Shooting a Webseries on 35mm / Super 8mm??

[jnoahu]

Hello!

I'm helming an upcoming web series about a spoiled Parisian who winds up in L.A. and pursues his crazy comic dreams. We aim to start shooting in eight weeks. We have a bottom-of-the-barrel low budget. Yet we won't let that stop us! Most everything is in place, expect for one epic decision:

Can we shoot this project on film?!?

As it centers around a French protagonist, our series is steeped in the narrative style and film grammar of Nouvelle Vague and cinéma vérité. 35mm / Super 8mm film would be a natural cinematographic extension of our theme, our protagonist, and his worldview. We know that most low-budget web filmmakers opt for digital production. But we want to stand out from the crowd. By (almost) any means possible, we will shoot on film, not HD!

Our project aims to produce 10 2-5 minute episodes, for a total of 35 minutes at the maximum. Most episodes only feature the lead character; a couple of them include another character. We do have a balance of indoor and outdoor locations, but nothing outlandish or requiring SFX. We also plan on improvising several scenes (which we know can require an additional camera and an abundance of film).

We do know that Super 8mm film is silent. We have some ways around that (extensive slating, miking the performers, rigging XLR connectors... if you have any other suggestions for this, don't hesitate!).

Because film is so precious and expensive, we plan on doing EXTENSIVE prep well before every shoot: (storyboarding, shot lists, location scouting, rehearsals, the whole she-bang).

We have our dream equipment as well: a Bell and Howell 35mm Eyemo, or a Canon 514 XL for Super 8.

We're not naive. We understand that film isn't the cheapest option. If you're an experienced filmmaker, please help us out with your answer to any (or all!) of these questions:

- exactly how much 35mm film stock, or how many Super 8mm cartridges will we need?
- is there an inexpensive way to purchase 35mm film stock or Super 8mm cartridges? (i.e., bulk purchasing, eBay, the black market... anything!)
- how do low-budget filmmakers successfully and economically use Super 8mm / 35mm?

Thank you so much for reading this -- if you've made it here. We realize this is an audacious and (some might say) impractical gesture. But we'd at least like to give this a shot before settling for digital.

 

[Zensteve]

Hello!

I'm helming an upcoming web series about a spoiled Parisian who winds up in L.A. and pursues his crazy comic dreams. We aim to start shooting in eight weeks. We have a bottom-of-the-barrel low budget. Yet we won't let that stop us! Most everything is in place, expect for one epic decision:

Can we shoot this project on film?!?

As it centers around a French protagonist, our series is steeped in the narrative style and film grammar of Nouvelle Vague and cinéma vérité. 35mm / Super 8mm film would be a natural cinematographic extension of our theme, our protagonist, and his worldview. We know that most low-budget web filmmakers opt for digital production. But we want to stand out from the crowd. By (almost) any means possible, we will shoot on film, not HD!

Our project aims to produce 10 2-5 minute episodes, for a total of 35 minutes at the maximum. Most episodes only feature the lead character; a couple of them include another character. We do have a balance of indoor and outdoor locations, but nothing outlandish or requiring SFX. We also plan on improvising several scenes (which we know can require an additional camera and an abundance of film).

We do know that Super 8mm film is silent. We have some ways around that (extensive slating, miking the performers, rigging XLR connectors... if you have any other suggestions for this, don't hesitate!).

Because film is so precious and expensive, we plan on doing EXTENSIVE prep well before every shoot: (storyboarding, shot lists, location scouting, rehearsals, the whole she-bang).

We have our dream equipment as well: a Bell and Howell 35mm Eyemo, or a Canon 514 XL for Super 8.

We're not naive. We understand that film isn't the cheapest option. If you're an experienced filmmaker, please help us out with your answer to any (or all!) of these questions:

- exactly how much 35mm film stock, or how many Super 8mm cartridges will we need?
- is there an inexpensive way to purchase 35mm film stock or Super 8mm cartridges? (i.e., bulk purchasing, eBay, the black market... anything!)
- how do low-budget filmmakers successfully and economically use Super 8mm / 35mm?

Thank you so much for reading this -- if you've made it here. We realize this is an audacious and (some might say) impractical gesture. But we'd at least like to give this a shot before settling for digital.

You do know that 35mm and S8 look radically different, yes?

If we figure you have a shooting ratio of 5:1 (not too much room for error, really), you'd need 175 minutes of stock for your projected 35 minutes of runtime. You get 2mins & 40 secs to each S8 cartridge - you can do the math from there.

Call Kodak for cost of new filmstock. Buy filmstock.

You'll also need to process the film, and then have it digitised to a medium you can edit with. If you're wanting to edit in HD, you'll need a company with a 2k scanner. Pro8mm does, and they cost an arm & a leg (as far as indie filmmakers go). Look up their rates on their site. You can get a better deal at Yale Film & Video, but you ain't getting 2k res on your S8 cartridges.

You'll also need to address the issue of sound. Not only do you need a separate device to record to, but you'll need to account for drift unless your camera are crystal-sync'd... and the 514 ain't. Edit: Just looked up the Eymo. Nope, that ain't even battery operated. Windup.

Your task is not impossible. Just has more steps & details to take care of than you might be aware of... oh, and the cost for 35mm will be much, much higher than S8. S8 will be plenty expensive enough, as is.

Cross the T's and dot the i's. You can do it. You simply have a lot of homework. Good luck!

 

[jnoahu]

You do know that 35mm and S8 look radically different, yes?

If we figure you have a shooting ratio of 5:1 (not too much room for error, really), you'd need 175 minutes of stock for your projected 35 minutes of runtime. You get 2mins & 40 secs to each S8 cartridge - you can do the math from there.

Call Kodak for cost of new filmstock. Buy filmstock.

You'll also need to process the film, and then have it digitised to a medium you can edit with. If you're wanting to edit in HD, you'll need a company with a 2k scanner. Pro8mm does, and they cost an arm & a leg (as far as indie filmmakers go). Look up their rates on their site. You can get a better deal at Yale Film & Video, but you ain't getting 2k res on your S8 cartridges.

You'll also need to address the issue of sound. Not only do you need a separate device to record to, but you'll need to account for drift unless your camera are crystal-sync'd... and the 514 ain't. Edit: Just looked up the Eymo. Nope, that ain't even battery operated. Windup.

Your task is not impossible. Just has more steps & details to take care of than you might be aware of... oh, and the cost for 35mm will be much, much higher than S8. S8 will be plenty expensive enough, as is.

Cross the T's and dot the i's. You can do it. You simply have a lot of homework. Good luck!

THANK YOU so much for your response! Everything you said had the authority of a vetted filmmaker. I really, really appreciate your expertise. Thanks!!

