Some Advice Please

4

45thronin

Hello,

I am a screen writer, and am going to venture out and film my first film short. The question I have is regarding shooting in 16mm film. For me, I like the look of film. I was first thinking of shooting my film (about 20 mins in length) in digital. So I was thinking of using the Canon XLS with the mini35 lens adapter to get the depth of field film look. However, I can't stand the look of digital. I love the texture that film has, and have always loved the film look. Plus, I am going to be submitting my film to the festivals next year, and want this look for my film.

So, I've decided to go with 16mm. However, I know nothing about shooting in film. I know nothing about film camera's, nor do I know jack about syncing the sound with the film afterwards. What I DO know, is computer graphics. I have been a graphic and multimedia designer for over 10 years. So I know that I can shoot in 16mm, and have it converted to digital tape, which I can download to my computer, and do whatever the hec I want to it once it gets in there. The question there is, if I elicit the help of a cinematographer, would I just rely on the cinematographer to take care of the shooting of the film?

So, I have a plethora of questions regarding if I should just purchase a second hand 16mm movie camera? Rent the equipment? Or what? Any advise anyone may have with how I should approach this, would be extremely helpful.

Along with my design background, I am a trained Actor and writer, and did go to school for television broadcasting. However, again working in broadcasting is not film. So I have acted in film, and have the front end experience, but never produced one on my own.

Ok, fire away. :cool:

Thanks so much for the help!!

-45thronin
 
Do you have any filmmaker friends who might want to work on your project? Since you are in Manhattan, aren't you tripping over filmmakers? :D

Having some background in broadcast production myself, I do know that broadcast is not film, however, sometimes there are alot of frustrated film people there. Maybe you are on good terms with one or two....

-- spinner :cool:
 
45thronin said:
The question there is, if I elicit the help of a cinematographer, would I just rely on the cinematographer to take care of the shooting of the film?

So, I have a plethora of questions regarding if I should just purchase a second hand 16mm movie camera? Rent the equipment? Or what?
Click to expand...

For the most part, you are going to rely on the cinematographer to handle the camera dept for you. And he'll probably bring in people he knows as loaders and operators as well.

I'd also recommend someone versed in film-->video post to handle the post production process. It's not that difficult but the first time out you'll need someone who know what they're doing.

And you should definitely rent the equipment, which would probably be the case whether you're shooting film OR video.
 
I'd be mighty careful about shooting the first project on film versus digitally. While I can understand how you appreciate the look of film more, the cost difference can be staggering, especially on a first project.

If you insist on shooting film your first time out, I'd highly recommend handing over control of the production to a director and cinematographer who have shot film before. Otherwise I would be surprised if you didn't end up burning through a lot of film with extra takes, or settling on less than stellar takes to save film.

That's my $.02, and for what it's worth, I much rather prefer the look of film myself, but have not shot anything on film for the reasons I've listed here.
 
Thanks everyone for the advice, very much appreciated!!

It's interesting. As an actor and writer, you would think I would know more directors, etc. But you'd be surprised how separate the two worlds are. Actors are treated as a tool. You come in and do the job, and then leave. Period. You almost never have to interact with the backroom production. Which is why doing this project is going to be a challenge to say the least. As an actor, I'm given the script, learn my lines, go to rehearsals, and then shoot and go home. Done. I don't have to worry about the equipment, timelines with shooting, budget, etc. So I totally agree with what you are saying Will, regarding shooting in Digital versus film. But I kind of look at this as an adventure. I figure, you only live once right (at least, that we know of anyway), and I would like to go through the process to learn it anyway, so why not just jump in.

I also agree with you Beeblebrox. I think I might have to just find a really good cinematographer (as best I can find with my limited budget), and let them handle the film. I didn't want to say this, as I'm sure you all will love this part, but not only have I wrote the screenplay, but I am also playing one of the lead roles (2 person short), AND directing the film. I have never done crack or cocaine, but a friend of mine said I might want to start. It may help with my sanity. But you know, the reason why I want to direct it, is I know how I want it shot. I don't want to have to deal with a director and with what his/her vision of MY story is. I haven't been able to get past that. And as for acting, I just love acting, and must say from what people tell me, I'm pretty good.

