Does anyone remember film?

[fearmaker]

stalkersrage said:

I would love to be able to shoot on 16mm, but alas, our funds are very limited.:-

I recently produced a short film adapted from a Stephen King story. The director had planned to shoot on the XL-2 using the 35mm adapter rig to give him more range to make it look a little less like video. After talking to the DP, we convinced him to shoot it on Super 8mm film instead without increasing any costs over miniDV. The shoot was very tight but we did accomplish it and the lab said it was some of the best stuff they'd seen in nearly a year. Now Kodak is planning to do a story on the piece, interviewing the DP about the choice of Super 8mm over DV. I've seen all the footage, it looks really good, especially for the genre.

I think video has it's place and I wouldn't be convinced that 8mm film is always a better option than miniDV, but in this case it seemed to be the right choice.

[Randy Robinson]

About how much should someone expect to spend shooting on Super 8MM? I mean with the costs of equipment, film and developing.

Also, does anyone have any video samples of something shot on Super 8MM?

[fearmaker]

Bare said:

About how much should someone expect to spend shooting on Super 8MM? I mean with the costs of equipment, film and developing.

Also, does anyone have any video samples of something shot on Super 8MM?

You can see samples of Super 8 at www.pro8mm.com. Most of the demos look like old home movie stuff, but we did much of our work on a dolly, not handheld, and used HMIs to light the scenes. I think that gave us a much nicer result.

The short cost about $1300 in film, processing and telecine. That got us about an hour of footage. Compared to the mini35 mount and half rack of lenses, it was actually cheaper. Our camera costs were minimal since we had a few connections, but I'd imagine you could rent a camera for about $100-$200 per day, comparable to what the XL-2 alone would rent for.

[stalkersrage]

fearmaker said:

I recently produced a short film adapted from a Stephen King story.

what story? Just curious...

[fearmaker]

stalkersrage said:

what story? Just curious...

It is called Sorry, Right Number. It was produced for Tales from the Darkside the series and appeared in one of King's collection of short stories.

[HailtotheKing]

Nothing beats film that's for sure. I've just gotten my first roll of 16mm B&W processed and it should be here Saturday. Can't wait to see how it came out. It is more expensive, but I think it shows that your serious about what your doing and your on a more pro level as well.

Super8 is alot cheaper....9.00 a cart for color! and about 9 to process it. If you want to shoot film, atleast start with Super 8 to start learning all the ins and outs of film. It's alot different than any "video" format.

[Servomoore]

Bah, film (when on set or location) is dead. It's just taking a really long time for it to decompose (just like theater.)

[fearmaker]

A producer with a $1.8M budget wanted to shoot on HD. I asked him why not shoot 35mm and he said the same thing, "film is dead".

Two different sales agents told me that the market is so saturated with digital product that movies shot on film are getting top dollar over most things shot on HD. One said, in the foreign market 16mm is going to win (over HD) hands down.

Take it for what it's worth, but we're planning to shoot our next project 16mm for the same budget we planned to shoot it on HD. It can be done.

[tuckertron]

i have a 8mm camera but ive only used it in 1 short. i hate to say it but i actually like video. i mean if i had access to a like a nice 16 or 35mm camera or something i would jump at my chance but i get along with video just fine.
It does just have to do with lighting.you can make a dv movie look excellent if you have the right lighting. the only thing i dont like about video is the frame speed. i like the smoother look of 24fps that film has but thats where the new 24fps HD cameras come in.

[Retro]

Y'all..... the stone tablet beats them all. ;D

[mandor700]

70mm IMAX all the way! I use it for all my home horror needs!
But realisticly I don't think film is really so important these days, tho still better. I'm waiting for a low cost frame by frame dv camera, then I'll be happy.

[herbertwest]

I am shooting my first project on HD next year. I have seen the cameras and they look magnificent at 24p 1080 by 1720 res0olution. The movie is in black and white and it will look like SIN CITY. Film doesn't have to look perfect and many b/w film projects look as crystal clear as HD. Plus, there is a lot in post that can make 24p look like film. After Effects is your best friend.

Also, film scratches and noise and stutters aren't necessary to hide the video look. In fact, they make it look crummy and just as fake.

What you need to change in video to imitate the film look:

1) The interlacing flicker. Apply a deinterlacing filter or a 1-4 percent blur to make this filter less obvious.
2) Interpolated fields. If you're doing slo-motion shots in video, set the Avid to interpolate the fields. This means the Avid "fills in" the blank space between slowed down frames to make the image look like it was shot on film overcranked.
3) 24 frames, not 30. This is obvious.
4) Contrast. Film has higher contrast than video, expecially obvious in black and white. Adjust the contrast and brightness so darks and lights are less discernible.
5) Sound. A dead giveaway for an XL-1 or a DVCAM is the crappy omnidirectional microphone. If the picture looks like film, but sounds like video, the illusion is moot. Get a good soundman with his own nagra or lavs.