I am definitely aware of how 35mm differs from S8. I loved the look of this YouTube vid by Friends called I'm His Girl... so sumptuous, so hipster and lo-fi, so Seventies, the exact filmic mood we're looking to strike with our webseries. The video was shot on beautiful Super 8.

On the other hand, I'm a Kubrick buff and learned that his film Killers Kiss was filmed on 35mm using an Eyemo. That particular camera was responsible for the bulk of WWII battlefield coverage and is also a favorite of a dynamite cinematographer, Robbie Ryan (see interview here). I love how this more dramatic and muscular camera juxtaposes with the comedic, "French New Wave" heart of our web series.

Both the Super 8mm and the 35mm will assist our aim of high production values on this project. The S8 is hipster and lo-fi. The 35mm is high-class gravitas. Both would be great. We'll decide which to work with depending on which is the cheaper / easier to come by!

I fell in love with Pro8mm and their widescreen Super 8 videos. But their unbelievably high prices sent me running for the hills! If we go with the 35mm, we'll definitely use the YF&V

Doing EVERYTHING I absolutely can to find affordable filmstock. Ran across this amazing offer here but alas, it expired!

Any recommendations on where low-budget / guerrilla filmmakers find their filmstock? Surely they don't all go to Kodak?

As for sound, we had a few ideas:
- a portable digital recorder
- a separate camcorder to pick up sound
- road video mike or Zoom H2 microphone
- using Plural Eyes to sync sound and footage in post http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html
- a few others but don't wanna bore you

Steadily doing my homework, as you've directed. This is a HUGE learning curve for an unschooled filmmaker, but I've made a ton of progress today, and will hopefully have this nailed well before production!

 

[jax_rox]

I am definitely aware of how 35mm differs from S8. I loved the look of this YouTube vid by Friends called I'm His Girl... so sumptuous, so hipster and lo-fi, so Seventies, the exact filmic mood we're looking to strike with our webseries. The video was shot on beautiful Super 8.

Super 8 hasn't changed much and will certainly give you this kind of look

On the other hand, I'm a Kubrick buff and learned that his film Killers Kiss was filmed on 35mm using an Eyemo. That particular camera was responsible for the bulk of WWII battlefield coverage and is also a favorite of a dynamite cinematographer, Robbie Ryan (see interview here). I love how this more dramatic and muscular camera juxtaposes with the comedic, "French New Wave" heart of our web series.

I think you may be confusing the camera with the format here. In the realm of the digital world, every camera has a slightly different look, different sensor, different compressions, different all sorts of things. The F3, C300, Alexa, and FS100 all have S35 sensors, record in 1080, but all have completely different looks.

In film, it's very different. The biggest thing that changes is the film stock. The reason Killer's Kiss and WWII photography looks like it does has very little to do with the camera it was shot on, and very much to do with the film stocks of the time. Film stocks in that time were slow speed and very grainy, whereas these days 35mm vision3 stocks look very slick, smooth and the grain is small, though present. Whilst if you compare Current S8 stocks to 50's 35mm sticks, they may have a similar feel, albeit a different look, if you were to compare current S8 stocks to current 35mm stocks, the difference would be stark.

Both the Super 8mm and the 35mm will assist our aim of high production values on this project. The S8 is hipster and lo-fi. The 35mm is high-class gravitas. Both would be great. We'll decide which to work with depending on which is the cheaper / easier to come by!

I fell in love with Pro8mm and their widescreen Super 8 videos. But their unbelievably high prices sent me running for the hills! If we go with the 35mm, we'll definitely use the YF&V

If you can't afford Super 8, then you won't be able to afford 35mm.

Any recommendations on where low-budget / guerrilla filmmakers find their filmstock? Surely they don't all go to Kodak?

Sweet talking producers who can get good discounts on Kodak, or short ends from around the place.

- using Plural Eyes to sync sound and footage in post http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html

There's no scratch audio track on film, so you won't be able to use Plural Eyes, you'd have to slate everything. Plus the issue of hand cranking means you'd have frame slip anyway, and your audio may struggle to stay in sync unless you can get a crystal synced eyemo (there are some around).

Honestly, for a web series, I see absolutely no point in using 35mm. The look of 35mm is not going to be all that different to a GH2 or even other DSLR after web compression, even in HD.

If you were talking about something that's going to be projected in theatres, then yeah go for 35mm as it wil give you the highest quality, but for web? You'll spend thousands and thousands of dollars and it won't look all that much better than any DSLR. High production values comes more from what you put in front of the camera, than from what the camera itself is.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

On the sound side you are going to have two problems: Recording dialogue in sync with the picture in the first place and maintaining sync in post after you've telecine'd. the solution to the first problem is CrystalSync, as already mentioned. And, providing you maintain 24fps throughout the filming, telecine, editing and audio post phases, the second problem will be avoided but if you're going to telecine to a standard HD format (23.98fps) or any other frame rate, then you are going to have to carefully plan your audio workflow before you start filming. You'll also need production sound people, picture edit and audio post personnel who are knowledgeable and experienced in pull up/pull down workflows.

It's all doable, they've been making film that way for decades but you need to know what you are doing otherwise you could end up with unusable production sound.

G

 

[jnoahu]

Super 8 hasn't changed much and will certainly give you this kind of look


I think you may be confusing the camera with the format here. In the realm of the digital world, every camera has a slightly different look, different sensor, different compressions, different all sorts of things. The F3, C300, Alexa, and FS100 all have S35 sensors, record in 1080, but all have completely different looks.

In film, it's very different. The biggest thing that changes is the film stock. The reason Killer's Kiss and WWII photography looks like it does has very little to do with the camera it was shot on, and very much to do with the film stocks of the time. Film stocks in that time were slow speed and very grainy, whereas these days 35mm vision3 stocks look very slick, smooth and the grain is small, though present. Whilst if you compare Current S8 stocks to 50's 35mm sticks, they may have a similar feel, albeit a different look, if you were to compare current S8 stocks to current 35mm stocks, the difference would be stark.


If you can't afford Super 8, then you won't be able to afford 35mm.


Sweet talking producers who can get good discounts on Kodak, or short ends from around the place.


There's no scratch audio track on film, so you won't be able to use Plural Eyes, you'd have to slate everything. Plus the issue of hand cranking means you'd have frame slip anyway, and your audio may struggle to stay in sync unless you can get a crystal synced eyemo (there are some around).

Honestly, for a web series, I see absolutely no point in using 35mm. The look of 35mm is not going to be all that different to a GH2 or even other DSLR after web compression, even in HD.

If you were talking about something that's going to be projected in theatres, then yeah go for 35mm as it wil give you the highest quality, but for web? You'll spend thousands and thousands of dollars and it won't look all that much better than any DSLR. High production values comes more from what you put in front of the camera, than from what the camera itself is.

