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.

 

[jnoahu]

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

Thank you for this extensive resource on just why crystal sync is vital, why it still might not work, and just how financially exorbitant the whole proposal of filming with a crystal sync can be.

Suffice it to say that it's really tempting us to... gulp,... really begin considering digital. Yes, after all of this, we may just have to concede. Maybe Super 8mm might be the sole remaining option of capturing this project via film without selling organs. Pro8mm makes a big deal about crystal sync Super 8 as well, however. We did find a forum thread that shows a number of ways to get sound with Super 8 without needing crystal sync: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=55638

We will investigate the financial efficacy of this and keep you posted. But you have been a FONT of wisdom for us, and we are so incredibly grateful for you. Thank you!

 

[Zensteve]

Releasing short films via festivals, the classic debut format for many great filmmakers, just doesn't seem to cut it anymore. (...) these articles: here, here, and here.)

Your sources are terrible.

Link #1 uses some of the sloppiest methodology for collecting & interpreting data I've seen in a long while.

Link #2 is inane drivel, with an admitted agenda.

Link #3 (after waffling on) summarises that you should do what you like, 'cos it's aaaaall good.

Why do you want to make a web-series?

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.

"Great experts" tend not to be film students... just sayin'.

Since you're wanting to shoot film, on a camera with both an anamorphic lens and a DOF adapter... someone's gonna need to know what's goin' on.

What's your general background, btw? Have you worked on any kind of film project, either your own or on someone elses?

 

[jnoahu]

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

Thanks for your question. No offense taken at all. It's important that we can defend our ideas and intentions.

#1. Film simply looks so much better than digital. We love how it can create the sumptuous Seventies aesthetic that really captures the heart of the project. If there is simply NO way that we can afford to do this project via film (now primarily considering just Super 8mm), then we will be forced to wave the white flag and use digital.
#2. This is not really a webseries we're planning, but rather an episodic short film broadcast online. This is a one-time project; i.e. no future seasons or episodes. This is also our calling card to the industry and a project we'll use as leverage to jump-start careers in film.
#3. We still believe it might be affordable to craft this project on film, despite evidence to the contrary. We're working on a shooting ratio of 3:1, with an edited project of 30 min. (35 minutes at most). We believe that we can find:
- a low-cost high-quality camera via eBay, etc. (especially for Super 8mm, the Bauer C700 XLM that we love is just $125)
- low-cost film stock (for Super 8mm, scouring the web for bargain deals and bulk sales, inquiring with local filmstock providers, etc.)
- a low-cost crew (finding a DP looking for a project for a reel, plus we've learned a ton on how to achieve great lighting, sound, and cinematography on a low-budget scale)

WILL it actually cost that much to transfer from film to web? Please inform us of the reality of this vital step.

We're still looking into the efficacy of post-production, especially with Super 8. If what we research is indeed sky-high, and we can locate no alternative (friends, any connections, begging and pleading)... then we'll just have to settle for digital.

Digital looks cheap next to film. It IS cheap next to film, of course. But if that's what we have to do....

If you or anyone else can show us a gorgeous low-budget project that was created on digital, PLEASE point it out to us. We're not dumb trust-fund kids. We just have a dream of creating something truly unique and impressive.

 

[jnoahu]

Your sources are terrible.

Link #1 uses some of the sloppiest methodology for collecting & interpreting data I've seen in a long while.

Link #2 is inane drivel, with an admitted agenda.

Link #3 (after waffling on) summarises that you should do what you like, 'cos it's aaaaall good.

Why do you want to make a web-series?




"Great experts" tend not to be film students... just sayin'.

Since you're wanting to shoot film, on a camera with both an anamorphic lens and a DOF adapter... someone's gonna need to know what's goin' on.

What's your general background, btw? Have you worked on any kind of film project, either your own or on someone elses?

Thanks for your response. I really appreciate you really testing me to see if what I want, and what I stand for, really hold up. I'll try to respond to your questions as best and as thoroughly as I can.

I can see your point on Links #1 and #3. Link #2 does present what I think is a cogent argument in the web series v. short film debate. Not 100% water-tight, but some persuasive content nonetheless.

You're right -- IF we proceed with Super 8, we'd need someone with the experience of handling the equipment we need to achieve the look that we want. We'll try to find one for free or for cheap.

