut up. If anyone has other questions or comments about this topic, let's start a different thread for it.

Personally, I print out things I want to read and absorb. I can't do that digitally, must have hard copy. I understand that with pictures, audio, art, ... et cetera.

Bottom line, don't feel like 16mm is antiquated. I am a computer technician. When my clients ask me if they should upgrade their computers, I notify them that they shouldn't feel compelled to upgrade just because there is the possibility of doing so. They should only upgrade if they can't do everything they want with it. Does 16mm still make movies for you? Can you get the films into festivals on 16mm? When the technology breaks down for you, consider upgrading. If there is a financial reason for it, consider upgrading.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't think you're hi-jacking the thread it's always been a thread about format and the current state of the indie scene.

Personally I agree with you. My preference has always been HD, I've no desire or inclination to work on film and the work I've done on HD hasn't been an attempt to recreate film, it's been to get the best out of the medium I'm working with.

Now, with your help, I've been looking at mini-dv (a format I'd previously written off as a hobby format). I know from my past experience that the next couple of months wil be about gettign to grips with what the format's strengths and weaknesses are, what it does well. Then armed with that knowledge I'll make style choices about the shoot. It makes sense to work with a format rather than constantly kicking against it's weaknesses.

Saying that I understand where Lilith is coming from, there are definate commercial pluses to have a filmic look to any project. Although I think what most people are actually doing is trying to make sure that their film doesn't look like it was shot on a camcorder. Maybe that's something that we'll grow out of as the industry adapts to the new realities of indie filmmaking. More and more I'm coing to the conclusion that format is irrelevant and that a good script, good camera work and good acting are the real keys to good films, everything else is negotiable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hello everyone!

I think that the 'bottom line' for all of us here is to make the 'best' (meaning most satisfying) audio/visual entertainment/experience possible. If we do that with film or video, it's all good. Logically I would agree with the contention to work within the medium you are using-- to know its strengths and weaknesses inside and out and to have FUN doing it.

I remeber in the 1970s when video was all I had on hand to play with (old reel2reel equipment that my high school had purchased), that video was simply awful, mainly in that the picture quality was different and that it tended to 'drag' light. Video has improved SIGNIFICANTLY since those days, and what I've seen some young videographers accomplish with digital has been absolutely astounding to me. Yes, certainly I intend to play with digital equipment--someday, but there will always be a spot in my heart for film as long as they make it.

Not that there are any 'real' signs out there that 'film is dead'. I was just starting to believe that I was slightly hearing the coming death knells for film until I read an article from Kodak company in a recent issue of MovieMaker magazine. The article stated --quite convincingly-- that inspite of all the advances made in digital video, that film was still the most reliable storable medium. I'll dig up the article and post some excerpts from it in a later post.

Mainly my concerns were this: Film and film equipment is what I got and --obviously-- what I have to work with now. I'm all fine with that. I was just wondering if there were many post houses out there that were fine with that too. I'm shooting in 16mm (NOT Super16) and I want at least one 16mm print, and possibly several blow-ups to 35mm (I'm willing to stretch to a 1.85:1 widescreen ratio, but not the wider 'Cinemascope' --what's that aspect ration 2.35:1 ? or what?). Certainly I'll want DVDs (bunches of them), so a transfer to digital is enevitable too. I thought I read somewhere that we could finish to digital in post --first-- then from that make prints in 16mm or even 35mm. Is that true?

Also I don't know about overall expenses, I'm sure film is probably more expensive overall, but here is what info I can offer everyone to help guage the situation on costs overall.

I got several 16mm Bolex cameras, outfitted with zooms with dogleg finders for reflex viewing (I got about 7 or 8 Bolexs altogether but will be using 3 of them in my shoot)

I got the Mauer set up at 60Hz (Pilotone) for sync sound shooting, a Mitchell 16 that I may or may not use this shoot, but certainly will on other projects later on. I got the Nagra and the MagFilm equipment for my sound. Tonight I priced a Smith-Victor lighting kit consisting of three lights for about $125 (I plan on ordering two sets) Plus the various 16mm editing equipment. Now so far after four years of purchasing these items on ebay (some deals great-- some not so great but not that bad either) I got a little over $10,000 in equipment that I own-- so at least I don't have to worry about the responsibilities, time limitations and ect. that come with renting equipment. What would a high end digital set up cost just in rentals for shooting, sound, and editing?

Film cost? Yes, film is pretty expensive with 16mm averaging $0.25 per foot. Yet deals can be found. Recently I got lucky and nabbed 7,600 feet of Fuji 16mm film (250 D & T). This came to me in 19 cans each 400ft, ready to load in the magazines I have for either the Bolexes, the Mauer, or the Mitchell. I got this film for $1,300-- which translates to about $0.17 cents per foot. The film is only six months old and well taken care of. So one might say that so far I got $11,000 into this production before the first frame has been shot--BUT-- I do not count the costs of the cameras and other equipment into THIS production (save for the expenses of servicing them during and after the shoot) as they will be used on other projects as well.

I think we can all fairly agree that cameras, lights, sound and editing equipment are studio expenses, not necessarily countable to a particular production (as they are intended to be used again and again on others as well), so really I've got just $1300 into this particular production so far. Now, I'm just your average ordinary 'working stiff' and I'm no rich man by any stretch of the imagination,so take heart Lilith, if I can find a way to work in film so can you (as a matter of fact Ohio borders Kentucky and we're still looking for any and all help we can get to produce this film in the spring of 2006-- so if you're interested drop us a line).

I really don't know what the expenses are with shooting and producing in HD or other digital/video formats, but simply offer up my own expenses so far to help others guage it all. But again the real 'bottom line' again for all of us here is to make the BEST little movies that we can in whatever formats we happen to be working in.

Best wishes to you all and HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

kin0pic
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Welcome, Kin0pic. My feeling is you have the gear that you need to make movies that can look fabulous no matter your choice of final format. One of the great improvements in the last couple of decades is the quality of high speed 16mm movie film; just about everybody from the ASC pro to the home movie shooter agrees that Kodak 7217 and 7218 are the best things since sliced bread, and are certainly more flexible than older stocks. Also, the quality of telecine transfers has improved steadily, making your film original look better with each passing year. Coupled with the incredibly low price on good used cameras and gear, there has never been a better time to shoot in 16mm.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top