Film or Video? Seeking opinions/advice

Yodaman

Yodaman

So recently, I've been looking into using actual film to shoot a movie my brother and I have been writing for what feels like centuries. Naturally, 8mm would be the way to go, because it's the cheapest and is pretty easy to find online and whatnot. The cameras for 8mm are also fairly cheap.

I've never shot on film before, and I haven't even shot in HD video. If I choose to go with using actual 8mm film (and hopefully get something that looks as good as this video, what would you guys recommend I do to get started and become familiar with shooting on film? Should I even attempt such a thing, or should I go with something like a DSLR and just try to create a "filmic" look?

I really like the idea of using genuine film, though. It'd just be nifty. :D

But, again, I know little about shooting with actual film. I've never even touched the stuff. Can someone point me to educational resources on shooting with actual film?

Or should I just stick with video? That seems to be most peoples' advice these days.

Thanks to any and all who respond!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
The learning curve for video is shorter than for Super 8, because you can edit and process and correct video instantly while you have to wait for Super 8 reels to process. Plus with video, you can shoot for hours and hours and hours while with Super 8 you're limited to your 3 minute cartridge.

In any case, the best advice I could give to familiarize yourself with both media is to get out there and shoot. Start shooting lots and lots and lots. Shoot under different lighting conditions, set up lights on your own. Review, review, review. Alter your technique. Shoot, shoot, shoot.

With video, your shooting experiments will be easy to digest...take a look at your stuff right away and figure out what settings you used to achieve those goals.

It's a little more difficult with film, because you'll have to wait to see what your results are. Take copious notes of your camera settings. Utilize your notes when you get your film back from the processor to compare what you achieved with what you utilized.

I encourage you to experiment with both methods...shoot, shoot, shoot. Rinse, repeat.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Go video all the way. Film is a dying art. I know folks hate to hear that but with digital sweeping in and creating a film look with less on costs, it's just going to happen. Why learn how to operate a tape deck when you can use an MP3 player.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Film, even super 8, is going strong. There are and always will be
the "film is dying" people, but there are and always will be
people shooting on film.

Yodaman, if you like the idea of using genuine film, super 8 is
the place to start. The learning curve is greater - you need to
learn more about exposure and lighting - than video but learning
is never a bad thing. And the principles of exposure and lighting
can be used when shooting video.

I think you will find that the younger people will warn against
film. It IS more difficult. And the older people will say shooting
film can be a viable aesthetic choice. What YOU choose is going to
be a very personal decision.

I recently convinced the producers of my next film (who
desperately wanted to shoot with the DSLR) to let me shoot super
8. It's the look I think will be better for the project.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yodaman said:
I really like the idea of using genuine film, though. It'd just be nifty. :D
Click to expand...

That's as good a reason as any to shoot 8 :cool:

Also, chicks dig it.
Well... I keep telling myself that.
:mope:

You'll learn a lot about discipline, for sure, that will always be valuable later on.

You wanna shoot on film? Just do it. You don't need our permission. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for the advice everyone, and sorry for not getting back to this thread earlier. I had a bit of a busy weekend.

I think for now, I'll stick to video because it's what I can afford. I know that I definitely will shoot on film at least once in my life though (probably more), and super 8 will be a great place to start.

Next question: Will different 8mm cameras (of the prosumer variety) give the film a different look? I ask this because there's different videos of 8mm footage floating around the internet, they all look different (some really good, others...well, look like crap), and they all use a different camera. The same seems to be somewhat true for video cameras, so I wonder if it's applicable to film cameras as well.

Thanks!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yodaman said:
Next question: Will different 8mm cameras (of the prosumer variety) give the film a different look? I ask this because there's different videos of 8mm footage floating around the internet, they all look different (some really good, others...well, look like crap), and they all use a different camera. The same seems to be somewhat true for video cameras, so I wonder if it's applicable to film cameras as well.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

As with just about every aspect of movie making the skill,
knowledge and experience of the people involved are a big part of
making the image look good. A camera with an excellent lens will
give a better image than one with a poor lens, but the people
using it make a difference, too.

Film fades. Some of the super 8 footage you see may be 30/40 years
old. Some may have been transfered to digital poorly. Some
footage may have been exposed poorly. The camera alone isn't what
makes the footage look good or like crap.

The term "prosumer" really doesn't apply to super 8 cameras. It
certainly was never used during the heyday of super 8 (1970-1985).
The super 8 cameras were never considered "professional" (the
"pro" on prosumer) cameras. Not to say there are not same amazing
super 8 cameras. Canon, Bolex, Bauer, Nizo, Minolta, Beaulieu, and
Sankyo made fine super 8 cameras.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
learnfilmonline said:
Go video all the way. Film is a dying art. I know folks hate to hear that but with digital sweeping in and creating a film look with less on costs, it's just going to happen. Why learn how to operate a tape deck when you can use an MP3 player.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Yeah, why build a set when it can all be CGI? With CGI these days it can almost look real. That's good enough for me. And while you're at it throw all your paint and paint brushes away. Everything can be done on the computer now. Why pick up a paint brush when you can click a mouse? Newer technology is always better because it's newer. Film is so 1900's.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
As with just about every aspect of movie making the skill,
knowledge and experience of the people involved are a big part of
making the image look good. A camera with an excellent lens will
give a better image than one with a poor lens, but the people
using it make a difference, too.

Film fades. Some of the super 8 footage you see may be 30/40 years
old. Some may have been transfered to digital poorly. Some
footage may have been exposed poorly. The camera alone isn't what
makes the footage look good or like crap.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I figured. I just wondered if it was at all like video cameras, and how one more expensive camera might produce a better image than a less expensive one. Sounds like with film, though, that it's pretty much the same (save for the lens quality and the people using the camera).

Yeah, why build a set when it can all be CGI? With CGI these days it can almost look real. That's good enough for me. And while you're at it throw all your paint and paint brushes away. Everything can be done on the computer now. Why pick up a paint brush when you can click a mouse? Newer technology is always better because it's newer. Film is so 1900's.
Click to expand...

Ah, sarcasm...:P
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top