If that's not possible... we may just scrap the whole project. As much as we believe in this story, it's seems as if all of heaven and earth is against us at this point. But at least we dared to dream for as long as we could.

I'm a recent college graduate. I studied literature and film at Stanford and Oxford. I'm from Los Angeles but also went to school and lived in Paris for a couple years. My mother was an indie filmmaker, yet the horrible experience of her final project left her completely jaded and embittered against Hollywood. I don't (yet!) share her disillusionment.

I'm trying to construct a career in film. Acting remains my top priority. After I graduated I beelined to New York and built a promising theater career. But it soon dawned on me that, for myriad reasons, theater would not really help me (specifically, theater's great for many ppl though) in my aspirations of a film acting career. So I moved back to Los Angeles and have started anew.

I'm so sick of all the actors here complaining about the lack of work, how it's impossible to break into the business. I've done months of study and homework on just how to escape the fate of the jaded out-of-work actor. My primary focus right now is on creating a demo reel, breaking into SAG-AFTRA, and crafting a piece of work as an incentive to lure representation and get work.

The web series is the ideal solution, I've found, for fulfilling these goals.

I had originally just wanted to create a web-based project just to check-mark these goals off my list. Yet a series of events inflated my aspirations:

- Many actors I know who've successfully earned representation did so with not just a web series, but one that attracted a major following and earned great viewership figures on YouTube.

- The industry is HIGHLY responsive to those who self-start, who take initiative, who create their OWN projects and popularize them with their own blood, sweat, and tears. I believe that committing myself to this project 1,000% could reap dividends of respect from the industry, interest in my talents, and an actual career.

- I'm not just acting in the project. I'm writing it and producing it as well. All of that use of myself in this project has naturally led to me serving as its director as well. It's dawned on me: this project is not just representative of me as an actor. It represents what I offer as a filmmaker as well.

- I'm a cultural elitist. I don't like "crappy" projects, like most of what I see being made online. I spent my school years studying Stanley Kubrick, analyzing Scorsese's oeuvre, defending the genius of Godard, marveling at how geniuses like Paul Thomas Anderson took over this industry.

- If I'm going to make a project, I only want the absolute best. I see this project as an opportunity to announce myself as a young filmmaker as well as an actor. Whatever I can do to maximize its quality, I want to try to do.

- Obviously THE most important element of this project is the story, the script. Let me tell you... I understand that like no one else. Draft after draft of this project has been written and will continue to be written. The glory and wonder of this project should all be in the writing. Until that script is dynamite, we won't proceed.

Yes, I'm a young, inexperienced, broke recent grad with a dream. Yes, I have joined the long line of the same broke grads here in Hollywood. But I still dream of distinguishing myself and creating a career that has an impact. As far as I'm concerned, that career begins with this project.

I invite any and all additional questions you may have about me, my background, my intentions, or this project. Thank you.

 

[WalterB]

Hello!

................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?!?

.......

No.



You'll need the budget you have for other things than filmstock, development and scanning.

But feel free to give it a try.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

We will also allot a budget for a talented DP and post-production unit to shepherd us through the project.

+ A talented Production Sound Mixer and Picture Editor! And, I agree with ZenSteve, as I mentioned earlier, I very much doubt a student (even a very talented one) will cut it. To be honest even many/most moderately experienced professionals might be out of their depth.

Thank you for this extensive resource on just why crystal sync is vital, why it still might not work, and just how financially exorbitant the whole proposal of filming with a crystal sync can be.

To be honest, I've got little idea of how expensive it can on the production sound side. It's obviously more expensive than not having to jump through all the sync "hoops" but how much more expensive I can't say. An experienced professional Production Sound Mixer will not only be able to provide you with all this info but will already own all the necessary sound equipment to achieve accurate sync. I do know however, only too well, how expensive it can be if the production sound isn't recorded in sync and the problem is left until post to solve and "financially exorbitant" would just about cover it!
BTW, you can get out of sync production sound with digital too and then you're facing the exact same problem but a fully digital workflow is generally far simpler and therefore more difficult to foul up.

