16mm a compromise in qaulity?

[edgebsl]

OK, I wanted to bring my new 16mm cam to a shoot where we will be shooting a client a music video on 24p DV(xl2).

I need to do more tests and practice so I wanted to burn a 400 ft roll of b&w 200T.If it comes out good, I reasoned that some b&w shots might be cool.I'll be doing it for free since I was planning on more tests anyway.

My colleague responded with..." I'm open to ideas I guess. I just don't want the quality to be compromised, and I don't want the project to be drug out forever waiting for film to come back. It's cool to use film, but in all honesty, I'd rather see better, crisper quality, as long as it doesn't have the 60i look to it.

I can just simply click 'desaturate' on DV footage, ya know

Keep in mind we'll have to be using a slate again to keep track of where we are at on it."
and
"I'd rather not have the grainy beat up look " and
"It needs to look as good as possible. "

We had one bad experience with grainy 16mm, but correct me if I'm wrong but don't most people consider properly shot 16mm the highest qaulity next to 35mm even over hd sometimes and definitely over sd 24p video?

I'm trying to sell him on the idea that properly shot film is a step up not a step down from the pro sumer video cams...if we can just get it right.

Anyone else here have to make the same arguments?

Am I crazy or is he crazy?
because I have a feeling one of us is nuts if not both.

[Evan Kubota]

Uh, what camera/lens are you using? R16 or S16 can have a better 'look' than SD or HD video, certainly, but in terms of perceived sharpness regular 16mm from a lower-end camera is probably not going to look as sharp as even decent SD video.

[Janne]

7222 is very grainy. You may want to shoot color negative and desaturate in post:

viewtopic.php?t=12609&highlight=desaturate

[John_Pytlak]

It's not just about resolution, or tone scale, or motion, or compression artifacts, or archivability, or frame rate freedom, or....

It's the "film look" --- if you want it, use film.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/ ... idhbx=16mm

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motiohttp:// ... .4.3&lc=en

Lots of Super-16 production is used for HD broadcast and feature production. SD video doesn't compare.

[francis]

john said what i was going to say. id say your colleage may be intoxicated.

[sarmoti]

I'd say that the percieved quality of 16mm on SD video has a great deal to do with the telecine. Are you going to transfer it off the wall or on a Spirit?

I must say be careful with all these new companies offering Rank transfers, most of them don't maintain their Rank properly (it's quite tedious) and use older second hand Ranks from the 80's. Stick to Rank URSA or higher (avoid the older MK series).

[edgebsl]

Camera,CP GSMO R16
Lens, CP Ultra T 1.25 25mm prime

I was going to go with the 200t because I can get good lab prices on negative b and w short ends.

I can get great prices for short ends for reversal as well but may have to pay a little more for processing.

I could shoot color ,but seeing as this is a freebie I would like to keep costs down. I get great prices on an old rank but I have priced others that are decent too. FSFT is reasonable with their shadow but if I didnt want to ship to the west coast then I have been thinking of giving duart a try. i'm sure I can get some "standby" or student pricing that would'nt break me.

Of course my friend who works at the rank facility can get me negative processing for 11cents a foot. He can probably get 400ft processed and transferred for about $120.Not bad..

I may stay away from 200t if you say its grainy. I may go with color or reversal instead.

The grainy stuff that left a bad taste came from a k3 with 35mm slr lenses and the rank transfers.

[teadub]

That person just sounds like a dick. I just spent a week in Mexico, pretty much all the programming down there is shot in SD video. Does he think that stuff looks good? If he wants to produce novellas, that's fine. More power to him.

[S8 Booster]

overexpose it like s8 to "crank the grain" down and dens up a bit?
if you use the neg that is.

test - test - test

s8hoot

[edgebsl]

He's not a dick, he's just a little weirded out by film because we got great results from the xl2 last time and not so great results with the k3.That's his only experience shooting film.

http://www.extremesoundonline.com/bslfr ... sindex.htm
Those are some stills from the xl2.

Its definitely a pretty amazing dv camera.

I'm convinced that 16mm can put it to shame though if we do everything right though.

btw, we transferred some of the film on a shadow and the grain was definitely on the negative although the shadow hid it better.It showed up more like a rippling effect.

The most impressive thing I've seen so far in 16 is daniel pearl's "frankenstein" usa movie. I have that on dvd and it looks like 35mm.

[John_Pytlak]

The most impressive thing I've seen so far in 16 is daniel pearl's "frankenstein" usa movie. I have that on dvd and it looks like 35mm.

The Kodak website has an interview with Daniel Pearl:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/ ... tein.jhtml

[audadvnc]

...don't most people consider properly shot 16mm the highest qaulity next to 35mm even over hd sometimes and definitely over sd 24p video?

I was going to go with the 200t because I can get good lab prices on negative b and w short ends.

I can get great prices for short ends for reversal as well but may have to pay a little more for processing.

These are example snippets from different posts, but IMHO you're setting yourself up for an impossible situation. You want the highest possible quality out of 16mm yet you insist on shooting short ends.

Use new film. Pardon my French, but: Short ends suck. They are leftovers from somebody else's project. They may have been left in overheated car trunks, light flashed during recanning, rewound backwards by a stoned apprentice in a dusty storeroom. You have absolutely no control over the quality of the footage taken with that stock. It's like gambling with your mortgage payment; if you're lucky, you win, but is it worth the risk?

If you are shooting for your own amusement, that's fine, but if somebody is shelling out real money for your project you've got to provide good, new stock. Otherwise you risk blowing your producer's budget and your reputation.

- edit - [high horse mode on]

Oh, I see this is a freebie. Does that mean that the video camera you would shoot with didn't cost any money to purchase, or that the nice shadow-equipped post-production studio you're going to put this together at doesn't need to pay rent? And yet you want better-than-broadcast quality? This is no freebie, you're just not getting paid for it. Which means you're paying to work. Bad move.

But I suppose someone who can't be bothered to spell "quality" correctly isn't really all that concerned with the issue, anyway.

[BigBeaner]

Those images you had a link to, I just keep imagining how much better they would be if shot on any film. It just purely screams "shot on pro-sumer video". It's the sharpness and depth of field that makes it so obvious. Also, doesn't he realize that 16mm might be grainy but DV is compressed. I'll take the graininess any day. Plus I like that look, it's organic and more life than these. It just isn't as easy as shooting video. I guess the issue with grain is a lot like the saying "one man's treasure is another man's garbage".

What will convince him? When those images you shot came back look a hell of a lot cooler than the video footage. If that doesn't convince him show others that way you still feel you didn't waste time.

[edgebsl]

audadvnc
The reason this is a freebie is that I need to shoot some tests and get some practice.I figure why blow money shooting stuff that has no use when I could shoot something that could potentially get used.

The reason I am considering short ends from film emporium is that they snip test them. I would imagine most of what they would send me would be in pretty decent shape.I'm not dead set on using short ends but I am trying to keep costs down for this particular test. I may shell out for a new roll.

I may be paying to work ,but I need practice since I'm new to film.
I think having some good work shot on film would improve our demo reel.

[audadvnc]

That's a reasonable answer. Short ends are fine for practise and tests, and Film Emporium is one of the more reputable stock resellers. I use short ends and recans on my own, and sometimes process them myself. It's not going to look anything like new stock and proper processing, but sometimes you have the magic of serendipity; you get results you couldn't replicate in video post-processing. Personally I think your band shoot would look better on crappy old 16mm short ends than the video stills you posted; less clean, but more authentic. Good luck.