Teach me what I need to know, guys.

O

omarzamora

So, I'm in post production of my first HD movie. It went well, shot 37 hours and it looks like we're gonna end up with a 105 min running time. It was a comedy and we changed up diologue a lot, added new jokes and all that shiz. There was one scene which took two hours to shoot but ended up being 27 seconds on screen because we did so many different versions of the joke. HD worked for me here because I went for a mumblecore mood and used non-professional actors and shot in Central California where I would not be able to find a true film crew.

I'm wanting to shoot my next on 16mm. I want it to be a FILM not a digital movie. There's many reasons that I want to do this. It feels like a natural progression, I did HD and that felt like practice and now I'm moving to Los Angeles for school and it seems that I can be a little more serious and I want my next thing to be a drama or romance and while I appreciate digital, I don't think it's very romantic. I can use proffesional actors there, find crews and everything is just more available.

What, other than the look, is the advantage of film?

Btw; I shot the HD comedy on $8,500. I'm expecting to get about $15,000 for the 16mm film. Is this a realistic amount for raw stock & lab processing?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Don't forget about the Red-One camera. Looks an awful lot like film but it's digital.

Shooting on film is definitely more expensive. Others around here can give you dollar numbers.

Any low budget film has very little chance of getting wider distribution beyond just Internet distribution. For that reason I think shooting on film is overkill. Money doe not grow on trees, and there's huge risk in making a movie. There's a reason why everyone is shooting on digital now. Film is "dead" amongst indie filmmakers.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeh I agree. Film is dead or dying atleast anyway. Dslr or red is the future. Don't hate me please film lovers. The only advantages of film is the film look which digital is getting closer to every day anyway. And I guess the credit you'd get from shooting film would also be nice.

Owen
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I haven't released footage to it but there's the info on how I made it and screen caps and production diaries at omarsalaszamora.wordpress.com

Not to sound like a dick, but I want to be a filmmaker. One cannot be a filmmaker and shoot on digital. I think there's something different to master 16mm because HD is so easy to handle and obtain that there is really no drive to make each frame beautiful. It's so dispensable because it's so cheap. I like digital but really it's only around to mimic film. So, why not use film? Because it's harder to deal with? I could use the red camera but for example, look at Kevin Smith's Red State. It looks amateur because of what it was shot on, eventhough he has made 10 films before this. Look at Ti West's House of the Devil. It just looks more professional and in the end he's going to be let into that club of filmmakers because he worked hard and didn't take the easy way out.

That's not saying digital can't create good cinema. It's just so many digital movies get made, they're going to start getting lost in a haze. We're at an age right now where 16mm is starting to become a niche thing. It's becoming unique. And that's why I want to do 16. It'll stick out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think you'd be surprised by just how many Hollywood movies are being shot with digital equipment, and you'd never notice if nobody told you.

The reason to shoot digital is pretty straight-forward -- $.

Now, you may think that hey, if you can raise the money to shoot on film, why not? If I'm producing a feature, and I'm able to raise a limited amount of dollars, then I need to make difficult decisions on what to spend money on.

Things I would spend money on, sooner than spending it on film:

Maximizing my cast/crew
craft services
an awesome soundtrack
promotion

That's the short list. Unless your pockets are bottomless, I think you're guilty of having your priorities out of whack, if you think film is more important than any of those 4 things I mentioned.

A kick-ass cinematographer (one which will require money to hire), given the right tools (like a 5 ton grip truck, which costs money) will make digital look way better than an amateur playing with amateur light-kit and 16mm film.

Have you seen Black Swan? Could you tell which scenes were shot on the 5D?

On the other discussion, please post updates, as they become available, for your current mumblecore project. This is something I have particular interest in. Cheers!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No, I can't tell the difference in Black Swan but I'm assuming it's the scenes that needed digital effects?

I think I just enjoy the authenticity of it. You can tell the difference between most HD and film movies but there are a very select few who have mastered HD. Fincher comes to mind but even then, the cinematography in Fight Club and Seven is way more haunting than Zodiac or The Social Network.

The film I'm developing right now is about a group of jaded Los Angeles young men and women and their romantic longings being confused with their sexual fantasies. It's very modern and they're all kind of addicted to their iPhones and technology and I wanted to catch that with the grittiness of 16. Yes, HD will be slick and pretty but there's some kind of beauty to 16mm character pieces. The Brown Bunny & Blue Valentine flashbacks come to mind.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree with you on shooting film. It always surprises me when
people ask about film and all they get is "film is dead" and advice
to not use it. Each filmmaker is different and has their own sensibility
and their own exceptions for their work. I support those individual
choices. There are many, excellent reasons to shoot on 16mm film.

omarzamora said:
Not to sound like a dick, but I want to be a filmmaker. One cannot be a filmmaker and shoot on digital.
Click to expand...
This is shortsighted and in my opinion, foolish. I know you wouldn't look
David Fincher in the eye and tell him he's not a filmmaker because he
used digital to shoot "The Social Network". Which got an Oscar nomination
for Best Cinematography. Nor would you face Danny Boyle and David
Lynch and tell them they are not filmmakers because they have shot
films on consumer video cameras.

