feature on super 8, a good idea?

[wado1942]

Should a director get bogged down in so much technicality when they could otherwise be focused on the myriad other details that need attention on a production?

I'm of the school where a director should worry about the story and getting a good performance out of the actors while the DP should worry about how to capture that, including the camera, lighting and the sort of colors that are used on set (which is largely the art director's job but it concerns the DP too).

I would only feel comfortable using super-16 or 35mm when film costs accounted for no more than 25-30% of the budget. Any more than that and you are just making a film on film for the sake of shooting film.

Not sure if this applies to super-8 as well but I shot a music video on super-8/super-16 recently and the film was almost half the budget, the transfer was another 3rd of the budget and just miscellaneous other stuff was the rest. I didn't shoot film for the sake of it, if we shot video, the budget would simply have been less. I shot film for the look of it.

[mattias]

Interesting discussion. Sounds like Matt has decided to bump up from Super8 origination to 16mm.

no, i'm just trying to help others thinking of shooting 16mm, based on my experience from shooting 16mm before. this film leans more and more towards either super 8 or hdv.

What is the purpose of the low-con print for telecine? Can't you get equivalent performance from the camera neg?

yes, but the whole idea is to bypass the digital grading for cost reasons. the print can be scanned one-light.

/matt

[mattias]

Should a director get bogged down in so much technicality when they could otherwise be focused on the myriad other details that need attention on a production?

very little else needs attention right now, and very little in the final stages of post too, and during actual production what are the technicalities you expect to have to focus on?

/matt

[steve hyde]

...more specifically the question I'm putting up for discussion here is what are the hidden costs of shooting HDV? It is sort of difficult to discuss in quantitative terms because cinema is a qualitative experience. We can't really put solid numbers on what we are buying when we choose to shoot film over video. That is why I said a few pages back all that matters is if in the end the film *feels* the way the filmmaker wants it to feel.

Digital formats are amazing and opens doors into new ways of working. That film "Iraq in Fragments" that I referenced was shot by a crew of one and all sound was acquired in camera. The filmmaker then wrote his own music for it and got some help mastering the sound and grading it for a 35mm theatrical. The film won multiple awards at Sundance and then went on for an Academy Award and lost only to Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". It's a remarkable accomplishment.

Iraq in Fragments is the kind of film that wouldn't have been made if it were not for the small portable and robust DVX camera system. It is a great use of the format.

On the other hand, hiring a team of artists and technicians to work on a narrative feature in a controlled setting is a very different kind of project and there is probably a better format for it. A better format for meeting the bottom line for investors which again, in the end relies on how the film feels and plays and is received by audiences.

Back to SUPER 8 which is hands down the most elegant film format the world has ever known I still think the virtues of Super 8 have yet to be fully utilized in the visual design of a feature film. Super 8 could be used for claustrophobic moods and tight portrait photography like Bergman's "Persona." Shoot non-speaking scenes at 12fps for five minute continuous takes in naturally lit locations and so on. Then blow it up to 35mm via DI. It could be an innovative little art film... probably still most appropriate for a short though...

Steve

[mattias]

...more specifically the question I'm putting up for discussion here is what are the hidden costs of shooting HDV?

i don't think there are any in the way you're suggesting. hdv cameras produce moving images just like film, and that's where the magic comes from even if some formats look better, cooler, grittier, older, newer or whatever. you can argue that different formats are good for different projects, but also that the project is formed by the format. i don't believe in making video look like film any more than i believe in making film look like video (even though the super 8 "video" in flatliners was cool). just shoot it and let it look the way it looks. it's what it is and that has good sides and bad, and further analysis is really unnecessary.

/matt

[steve hyde]

...more specifically the question I'm putting up for discussion here is what are the hidden costs of shooting HDV?

i don't think there are any in the way you're suggesting. hdv cameras produce moving images just like film, and that's where the magic comes from even if some formats look better, cooler, grittier, older, newer or whatever. you can argue that different formats are good for different projects, but also that the project is formed by the format. i don't believe in making video look like film any more than i believe in making film look like video (even though the super 8 "video" in flatliners was cool). just shoot it and let it look the way it looks. it's what it is and that has good sides and bad, and further analysis is really unnecessary.
/matt

I agree that it is probably not productive in this discussion at hand to over analyze because there is really only so much that can be said and argued in the abstract, but saying "shoot it and let it look the way it looks" really avoids the question of post production costs because I don't think you are suggesting bypassing grading.

You started this interesting discussion with a question: is shooting a feature on Super 8 a good idea? How can the question be explored without analysis? It might be a good idea - it might not be... We agree that different formats are good for different projects. "Cheap" video formats have proven to connect with documentary audiences and less so with narrative feature audiences. Most all of the successful narrative features that have been shot on video did not take a low-budget post path.

This is why I am arguing that 16mm is still the most cost-effective format for the narrative feature film that seeks a theatrical release. I'm being a skeptic. Some people will think I'm just being a Luddite and will shake their spreadsheets at me and say: *look do the math* HDV is cheaper! I am arguing that the method of accounting is flawed and does not take into account qualitative costs like for instance spending one year of your life editing the footage and creating a sound design. After thousands of hours of doing that isn't it worth it to have it look exactly the way you want it to look and feel? Isn't it worth budgeting for film instead of video if you know and believe that film is a better acquisition format than video for your project?

