|
|
Post by Dr. Phibes on Jun 6, 2004 18:30:56 GMT -5
I see a big thread on the Canon XL-1, hear all about Mini-DV recorders and even (God save us) VHS cameras being used for low-budget indie productions as though it's some sort of virtue. I hear indie filmmakers speak of video as liberating creatively, as well. The only thing it liberates you from is cost, in my opinion.
I shot my feature, BIOPHAGE, on 16mm B&W. Admittedly, it was a whole lot more expensive than video. The camera cost me a bit, as did the filmstock and lab fees, but the results, even in black and white, so far outshined the results I would have had on video that it was well worth the expense. Not only are the results better aestethically on film, but it bumped the production into the "take me seriously" catagory.
My question: does anyone here use film for their productions?
|
|
|
|
Post by SlowLearner on Jun 7, 2004 19:00:11 GMT -5
I would love to, but cost is ultimately the greatest limiter of all.
|
|
|
|
Post by astralpictures on Jun 14, 2004 7:47:23 GMT -5
We shoot solely on super8 at the moment.
I love the look of it and the feeling I get working with the format.
It's a pretty cheap way to shoot on film too.
|
|
|
|
Post by ScottSpears on Jun 15, 2004 10:12:01 GMT -5
I love film. If you can afford it I recommend you try it because distributors will give your movie a second looks. They have been overwhelmed by so many bad shot on video movies that film product has an edge. Again, shoot film if you can afford it.
I'd say you need at least $25,000 to shoot 16mm. Super-8 is another question, I'd guess you might be able to pull it off for $15,000 or under. These figure all depend on the deals you cut and who gets paid or not paid.
Scott
|
|
EDM
john Q. Director
Posts: 7
|
Post by EDM on Jun 18, 2004 15:11:04 GMT -5
I actually hate video, thats why im shooting my film on super 8. right now its all i have the money for. but i love the look of it. itl fit prefectly for the films atmosphere. film, super 8 and 16mm , all depending on what stock and what method of having it processed and transfered, can be alot cheaper than dv, if you dont own a camera yet. at least for a film like mine, no one being paid and the film processing and transfers are about 75% of what the money for the film will and is being spent on. its definatly worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrawlingKaos on Jun 27, 2004 18:18:51 GMT -5
well, i'm a total novice so I could always be wrong. for artistic reasons, I understand why one would choose film over video. 35 mm anyway. Mainly due to tradition I believe. But if you are talking about technical quality, wouldn't one prefer digital video or miini-dv over super 8? Do you guys really think there is an advantage to 8mm film?
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Jun 28, 2004 0:28:23 GMT -5
Super 8mm film is still a viable format, and with the new faster stocks it can give you a lot more latitude that the old 40asa prepaid stuff  Especially if you have a nice camera, like a Nizo or a Bauer. I have shot a great deal of super 8 over the years, and I'd have to say that it can give you some really nice imagery, especially if you are working in the horror genre, as the grain and other qualities of the format really help with the atmosphere. Obviously, there are some excellent post-production tools available to make dv look like super 8, but you can't beat shooting the real thing When it comes to feature films, I'd shoot film (16mm or 35mm) every time if I could afford it, there is really no comparision with digital at the moment. Especially as it's easier to get deals and find equipment for film shoots, unlike HD, which is currently just too expensive and difficult to get for what I call a 'low budget' rate  |
|
|
|
Post by Randy Robinson on Jun 28, 2004 12:32:59 GMT -5
I would love to use film, but at the time I am using MiniDV. But trust me, if I had the budget I would be using film!
How exactly would you make MiniDV look like Super8, AJ?
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Jun 28, 2004 23:52:32 GMT -5
|
|
EDM
john Q. Director
Posts: 7
|
Post by EDM on Jul 2, 2004 10:36:34 GMT -5
I think the only way to really make anything look like film, is to use film. depending on the stock and lighting, super 8 can almost look as good as 16mm. ive always liked the raw look super 8 (and 16mm) has. any kind of film actually has better resoluction than video, even DV. Though im not positive about these new 24 fps dvs and also HD. its been used in a good amount of hollywood films as well, not alone of course. if you want any info on small gauge film check out www.8mm.filmshooting.com |
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Jul 3, 2004 4:48:15 GMT -5
Actually I'd disagree with you there EDM. The modern 'film effect' filters can do a great job of simulating the grain and stutter of 8mm, in fact, you will find that nine times out of ten, when you see a super 8mm sequence on TV, it is actually just broadcast quality footage with an avid filter over it.
I know, I've seen it done ;D
I love super 8, and I have owned many different cameras over the years, in fact I often shoot a roll or two whenever I am on holiday. However, super 8 is still more expensive than shooting MiniDV, and if you can't afford to shoot even super 8, but you want to get the raw look, software is your only answer.
Now, obviously there is little doubt that 'proper' film, that is to say, 24fps, sound sync 16mm or 35mm is way above the quality of DV or even HD (although HD does look very nice, and I'm sure that the avarage viewer cannot tell the difference). I wouldn't describe 16mm as a 'raw' format, unless you are shooting with a clockwork bolex or something. Shoot a low grain stock, and it will be perfectly good, no different from 35mm. Look at something like 'Lock Stock' if you need an example.
Unfortunately, most of us cannot afford to shoot off twenty rolls of film for a low budget feature, even if we have the equipment, I know that I certainly won't be able to shoot anything major with my arri in the forseeable future.
Carefully shot video can be made to look very good indeed, and the latest 'film-look' technology can make it look even better, very close to film, and certainly good enough to stand up to anything that you see on TV.
It's all in how you shoot it. There is no magic software to take garbage and turn it into a beautiful looking image, regardless of originating format.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randy Robinson on Dec 30, 2004 22:32:03 GMT -5
I recently had the chance to work with 16mm film. It was great. Really a lot different then video with the whole set up process. The lighting has to be different and everything. It's a lot of hard work but it is worth it if you can afford it. I just met the right people - lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by ExcelsiorKings on Jan 2, 2005 9:26:12 GMT -5
QUOTE:
"I recently had the chance to work with 16mm film. It was great. Really a lot different then video with the whole set up process. The lighting has to be different and everything"
Lighting for video I find actually harder than for negative film because of the limited resolution of the medium, clipping and creating noise on warmer pallettes. On film you've got the latitude to do anything. Actually, shooting video is argued to be more like shooting reversal stock (well, that is if you WANT to expose for highlights and avoid clipping).
As far as I am concerned, the technology shouldn't matter- it's the lighting, choice of exposure and composition that should be the top priorities and nothing else.
Having said that however, I am very pro-video.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrawlingKaos on Feb 14, 2005 1:10:15 GMT -5
i just read something about it in the horrorfind baords
|
|
|
|
Post by stalkersrage on Feb 18, 2005 11:54:46 GMT -5
I would love to be able to shoot on 16mm, but alas, our funds are very limited.  We use an 8mm video camera, and the quality is decent, especially for the look of the horror genre. Anything we want (basically) can be done afterwards on the computer during editing anyway, so this helps to keep costs down. Also, shooting video helps keep developing costs to, well, basically zero, so for us EXTREMELY low budget guys, video is our savior. |
|
We use an 8mm video camera, and the quality is decent, especially for the look of the horror genre. Anything we want (basically) can be done afterwards on the computer during editing anyway, so this helps to keep costs down.