Thinking things over, we are slightly leaning toward Super 8 as opposed to 35mm. However, I don't believe that the Canon 514XL is quite the fit we want. I discovered some extremely impressive footage from a Bauer c700 XLM. Using some additional equipment (35mm Depth-of-Field adapter (attached to cam w/ duct tape lol), 50mm lens attached to the adapter), it produces a look that's both vintage and that has great verisimilitude. Definitely, securing a top-notch experienced DP is a priority for this project's demands. Hopefully we can land a gifted young rookie from USC, UCLA, or any of the other great films schools here in L.A.

Thank you SO MUCH for clarifying the relationship between camera and format. I respect and completely understand where you're coming from. However, we didn't fall in love with the Bell & Howell Eyemo ONLY via Killer's Kiss and WWII footage. We researched several examples of recently completed Eyemo footage -- one from 2005 (hi production values, polished) and another from 2008 (completely on the fly, little to no production value). Obviously the filmstock in these examples is not the same from the Forties and Fifties. Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, the Eyemo still contributed drama and muscularity to the final product. There HAS to be a reason why the Eyemo's popularity has continued from Kubrick all the way to today -- as mentioned before, cinematographers like Robbie Ryan love the Eyemo and still use it.

We are also seriously considering the Arriflex 2C (very "Tree of Life"-like look), or the Konvas 1M.

"If you can't afford Super 8, then you won't be able to afford 35mm." Not quite so sure about this anymore. With our target shooting ratio (3:1), we estimate needing 40 cartridges of S8, totaling to around $600. Conversely, we'd need around 10,000' of 35mm filmstock, which we could attain through short ends and the occasional recan. Our research shows that living and shooting in L.A. is so conducive to finding high-quality yet dirt-cheap recans. We have pinpointed no fewer than eight filmstock providers here who specialize in short ends (i.e., Reel Good, Certified Film) and who may be sympathetic to young newbie filmmakers low on budget but high on passion and love of film. 35mm might be cheaper than S8mm.

We may not purchase all of our filmstock in one go. Working in the Nouvelle Vague / guerrilla style, we may have purchase filmstock incrementally over the course of our shoot (16 shooting days in all over a 2-3 month period).

As for Plural Eyes and slating: THANK YOU for the heads up on Plural Eyes. We plan on slating extensively throughout the project. We may want to avoid crystal sync (it's $$$ to modify a camera for this!), unless we can find a crystal sync Eyemo for low cost.

If we use Super 8, this article demonstrated a number of ways in which Super 8mm filmmakers got the sound they desired: independently recording dialogue using a boom and a road video mic / Zoom H2 mic hookup (helping to muffle that Super 8 camera noise!); a portable digital recorder; a camcorder, etc. The posters argue that even DSLR projects are using 2-part systems like these.

As for issues of drift and frame slip: we believe that extensive slating, well-coordinated sound recording, relatively short takes, and adjusting the film speed a few percent in post editing should do the trick. This is a heavy-dialogue Super 8mm film with perfect sync: http://vimeo.com/36383697, proving that it IS possible!

"35mm is not going to be all that different to a GH2 or even other DSLR after web compression?" I respectfully disagree. Do you know of any YouTube / Vimeo videos that show what you mean? I don't believe we'll need to spend $1,000's to make this work.

Again, we're still determining which option would be more economically feasible -- filming on Super 8mm, or scouring Los Angeles for the cheapest 35mm short ends possible.

I understand your point of view that using film for a web series is ridiculous. But I disagree. Most web series are poorly written, averagely shot pieces of disposable entertainment that few people watch. We look to distinguish our project as a sumptuous and hipster-chic episodic short film with a palpable comedic vein. We have an outstanding story, a genius script (in its ninth draft now!), and an amazing set of actors.

We will need to assemble a great crew: DP, lighting pro, sound production wizard, and an assistant. We will need a enormously talented editor and audio post expert. But L.A. is crawling with talented tech experts in search of a project to sink their teeth into and make their name from -- it shouldn't be too hard to assemble this crew on the cheap (or for free). And we believe that the high-class look, verisimilitude, and luxurious mood of film is integral to our vision.

Thanks for your comments!

 

[jnoahu]

On the sound side you are going to have two problems: Recording dialogue in sync with the picture in the first place and maintaining sync in post after you've telecine'd. the solution to the first problem is CrystalSync, as already mentioned. And, providing you maintain 24fps throughout the filming, telecine, editing and audio post phases, the second problem will be avoided but if you're going to telecine to a standard HD format (23.98fps) or any other frame rate, then you are going to have to carefully plan your audio workflow before you start filming. You'll also need production sound people, picture edit and audio post personnel who are knowledgeable and experienced in pull up/pull down workflows.

It's all doable, they've been making film that way for decades but you need to know what you are doing otherwise you could end up with unusable production sound.

G

THANK You for your wise and extremely helpful insights. Letting us know that this is doable is also reassuring. Thanks!

Shouldn't extensive slating and setting up an independent sound recording system (boom + Zoom H2 mic, or a camcorder) work for recording in-sync dialogue?

Thanks for the tip on making SURE we carefully plan the audio workflow well in advance of shooting. We plan on recruiting a talented USC / UCLA/ CalArts student or recent grad who'd bless with with his / her expertise in this area.

Should we invest serious time into pinpointing an editing / post production sound team now, a good 2-3 months before we plan on filming?

We know that this Super 8mm / 35mm project can work. And we'll do anything to make it happen!

 

[AudioPostExpert]

THANK You for your wise and extremely helpful insights. Letting us know that this is doable is also reassuring. Thanks!

No problem, you're welcome.

Shouldn't extensive slating and setting up an independent sound recording system (boom + Zoom H2 mic, or a camcorder) work for recording in-sync dialogue?

The slating will mean you have a common reference point for picture and sound. So it shouldn't be too time consuming lining up the start of each take. The problem is how to ensure that the sound and picture stay in sync after the slate! How to ensure there is no drift or small enough drift not to cause any noticeable sync problems. This is where it gets tricky and why you'll need a Crystal Sync camera and a recorder which also locks to a sync signal (not a Zoom). Recorders with sync features come under the pro range of recorders rather than the prosumer range. Same is true with pull up/down rates, which your project looks like it might require.

We plan on recruiting a talented USC / UCLA/ CalArts student or recent grad who'd bless with with his / her expertise in this area.

That might not be enough. Whether their course covers a fairly esoteric audio subject like pull-up/down workflows in any great detail (or at all) is in doubt. I used to teach a 3 year degree course in film & TV sound and music and pull up/down rates was only briefly mentioned, let alone taught properly or practised. 3 years is not enough time to do much more than the basics in many areas of TV and Film sound!

Should we invest serious time into pinpointing an editing / post production sound team now, a good 2-3 months before we plan on filming?

