Super 16mm v High Definition Video

HD v Super 16mm

  • Super 16mm

    Upvotes: 0 0.0%

  • HD

    Upvotes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe_smith

joe_smith

Hi,
Im new to this forum. And I was wondering if someone could offer me some advice?

Im in a battle with the Producer of an upcoming film in which I was hired to Direct.

We are on a budget and either have the choice of Viper Filmstream Camera or Super 16mm...

As the Director, I want to get the Highest posible image quality. The Producer is mainly worried about the budget.

We intend to blow-up to 35mm. It seems to me HD is the way to go, as I don't hear of to many films being shot on Super 16mm anymore. It's usually HD or 35mm....

But which formate has more resolution, and better image quality for the 35mm theater release print?

I understand different people will have different takes on this... But I need advice from a Technical stand point.

I shot basic 16mm, so im not smart on the Super 16 and HD, or its comparison to 35mm...

Thank you for your help,
Joseph Smith
 
Usually the reason low budget producers choose HD video over film is production costs. And since few independent features get theatrical release it's fine to shoot HD video for the DTV market.

Since you intend to go to 35mm anyway, the overall savings will be negligible. Video to film transfers are expensive. S16 to 35mm transfers are expensive.

Rental of a 35mm package is MUCH cheaper than the Viper and even less than S16 in most cases. Panavision is very competitive.

Since you are on a budget, but intend to blow up, I know you'll find the overall cost is within six to eight percent of shooting 35mm.

But I'm not answering your question:
joe_smith said:
But which formate has more resolution, and better image quality for the 35mm theater release print?
Click to expand...
On a budget, 16mm will give you better resolution.
If you can afford a high end, very expensive video to film transfer then HD is slightly different - not better IMO - but different.
 
Thanks!
Im looking to get the closest look and resolution to 35mm film that is possible to get.

I plan to scan the S16 to digital anyway, as Im also going to edit it digitally. so we will still have to do an HD - 35mm film trasnfer in the end, for Festivals.

Can you give me an average price on a high quality S16mm to 4k... or even 2k Digital Telecine?

By the way, what is the aspect ratio of Super 16mm?

Thanks again,
Joseph Smith
 
joe_smith said:
By the way, what is the aspect ratio of Super 16mm?

Thanks again,
Joseph Smith
Click to expand...
1:1.66 native. You can shoot with a 1:1.85 ground glass if you are blowing up to 35mm widescreen.
 
buying 35mm Leftovers

Hello again. I find this forum very helpful, so I figure I'll bother you some more :-)....

I talked with the Producer about the replys I got today. And we brainstormed a bit, and have taken the idea that 35mm equipment is in most cases cheaper than super 16mm into account. The producer is going to call Panavision tomorrow to inquire about there prices.

Is it possible to get 35mm leftovers for pretty good price. I dont really want short ends, just leftover reels. Can someone quote me a price on such? In maybee 1,000 or 400' reels? and how to go about buying such leftovers? If I can't get 1,000 reels for under $.15/foot, and 400' for under $.10 then S16 will be the only option. I figure we will need at least 15 hours of film, and 20 if we can get it.

I know I should just leave this up to the DP.... But I dont have one attached yet. and we really need to know even before the DP is attached.

We are working with serveral kids on this picture, and kids cost film! we need the most film we can get for the best price.

Thank you again,
Joseph Smith
 
Personally, I would only shoot with fresh stock from Kodak. If you buy unopened cans, you still don't know where they've been. They may have been locked up in the camera truck for a month on a shoot in the 100 degree desert.
 
I agree with indie.

Recans aren't a good idea. But with enough preProduction time you may be able to get enough fresh cans from Dr. Rawstock.

You can usually make a deal with Kodak. So many productions are going HD that they are getting very agressive with their prices - especially for features.

Even if you're paying .18-.20/foot you'll still save over a video/film transfer or film/film blow up in the long run - but .15/foot isn't out of the question. You can make a deal for developing and telecine of your neg for editing, too.
 
I don’t agree about the short ends. I was on a feature where we shot short ends for the entire thing because the DP got a deal for around $0.05 per foot, and we had a handful of full reels on hand for some special scenes. It made for a lot of mag changes, but we never had any problems with the footage, and it saved a ton of money. But my experience is very limited with this, and we may have just gotten lucky.
 
Ok.... tell me. If it is possible to get new 35mm stock for $.18/foot. How unreasonable would it be to get Super 16 for $.10 - $.12 a foot new?

Dr. Rawstock quoted me $.28/foot average from s16. If I did go s16, I would want to get a lower speed stock to kep it from Graining up to much when transfered to 35mm. I reallyhate to shot HD right now. Untill HD catches up to film, then I dont have any real use for it unless the scene calls for the HD look.
 
Short ends are a great option as long as you go with a reputable dealer. I've shot two features on 80% short ends. Check out my article on buying shorts ends at: http://www.scottspears.net/shortendsarticle.htm

I'm still a big fan of film as an origination media. It gives you more options, like transfering to NTSC or PAL.

35mm camera packages are cheaper than most HD packages. I have a buddy with an older, but very reliable package that can be had fairly cheaply.

What's your budget range? My feeling is if you don't have at least $100,000-125,000 for the shoot, you shouldn't even consider 35mm.

Finally, if you're looking for a DP, check out my website for info on me at:
www.scottspears.net

Scott[/url]
 
I'm still a big fan of film as an origination media. It gives you more options, like transfering to NTSC or PAL.
Click to expand...
I thought if you shot in HD 24p, it could also be transfered to PAL and NTSC?

35mm camera packages are cheaper than most HD packages. I have a buddy with an older, but very reliable package that can be had fairly cheaply.
Click to expand...
I will agree with you there. Although I must say, some of Panavisions nice cameras are up in the $2,500/day range. I think they have some king of Panastar High speed for $600.00/day though. Arri wants $1,350.00/day for there Arricam Studio loaded.


What's your budget range? My feeling is if you don't have at least $100,000-125,000 for the shoot, you shouldn't even consider 35mm.
Click to expand...
I dont have one yet. It all depends on how many units of my software I can sell. I guess I may have $150,000 - .5million hopefully, pending.

Finally, if you're looking for a DP, check out my website for info on me at:
Click to expand...
I will keep you in mind.
 
joe_smith said:
Arri wants $1,350.00/day for there Arricam Studio loaded.
Click to expand...
Try to get a 2 day week on your camera rental. I know Arri quotes a 3 day week, but you don't have to use the Arri owned rental companies. The place I use in NY actually does a one day week. (haven't used that particular camera)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top