Some costs are not easily accounted for with numbers...

This gets right to the heart of the question of using Super 8 for a feature because to make the case to investors you have to make a qualitative argument, right? The argument that someone wants to shoot *a feature* on super 8 because it is cheaper is down right ridiculous. I think we all agree on that. In the end it all depends on what kinds of cinematic *qualities* a format lends to the production and for a feature that also means the ability to deliver a quality product on 35mm since that is still the best way to recover an investment on a feature film production.

Steve

[wado1942]

This is why I am arguing that 16mm is still the most cost-effective format for the narrative feature film that seeks a theatrical release

Exactly. If you're paying your lighting crew, it will be no more to shoot film than video due to the time it takes to light for video. As for super-8, it's great if you're looking for a gritty look but really, it's not much cheaper than 16mm and doesn't blow up to HD/35mm nearly as well. That said, if you're wanting a slick looking HD or 35mm end product, super-8 probably isn't the best choice. If your crew is working for free, you really can't beat DV or HDV cost wise. But If you want a slick end product with lots of options for the future, you can't beat super-16.

[mattias]

"shoot it and let it look the way it looks" really avoids the question of post production costs because I don't think you are suggesting bypassing grading.

no, what i meant was that while it probably costs as much to grade hdv to look as good as film fo you really have to? you're shooting hdv for cost and convenience, so why spend money and time in post to try and make it something it's not. as for "no further analysis needed" comment it wasn't directed towards you. i quite enjoy such discussions.

This is why I am arguing that 16mm is still the most cost-effective format for the narrative feature film that seeks a theatrical release.

probably.

I am arguing that the method of accounting is flawed and does not take into account qualitative costs like for instance spending one year of your life editing the footage and creating a sound design.

no low budgets do. the only thing that has to take place at a certain time and in a certain place is the principal photography, which is why that's often the only that's budgeted. the rest can wait. i don't think it's a flaw, but a necessity.

This gets right to the heart of the question of using Super 8 for a feature because to make the case to investors you have to make a qualitative argument, right?

not really. you rarely have investors on no budget films, they are funded by grants, enthusiasts, family and friends who pay because it's you, no matter what format.

The argument that someone wants to shoot *a feature* on super 8 because it is cheaper is down right ridiculous. I think we all agree on that.

now that there's video, sure, but all no budget features in the 70's and 80's were done on super 8. ask roger. i shoot super 8 mainly because it's cheaper than 16mm, that's for sure. not only the stock but most of all cameras and such.

/matt

[steve hyde]

Don't have to grade...yeah, that makes sense for sure and is what makes HDV and other digital formats so appealing. Let it look rough. Again, documentary audiences are particularly willing to forego glossy looking images for substance and content. This opens up a space for the "documentary style" you are proposing here and makes for a good argument to use the digital formats, but beware the "reality TV look" that dominates the documentary scene if you choose to go that route.

For me the biggest investment I see in a feature film production is an investment of *time*. One thing I have learned with my current short film (17 minutes) is that it takes a *lot* of time to refine the cut before arriving at a final cut.... A feature is a big undertaking. I'm not quite ready for it, but I think you are. I hope everything works out for you.

Steve

[Plastik]

Mattias, shoot it on super 8. You know that it’s going to look special. Don’t fight it – just shoot it on super 8.

[Plastik]

Mattias, shoot it on super 8. You know that it’s going to look special. Don’t fight it – just shoot it on super 8.

[ccortez]

Maybe this has been mentioned here before, maybe even in this thread, which I can't claim to have read all of...

But this seems to be a feature documentary shot at least partially on Super 8: Mississippi Chicken showing this weekend at the Austin Film Festival. I think I'll be seeing it Saturday, so I'll try to report back...

[mattias]

I'm of the school where a director should worry about the story and getting a good performance out of the actors while the DP should worry about how to capture that.

i missed this the last time around, good thing we had a bump. i disagree completely. a director is the author of the film. if the film is best served by letting the dp call the shots, pun intended, then so be it, but it's still the director who has to make that decision. few directors know the technicalities of photography, and those of us who do often chose to leave it alone while directing, but choosing the mood or key of the scene, the length of the lens and the framing is definitely the director's job. they call it a director's viewfinder for a reason you know. :-)

/matt

[steve hyde]

Maybe this has been mentioned here before, maybe even in this thread, which I can't claim to have read all of...

But this seems to be a feature documentary shot at least partially on Super 8: Mississippi Chicken showing this weekend at the Austin Film Festival. I think I'll be seeing it Saturday, so I'll try to report back...

yeah. I heard about this production. It's been in post for years now. Good to see its getting shown now. Chris you should create a post about it after you see it. I'm curious to know if he had it blown up to 35.

Steve

[PITIRRE]

Hi Mattias, the only thing I like to tell you is go for it! I remember that not so long ago I write in this forum about the possibilities of making a super 8 feature, a lot of people told me "don't do that, use super 8 just to give a certain look for the film", I don't believe then and I don't believe know. Go for it man.