• For posts related to budget, finanace, legalities, distro, and marketing (including festivals) please post in Film Biz.
    Rule of thumb:
    Filmmaking for directors (creative)
    Film Biz for producers (buisness)

Some basic technical knowledge that we must know.

Hello Everybody

This is really such a beautiful place. I've been here for just three days and I'm kinda getting into the act, quite nicely. Lots of Knowledge to explore. :)

Having said that, I need to know some of the basic knowledge about film, digital film making which is considered to be an alternative, etc.,

I'm really interested in shooting with films, but I must eat my humble pie and stick to my limitations.

My question is, what is it that makes films look more pretty or so pleasing than digital. I know that in the modern era digital is the boss, but my icon - Chris Nolan is so much obsessed with films, why is it? If it's Nolan then there has to be a strong reason.

Second question is, I come from a not-so-poor family, but my parents cannot afford me a DSLR right now. I'm 19, and I live India and here student jobs aren't very common and too abusive, unlike my cousin's in NZ. All I have with me is a flat, one-point shooting Canon Digital Camera with a HD recording feature and auto focus etc., It records up to 1080p and works very fine with a 32GB memory space. I have fair amount of knowledge and practice in editing and color correction (recently came across video scopes and they are brilliant) etc., and I want to know more ways with which I can attain convincing shots for my short movies with my Digicam. I came across a thing call letterbox template, and how to use it the best.

I use Sony Vegas Pro 11 and Adobe After Effects CS5. How to give some convincing looks using these softwares?

And just for knowledge sake, what is meant by 16mm, 35mm, and 70mm and what's the difference between them? What is the difference between 16mm and super 16mm? I came across a sentence Blowing up 35mm into 70mm. What does that mean? What is the difference between mm thing and the aspect ratio?

That's a long list of questions, but I know you people are so kind and helpful. :cheers:

Thank you.
 
Franky if real film was involved, Id never bother to make movies. Too much trouble, too much expense, too much wasted time waiting to see what you got etc..

Film is not a cheap medium to learn on. Having what amounts to basically FREE unlimited film stock (digital) lets me try experiments that would cost thousands of dollars is simple development fees..

Learn with digital, and if you desire at some point to dable in film, you will know the basics without the expenses.
 
You can get a number of cheap HD camcorders for under $300 at places like Best Buy. I really don't get the whole "DSLR for filming" craze that seems to have taken off lately.
 
Jesus guys, he's not asking if he should shoot on film.


For your digicam, search if there's any way to disable the autofocus. That will be helpful. Then, get yourself a tripod and it should be enough for starters.

DSLR are great because you have manual control over every parameter, unlike most of camcorders (unless you go up in price and then, just get a DSLR because you'll have access to a large variety of lenses).



As for Nolan and film, there you go :

Q: You and your cameraman, Wally Pfister, are—along with Steven Spielberg—among the last holdouts who shoot on film in an industry that’s moved to digital. What’s your attraction to the older medium?

A: For the last 10 years, I've felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I've never understood why. It's cheaper to work on film, it's far better looking, it’s the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years, and it's extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. We save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital intermediates. In fact, I've never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I've just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven't seen that reason yet.
 
Last edited:
Franky if real film was involved, Id never bother to make movies. Too much trouble, too much expense, too much wasted time waiting to see what you got etc..

Film is not a cheap medium to learn on. Having what amounts to basically FREE unlimited film stock (digital) lets me try experiments that would cost thousands of dollars is simple development fees..

Learn with digital, and if you desire at some point to dable in film, you will know the basics without the expenses.

I disagree completely with not shooting on film because it's too x. I could shoot those arguments down right away, but I don't want to turn this into a film vs digital thread ;)

Yeah, learn on digital, and don't worry about the differences for now. There's so many more things that make a film look like a film than the frame/sensor size and the shooting format.

Go out and learn, then woirry about that :)
 
Learn lighting, good photographic composition and good story telling... add cool backgrounds/locations and you've got a much better product than most of what people start out doing, their living room (unless you have a really cool living room).

Avoiding putting the camera perpendicular to a wall and shooting straight at the wall (unless you have a specific reason to do so).

This all translates from digital to film and will improve your skills that you'd need to make a film based project.

Nolan not doing DI hurts my brain a little... I'm shocked that he can get such a modern look through traditional grading.
 
I disagree completely with not shooting on film because it's too x. I could shoot those arguments down right away, but I don't want to turn this into a film vs digital thread ;)

Yeah, learn on digital, and don't worry about the differences for now. There's so many more things that make a film look like a film than the frame/sensor size and the shooting format.

Go out and learn, then woirry about that :)

I love a good religious war . so go.. :)


I'v shot 25 hours of footage on my ONE $28 SD chip. Tell me where you I buy 25 hours (@24p) worth of 16mm color film and have developed for only $28?

(EDIT: Im seriously contemplating buying a 16mm cam from local Craigslist, so I may just play the film game anyway.. lol)
 
Last edited:
One of you haven't read my post completely and it has given rise to a Film vs Digital - Handicap match :lol:

I mentioned that I'm interested in working with films but not anytime soon. I'm unable to afford myself a DSLR, and how will I be able to thump on films? :)

It's just some technical terms related to film that I came across during a seminar in my local area that raised some questions. The speaker couldn't clear my doubts so I put that question up here, and because even Google appeared to be a stupid when I looked up for differences between film size and focal length That speaker mentioned that he blew up his 35mm film into 75mm! What is that blowing up thing? :)

That was my question.

And also some tips and walkthroughs about certain basic rules to be necessarily followed while shooting with a simple HD Digicam. I experimented a few shots like establishing, close ups, medium shots etc. Establishing shots like long shots etc., didn't come out quite nicely 'coz few distant objects weren't that clear and it disrupted the whole clip. Such and such things that some of you might have come across and wanna share it with me... And I'm making a suspense-thriller so some guidelines in that perspective etc.,

For dollying over a short distance I used my old Abacus and it came pretty :) Try it

While editing those raw footages in Vegas Pro 11, I applied a letterbox I downloaded from Rickvanman's youtube channel. It brought a little cinematic feel into it and I was quite happy :) Color correction, grading etc., brought some depth and all looked pretty convincing. But problem came with a flickering, not that CANDLE like flickering, but some sort. I guess it's something to do with the White balance or exposure, I'm not sure, that is disrupting everything I had captured and I'm not able to find out what feature has to be disabled in my device to avoid it. One of my friend, up here, posted an advise to turn off the auto focus and it worked nicely when I did it.
 

directorik

IndieTalk's Resident Guru
because even Google appeared to be a stupid when I looked up for differences between film size and focal length That speaker mentioned that he blew up his 35mm film into 75mm! What is that blowing up thing? :)

That was my question.
Film size is how big the film stock is in millimeters. Common film sizes are
8mm, super 8, 16mm, 35mm and 70mm
film_sizes.png


The focal length of a lens is defined as the distance in mm from the optical
center of the lens to the focal point, which is located on the sensor or film.
94%7ce550c3%7cb43c_3973-FocalLength-diag.gif


That speaker mentioned that he blew up his 35mm film into 75mm! What is that blowing up thing?
That means he shot his film using 35mm film and then printed it to a larger format 70mm film
for projection in a theater. Check out this old article http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/35-70mm.htm
 
Top