Absolutely! You want a workflow nailed down and agreed between: The production sound mixer, the picture editor and the audio post team. That's going to take a while as you have to figure out what equipment (and budget) you'll need and get that equipment before you step foot on set for the first time. Believe me, the hassle of sorting it out now, when you've got a load of other pre-production issues on your plate, will pale into utter insignificance compared to the hassle and cost (artistic and financial) it will cause you if you don't have this all sorted BEFORE you start filming!

We know that this Super 8mm / 35mm project can work. And we'll do anything to make it happen!

You can make it work, there are thousands of films which prove it can be done but you need people who know what they're doing and have the equipment to do it and that's not likely to be free or even cheap.

G

 

[jax_rox]

"If you can't afford Super 8, then you won't be able to afford 35mm." Not quite so sure about this anymore. With our target shooting ratio (3:1), we estimate needing 40 cartridges of S8, totaling to around $600. Conversely, we'd need around 10,000' of 35mm filmstock, which we could attain through short ends and the occasional recan. Our research shows that living and shooting in L.A. is so conducive to finding high-quality yet dirt-cheap recans. We have pinpointed no fewer than eight filmstock providers here who specialize in short ends (i.e., Reel Good, Certified Film) and who may be sympathetic to young newbie filmmakers low on budget but high on passion and love of film. 35mm might be cheaper than S8mm.

Not sure how you figure that, even with student rates of S16 @ $100/400ft roll (~25c/foot) and 9c/foot of processing; for 10,000' you're looking at $2,500 just for the stock. Not to mention, Pro8mm stock is a bundle payment of stock and processing for ~$35/cartridge. Even if you can somehow magically find short ends for .10c/foot, you're still looking at $1,000 for film stock without processing, which is still a lot more than $600.

"35mm is not going to be all that different to a GH2 or even other DSLR after web compression?" I respectfully disagree. Do you know of any YouTube / Vimeo videos that show what you mean? I don't believe we'll need to spend $1,000's to make this work.

Here's a home video shot on a slightly modified, crystal synced eyemo:
http://vimeo.com/35259360

Pretty nice, but kinda looks like it could easily have been shot on a DSLR huh?

Here's a trailer for a movie shot on a GH2:
http://vimeo.com/33025136

Pretty nice, hey? In a small vimeo browser, I wouldn't be able to tell if it was shot on a GH2 or a RED.

I understand your point of view that using film for a web series is ridiculous. But I disagree. Most web series are poorly written, averagely shot pieces of disposable entertainment that few people watch. We look to distinguish our project as a sumptuous and hipster-chic episodic short film with a palpable comedic vein. We have an outstanding story, a genius script (in its ninth draft now!), and an amazing set of actors.

Yep, I understand that. But I've also seen the same (or perhaps similar) story. There was a web series here in Australia that was made last year and was released each week over 12 weeks (a 12-part series). It had quite a large budget, high production values, great crew, shot on RED, written and directed by some of the best up-and-coming writers and directors in the state.
It was new, it was different, it was quirky, it was 'hipster-chic', it was comedic.

It struggled to get more than a few thousand viewers.

It was quite a well made series, but if you struggle to get more than a few thousand viewers, was it worth all that outlay? If you could've made the same series for 1/3rd of the money and still netted a similar amount of viewers, without it looking all that different, then was it really worth that huge budget..?

 

[PaulGriffith]

As much fun as it would be to shoot on film, I'd really have to advise against it based on cost alone. Assuming you're trying to break even or make profit that is. Web series don't make money yet. The ones that do either have a sponsor so the money is made before the cameras even roll, or tey're made for so little that even making $20 on advertising a year is technically a profit.

While I believe a good picture is essential to a successful product, the price difference between a digital camera's good picture and any begging rights you gain by shooting on film isn't enough to warrant the price difference.

If you reaaaalllly want to shoot film, shoot a short. If you really want to shoot film and hope on making some money on it, shoot a really good feature. If you really like the idea of a web series and want to try to innovate and have some money to burn, shoot a web series digitally. If you have a ton of money to burn and little/no fiscal responsibility, shoot a web series on film.

Either way, good luck with it!

 

[jnoahu]

No problem, you're welcome.



The slating will mean you have a common reference point for picture and sound. So it shouldn't be too time consuming lining up the start of each take. The problem is how to ensure that the sound and picture stay in sync after the slate! How to ensure there is no drift or small enough drift not to cause any noticeable sync problems. This is where it gets tricky and why you'll need a Crystal Sync camera and a recorder which also locks to a sync signal (not a Zoom). Recorders with sync features come under the pro range of recorders rather than the prosumer range. Same is true with pull up/down rates, which your project looks like it might require.



That might not be enough. Whether their course covers a fairly esoteric audio subject like pull-up/down workflows in any great detail (or at all) is in doubt. I used to teach a 3 year degree course in film & TV sound and music and pull up/down rates was only briefly mentioned, let alone taught properly or practised. 3 years is not enough time to do much more than the basics in many areas of TV and Film sound!



Absolutely! You want a workflow nailed down and agreed between: The production sound mixer, the picture editor and the audio post team. That's going to take a while as you have to figure out what equipment (and budget) you'll need and get that equipment before you step foot on set for the first time. Believe me, the hassle of sorting it out now, when you've got a load of other pre-production issues on your plate, will pale into utter insignificance compared to the hassle and cost (artistic and financial) it will cause you if you don't have this all sorted BEFORE you start filming!



You can make it work, there are thousands of films which prove it can be done but you need people who know what they're doing and have the equipment to do it and that's not likely to be free or even cheap.

G

Where can we find a crystal sync Eyemo? Any advice?

 

[jnoahu]

Not sure how you figure that, even with student rates of S16 @ $100/400ft roll (~25c/foot) and 9c/foot of processing; for 10,000' you're looking at $2,500 just for the stock. Not to mention, Pro8mm stock is a bundle payment of stock and processing for ~$35/cartridge. Even if you can somehow magically find short ends for .10c/foot, you're still looking at $1,000 for film stock without processing, which is still a lot more than $600.



Here's a home video shot on a slightly modified, crystal synced eyemo:
http://vimeo.com/35259360

Pretty nice, but kinda looks like it could easily have been shot on a DSLR huh?

Here's a trailer for a movie shot on a GH2:
http://vimeo.com/33025136

Pretty nice, hey? In a small vimeo browser, I wouldn't be able to tell if it was shot on a GH2 or a RED.


Yep, I understand that. But I've also seen the same (or perhaps similar) story. There was a web series here in Australia that was made last year and was released each week over 12 weeks (a 12-part series). It had quite a large budget, high production values, great crew, shot on RED, written and directed by some of the best up-and-coming writers and directors in the state.
It was new, it was different, it was quirky, it was 'hipster-chic', it was comedic.

It struggled to get more than a few thousand viewers.

It was quite a well made series, but if you struggle to get more than a few thousand viewers, was it worth all that outlay? If you could've made the same series for 1/3rd of the money and still netted a similar amount of viewers, without it looking all that different, then was it really worth that huge budget..?