Suffice it to say that it's really tempting us to... gulp,... really begin considering digital. Yes, after all of this, we may just have to concede. Maybe Super 8mm might be the sole remaining option of capturing this project via film without selling organs. Pro8mm makes a big deal about crystal sync Super 8 as well, however. We did find a forum thread that shows a number of ways to get sound with Super 8 without needing crystal sync: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=55638

I've read that thread you linked to, it seems to be mainly the blind leading the blind as far as I can see. For example, PluralEyes will NOT solve sync issues in this situation because it needs an "in sync" reference to start with.

I've have no experience of working with Super8 or Pro8. I have worked professionally with projects filmed (and distributed) on 35mm film. I assume the issues with Pro8 are the same as with 35mm, from a sync and sound perspective. Obviously the cost of hiring a good professional Production Sound Mixer is going to be high (relative to hiring a student), the same is true of the DOP and of Audio Post but then the quality of work they will produce and therefore the quality of your final product, will also far surpass what a student is capable of. This is just as true with a fully digital workflow as it is if you use film. So you're not throwing money away on expensive professionals just to get in sync sound, you are getting added value/quality as well!

G

 

[wheatgrinder]

OP, stop being so nice. Its time to get offended! lol.

So have you consider post for the 70's astethic you love so much..

is this '70's enough for ya?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69uJxNNvZM8

 

[jnoahu]

OP, stop being so nice. Its time to get offended! lol.

So have you consider post for the 70's astethic you love so much..

is this '70's enough for ya?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69uJxNNvZM8

Wheatgrinder... you may have just answered our prayers !!!

Yes indeed, this would be a look that appeals to our sumptuous vintage aesthetic. Would you mind sharing how you achieved the look? What digital camera did you use? Any special lenses or DOF adapter, or other equipment during production? What in post-pro helped to accomplish the lovely finish?

A part of me does want to get irate about the hatred of film and love of digital in this forum. But I have to begrudgingly admit that many of them have a point.

If it were possible to achieve a look like this through digital means, for a low-budget production, then we might actually confirm our switch to digital.

 

[Zensteve]

A part of me does want to get irate about the hatred of film and love of digital in this forum.

Dude wut?

 

[jax_rox]

A part of me does want to get irate about the hatred of film and love of digital in this forum. But I have to begrudgingly admit that many of them have a point.

Personally, I love film, and if I could I'd shoot 35mm on every project that called for it.

Turns out 99 times out of 100, Producers don't want to spend the money when they've seen 'amazing things shot on DSLR'.
I've said it before: the democratisation of the industry, and the exact thing that low-budgeters see as the renaissance of the industry, is the thing that's killing it if you think in a more traditional sense. We have kids who buy a 7D and a $100 50mm lens and call themselves 'cinematographers' getting work because Producers know no different. We're slowly getting used to noise in images, we're getting used to workflows where we light an image to be as flat as possible and fix everything in post, at times not even deciding on the exact look we want until it comes to the colour grade.

Anyway, it's a little off topic but yeah. I still think there is quite a large difference between the look of film and digital, unless perhaps you're talking about the Alexa, and even then the Alexa's the closest, but it's still not there. I love the look of film, but I know a lot of Producers don't care, and a lot of lower budget producers are happy paying 1/3rd of the price for simply acceptable images out a 5D, rather than paying more and getting amazing images out of something else.

Anyway /end rant.

Honestly, if I were your DP, I'd suggest S16mm shooting reversal stock. I think it'd be almost exactly what you want. You kinda need to have the discussion with your DP, though rather than the internet - you're better off having your DP say 'yeah let's shoot this on x' and you saying 'yeah that sounds great' rather than you saying 'but the internet said....'

As well, be careful of getting film students in general. Some are great, especially the ones in their final year. Some are not. In my local area, there's probably 5-7 film schools, and I'd only be comfortable employing graduates from 1 of them straight out of film school without them having any other experience, and even then I'd have to interview them carefully to screen out the ones who need more experience. Also, I know that USC has discontinued film as part of their program and now only shoot on digital, so just make sure whoever your DP is, is able to weigh up all the options including film and give you the look you want, and won't simply rule out film just because they've never shot on it before/are jaded about it because they've had 'digital is king' pumped into them and have no interest in shooting on it.

 

[jnoahu]

Dude wut?

Here's the deal.