So! This is my quandary.

Thoughts?

-45thronin
 
Last edited:
That's what I'm going to have to figure out. With the cost of the film, processing, equipment rentals, etc. I'll probably HAVE to shoot digital. But I want to at least investigate it and see.

Thanks again for the comments/suggestions. Most appreciated!!

Cheers!
 
Don't throw money into film if it's your first movie. I'd go so far as to say don't bother making it for film festivals (instead, do it for YOU)... otherwise you'll put so much strain on yourself and your crew mentally; you'll have to make sure every shot is perfect, time will run out at locations, yadda yadda.
Long story short, just find the bare essentials for your film in regards to crew, cast and equipment, and shoot it rough and dirty. The amount of data you will learn in this process will make it all worthwhile. At the end, throw away any ego and confidence that are must-haves for actors and be objective... you'll probably discover that outside of the crew/cast and immediate family, no one else will care to watch your film (unless you ARE a prodigal genius) and it will die on the internet or some dark basement... however, the lessons afforded during shooting that film will be applied to your next film, which you will now have the confidence and knowledge to up the stakes and move to film...

I started out just acting and writing as well, and the leap to Director/Producer/Editor was like a completely different mentality and skill set. You don't think about things like... hard drive space for footage when editing, and shit like that. Those little things can only come from hands-on experience, and for that, you gotta be prepared to junk your first few films (as far as festivals and commercial value are concerned).
That's my input, but you do your thing. There's a million and one ways to take a shit, but if you want it to hit the water, it's all gotta go through the same assholes in the end... unless you carve your own, but suddenly this metaphor has taken a wrong turn, and I need to get back to writing like a maniac... ugh... sorry.
 
I see nothing wrong with making your short on film.

My advice is the same as spinner's, Beeblebrox and Will's - find
an experienced DP to handle that aspect. You're right, directors
see actors as tools. They also see the DP as a tool. Along with
every other crew member. Not too many directors also choose and
clean the costumes or apply the make-up or fix the meals. They
bring on other people to do that. As the writer, director and
actor you should learn to use the skills, talent and experience of
good people to help you get your movie made.

The answer is, yes. You would rely on the cinematographer to take
care of shooting the film. Just as you would rely on the make-up
artist to apply the make up and the caterer to prepare the food.
 
Ahh Spat, only you could take this discussion there.. haha.. :D

You make a good argument though, and I'd strongly suggest 45thronin to listen.

My first short was supposed to be shot on super8, due to time and budget concerns we shot digital (STANDARD DEFINITION) and I still spent over $2k (without buying a camera or lighting, etc) between rentals, costuming, etc.. and we didn't get the coverage needed to cut the thing together. AND my best footage is trash, because there is water on the lens -- that's with digital. Imagine my horror if it would have been that way with film, no clue until after I'd paid for processing (and probably transfer too)

You'd really do well to shoot a number of smallish projects on video to really get your head around the skills involved in the production of a film. I felt the same way you are feeling when I jumped in, and all I can say is I'm glad I didn't shoot that project on film or I would have wasted much more than the $2k I did. I've also since realized that I'm not a director -- I'm an alright producer, but my real fortay is FX work -- practical FX primarily, and technical direction.
 
45thronin said:
That's what I'm going to have to figure out. With the cost of the film, processing, equipment rentals, etc. I'll probably HAVE to shoot digital. But I want to at least investigate it and see.
Click to expand...

...well, before you start spending money that you can and will need to use elsewhere, the thing about digital video is that you do have that instant gratification of going from rewinding your tape, taking the tape out of the camera, capturing it and being able to edit in a matter of...minutes, hours? No processing, just start editing. Plus, if you have to, you can just black (erase) your tape and start over if you need to. Can't do that with film.

