Film Out Transfer?

[Christopher.Gros]

Hey guys, I'm new to the boards here and I want to say that this website is extremely helpful! Bear with me, my post is a little long.


I have a question about a project I'm going to be starting on soon.

I planned to shoot my film digitally, and edit it myself etc. It's low budget (under $1000), and I plan on renting my camera and building my own track/dolly and jib. Anyway, the whole project was going to be entered into a few festivals next year. As some of you may know, most festivals will accept dvd submissions for viewing, but as far as screening purposes, they expect an actual film format or betacam. Is it possible to convert a digital format to film? Ive heard that the process is called film out and I've only found a couple of websites that offer such a service but charge $150-200 per minute of transfer...does this seem legit?

I'd love to shoot 16mm film, but I'm a complete noob when it comes to film. Would it be possible (and less expensive) to shoot on an inexpensive 16mm camera and splice the film together myself once it's developed?

If anyone can offer some tips or point me in the direction for further reading about shooting and editing film and that whole deal, I would love to learn more. Sorry for the long post guys, and I appreciate the help!

 

[mus]

Dirty little secret no one talks about is that while nearly all festivals offer digital projection of some kind, the quality of their video projectors tends to be bad/the people they have using the projectors don’t tend to know how to use/calibrate them.

 

[Zensteve]

As some of you may know, most festivals will accept dvd submissions for viewing, but as far as screening purposes, they expect an actual film format or betacam.

Very few festivals expect an actual film print, these days.

Is it possible to convert a digital format to film?

Yes, and if your budget is the aforementioned $1000 - prolly aint gonna happen.

Especially if you're anticipating getting accepted into several filmfests requiring a film print. How many prints you gonna need?

Would it be possible (and less expensive) to shoot on an inexpensive 16mm camera and splice the film together myself once it's developed?

It would be possible, but almost certainly not less expensive.

After you've shot your 16mm (and had it developed), it needs to be transferred to a digital medium to edit... unless you plan on cutting the edit with the real film itself. Then get the sound (recordered separately) figured out. Then back to the lab for a master print... from which you can make other prints, I 'spose.

 

[jax_rox]

I would think it would almost be cheaper to transfer your film to Beta or HDCAM than to film.

You could shoot pretty damn inexpensively on S16mm, and it would look great, but it would be extra money in the process/telecine(or DI), plus S16mm, whilst being film, can't actually be projected unless the theatre has a 16mm projector - and very few, if any do. So you'd still need to pay for a blow-up and positive print.

For $1000, you'd struggle to get a transfer of a film longer than ~15 minutes to Beta, let alone rent a camera, buy film stock, rent lenses, get a film print, or even rent a digital camera package - I don't know what you plan to shoot on, but even an EX1 with a certain amount of accessories and sound kit for a week of rental would almost get you to the $1000 mark.

 

[Shanked]

Huge Decision, eh?

A good number of festivals are allowing you to bring a Blu Ray disc and they'll project your film via Blu Ray. I'm not sure about the math, but the pixel count is something like 9 times larger. So, obviously, there is less magnifying needed. So therefore your image will look pretty nice. It's a true representation of your HD footage, after all. So one question is: do you have the means of burning Blu Ray in your post production process?

Unless you're in the top tier festivals, you're gonna be in situations with really low quality projections. When you're working on low budget stuff, it's actually one of the most horrifying things in the world to watch your movie on the big screen in a crowded theater and see how bad certain shots look when they're huge. I know that statement doesn't help you. But I'm just telling you, it's painful. I mean... this one festival... a few years ago... on one of my more humbling pieces of filmmaking... I was in the back of the theater literally chewing a hole in my jacket sleeve in pure agony.

You can't afford 16mm for a $1000 budget. Even if you cut every corner imaginable. So the question is: what digital camera were you thinking of? If you can give out the info, that may help.

If you ultimately get stuck with a low-end camera and a low-end medium of festival exhibition, then you need to do a really good job in production. You need to follow the basics of shooting video:

1) avoid having a huge range of f-stops in any one shot
2) avoid the harsh colors and harsh patterns that murder video (ie reds, checkers, pinstripes)
3) avoid nasty looking white wall apartment living-room shots (the hallmark of all bad indie filmmaking)
4) avoid moving the camera too quickly over a busy background
5) avoid a background that is one solid color (otherwise your camera codec will try to economize by pixalating certain regions)
6) avoid harsh diagonal lines
7) get your exposures just right
8) keep your camera as steady as possible so its chip can have time to interpret each shot (see #4)
9) most new filmmakers fail to realize that bad audio betrays your production value MORE than bad picture. So learn how to get GREAT audio.

and finally...

10) If you do a SUPERB job of telling a good story and getting great performances, your audience will definitely forgive your lame cinematography. This is true now more than it's ever been true. Audiences can handle low-budget looks. I mean, sheesh, if you're doing a "found footage" genre, your story actually embraces the low-budget look (ie "Chronicle" or "Paranormal Activity" or "Quarantine"). The key is to plan out a great story and THEN figure out your cinematography.

Shanked

 

[mus]

most festivals will allow you to project digitally. I'm not sure, but dated information may have led you to believe otherwise. I wouldn't waste time to transfer to film.

 

[wheatgrinder]

submission formats and presentation formats differ.

Submission formats are sometimes just DVD, or on line screener ala WAB, etc.
IF, and its a BIG IF, you submit to festivals that REQUIRE presentation format in BETACAM (or some equally confusing format), AND IF (another BIG IF) your film is "selected" for the festival THEN you can decide if you want to have your movie converted to that presentation format. No point in spending the money up front on that which may not be needed.

 

[directorik]

You make an excellent point, wheat.

Shooting on film because you might get accepted in a festival that
ONLY projects film is not a wise choice.

Learning how to use 16mm film while also shooting your very first
movie and trying to stay around $1,000 is crazy. The post costs alone
(processing, telecine, negative cutting, film printing) are well over
$1,000. Cutting film will cost well over $1,000 - editing equipment,
workprints, audio and on and on.

Shoot on what you can afford and what you are comfortable using.
When you get accepted into a festival that will only project on film
then you can decide if a "film out" is worth it. What's the worse thing
that can happen? You decline the festival. What's a possibility? You
decline, the festival asks why, you tell them, they love your film so
much they agree to cover the transfer costs.

Likely? No, but then getting accepted in a festival that ONLY projects
film isn't likely either.