Obviously everyone participating in this forum loves "film." Film is our lives. So no, I don't mean that respondents have been demeaning the virtues of cinema.

What has been moderately disappointing is that, instead of trying to help us realize our goal -- shooting this project on film with a low budget, the majority of respondents slam the door on the idea.

This is not without reason. They are so right to impress upon us the gravity and realities of dealing with film. It is difficult. It is expensive. And (as most people insinuate our project won't be successful) it's NOT worth it. Digital is cheap, digital is easy, digital will keep you in the black, many seem to be saying.

For those of you who HAVE been positive about our idea, thank you. This isn't a film-vs.-digital war. But it's nice to know that SOME people still believe in the beauty of film and that young artists should pursue opportunities to engage in the craft of cinema via 35mm, 16mm, Super 8, what have you.

I shouldn't have to riff off a list of names of great cinema artists who got their start with short projects. There's something sexy and fantastic and inimitable about film. It's the stuff dreams are made of.

READERS: do you agree with that? Do you think that young up-and-comers from the 2010s deserve to practice in the same medium as their counterparts from the 60s and 70s?

If so, PLEASE help us make this happen! Propose a (rational, feasible) solution! Advise us on how young low-budgeters can create a FILM project!

- What affordable camera / equipment should we use to do this?
- How do we secure low-cost film stock?
- How do we pin down a film-skilled DP willing to work with us?
- What can we do to make post-production financially possible?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Readers: do you disagree with the above? Then tell me. Clarify again why we're just some young idiots gearing up for a debt-producing disappointment.


- What DIGITAL cam / equip should we use?
- Or.... should we just give up on this whole thing, fall into a hole, and die?

Thank you

 

[jnoahu]

Personally, I love film, and if I could I'd shoot 35mm on every project that called for it.

Turns out 99 times out of 100, Producers don't want to spend the money when they've seen 'amazing things shot on DSLR'.
I've said it before: the democratisation of the industry, and the exact thing that low-budgeters see as the renaissance of the industry, is the thing that's killing it if you think in a more traditional sense. We have kids who buy a 7D and a $100 50mm lens and call themselves 'cinematographers' getting work because Producers know no different. We're slowly getting used to noise in images, we're getting used to workflows where we light an image to be as flat as possible and fix everything in post, at times not even deciding on the exact look we want until it comes to the colour grade.

Anyway, it's a little off topic but yeah. I still think there is quite a large difference between the look of film and digital, unless perhaps you're talking about the Alexa, and even then the Alexa's the closest, but it's still not there. I love the look of film, but I know a lot of Producers don't care, and a lot of lower budget producers are happy paying 1/3rd of the price for simply acceptable images out a 5D, rather than paying more and getting amazing images out of something else.

Anyway /end rant.

Honestly, if I were your DP, I'd suggest S16mm shooting reversal stock. I think it'd be almost exactly what you want. You kinda need to have the discussion with your DP, though rather than the internet - you're better off having your DP say 'yeah let's shoot this on x' and you saying 'yeah that sounds great' rather than you saying 'but the internet said....'

As well, be careful of getting film students in general. Some are great, especially the ones in their final year. Some are not. In my local area, there's probably 5-7 film schools, and I'd only be comfortable employing graduates from 1 of them straight out of film school without them having any other experience, and even then I'd have to interview them carefully to screen out the ones who need more experience. Also, I know that USC has discontinued film as part of their program and now only shoot on digital, so just make sure whoever your DP is, is able to weigh up all the options including film and give you the look you want, and won't simply rule out film just because they've never shot on it before/are jaded about it because they've had 'digital is king' pumped into them and have no interest in shooting on it.

THANK YOU for making a landmark point, and inspiring an epiphany about this post: this entire conversation is a microcosm for the larger, industry-wide debate between film and digital.

NO ONE seems to value cinematography anymore! Not the least the newbies from our generation (born in the late '80s/early '90s), who have no clue or respect for it as an art form, or even understand anything about actual film.

It doesn't help that Martin Scorsese is really tooting the digital horn right now.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...igital-wolf-of-wallstreet-wont-be-3d-20120627

We know that Christopher Nolan still is adamant about film. But it's dying! We ourselves didn't know about this until... well, until we dared to dream the 35mm/16mm dream ourselves.