One can be a filmmaker and shoot on digital. It is not the camera that
makes a filmmaker.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
All those dudes made films before though. They are filmmakers. It's simply in the name: a filmmaker is one who makes films. I wouldn't consider the Duplass brothers filmmakers because are simply not interested in film and actually not interested in cinematography at all. They focus more on story and character so HD works for them.

And like I keep repeating, HD isn't all bad. Generally, bad movies are made on HD because HD movies are easy and cheap to make, right? That seems to be going over everybody's heads.

Let me steer the conversation back to it's original intention: what do I need to get started in 16?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
omarzamora said:
All those dudes made films before though. They are filmmakers. It's simply in the name: a filmmaker is one who makes films. I wouldn't consider the Duplass brothers filmmakers because are simply not interested in film and actually not interested in cinematography at all. They focus more on story and character so HD works for them.

And like I keep repeating, HD isn't all bad. Generally, bad movies are made on HD because HD movies are easy and cheap to make, right? That seems to be going over everybody's heads.

Let me steer the conversation back to it's original intention: what do I need to get started in 16?
Click to expand...

I had a feeling this was a matter of semantics. We've actually had this discussion in previous threads. Like you, I used to think it weird when people called themselves "filmmakers", even if they've never touched film. So, I used to call myself a "videographer".

The thing is, though, almost everybody, in the filmmaking world, and outside of it, recognizes "filmmaker" to mean "someone who makes movies". Actual film is not required in this modern definition. It's even in the dictionary. By your definition, the Duplass brothers (and a whole lot of other people) are not filmmakers. By the definition that the rest of the world is using, they are.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would be more comfortable with myself using film before calling myself a filmmaker. I won't scream "liar" at anybody who shoots digital and calls themselves a filmmaker though.

16 conversation anyone? Haha.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
While I don't agree that you need to use film to be a filmmaker, I do sympathise with your desire to shoot on it - I know if I was offered any role in a production shooting 16 or 35mm I would jump at the chance. However, I think your reasoning for wanting to make your next project a film one is fatally flawed - the project should dictate the format, not vice versa. No matter how much I'd like to learn to shoot film, no matter how much money I had I wouldn't do so until I thought the project was right for it. These cameras are all just tools, after all; and none of them are inherently better than any of the others.


omarzamora said:
All those dudes made films before though. They are filmmakers. It's simply in the name: a filmmaker is one who makes films. I wouldn't consider the Duplass brothers filmmakers because are simply not interested in film and actually not interested in cinematography at all. They focus more on story and character so HD works for them.
Click to expand...
But that's exactly what filmmaking is about…?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When someone asks for a band-aid, do you tell them that you only have an adhesive bandage? Because Band-Aid is a particular brand of adhesive bandage.

Do you think that African American men really think they are siblings with all the people they call "brother"?

Have you ever seen a teacher write on a blackboard that was actually green? Did you call them out on this descriptive innacuracy?

Did you know that salted peanuts are improperly categorized in your supermarket? They are always in the nut section, yet they are actually a legume. They should be next to the beans.

I've never shot on anything other than digital. But when I used to tell people that I was a videographer, I got weird looks. They assumed I shot weddings. Now that I tell people I'm a filmmaker, they instantly recognize what I mean. I make movies.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
When someone asks for a band-aid, do you tell them that you only have an adhesive bandage? Because Band-Aid is a particular brand of adhesive bandage.

Do you think that African American men really think they are siblings with all the people they call "brother"?

Have you ever seen a teacher write on a blackboard that was actually green? Did you call them out on this descriptive innacuracy?

Did you know that salted peanuts are improperly categorized in your supermarket? They are always in the nut section, yet they are actually a legume. They should be next to the beans.

I've never shot on anything other than digital. But when I used to tell people that I was a videographer, I got weird looks. They assumed I shot weddings. Now that I tell people I'm a filmmaker, they instantly recognize what I mean. I make movies.
Click to expand...


And tomatoes should be in the fruit section. I agree.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
omarzamora said:
I wouldn't consider the Duplass brothers filmmakers because are simply not interested in film and actually not interested in cinematography at all. They focus more on story and character so HD works for them.

And like I keep repeating, HD isn't all bad. Generally, bad movies are made on HD because HD movies are easy and cheap to make, right? That seems to be going over everybody's heads.
Click to expand...