Thank you heaps for your feedback. Your thoughts are so spot on, and they've made us infinitely more knowledgeable. Thank you.

I am admittedly exhausted to my core over the entire prospect of filming at this point. (On digital, on Super 8, on 35mm, on an iPhone -- anything.) The very mention of "telecine" or "crystal sync" or "vignetting" brings on a serious migraine. I was so filled with optimism and passion when conceptualizing and writing this project, like a dumb Labrador Retriever puppy. I am now weighed down by disillusionment and lack of hope. A beaten old hound counting down to the end.

I guess I should tell myself, "Welcome to show business."

Nevertheless we'll soldier on. I'm actually very thankful for everyone's complete resistance to our idea. If we can't sufficiently respond to several knowledgeable yet anonymous respondents to this forum post, then actually accomplishing our goal in the real world is impossible.

I highly doubt I'll be able to convince you that what we want to do is feasible. At the same time, we still hold onto our aim to shoot this project on film, despite the evidence lobbed against us. We're not rich trust-fund babies. Nor are we foolhardy, fiscally irresponsible idiots who turn deaf ears on wise words. If we didn't care what anyone else thought, we wouldn't have come to you experts on Indietalk!

We are still VERY much in preproduction. We have yet to spend a single dime. Shooting is at least two months away. We are more than willing to push shooting back by a month -- or much, much more -- if necessary. There is no deadline on high quality work. We want to extinguish all hope of ever capturing this project on film before conceding to digital.

So, just why are we SO adamant about film? To begin, we have conceived this project NOT as a web series, but rather as a short film distributed on the web. Emphasis on "short film." We may plan on releasing our project to short film festivals after the web broadcast has concluded -- giving some validity to the film-vs.-digital argument we're in.

We will all be using content from this project for our personal demo reels as actors. Furthermore, we also plan to leverage the project as a calling card for us as budding filmmakers -- not just crazy kids having fun online.

We understand that yes, most web series do not make a profit. But this project means SO much more to us than making a "profit." We are looking to make a strong professional statement and build careers in the industry with this project. Yes, projects done digitally can achieve these aims. And no, we do not completely snub our nose at digital. We just look to follow in the stead of our heroes -- Kubrick, Spielberg, PTA, etc. -- and do something spectacular. If it's in ANY way possible to achieve that with film... we will.




About expensive film stock:

To make financing film possible, we may pursue production in a piecemeal, catch-as-catch-can fashion. We may not collect all the film stock we need at once and at the ready. We could just get as much 35mm filmstock via short ends as we can afford, and film what we can with that. We will wait until we can afford more to film additional footage. This will let us take our time to finance our work as we go.

We also are strongly considering raising the funds for processing and post-production separately, once footage for the entire project is in the can.

We have also thought about shooting a portion of the project on digital (enough for a trailer and 1-2 episodes), then create a Kickstarter / crowdsourcing account to accrue funding for post-production. Just a possibility.

That $600 figure was in reference to Super8mm film stock, not 16mm or 35mm. We're basing our pricing from Kodak's site (approv. $15/cartridge). Where did you get that $35/cartridge estimate?

Again, to spread out financing, we may just get our project in the can first and address post-production costs later. Yes, that is not ideal. No, that does not mean we pull the wool over our eyes and refuse to even research what post-production entails and costs. Yes, we will not proceed with the project at all until we determine the cost of EVERY single step in advance and devise a flexible budget accordingly.

About the Eyemo vs. GH2:

I do understand what you mean, that the difference between film and digital is imperceptible. But we have to confess, the footage from the crystal sync Eyemo was absolutely gorgeous. If we had found an actual, affordable DSLR camera that could produce visuals as lovely at that... we would not have even made this thread to begin with!

Two questions, though:
- where does one actually find a crystal sync Eyemo? After much searching, we have yet to locate one for sale.
- doesn't the crystal sync feature assist in capturing sound with the Eyemo? We want to make ABSOLUTELY sure of this before investing in a camera and using it to film our dialogue-heavy project.

The GH2 footage wasn't half-bad. But imho, it doesn't hold a candle to what the Eyemo captured. Here's an example of the type of aesthetic that (thus far) only an Eyemo's achieved: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvJf83Xk9yg. This filmmaker mounted her Eyemo to stabilize the image. We have contacted the filmmaker for her advice. Being able to mount the camera (for dolly work, tracking shots, etc.) and dismount it for more action-oriented footage is an exciting prospect for us.

About this Australian web series you mentioned:

We would love to see it! Is it still up online?

How would you advice someone tackle the idea of producing a successful webseries? What examples can you cite of a web series that succeeds on your terms?

Most importantly: What equipment would create the absolute best visual feel that low-budgeters could afford? If you say we should use a DSLR, which make and model is truly the best for us? (You already know the look we need: hipster-chic, sumptuous, etc.)

To what extent did those involved with the project engage in marketing? We have an extensive, multi-month marketing plan already in place. We have a social media wizard and marketing professional on our team to help craft, nurture, and "hype-up" an audience far before the first episode even hits the web. We will have a trailer, teaser clips, visual branding, Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr/etc. pages, a separate web page, a fully furnished YouTube page.... that's just the tip of the iceberg.

We have identified our target audience and the primary thought leaders for that target audience, many of whom love our idea and plan to support us. Again, this is all to take place MONTHS before the series begins to air online. When it does air online, we have a rich platform of dynamic incentives to reward our audience for watching, to maintain their loyal viewership every week, to fuel their lively discussion of the series, and to spur viewers to spread the word about the series to their own networks.

Most web series fail because they do not construct a thorough and carefully orchestrated marketing plan WELL BEFORE the first episode hits YouTube/Blimp/etc. Just uploading your site and hoping people watch it IS NOT ENOUGH. You MUST go the extra mile -- and then some -- to captivate an audience for your work.

That said, there is the chance that only a few 1,000 will see our series. (A slim chance, but still.) As stated previously... this is NOT just a web series for us. This is our calling card to the industry and our first professional experience in the world of cinema.

We are not ruling out digital completely. We just have big dreams for this project and want to create something beautiful.

 

[directorik]

Where can we find a crystal sync Eyemo? Any advice?

They come up on ebay every once in a while. You can't count on one
being offered, but I've seen them. Alan Gordon, a rental house in Los
Angeles used to have one in their catalogue. They may still have it
around.

I'm a big super 8 fan. I own several cameras and have shot three features.
I am currently prepping for my fourth. I think it's great that you want
to shoot film. As you can see, most people do everything they can to
discourage shooting film, but not me. For a web series I think super 8
will get you the look you want but if you're really determined to shoot
35mm I say go for it.