Honestly... we're having serious discussions about scrapping this entire endeavor. We are SO in love with our story and its possibilities. But unless someone offers us a miracle plan to make it financially feasible, our dreams will die a slow but inevitable death.

If by some stroke of luck we could find a way to make film affordable, there's no way we could achieve what we want without a film-skilled DP.

But what you've mentioned to us-- about actual film students who are shockingly malnourished when it comes to working in real life, about USC (of all schools!) going 100% digital-- makes us feel like finding a film-skilled DP who doesn't work for Christopher Nolan will be IMPOSSIBLE.

Goodbye, filmed web project dream. It sure was nice to entertain some celluloid optimism. At least for a little while.

 

[jax_rox]

Then you've got these things like Zacuto's shootout sparking headlines on Gizmodo about how '[a] GH2 is the best camera out' because Francis Ford Coppola said he liked the image from it (of course, if you watched the series you might glean that he actually said he liked it, but no better than say an Alexa... but what busy Producer has an hour and a half to sit and watch the whole thing?). So, even our own colleagues are working against us simply because the way they presented their series implies 'all these cameras look the same' rather than 'with the right amount of equipment, and skill and technical knowledge in the crew, as well unlimited time on set and 90 minutes grading time for three shots (to put things in perspective, I've shot shorts where we had 120 minutes total for the grade of the entire 12 minute film simply because grading suites cost $500-700+/hr), then the cameras presented can look similar'. So it's a wonder why more Producers aren't wondering why the hell we want to shoot on an Alexa when the GH2 looks 'just as good' - hey FFC said so!

Anyway:
The fiscal issue for you is that there's just not the same amount of film around nowadays. When film was the only capture medium, there were short ends everywhere, and if you were a sweet talking Producer you could get film for really cheap or even free from Kodak if you were a student/newbie filmmaker.

Not only that, but because film was the only way to capture, you either saved up enough money to buy the stock and processing, or you didn't shoot. Plus, editing was all done manually so there was no need for a telecine or DI. These days everyone edits digitally so you need to pay for a telecine or DI of your footage.

Film isn't around as much anymore and though Kodak have dropped their prices comparatively, you'll be hard pressed to make them drop their prices anymore. Then you've got processing and telecine, and even potentially a colour grade...

Plus, now there are a whole lot of other options for you to capture your film for a much smaller cost. On a big budget scale, the difference in cost between film and digital is negligible at best, but on a low budget scale where you could essentially shoot your film at no cost if you have a friend who has a DSLR, then there's a huge difference. There's also a huge difference in image quality, but that's a whole different argument.

Kodak will sell you 16mm reversal stock for ~$30 for a 100ft roll (IIRC) which gives you about 3 minutes of shooting time.
You may also be able to find people who have short ends or recans who will sell to you cheaper (ie, I sold a 400ft recan of 7207 to some acquaintances of mine for $100). AFAIK, Kodak LA has an Aaton A-Minima that they will rent to you pretty cheaply if your Producer shpiels them enough. Rental houses may also rent to you cheap if you shpiel them enough - the industry is starting to see a bit of a resurgence in 16mm but if you can find a rental house who would rather have it out on a job for $100/day rather than sitting collecting dust, or perhaps an owner/operator who hasn't seen it get any use for a logn time (I saw a pimped out Arri SR2 on sale on craigslist for $3000 pretty recently!).

Then call up your local film labs and check out the cost of processing and telecine. It's not going to be super duper cheap, but if you can budget for it you might be able to - the best thing you can do is put together a bare minimum budget of the amount you'll need to make this thing and then once you have a figure you have something to work towards.

In terms of DPs, ther are people around, but just make sure you screen people properly and interview them properly. Make sure they can prove through some kind of credit that they have experience on film, because unless you know what you're doing, it can be easy to accidentally over-expose by three stops because you're not actually seeing what's being recorded - the first time I shot film, I accidentally over-exposed one shot by 3 stops because I pulled an ND filter and forgot to adjust the aperture. Looked perfectly fine in the viewfinder. Wasn't until I metered the light for the next shot that I adjusted it, and even then I didn't know if someone had accidentally bumped the aperture between the last shot and now, or if I'd actually shot the last shot over-exposed.

