Help! I cannot afford S8 anymore - what about 16mm?

[sk360]

Besides super 8, I don't think there's a larger group of " film is dead" doomsayers then there is in still photography. All of which is why this article is so suprising:

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.ph ... _use_film/

[marc]

And you think 16mm and 8mm is cheaper? Sorry, mate, but it ain't...

NO, but in this day and age, they are both steadier which makes them more viable options for that reason alone.

[Angus]

Besides super 8, I don't think there's a larger group of " film is dead" doomsayers then there is in still photography. All of which is why this article is so suprising:

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.ph ... _use_film/

It doesn't surprise me that a group of people who really care about what the photograph looks like, eventually (after flirting with digital and all it can do for them) decide that film is - in some circumstances - far better.

[sk360]

9,000 surveyed is more then a group; it's an estimante of a large number of people who are actively involved in a carrer in photography. Ahigh percentage of most working photographers are using digital cameras. So it's a suprise that a good many of them are still going to use film. Which is a good thing when you think about it 8)

[Clapton Pond]

And you think 16mm and 8mm is cheaper? Sorry, mate, but it ain't...

NO, but in this day and age, they are both steadier which makes them more viable options for that reason alone.

How does steadiness equal viability? Super 8 is, I would imagine, the most viable in business terms as its reach must surely be far broader than the other two formats.

The guy's question was purely based on cost and so was my answer. Film is generally more expensive and I, like many others, have to save up to get a budget to shoot something. I have a 16mm camera that I haven't used yet, but having seen Foma stocks and developer reasonably priced here in London at Silverprint, I might give it a go. I'm just about to have a first go with my Quarz standard 8 camera too - it's all film, it all costs and it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

I can usually spare a couple of minutes to watch forum members' films but if you want to shoot four hours of video then do it, just don't ask me to watch it

good luck

ian

[reflex]

All of which is why this article is so suprising:

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.ph ... _use_film/

You shouldn't be surprised that a film manufacturer conducted a survey that concludes that their product is "still" used by professionals.

Their message is simple: "Hey, amateurs! You should behave like the pros and start shooting film again, like they do... under certain circumstances." It won't work because there's nowhere to stuff film into little Emily's mobile phone.

How does steadiness equal viability?

It's very hard to look like you know what you're doing when the end product bounces around the screen like footage shot on the bridge of the USS Enterprise during a battle with a Klingon armada. Twenty years ago, people were used to seeing film breathe on TV, but these days they expect the frame lines to stay put.

[themagickite]

film doesn't always have to be more expensive, it can really depend on how you look at it and how much you shoot. if you want to make a 5 minute short, buying a super8 cam and a few rolls of film may cost the same as renting a digital camera. buying a camera would cost substantially more.

i thought about getting a dvx100, as it looks like a fairly capable camera that has enough similarities to film to actually create narratives. but i looked at the figures and i'd have to shoot about 75 rolls of super8 (including proc and telecine) before i matched the lowest price of dvx. that's over 3 hours of footage at 24fps. i don't know i just like the idea of spending as you go, picking up nice old cams really cheap and focus on what your doing at the time. video is all about the next upgrade, what features does that next cam have, super8 cameras are cheap enough to have a trunk load of backups that all have unique features.

if you actually need to shoot 4 hours of footage a week, for documentaries or something, then super8 is the wrong format. if you're just starting out making short films, you can make quite a few before spending enough to buy a digital camera (even a crap one)

[reflex]

film doesn't always have to be more expensive, it can really depend on how you look at it and how much you shoot.

Your choice of tool depends on what you're shooting. Super 8 is - like it or not - a pain to work with when you're shooting sync sound. The cameras are loud and they're usually not crystal synchronized. It's better suited to short quirky experimental films, animation and of course music videos.

[audadvnc]

I simply cannot afford or compare 3mins of footage to 4 HOURS of footage on a good digital cam corder, for a fraction of the cost.

OK, let's roll the numbers:
FILM:
- used S8 camera - $50
- 3min film purchase- $25
-3min film process - $20
- used S8 editing gear - $20

DIGITAL
- new digital camera - $300
- new computer - $600
- HSIA connection - $100
- editing software - $300
- 4 hrs tape - $10

I'm convinced ;-)

[toby_tools]

Besides super 8, I don't think there's a larger group of " film is dead" doomsayers then there is in still photography. All of which is why this article is so suprising:

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.ph ... _use_film/

Thanks for the link. Great read.
I don't shoot Digital for anything anymore. Go to Flickr.com and look around. Film just looks so much better than Digital. I'm not saying Digital stills don't look good, they do, they look to good ,almost fake. I think that's why like myself a lot of people go back to film.
Just my opinion.


Toby

[sk360]

In the article they mention a lot of photographers will keep shoot film( particularly the larger format stocks), but I know a lot of amatures do as well. Do an image search for " Holga" on flicker and you will see literally thousands of photos taken with thease cheap, yet incredibly cool, little camera that use medium format film. Infact, they've become so popular, that the price to purchased one has risen to around $30 dollars on ebay when they use to go for about $15 only a few years ago.

[sk360]

Their message is simple: "Hey, amateurs! You should behave like the pros and start shooting film again, like they do... under certain circumstances." It won't work because there's nowhere to stuff film into little Emily's mobile phone.

Actually a lot of amatures do shoot "professional" level film formats as well. Do an image search for " Holga" on flicker and you will see literally thousands of photos taken with thease cheap, yet incredibly cool, little cameras that use medium format film. Infact, they've become so popular, that the price to purchased one has risen to around $30 dollars on ebay when they use to go for about $15 only a few years ago.

[toby_tools]

I love Medium format.
Fuji and Kodak have released new stocks that are amazing.
You can find a nice Medium Format camera on Ebay for a $100.00 or less.
Check out Yashica, Mamiya
Or if you want a top of the line check out Hasselblad

Toby

[reflex]

Actually a lot of amatures do shoot "professional" level film formats as well. Do an image search for " Holga" on flicker and you will see literally thousands of photos taken with thease cheap, yet incredibly cool, little cameras that use medium format film. Infact, they've become so popular, that the price to purchased one has risen to around $30 dollars on ebay when they use to go for about $15 only a few years ago.

You'll get no argument from me that many amateurs shoot film, or that Holgas or the recently reintroduced Diana Plus are massively cool. All I was trying to get at was that the vast majority of snapshot takers have shifted to digital forever. Unfortunately, they're taking the bulk of film sales with them.

[sk360]

That's true. I've bee seeing Pentax 6x7's going for as low as $180. which are the same cameras big time Photographers like Bruce Weber and Mario Testino use even to this day. Although I must admit, a Hasselblad HD 3 with a 39 megapixel back is quite nice