 

[jnoahu]

As much fun as it would be to shoot on film, I'd really have to advise against it based on cost alone. Assuming you're trying to break even or make profit that is. Web series don't make money yet. The ones that do either have a sponsor so the money is made before the cameras even roll, or tey're made for so little that even making $20 on advertising a year is technically a profit.

While I believe a good picture is essential to a successful product, the price difference between a digital camera's good picture and any begging rights you gain by shooting on film isn't enough to warrant the price difference.

If you reaaaalllly want to shoot film, shoot a short. If you really want to shoot film and hope on making some money on it, shoot a really good feature. If you really like the idea of a web series and want to try to innovate and have some money to burn, shoot a web series digitally. If you have a ton of money to burn and little/no fiscal responsibility, shoot a web series on film.

Either way, good luck with it!

I really want to thank you for your opinion! We've checked out your web site and find it amazing. Clearly you are an expert in this particular discussion, and your feedback is highly, highly appreciated. Thanks!

Firstly we ask, how much do you theorize this project costing us, if we shot it on film? We do have a rough estimate but will wait to hear yours before sharing it.

As we've stated to previous respondents to this forum post...

We understand that yes, most web series do not make a profit. But this project means SO much more to us than making a "profit." No, we won't make a profit or break even. We are all very well aware of that. And we are NOT doing this for the dollars. This project is an investment into our artistic and professional futures.

We are looking to make a strong professional statement and build careers in the industry with this project. Yes, projects done digitally can achieve these aims. And no, we do not completely snub our nose at digital. We just look to follow in the stead of our heroes -- Kubrick, Spielberg, PTA, etc. -- and do something spectacular. If it's in ANY way possible to achieve that with film... we will.

We're not rich trust-fund babies. Nor are we foolhardy, fiscally irresponsible idiots who turn deaf ears on wise words.

We are still VERY much in preproduction. We have yet to spend a single dime. Shooting is at least two months away. We are more than willing to push shooting back by a month -- or much, much more -- if necessary. There is no deadline on high quality work. We want to extinguish all hope of ever capturing this project on film before conceding to digital.

So, just why are we SO adamant about film? To begin, we have conceived this project NOT as a web series, but rather as a short film distributed on the web. Emphasis on "short film." We may plan on releasing our project to short film festivals after the web broadcast has concluded -- giving some validity to the film-vs.-digital argument we're in.

We will all be using content from this project for our personal demo reels as actors. Furthermore, we also plan to leverage the project as a calling card for us as budding filmmakers -- not just crazy kids having fun online.

Finally, some questions for you! Your answers would be seriously appreciated:

How would you advice someone tackle the idea of producing a successful webseries? What examples can you cite of a web series that succeeds on your terms?

Most importantly: What precise equipment would create the absolute best visual feel that low-budgeters could afford? What's the make and model of the ideal camera for our aims (You already know the look we need: hipster-chic, sumptuous, etc.)

Thank you!

 

[jax_rox]

double post, please disregard this one.

 

[jax_rox]

I guess I should tell myself, "Welcome to show business."

Nevertheless we'll soldier on. I'm actually very thankful for everyone's complete resistance to our idea. If we can't sufficiently respond to several knowledgeable yet anonymous respondents to this forum post, then actually accomplishing our goal in the real world is impossible.

I apologise if I've come across as being resistant to your idea. If anything, I merely try to pose questions you should be able to answer if you're tackling this on a proper scale. I don't mean to discourage you at all, moreso to look realistically at what you can and can't achieve.

If you have the budget to shoot 35mm, by all means go and do it, but you need to make sure you do your research properly and thoroughly before you go out and purchase 10,000' of Kodak stock, and book in processing and telecine at your local lab and suddenly realise you're $15,000 in debt without even knowing how to operate a 35mm camera properly.

So, just why are we SO adamant about film? To begin, we have conceived this project NOT as a web series, but rather as a short film distributed on the web. Emphasis on "short film." We may plan on releasing our project to short film festivals after the web broadcast has concluded -- giving some validity to the film-vs.-digital argument we're in.

Great idea, in theory. The issue is a lot of festivals require premiere, so won't take you if it's already been on the internet. I'd look into exactly what festivals you want to submit to and make sure they'll still take you, or conversely, choose other festivals that will take you.

To make financing film possible, we may pursue production in a piecemeal, catch-as-catch-can fashion. We may not collect all the film stock we need at once and at the ready. We could just get as much 35mm filmstock via short ends as we can afford, and film what we can with that. We will wait until we can afford more to film additional footage. This will let us take our time to finance our work as we go.

The question I would ask is: what happens if you can no longer afford 35mm? If you have something arise which requires your financial attention, or even if it takes 6 months for you to raise more money? Do you put your web series on hiatus for 6 months? Or do you put off completion for 6 months..?

Keep in mind, that with film the cost is not only associated with the stock. You not only have to buy the stock to film on, you then have to get it processed at a lab, and then telecined so you can edit it. All of the stages have costs involved, sometimes very hefty costs. I'd get quotes from your local labs on 10,000' of film stock to have a look at what kind of costs are involved. Tell them your story, and how you have no money and they may give you a discount, but it still won't be cheap.

That $600 figure was in reference to Super8mm film stock, not 16mm or 35mm. We're basing our pricing from Kodak's site (approv. $15/cartridge). Where did you get that $35/cartridge estimate?

I know. $600 of 35mm would get you about one 1000' roll. Pro8mm have cartridges for $35/cartridge, which covers the cost of both the stock, but also a pre-pay for the processing of that cartridge.

I do understand what you mean, that the difference between film and digital is imperceptible. But we have to confess, the footage from the crystal sync Eyemo was absolutely gorgeous. If we had found an actual, affordable DSLR camera that could produce visuals as lovely at that... we would not have even made this thread to begin with!

Yes, the Eyemmo looks nice, but my point is simply without knowing what each one was shot on, and simply looking at it in the small browser window (not full screen), you would be hard pressed to pick exactly what either was shot on.

- where does one actually find a crystal sync Eyemo? After much searching, we have yet to locate one for sale.

Not sure. As far as I can tell from the video posted, they had it modified by Panavision at a cost.

- doesn't the crystal sync feature assist in capturing sound with the Eyemo? We want to make ABSOLUTELY sure of this before investing in a camera and using it to film our dialogue-heavy project.

Yes. I'll wait for the audio guys to chime in on this, but yes it means you can have your camera recording at 24 frames, and set your audio recorder to 24 frames and they should stay in sync.

About this Australian web series you mentioned:

We would love to see it! Is it still up online?

http://cophard.tv/
Warning: contains nudity and all the offensive things you'd expect from Australians

It's quite well made. But it struggled to get a wide audience, and struggled to make money.

What examples can you cite of a web series that succeeds on your terms?

My terms of success don't matter. It's what your terms are. I'm merely suggesting that it's difficult in the first place to have a web series find an audience, and even harder if it's not something stupid like smashing eggs on things, or cooking whilst drunk. And then, it's even harder to make money from it.