Didn't find out until telecine that it was over-exposed.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Turns out 99 times out of 100, Producers don't want to spend the money when they've seen 'amazing things shot on DSLR'.
I've said it before: the democratisation of the industry, and the exact thing that low-budgeters see as the renaissance of the industry, is the thing that's killing it if you think in a more traditional sense. We have kids who buy a 7D and a $100 50mm lens and call themselves 'cinematographers' getting work because Producers know no different. We're slowly getting used to noise in images, we're getting used to workflows where we light an image to be as flat as possible and fix everything in post, at times not even deciding on the exact look we want until it comes to the colour grade.

NO ONE seems to value cinematography anymore! Not the least the newbies from our generation (born in the late '80s/early '90s), who have no clue or respect for it as an art form, or even understand anything about actual film.

If you want to understand and see where it's going, look at the music business and film/TV sound sectors. Digital pretty much killed off analogue music and film/TV sound by the turn of the millennium. For a long time we've had newbies calling themselves Sound Designers who don't even really know what the job is, let alone know how to do it or heaven forbid, do it well. It's only the best Producers and Directors who have any regard or appreciation of sound design these days and really that is one of the major reasons why they are "the best". Only a handful of people here seem to know the difference between terrible sound design and good sound design and only really the audio pro's here know the difference between mediocre professional quality and the very highest quality. What is even more surprising is that many/most indie filmmakers don't even care! I see so many filmmakers on here struggling with relatively fine details of image capture, thinking this is the road to engage an audience and at the same time almost completely ignoring sound design. It's like watching someone spending all their time and money making or buying a better air filter, to improve performance by a couple of horse power, while ignoring aerodynamics, brakes, suspension and tyres. I really hope cinematography is not going the same way.

Rant over!

G

 

[wheatgrinder]

Wheatgrinder... you may have just answered our prayers !!!

Yes indeed, this would be a look that appeals to our sumptuous vintage aesthetic. Would you mind sharing how you achieved the look? What digital camera did you use? Any special lenses or DOF adapter, or other equipment during production? What in post-pro helped to accomplish the lovely finish?

A part of me does want to get irate about the hatred of film and love of digital in this forum. But I have to begrudgingly admit that many of them have a point.

If it were possible to achieve a look like this through digital means, for a low-budget production, then we might actually confirm our switch to digital.

Camera: GH2 (hacked aquamotion v2)
FD to M43 Lens Adapter
Lens: Cannon FD 50mm f1.4 , For the car mounted shots I used the KIT lens with Image Stabelization, which worked bang on well)

Post tools:
Adobe Premiere \ After effects
Magic Bullet Looks with a Luster Grade preset from http://www.colorgradingcentral.com/grade-presets/magic-bullet-looks-presets I think I used the "'The 70's" preset.
Added scratches and dust from built in After Effects filters.

 

[Duckforceone]

If you want to understand and see where it's going, look at the music business and film/TV sound sectors. Digital pretty much killed off analogue music and film/TV sound by the turn of the millennium. For a long time we've had newbies calling themselves Sound Designers who don't even really know what the job is, let alone know how to do it or heaven forbid, do it well. It's only the best Producers and Directors who have any regard or appreciation of sound design these days and really that is one of the major reasons why they are "the best". Only a handful of people here seem to know the difference between terrible sound design and good sound design and only really the audio pro's here know the difference between mediocre professional quality and the very highest quality. What is even more surprising is that many/most indie filmmakers don't even care! I see so many filmmakers on here struggling with relatively fine details of image capture, thinking this is the road to engage an audience and at the same time almost completely ignoring sound design. It's like watching someone spending all their time and money making or buying a better air filter, to improve performance by a couple of horse power, while ignoring aerodynamics, brakes, suspension and tyres. I really hope cinematography is not going the same way.

Rant over!

G

thought the old adage was that sound is 70% of the movie experience.... do people truly not realize how important sound is anymore? is it really that bad in your professional ears?

