Was looking to produce my first full feature and was just wondering what direction to take the project. Hypothetically if budget wasn't an issue(of course it always is) what format would be better served to get the best results. And by best, I mean a fantasy world where your film would make a big festival and would be considered for theatrical release. I'm not trying to raise a film vs. digital debate, but was curious your thoughts on the subject. I guess what I'm asking, is the Red able to get close enough to that "film" look without going to the trouble and expense of actually shooting on film? Or is film(even 16mmm) the best way to get something closer to that big budget, 35mm shoot that we all grew up watching and loving? Thanks in advance.
Super 16mm or Red Epic???
- Thread starter begezinum21
- Start date
Considering Avatar 2 and The Hobbit are both being shot on the Red Epic as I type, I think you're safe with either choice.
Just do some research on how to color correct it nicely, etc.
A huge part of it is the lenses. Cohen Bro's Cinematographer uses Cooke lenses with the Red - they look absolutely amazing.
Apparently Skyline was shot on a Red. As well as District 9. IMHO I think District 9 was amazing, and Skyline looked horrible.
Just do some research on how to color correct it nicely, etc.
A huge part of it is the lenses. Cohen Bro's Cinematographer uses Cooke lenses with the Red - they look absolutely amazing.
Apparently Skyline was shot on a Red. As well as District 9. IMHO I think District 9 was amazing, and Skyline looked horrible.
If im understanding this correctly - Yes general the Red and Epic will give you that "Big Budget Look" - But ive seen a much better Super 16mm film over a Red film, all depends on the crew, (DP) (Gaffer) etc... As mentioned above - Avatar!
To me, 16mm is out of the picture for the "Big Budget Look" unless a film is supposed to have that OLD GRITTY look.
Hope this helped
Nick Soares
Like The Hurt Locker?
I think the RED Epic is a better option from a utility point of view.
The Hurt Locker was not shot on 16mm - (If that is what you meant)
*EDIT*
To me 16mm and Super 16mm are completely different
I have a modded Eclair if anyone is interested by the way. Super 16mm with sound
Last edited:
16mm and Super16 are different only in the frame size. They don't even look different (frame dimensions aside). And the Hurt Locker was certainly shot on 16mm.
In terms of Red vs 16mm - both are completely different cameras. It's like asking DSLR vs Shoulder-mount. The answer is: it depends. What look does your film need? What budget do you have? What time constraints do you have?
16mm is faster in that there's practically no electronics. On a film camera you essentially have on and off and that's it (maybe sometimes a video split for the Director). On Red there's a million different settings and options, plus a 90-second boot up time, issues with crashing etc. As well, 16mm camera batteries last longer (again as there are much less electronics in the camera).
Also, in terms of that clean, high budget look - you can certainly get that out of S16. What stock are you shooting on? How are you processing it? I've seen Fuji 500T stock rated at 400 which is unrecogniseable situated within the midst of 35mm. I've also seen Kodak 50D which looks like a bad student 16mm film (probably because it was..) It all depends on your level of skill. 16mm you need to know your stuff, you need to be confident you can nail takes as you may not have the budget for hundreds of rolls of film. You need to know how to use a light meter properly. With Red and digital, unlike film, what you see is what you get. Whilst you may be recording raw on a Red, you can still get exactly the look you created on set. With 16mm, you essentially use the viewfinder as a frame composing tool and everything else comes down to hwo you lit and metered and how it gets developed.
I think they're both amazing formats and I love shooting on film. I also love shooting high end digital (though Alexa much more than Red). It really comes down to a preference depending on the story. That's why you hire a DP so they can make the decision about what's the best format for the story.
To me, whilst I find that Red can look great, it's still inherently digital looking. There's something 'magic' about the grain of film that I just can't get enough of.
Anyway, it also comes down to the grade, so whether you go 16mm or Red, you would be wise to invest in an experienced colourist to grade your film.
16mm will give you, whether you like it or not, beautiful grain.
Epic won't. You can add grain in post. The issue is does fake grain look as nice as real grain? I'll leave that one for the Gods.
16mm also won't give you as shallow DOF as an Epic.
16mm might give a little more DR too.
Epic won't. You can add grain in post. The issue is does fake grain look as nice as real grain? I'll leave that one for the Gods.
16mm also won't give you as shallow DOF as an Epic.
16mm might give a little more DR too.
You may want to consider 35mm and short ends. I've been able to snag 35mm short ends for .20 a foot. If you can can get your hands on a camera that shoots 3-perf, that will save you money too. I have shot two features on 70% short ends with almost no problems.
Scott
Scott
I'm a firm believer in the end user is much more important than the hardware. Either one will look great in the hands of an experienced professional.
The Hurt Locker was shot on four Super 16mm cameras which Kathryn Bigelow says mirrors the way 'the eye sees differently than the lens, but with multiple focal lengths and a muscular editorial style, the lens can give you that microcosm/macrocosm perspective, and that contributes to the feeling of total immersion.'
Oh that was cute. I think you miss understood me. I know exactly how they are different, and its a huge difference believe it or not. The Hurt Locker was not shot on 16mm film, it was shot on Super 16mm -
Again, the difference is frame size. A 2k standard 16mm scan cropped to 1080x1920 will look the same as the same frame on a 1920x1080 HD S16 frame. Also, given tat standard 16mm is practically dead in terms of its use outside of film school, I think it's pretty safe to bundle the two in the same category (even if they were significantly different, though they're not). To say that the Hurt Locker wasn't shot on 16mm film... it was shot on SUPER 16 is ludicrous because the 16mm film itself is the same. The cameras are slightly different, but not all that different that I'd call it a different format. That's like saying Super 35mm actually isn't 35mm. Of course it is, just like S16mm is 16mm - it uses 16mm film.
What do you think you put in a S16 camera? 35 mm film? A digital back? You run 16mm film through it - the same 16mm film you run through a standard 16 camera. To say that The Hurt Locker was not shot on 16mm film, it was shot on Super 16mm shows a lack of understanding of the format. The same film runs through either camera.
To comment that S16mm is not 16mm film is akin to commenting that films shot on a 5D are shot on a CMOS sensor, but films shot on a 7D aren't shot on a CMOS sensor.
Last edited:
I think you'll find once Kodak (hopefully) resurfaces out of their Chapter 11, then you'll see a resurgence of film use. Hollywood is still 75-85% based on film...