Also, don't fall into the 'format' trap that alot of new people do. The film vs. video thing. Regardless of what side you come down on, ultimately the final test is how your production is presented. You can make video look like film (sorta) but you can't really fake yourself through a badly written, shot or executed production. (we'll assume that you are the next Speilberg for the sake of argument :lol: )

What I really am pushing here is the convenience and relative inexpensive aspects of video in terms of a person who is just starting out. An adventure is great, but you don't want to end up too much in debt....and I know from whence I speak! :yes:

...and I agree with Spatula. Make the film because you really want to, not for the festivals. Make sure you learn all you can from what you are doing, because you don't always get right into festivals....luck!

-- spinner :cool:
 
Yup, the crappiest looking video with a good story driving it is far more watchable than the best looking celluloid with a severe lack of story (can think of a few, but I won't name any titles..)
 
hey man!! my suggestion is not to buy but rent equipment. its gonna be too expensive i guess. there are lots of books out there to use as a resource. its better to put together a team to take care of each department like audio, lighting AND ETC.. cuz you'll save some more time that way.. energy is focused.. more efficient..
 
I think if he's decided to shoot film and can afford it, more power to him. PERSONALLY, I'd shoot it digitally, HD if possible but even shooting on the DVX-100 yields impressive results. It's WAY cheaper and looks as good as film, IMO.

Also, I'm not so sure I agree with setting one's sights low on the first time out (or "realistically" as some might argue). I completely understand the point, and I would advice not putting all one's eggs in one basket. But that said, aim for the moon and hope you get at least half-way there. I've known people who hit it out of the park the first time out and people who've never reached base after numerous tries. You just never know but you should ALWAYS do your absolute best work with the resources available.
 
I don't think anyone is really saying to not do the best work possible, but rather we are suggesting to use the resources available in the smartest way.

In that I mean that if someone were to spend a lot of money just to shoot on film, when that money could be spent on other aspects of the production and potentially yield a better result, it would be foolish. If the end result weren't up to the expectations it's possible that it would make that person so jaded toward the entire process that they would never try again.

The bottom line: Use your resources the most intelligent way you can. ie, hire/recruit the best people for cast and crew you can, and budget the production in the way that best suits the story. If that means the entire budget goes into rental fees, film stock, processing, transfer, etc and nothing is spent on locations, crew, props, etc -- so be it.
 
You guys are awesome! Thank you all for your input, I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.

I have already had two producers who were very interested in my short which is kind of how this whole project got started. However they did not have the funds to really do what they wanted to do. The budget would have been about $25k. But the two producers were literally professional producers, and if you saw my story, it just doesn't need that much put into it. That's where I agree with Spatula regarding just doing what I have to do to get it shot, and let the story do what it's written to do. I'm actually really comfortable with that.

Regarding film vs. digital, the fear of stumbling through wasting film and having to deal with all the pricing regarding the process is daunting to say the least. Digital would definitely be the smartest way to go cost wise, especially because I really don't have the funds to do that. Although, I purposefully wrote this short to be a low budget/no budget film. It's set in a park, and in an office. That's it. I wrote the story so I didn't have to worry about sets, wardrobe, ext. Here is the link to my website which gives a description to my project. This is also the place I will be featuring it when all is said and done next year. So please feel free to check in, as I would LOVE to hear your feedback. I will be putting up a feedback/reviews area to read comments on the film (www.oneclickfilms.com).

And you're right Spatula, this project is for me. I love writing my stories, and am consistantly amazed when people share their interest and appreciation for my stories and writing. I am a perfectionist with my work, so I have to find a way of finding a compromise within myself regarding what I'm willing to settle with in this process. Because you are right, I can't do everything. And I don't want to do everything. But I do know what I'm looking for, and will do whatever I have to to get it with regards to how I want to communicate this story.

I do love the film texture vs. digital. I always have. That's one of the things I'm going to have to come to terms with, because it will dictate much of the cost. But you also make an extremely great point, that if the story is good and is communicated effectively, that's all that matters. And I agree. I (as I'm sure we've all) have seen shitty movies done in film, and brilliant work done in video. Story is everything to me. So I appreciate you saying that. I will have to sit with that and see how I feel in relation to what I have in my head for what I wanted it too look like.