 

[jnoahu]

If you want to understand and see where it's going, look at the music business and film/TV sound sectors. Digital pretty much killed off analogue music and film/TV sound by the turn of the millennium. For a long time we've had newbies calling themselves Sound Designers who don't even really know what the job is, let alone know how to do it or heaven forbid, do it well. It's only the best Producers and Directors who have any regard or appreciation of sound design these days and really that is one of the major reasons why they are "the best". Only a handful of people here seem to know the difference between terrible sound design and good sound design and only really the audio pro's here know the difference between mediocre professional quality and the very highest quality. What is even more surprising is that many/most indie filmmakers don't even care! I see so many filmmakers on here struggling with relatively fine details of image capture, thinking this is the road to engage an audience and at the same time almost completely ignoring sound design. It's like watching someone spending all their time and money making or buying a better air filter, to improve performance by a couple of horse power, while ignoring aerodynamics, brakes, suspension and tyres. I really hope cinematography is not going the same way.

Rant over!

G

Sigh. This is why I wish I were a twenty-something in the Sixties and Seventies, not in the 2010s...

It really frightens me that A: the majority of people who might consider working for us low-cost or for free will NOT have either the skill set or the appreciation for excellence in sound design, and that B: most people ignore the fact that SOUND is the #1 sign of a truly top-notch cinematic endeavor!

Admittedly, our story is of the indie, arthouse variety. No Transformers or Terminator 2 demands to be hand (thank goodness!)

That said, there are several elements to our story that REQUIRE excellence in sound production and design:
- a beach scene
- a claustrophobic suspense scene (bad sound design = all suspense DOWN THE DRAIN)
- a party scene involving loud, bass-heavy "house" music with dialogue (aaahhh!)
- several scenes involving cooking and eating food

AudioPostExpert, your username says it all: you are a true master! What would you recommend that low-budgeters do to handle this obvious need for great sound, without the financial resources to afford Steven Spielberg's sound pro on his or her off day?!

 

[jnoahu]

Camera: GH2 (hacked aquamotion v2)
FD to M43 Lens Adapter
Lens: Cannon FD 50mm f1.4 , For the car mounted shots I used the KIT lens with Image Stabelization, which worked bang on well)

Post tools:
Adobe Premiere \ After effects
Magic Bullet Looks with a Luster Grade preset from http://www.colorgradingcentral.com/grade-presets/magic-bullet-looks-presets I think I used the "'The 70's" preset.
Added scratches and dust from built in After Effects filters.

Thank you! Wheatgrinder to the rescue!

Despite all odds, we are still going to pursue the feasibility of Super 8mm for this project (working out a budgeting plan, getting quotes from the right post-pro professionals, etc.) But if the cost of Super 8 prices us out, this looks like a phenomenal solution. Thank you... seriously. #ThumbsUp

 

[jnoahu]

thought the old adage was that sound is 70% of the movie experience.... do people truly not realize how important sound is anymore? is it really that bad in your professional ears?

I would agree with him, at least for the under-30 crowd. Not only does everyone spend all their time trying to manipulate their DSLR into a wannabe 35mm camera... that preoccupation (and lack of planning and attention to detail) translates into very little attention or respect given to the power of sound. THIS is what separates the Paul Thomas Andersons from the Peewee Hermans.

 

[jnoahu]

Then you've got these things like Zacuto's shootout sparking headlines on Gizmodo about how '[a] GH2 is the best camera out' because Francis Ford Coppola said he liked the image from it (of course, if you watched the series you might glean that he actually said he liked it, but no better than say an Alexa... but what busy Producer has an hour and a half to sit and watch the whole thing?). So, even our own colleagues are working against us simply because the way they presented their series implies 'all these cameras look the same' rather than 'with the right amount of equipment, and skill and technical knowledge in the crew, as well unlimited time on set and 90 minutes grading time for three shots (to put things in perspective, I've shot shorts where we had 120 minutes total for the grade of the entire 12 minute film simply because grading suites cost $500-700+/hr), then the cameras presented can look similar'. So it's a wonder why more Producers aren't wondering why the hell we want to shoot on an Alexa when the GH2 looks 'just as good' - hey FFC said so!

Anyway:
The fiscal issue for you is that there's just not the same amount of film around nowadays. When film was the only capture medium, there were short ends everywhere, and if you were a sweet talking Producer you could get film for really cheap or even free from Kodak if you were a student/newbie filmmaker.

Not only that, but because film was the only way to capture, you either saved up enough money to buy the stock and processing, or you didn't shoot. Plus, editing was all done manually so there was no need for a telecine or DI. These days everyone edits digitally so you need to pay for a telecine or DI of your footage.