I would assume that, although making a movie is no easier, but more accessable, the ratio of "bad" to "good" films created with 16mm, is just as much HD.

I've only a couple days of ago, seen a commercial that was shot on 16mm. The authenticity of the time it represents, (I believe it was around the 70's) it's astounding, truly.

All of us understand the many reasons you would want to shoot on such a beautiful format, we're simply reminding you of the practicalities of the alternative, and the points that may now hinder the route with your preferable choice.

If you find a middle ground, your crew is fed, watered and committed, the project bases are covered, and the story you've chosen needs that particular format, more so than digital, i say go for it. It's costly, sure as hell it is. But if, as a film-maker, you're being sincere to the material, then that's what you do.

NOTE: I retracted a counter-statement for your views on storytelling, or the apparant importance of. I don't believe it's your intention, i think you've- although it doesn't appear so, more fault of the boundaries of internet-forums- been misquoted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just an ending word.

I believe you're intentions are wholesome, and you can see merely by your responses, that there's a commitment that is often unrivaled, that you want to say true to the format. Alot of this conversation seems to revolving around your definition of a "Film-maker". There's no harm in that, none at all. But, inevitably, questions and intrigue are going to arise.

I think a "Pros & Cons" list of shooting with the 16mm, would be very helpful. I'm sure everybody here would love to help you compile it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not trying to belittle HD. I've shot HD and I know what it can do and I know the image it creates.

I'm not shooting on RED. I wouldn't spend $150,000 on a digital camera.

Let me restate the question: I have $15,000 to shoot a movie. I already have the equipment to shoot it HD it I don't want to. The reasons for why I don't want to are my own and if I explain them then I'm just going to be criticized for them because all of you seem to be HD enthusiasts. I'm not. I'm ready to leave it for film.

$15,000 is the budget STRICTLY for the equipment. I'm not taking food out of somebody's mouth or clothes off of somebody's back.

When I have dealt with both formats, I will feel comfortable saying HD is better or film is better because I know of both worlds. It seems like most of you haven't worked with film so I guess this was the wrong place to ask for advice on starting in 16mm.

Sorry for the drama, haha.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
When someone asks for a band-aid, do you tell them that you only have an adhesive bandage? Because Band-Aid is a particular brand of adhesive bandage.

Do you think that African American men really think they are siblings with all the people they call "brother"?

Have you ever seen a teacher write on a blackboard that was actually green? Did you call them out on this descriptive innacuracy?

Did you know that salted peanuts are improperly categorized in your supermarket? They are always in the nut section, yet they are actually a legume. They should be next to the beans.

I've never shot on anything other than digital. But when I used to tell people that I was a videographer, I got weird looks. They assumed I shot weddings. Now that I tell people I'm a filmmaker, they instantly recognize what I mean. I make movies.
Click to expand...

exactly

Murdock said:
And tomatoes should be in the fruit section. I agree.
Click to expand...

ill be damned if you put that nasty thing in with the fruits... I KILL YOU...

hahahahahahaha


as for you... omarzamura

i have a feeling your are typing this all up just for a rooze...

seriously...

1st. your calling it hd... what a laugh...

2nd. your telling us you are creating a film about "jaded" young men and women who are addicted to there
technology" and you want to catch the "grittiness" of this on 16mm... hahahahaha see this is like constant head butts... what grittiness is there with technology...

now if you were to say an old 80's movie and how they were on the verge of something... but things werent quite working out and it was rough and the edges weren't smooth... and you wanted to shoot something that had that same feel... then yeah... go with film...

3rd. in your last post you recanted a lot of what you said by saying that "When I have dealt with both formats, I will feel comfortable saying HD is better or film is better because I know of both worlds. It seems like most of you haven't worked with film so I guess this was the wrong place to ask for advice on starting in 16mm" which means... you havent ever shot with film... and you might not even have a clue if this is going to work nor do you know how to shoot with film and you have no clue if you can even make it work... so in conclusion to that... i assume right away... this is all bull... your just trying to ruffle feathers

i honestly cant believe this is a legitimate request... BUT... if it is... here is my thought on it

go find some cheap equipment... run some test shots... and see how you feel... if you like it... run with it... go hog wild... if you realize (like a lot of people) that its easier to not have to worry about your exposures your film speeds and your developing process and that you can spend more time worrying about the shot... whats in the shot ... whose in the shot and how well the shots comes out on top of the story and the direction the shot should go for the story...

then shoot in ... hahhahahahaahhaha HD hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah HD hahahahah

its DIGITAL... maybe im crazy but this was a very enjoying thread

now back to your regular scheduled program...




oh yeah... omar... kill bill was shot in hd
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm done with the film/HD controversy. It's not going anywhere.

Sorry, the $15k is for the camera, raw stock, and processing. I already have lights and everything
I used on the HD feature.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top