But, it's not about what I think. If you think that your web series would be a success if 200 people watched it, and you don't mind operating at a loss, then that's your idea of success. If you want to use it to show what you can do, and you get 1,000 viewers and you're happy with that, then that's great. I'm not here to tell you how you should view your own success, merely to try and steer you in a directino that will help you achieve such success, and also provide information that will help you make more informed decisions about the thing as a whole. If you want to save up for 6 months or 10 years and shoot it on 35mm or 65mm and put it out there, be my guest - there's nothing stopping you. You should just be careful about what you put out there, and realise that spending more money on the production does not necessarily mean greater success, or even greater chance of success. Shooting on 35mm does not equal anything other than a different look, and a very different way of working with a camera (as opposed to digital). That doesn't mean it's bad or a wrong choice, you just have to look at whether you think it's feasible.

To what extent did those involved with the project engage in marketing? We have an extensive, multi-month marketing plan already in place. We have a social media wizard and marketing professional on our team to help craft, nurture, and "hype-up" an audience far before the first episode even hits the web. We will have a trailer, teaser clips, visual branding, Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr/etc. pages, a separate web page, a fully furnished YouTube page.... that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Yup, that's exactly what they did. And they created merchandise.

That said, there is the chance that only a few 1,000 will see our series. (A slim chance, but still.) As stated previously... this is NOT just a web series for us. This is our calling card to the industry and our first professional experience in the world of cinema.

If you're happy with that, then great. Go out and do it. I wish you the best of success.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Two questions, though:
- where does one actually find a crystal sync Eyemo? After much searching, we have yet to locate one for sale.
- doesn't the crystal sync feature assist in capturing sound with the Eyemo? We want to make ABSOLUTELY sure of this before investing in a camera and using it to film our dialogue-heavy project.

I should explain that my area is audio post. I know a fair bit about production sound from a theoretical point of view because obviously a large part of my job is dealing with the results of production sound but I have very little practical experience of actually doing production sound. So I can't give you any info on where you can find a crystal sync Eyemo, all I can do is explain the principles of why you need crystal sync:

Basically, a film camera has a motor which drives the mechanical parts. What crystal sync does is to regulate the speed of the motor by providing a very accurate timing signal from an oscillating crystal. Digital audio is even more time critical than picture because a second has to be sub-divided into 48,000 (sampling) points whereas film only needs 24 sub-divisions per second or rather 196 if you count in sprocket holes. Without the timing accuracy provided by crystal sync the variations in the motor speed of the camera would result in out of sync production sound. The only way of solving this problem in audio post is by manually editing all the dialogue, which is both very time consuming (therefore expensive) and inaccurate. Even with crystal sync you could still have sync issues because the camera and audio recorder each have their own crystals which will drift relative to each other over time. How much drift over how much time will depend on the accuracy of the timing circuitry in both the camera and the audio recorder, it may or may not be noticeable on shorter takes. To guarantee sync (without any drift) you will need to distribute a common timing reference signal and of course a pro audio recorder with the ability to lock to this external timing signal. There are various methods (and therefore equipment requirements) of generating and distributing a timing reference and which one you choose will depend on your budget and filming requirements. this choice goes beyond my knowledge to advise, so you will need a production sound mixer with considerable experience. We've mentioned before that you may need to use pull up/down rates, which is yet another complication supporting the need for an experienced professional production sound mixer. Also bare in mind that dialogue replacement (ADR or the use of wild tracks or alt takes) is done by comparing the audio waveform of the replacement dialogue with the audio waveform of the original sync dialogue. So if the original dialogue is not in sync, we're back to the same problems (time, expense and inaccuracy) of manually editing any replacement dialogue.

G

 

[Duckforceone]

Question, and this is in no way negative, i just think it would be helpful for me an others to hear your direct answer to this.

When you are doing a really low budget movie, what makes you want to absolutely work on film, especially when you are making a webseries? It not only makes your cost sky-rocket, and it also gives a ton of extra work load to transfer around?

Regards

 

[jnoahu]

They come up on ebay every once in a while. You can't count on one
being offered, but I've seen them. Alan Gordon, a rental house in Los
Angeles used to have one in their catalogue. They may still have it
around.

I'm a big super 8 fan. I own several cameras and have shot three features.
I am currently prepping for my fourth. I think it's great that you want
to shoot film. As you can see, most people do everything they can to
discourage shooting film, but not me. For a web series I think super 8
will get you the look you want but if you're really determined to shoot
35mm I say go for it.

Sorry for this long response. But we are indebted to your wisdom and expertise, and are SO thankful for your advice!

Thanks for the Alan Gordon tip. I just perused their site and they do seem to still have that Eyemo on board. We'll see if perhaps recruiting a current film school student into our project can help us land that student discount for using the camera. The main issue is that we think buying a camera (for cheap, from eBay, etc.) would be more affordable than renting (min. $100/day, with an expectation of 16 shooting days). If we can't afford to actually purchase a crystal sync Eyemo, and find a way to mount it (for dolly / tracking shots), we may have to rule it out.

And thanks so much as well for not pooh-poohing our film aspirations. We realize it will be pricier. But we would do what we could to find Super 8mm filmstock for as low-cost as possible (maybe buying in bulk?). We will also allot a budget for a talented DP and post-production unit to shepherd us through the project.

About Super 8:

I am beginning to wholeheartedly agree with you about Super 8. Not only is it the most affordable option filmstock-wise, but it automatically captures the sumptuous Seventies aesthetic we're demanding. We did have a few questions, however, on the practicalities of using Super 8:

- We would love to see your Super 8 features if they're available on Vimeo or YouTube (or another video provider)!

- What would be the best Super 8 camera / lens equipment for a project of this nature?

- would it be better to buy or rent a Super 8 camera for this project? With our budget, we're assuming that actually purchasing the camera would be the most economical move. (The camera we like - a Bauer C700 XLM - goes for about $125. Not too shabby.)

- How would you recommend handling Super 8's difficulty with sound? Would we need to purchase a crystal sync camera to overcome it?

- We've really fallen in love with the visual combination of a Super 8 camera with a depth-of-field adapter, as seen here. However, we have run into several issues regarding S8 + DOF:

it is impossible to find a Twoneil 35mm static DOF adapter these days; what other DOF adapters could work?

so far only the Bauer C700 XLM seems to work with a DOF adapter. It allows macro focusing from the tip of the lens, important since the ground glass sits almost flush with the S8 lens. What other S8 cameras allow for this macro-focusing feature?

The DOF adapter apparently flips the image upside down in the viewfinder. Any way to override this?

We did want to shoot widescreen, if possible. We know that an anamorphic lens could help achieve that. Is it possible to use an anamorphic and DOF adapter at once on the camera?

