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
Alright alright. A lot of you had some good advice but I was looking more towards "what can I do to make a good 16mm film in this age?" more than "why should I stick with digital eventhough I want to do film?"
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
licenseless said:
so... if you would stop trying to have an argument with me because you feel the need too... and please stay on topic here... so we can help this guy out... thank you
Click to expand...

Seems you don't quite get MY sense of humor.

I apologize of giving you the impression I was trying to have an
argument. I thought I was just having a discussion.

"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
Seems you don't quite get MY sense of humor.

I apologize of giving you the impression I was trying to have an
argument. I thought I was just having a discussion.

"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
Click to expand...

FNCK THAT...

"GIVE ME VICTORY OR GIVE ME DEATH" any true Texan at heart (all the time)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
omarzamora said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are a number of people, here, who've shot 16mm. Seems like you want an *authentic* film experience....welllllll, I suggest you start bare bones with all the lumbering, and analog, machinery you can scrounge up. That'll make it a *real* experience for you. :) I'm willing to bet you could find camera/lenses, 1/4"tape Nagra deck, some worthy old Sennheisers, cables, even a sturdy ole Steenbeck for a fraction of what they used to cost. As 2001 noted, stock and processing will be where you'll spend the bulk of your budget.

What do you need to make a good 16mm film in this age? Story, story, story....great personal vision yet mirroring the culture you live in...mastery of all the elements inherent in all moving mediums.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok I'm going to qualify my comments with the fact that I actively shoot 16mm and own an Eclair NPR (crystal sync motor) and a Russian K3 both opened up to U16. I shoot R16, U16 and something I call F16 (Fat16) That is U16 transferred in an S16 gate.

-Your shoot ratio for a 90 minute film shot in 20 hours of film - 13.33 to 1
-20 hours(1200mins) of film @ 11(24fps) minutes per 400 ft. roll - 109 rolls or 43,600ft. of film
-film cost - .25 to .40ft or 10,900.00 to 17,440.00
-developing negative cost @ .20ft. - 8,720.00
-telecine(up-res) @ .23ft - 10,028.00
-or scanning to true HD 1920x1080 @ .40ft - 17,440.00
- or 2k scans @ 1.00ft - 43,600.00

So...

You can not shoot film with a "video head".

There is no difference between digital and film. Both are fabulous format to create a work of Art.

The camera is not the artist, you are the artist.

It is the "Craft of Filmmaking" that makes the difference and that is mostly what you do NOT leave in the shot. A great filmmaker knows how to control the "Visual Information" in a shot. Because both formats, digital and film can produce to much information.

I hope this helps.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PS - many labs charge a download charge 50.00 to 75.00 per half hour. It's the time it takes to transfer the files from their drives to your hard-drive. They claim they can copy the equivalent of 2 rolls of film (22 minutes) per half hour. That would be 54.5 times the half hour transfer fee for 109 rolls or 2,725.00 to 4,087.50.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
hepabst said:
-Your shoot ratio for a 90 minute film shot in 20 hours of film - 13.33 to 1
-20 hours(1200mins) of film @ 11(24fps) minutes per 400 ft. roll - 109 rolls or 43,600ft. of film
-film cost - .25 to .40ft or 10,900.00 to 17,440.00
-developing negative cost @ .20ft. - 8,720.00
-telecine(up-res) @ .23ft - 10,028.00
-or scanning to true HD 1920x1080 @ .40ft - 17,440.00
- or 2k scans @ 1.00ft - 43,600.00
Click to expand...

Those numbers sound a little more realistic to me. I couldn't imagine prices had come down much - if at all - from what they were 17 years ago. :eek:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
omarzamora said:
hepabst, how do you export it? True HD? and once it's on your hard drive, I'm assuming that's in a digital form that let's you edit it, right?
Click to expand...

What I mean by TrueHD 1920x1080p is that the negative is scanned at that resolution. I neglected to clarify the Telecine(upRes to HD 1920x1080p) They take a standard definition signal and enlarge it so a it can be transferred to 1920x1080p) some labs do this optically and other do it digitally.

So the work flow is:

- Shoot the film.
- send film out to a lab to develop the negative.
- same lab or other transfer house transfers negative to a digital file(positive image). I use FinalCutPro so I get ProResHQ files which give you a resulting size of 1920x1080.
- Transfer house copies the file to the hard-drive that you provide them and send the drive back to you.
- Plug in drive to your computer for editing and storage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Both companies sell industry standard film stock. Major motion pictures are shot on Kodak and/or Fuji. I'm saying they are both the best but different in texture and color palette. Each stock captures the light a little different.

I suggest as other have suggested that you get your hands on a film camera and experience the process of shooting film. Each camera and lens will expose the film in a different way. It is so important to learn and know the camera before you start shooting your feature. Because when you look through the eye piece you need to know what you are capturing and that the exposure is correct. It's going to be a few weeks before you get to see what shot and the money would have been spent.

From the numbers I put up you can see that as an indie filmmaker you can't shoot a 13:1 shoot ratio. I suggest you start thinking about shooting at a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio and think about the conditions that come with those ratios. And I would also suggest this thinking when shooting digital.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
One other thing, film cameras are full manual. That's manual focus, aperture, and shutter. The film speed(ASA) is a fixed value unlike auto-ISO(gain) on a video camera.

Start watching what the light is doing. I carry my light meter with me almost every day and take readings. It's a great way to shoot a particular film stock without really shooting it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
hepabst said:
There is no difference between digital and film. Both are fabulous format to create a work of Art.

The camera is not the artist, you are the artist.

It is the "Craft of Filmmaking" that makes the difference and that is mostly what you do NOT leave in the shot. A great filmmaker knows how to control the "Visual Information" in a shot. Because both formats, digital and film can produce to much information.

I hope this helps.
Click to expand...

That was extremely well put. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As an audio guy I - and all of my audio peers - went through the digital revolution sooner than all you visual types. (In fact, I would wager that many of you know nothing other than digital audio and video.) We were dealing with digital audio in the mid '80's in the form of samplers (like the Emu, Akai, Synclavier, Mirage and Fairlight) and mixing down to DAT machines (primarily Sony and Tascam). The introduction of Pro Tools in the '90's radically changed the audio game. When you were "raised" on analog it required a profound change in thinking and approach. The other side of the coin, however, was that digital was perceived as "thin" and "brittle" sounding. It wasn't until ten years ago or so that digital audio really came into its own sonically. Conversely, those raised on ones and zeroes have a tough time thinking analog.

Despite all of the advantages of digital audio editing and mixing for us old school types there is still something magical about real (reel! lol!) analog audio tape and other classic analog audio gear; I guess that's why so many products try to emulate them.

What's the point of all this? I would assume that there is something special about using real film, despite the expense and disadvantages, as there is working with analog tape. I would also assume that, despite the "tone" of some of the posts, people are just trying to make you aware of the aforementioned expenses and difficulties, and some just can't understand why you would subject yourself to the cost and tribulations of real film.

Be forewarned and forearmed, do your research and other due diligence. Good Luck!!!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Owen said:
Would anyone mind explaining shooting ratios for me?

Owen
Click to expand...

I'm not a film guy, but my understanding of it is that a shooting ratio is for purposes of budgeting how much film you think you'll use, in relation to how long the final edited film should be.

Let's say, just for the sake of easy math, that you think you can get away with a 2:1 ratio. That means for a 90-minute film, you would have to purchase 180-minutes worth of film. If you think you'll need a 10:1 ratio, then you would have to purchase 900-minutes worth of film.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top