Film isn't around as much anymore and though Kodak have dropped their prices comparatively, you'll be hard pressed to make them drop their prices anymore. Then you've got processing and telecine, and even potentially a colour grade...

Plus, now there are a whole lot of other options for you to capture your film for a much smaller cost. On a big budget scale, the difference in cost between film and digital is negligible at best, but on a low budget scale where you could essentially shoot your film at no cost if you have a friend who has a DSLR, then there's a huge difference. There's also a huge difference in image quality, but that's a whole different argument.

Kodak will sell you 16mm reversal stock for ~$30 for a 100ft roll (IIRC) which gives you about 3 minutes of shooting time.
You may also be able to find people who have short ends or recans who will sell to you cheaper (ie, I sold a 400ft recan of 7207 to some acquaintances of mine for $100). AFAIK, Kodak LA has an Aaton A-Minima that they will rent to you pretty cheaply if your Producer shpiels them enough. Rental houses may also rent to you cheap if you shpiel them enough - the industry is starting to see a bit of a resurgence in 16mm but if you can find a rental house who would rather have it out on a job for $100/day rather than sitting collecting dust, or perhaps an owner/operator who hasn't seen it get any use for a logn time (I saw a pimped out Arri SR2 on sale on craigslist for $3000 pretty recently!).

Then call up your local film labs and check out the cost of processing and telecine. It's not going to be super duper cheap, but if you can budget for it you might be able to - the best thing you can do is put together a bare minimum budget of the amount you'll need to make this thing and then once you have a figure you have something to work towards.

In terms of DPs, ther are people around, but just make sure you screen people properly and interview them properly. Make sure they can prove through some kind of credit that they have experience on film, because unless you know what you're doing, it can be easy to accidentally over-expose by three stops because you're not actually seeing what's being recorded - the first time I shot film, I accidentally over-exposed one shot by 3 stops because I pulled an ND filter and forgot to adjust the aperture. Looked perfectly fine in the viewfinder. Wasn't until I metered the light for the next shot that I adjusted it, and even then I didn't know if someone had accidentally bumped the aperture between the last shot and now, or if I'd actually shot the last shot over-exposed.

Didn't find out until telecine that it was over-exposed.

Thank you for this seriously informative and in-depth evaluation. It seems as if film is dying slowly yet inevitably. All the more inspiration for us to distinguish ourselves by being the only young ones gutsy enough to make this work -- without drowning in credit card debt. If we can pull this off, it would be quite a feat.

More reasons why we DO NOT WANT DIGITAL:
- it is WAY easier to light film than to light video!
- these cameras require stabilizing in order to pull off dolly, tracking shots, over the shoulder... pretty much anything a film camera can do naturally
- our research shows that there are a 1,000,001 things you can do to approximate the 35mm look with digital (long focal length, wide aperture, neutral density filters, lens adapters, etc.).... but you have to do 1,000,001 things to make digital LOOK like film. Why not just use film?!?

I really do think that acquiring affordable film stock is the easiest hoop we have to jump through. Via short ends, recans, and a whole lotta smooth talk, we believe we can nab our 9500' of stock for approx. $1000. We may not purchase all the film stock at once. This may have to be a catch-as-catch-can kind of enterprise. But we believe it's possible.

Truly the first challenges that really daunt us are these:
- finding a good sync camera, like the Arri BL4, ideally to purchase (renting it on a per-diem basis might be too expensive, with a prospective 16-day shooting schedule)
- finding a set of old Cooke 35mm prime lenses for that vintage look (maybe renting these might be cheaper?)
- finding a film-experienced DP who doesn't come with a Scorsese-sized fee

If we can't nail these three steps, I think we'll have to give in to the DSLR wave. Yippee. :/

Last but not least come the terrifying issues of post-pro. Processing, telecine, and editing -- oh my! This could definitely price us out. Does anyone have an idea of how much it would cost to complete post-pro on an indie feature from approx. 9500' of film stock?

Post isn't the scariest proposition; while we wait to secure financing, our team could begin getting all of our marketing ducks in a row.

Film stock. Camera. Lenses. DP. Post-pro. We got this. (We hope!)