Is it difficult to edit Super 8mm footage in post, particularly with the aim of creating a final product that uploads to the web with ease (it'd be great to do it in HD, but it's not a dealbreaker if it's not possible).

 

[jnoahu]

I apologise if I've come across as being resistant to your idea. If anything, I merely try to pose questions you should be able to answer if you're tackling this on a proper scale. I don't mean to discourage you at all, moreso to look realistically at what you can and can't achieve.

If you have the budget to shoot 35mm, by all means go and do it, but you need to make sure you do your research properly and thoroughly before you go out and purchase 10,000' of Kodak stock, and book in processing and telecine at your local lab and suddenly realise you're $15,000 in debt without even knowing how to operate a 35mm camera properly.


Great idea, in theory. The issue is a lot of festivals require premiere, so won't take you if it's already been on the internet. I'd look into exactly what festivals you want to submit to and make sure they'll still take you, or conversely, choose other festivals that will take you.


The question I would ask is: what happens if you can no longer afford 35mm? If you have something arise which requires your financial attention, or even if it takes 6 months for you to raise more money? Do you put your web series on hiatus for 6 months? Or do you put off completion for 6 months..?

Keep in mind, that with film the cost is not only associated with the stock. You not only have to buy the stock to film on, you then have to get it processed at a lab, and then telecined so you can edit it. All of the stages have costs involved, sometimes very hefty costs. I'd get quotes from your local labs on 10,000' of film stock to have a look at what kind of costs are involved. Tell them your story, and how you have no money and they may give you a discount, but it still won't be cheap.


I know. $600 of 35mm would get you about one 1000' roll. Pro8mm have cartridges for $35/cartridge, which covers the cost of both the stock, but also a pre-pay for the processing of that cartridge.


Yes, the Eyemmo looks nice, but my point is simply without knowing what each one was shot on, and simply looking at it in the small browser window (not full screen), you would be hard pressed to pick exactly what either was shot on.


Not sure. As far as I can tell from the video posted, they had it modified by Panavision at a cost.


Yes. I'll wait for the audio guys to chime in on this, but yes it means you can have your camera recording at 24 frames, and set your audio recorder to 24 frames and they should stay in sync.


http://cophard.tv/
Warning: contains nudity and all the offensive things you'd expect from Australians

It's quite well made. But it struggled to get a wide audience, and struggled to make money.


My terms of success don't matter. It's what your terms are. I'm merely suggesting that it's difficult in the first place to have a web series find an audience, and even harder if it's not something stupid like smashing eggs on things, or cooking whilst drunk. And then, it's even harder to make money from it.

But, it's not about what I think. If you think that your web series would be a success if 200 people watched it, and you don't mind operating at a loss, then that's your idea of success. If you want to use it to show what you can do, and you get 1,000 viewers and you're happy with that, then that's great. I'm not here to tell you how you should view your own success, merely to try and steer you in a directino that will help you achieve such success, and also provide information that will help you make more informed decisions about the thing as a whole. If you want to save up for 6 months or 10 years and shoot it on 35mm or 65mm and put it out there, be my guest - there's nothing stopping you. You should just be careful about what you put out there, and realise that spending more money on the production does not necessarily mean greater success, or even greater chance of success. Shooting on 35mm does not equal anything other than a different look, and a very different way of working with a camera (as opposed to digital). That doesn't mean it's bad or a wrong choice, you just have to look at whether you think it's feasible.


Yup, that's exactly what they did. And they created merchandise.



If you're happy with that, then great. Go out and do it. I wish you the best of success.

You're 100% right about absolutely everything in this response to us. Thank you for your wisdom and willingness to hear us out. I apologize if I've seemed surly or aggressive. I'm just very passionate about this project, would love to see it completed on film, and am trying to ascertain every single detail of what would be needed to accomplish that, developing an intelligent budget and plan of execution before we set out on this cinematic journey.

No matter what camera we use (35mm, 16mm, 8mm, DSLR) we will have to pin down a talented cinematographer / camera operator. No if's, and's, or but's about it. There is NO way we can proceed without a verified expert. By hook or by crook, we'll need to find one. We are prayerful that we can find an up-and-coming student or young cinematographer looking for a project to fill out his or her reel. That might help us land a great expert for low-cost or for free.

We will definitely do that research re: the film festivals as well. Thanks for that tip.

Most web series have the intention of running for several seasons. They use the first season to drum up interest and encourage fans to donate money for filming the next season. We have NO intention of producing any more than 10 episodes for this project. More an episodic short film than a web series. We don't want to be professional web series people. We want to create strong careers in the film industry and are using this project only as a way to do so.

Releasing short films via festivals, the classic debut format for many great filmmakers, just doesn't seem to cut it anymore. Web series really seem the way to break into the biz these days (at least according to advice from these articles: here, here, and here.) But we HATE most web series: horrendous and shoddy narrative, and awful production values on top of that. We want to split the difference between the short film world and the web series phenomenon.

Good point about what happens if we can't afford filmstock anymore. It's really led us to focus on Super 8 or Super 16 instead of 35mm, to be frank. Cheaper filmstock, cheaper equipment, with the same possibility of a beautiful finish.

About those Pro8mm cartridges: the $35 covers both the filmstock and the processing? Is it worth it? Does it really cost an extra $20 per 50' of Super 8mm stock for processing? Does that processing include telecine, so that we can edit the footage?

About Cop Hard:

It has to be said -- the web series is one of the most gorgeous things we have yet to see online. He really raised the bar for what an audience should expect of web-based programming. It's a goddamn shame that it didn't take off to the stratosphere as it should have! Seriously... we watched the first seven episodes in a binge, and we fell in love. Great series, that was.

Cop Hard differs from our project in a few respects:

- There's no way in hell we could afford those production values. Seriously -- they're Spielbergian.
- Our project would release 10 episodes, roughly 3 min. each, for a potential max of 35 min. Cop Hard had 15 episodes and at least 70 min. of footage in total.
- Our project primarily centers on one character. Just over half of the project will take place from the character's apartment in Los Angeles. Cop Hard seems to outdo us in the aspects of characters and locations.
- We have a slightly different audience in mind for our work. Our dream viewer watches shows like "Louie" and "Girls (HBO)." Cop Hard seems more for the Tarantino-loving crowd. We love that crowd, too! It's just not us.
- We've envisioned our project as having the cinematographic aesthetic of La Nouvelle Vague. Imagine if a young Godard were making a short film. That's what this is. Not necessarily state-of-the-art production values, a la Cop Hard. But rather production values that emerge from a brilliant narrative, a watertight script, great actors, an industrious and clever crew, and low-budget / high-value cinematography.


Thanks for all of your concern and for impressing on us the importance of knowing EXACTLY what we're doing before we get too deep into this. We will succeed, by hook or by crook. And we'll definitely keep you posted on our progress.

Thank you!