But again, at the end of the day, there are so many other things to worry about than going back and forth with film vs. digital. Like the actual production, scheduling, rehearsals, casting, blah-blah-blah. And seeing as though this is my first project, why beat myself up in the first go round. But I have so many other projects that people in the industry seem to be responding to story wise, that I just want to put my best foot forward, so that I can get the backing to do some of my bigger budgeted projects.

So, I guess time will tell.

By the way, I love this forum. You guys have been really great. I needed a place to get some feedback with this stuff, and so far it's been great. Thanks again!

-45thronin
 
Last edited:
I'm in the same boat you're in, just starting out and going through the paces. I, too, have already written a short script. For production, I am sticking with what I know for now, and that's computers (20 years in the industry, 10 specializing in graphics hardware). I also love the film look, and there are several tools and techniques out there to achieve it with DV or HDV. Although not perfect because of dynamic range limitations of DV, I'm finding you can get pretty close. I have my eye on Magic Bullet, but I already own the Adobe Production Studio. One of the best books I've read so far (actually, am still reading, recommended to me on this forum by Clive) is The DV rebel's Guide because it deals directly with the resources I have at my disposal to create my film.

I figured that by the time I invested in film cameras and film processing, I would've blown my budget and still would've needed to invest in post production tools. I'd rather blow my budget on things I can use over and over again until I've completed my training and gathered some experience, and then strike out into actual film when I have something to show potential investors/collaborators.
 
I just ordered the DV Rebels Guide this weekend.. been reading through the authors blog.

It is true that the dynamic range of dv is more limiting than film, but if you shoot your footage in an intelligent manner you can effectively get the same kind of range out of it. The key is to not let anything over expose, or let any of your shadows become too dark to contain any data. Then you can do some significant grading in post and have outstanding footage as a result. As I have read, that kind of info should be in that book. ;)
 
Yes, I've looked into Magic Bullet as well. I also must agree, I would rather purchase items that I can use again for future projects. Renting just does nothing for me. I would rather purchase an older 16mm or Super 16mm camera, and rough it from there. My whole goal here is cheap. Cheap enough, but enough to get what I'm looking for regarding the vision I have in my head.

I will pick up DV Rebels, good suggestion Will. And yes, making sure you're shot choices are well thought out and executed support what the final product. That's an excellent point by the way, are the issues with exposure regarding digital. That's one of the biggest issue's (aside from the look), that I have with video. You really have to be on your game. The only saving grace, is if it's not done right, you can easily do it again, for pennies. Where as film is, well film.

Here's a question. If I COULD find an inexpensive 16mm or Super 16mm (which is preferred) camera, would it be worth the investment?
 
The main cost involved in shooting on film is the film stock, processing, and transfer (assuming you're going to edit digitally) costs.

Lets do some basic math here.. about the cheapest you'll find 16mm film stock is $16 per 100' re-canned roll.

Not counting leader and tail lengths that will be unusable, that 100' will get you roughly 2 3/4 minutes of footage at 24fps. For processing and transfer, figure somewhere between $.50 and $1.00 per foot, so that's at least another $50, but lets be ultra generous and say you find a smoking deal and get it for half price.. so now between film stock, processing, and transfer to digital you're sitting at about $40 per 2 1/2 minutes of footage.

Lets assume you're shooting a 5 minute short film. For the sake of this scenario lets say you're able to achieve a 6:1 shooting ratio. So, you'll shoot 30 minutes of footage to cut down to that 5 minute short (this is a very conservative estimate). That puts you at just under $500 for your film stock, processing, and transfer. Of course that's not including shipping charges, extra fees the lab charges for processing and transfer, etc..

But, $500 for 30 minutes of footage. On the other hand, you could get twice that amount of footage for about $10 on a very high quality tape (or $5 if you buy the nice bargain maxell tapes like I do) and you'd have the rest of that $500 to put into food for your cast/crew, renting extra lights and grip equipment, fully outfitting your locations, etc..

Now I realize not all of that extra stuff applies to your short that takes place in the park, but it should be pretty clear that film is significantly more expensive than video.

That said, I still appreciate the look of film... And I agree that if it serves the project, and it's in the budget it's worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top