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

[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.

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

It's very simple if you think about it! Do you want to gamble on how much footage is wasted as a result of unsteady images or do you want to have confidence in the manufacturer and only have yourself to blame if some footage is wasted? Since Regular 8 is about the same price for about the same play time ( Actually it's $2.00 more at $16.00 direct from john schwind and that's for 100D which I find looks better than 64T). And don't forget that you get more play time for that 50 feet of film than you would with super 8. Many transfer houses that handle S8 can also handle R8 so I don't think that there is any real shortage of services available for that format. 16mm can be had for cheaper than either of those two if you purchase short ends from reputable dealers. R8 and 16mm have a direct path traveling towards the film gate and, in general, are very steady. And even if the price were exhorbitantly higher, I would rather have a product that I can put my confidence in. "viability" is not always about price, it's also about having a sound product. And, in truth, no film is really cheap. Either way, you are going to have to pay significantly unless you shoot with a cheap video camera. So to answer you question as to whether or not 16mm and R8 are cheap, No, but the same can be said for S8. If you are going to spend money anway, why not get something that you can depend on? In other words, would you like to get what you pay for, or NOT get what you pay for?

[Clapton Pond]

It's very simple if you think about it! Do you want to gamble on how much footage is wasted as a result of unsteady images or do you want to have confidence in the manufacturer and only have yourself to blame if some footage is wasted? Since Regular 8 is about the same price for about the same play time ( Actually it's $2.00 more at $16.00 direct from john schwind and that's for 100D which I find looks better than 64T). And don't forget that you get more play time for that 50 feet of film than you would with super 8. Many transfer houses that handle S8 can also handle R8 so I don't think that there is any real shortage of services available for that format. 16mm can be had for cheaper than either of those two if you purchase short ends from reputable dealers. R8 and 16mm have a direct path traveling towards the film gate and, in general, are very steady. And even if the price were exhorbitantly higher, I would rather have a product that I can put my confidence in. "viability" is not always about price, it's also about having a sound product. And, in truth, no film is really cheap. Either way, you are going to have to pay significantly unless you shoot with a cheap video camera. So to answer you question as to whether or not 16mm and R8 are cheap, No, but the same can be said for S8. If you are going to spend money anway, why not get something that you can depend on? In other words, would you like to get what you pay for, or NOT get what you pay for?

Firstly, when you said "viable", I interpreted that as economically, in that the format itself is going to be around for a while.

Secondly, you seem to be agreeing with me! Film costs, we know that. In general 16mm costs more than the others all the way down the chain from film to transfer (I'm in the UK - I've never seen short ends for sale and wouldn't know where to look...) All the 8mm / S8 gear is old so some is bound to work better than others, but it's quite feasible to get good footage on S8. I'm looking forward to shooting 8mm to compare, but I'm happy with, and have confidence in, my Super 8 cameras too.

Basically, it boils down to the question of whether you like the "look" of film enough to pay for it, as video wins in most other areas. If you do, then start saving, or get someone else to pay. Everyone who uses film makes mistakes when they start - it's the learning curve, and you should see it as an investment in future successes. Maybe it's better to start out on video to get a few rungs up the ladder before switching, as has been mentioned, but for me, it's about the look of the film, the fun of the shoot and the challenge of the planning, which is not something you have to worry about quite so much when you can just rock up and shoot hours and hours of video...

In the end it's my choice and I don't mind (too much) paying for it.

ian

[BigBeaner]

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 ;-)

Just $300? In order to get the quality from video that I want with all the manual options it'll cost well over $3,000 for that camera. You know how many shorts I've made in 4 years worth of time and how much i've spent on film/film camera rentals vs. just going out and buying a dv cam? Seriously. And I don't know about you guys but what this 4 hours tape, the ones I use for mini-dv are an hour or under.

[MIKI-814]

Odd post from a newbie. Call me cynical but seems like a marketing pitch from the digital world...

For sure

[Actor]

PROJECT: 90 minute feature film -- amateur production with amateur cast and crew.

Let's roll the numbers:

FILM: 3:1 shooting ratio
- used S8 camera - zip! I've got several laying around.
- 108 S8 cartridges - $1600.
- processing - another $1600.
- telecine - yet another $1600.
- computer for editing - already got one or I wouldn't be on the internet.

TOTAL : $4,800

DIGITAL: 20:1 shooting ratio
- new digital camera - $2500
- 30 hours miniDV tapes - $300
- new computer - as above
- firewire - came with computer
- editing software - also came with computer.

TOTAL : $2,800
LESS resale value of camera $1,400
NET : $1,400

Difference $3,000


Don't take this wrong. I love film. But the reality is that video is cheaper.

This reality was brought home to me recently when I bought my wife a digital SLR. The idea was that she'd quit borrowing my 35mm SLR. Well, mission accomplished as far as that goes. But she takes her DSLR out and shoots hundreds of frames, comes home and downloads then to the computer and then prints only the ones she likes at a cost of only a few cents per frame. I'd be spending $70 / week for film and processing if I took that many pictures. It's like she's doing photography for free.

[sk360]

I think your right on your price assessments Actor, but If taking into account that your willing to cut corners, disembark from shooting on Vision 200T and avoid having your film processed and telecined at a high end post house like CCI Digital or Fotokim. I think it’s quite possible to make something feature length at a reasonable rate. Here's my rough estimate:

108 rolls of 64T ( if purchased at the student rate of $10 each)- $1,080
108 rolls developed through Dwayne’s - $1,080
Telecine at $100 an hour ( if you went to Filmworks or Yale Labs) for 248 minutes worth of footage -$400

Total: $2,560.00

Now let's say instead of 108 rolls, we cut it down to 50( 115 minutes if your shooting at 24 FPS) which isn't such an unreasonable figure if your making a low budget 90 minute drama like " I am Josh Polanski's Brother" .So, if things run smoothly and the actors hit their marks (cross your fingers) you might be able to get away with:

50 rolls of 64T: $500
50 rolls processed at Dwayne's : $500
115 minutes telecined at $100/hr : $200

Total: $1,200

That's not too bad if you can pull it off 8)

[Muckymuck]

It all depends on what look you want. Didn't I read somewhere that Super 8 is actually cheaper to shoot and process now that in the 60s and 70s when inflation is taken into account?

[bakanosaru]

Super 8 is way way more expensive than digital at least in my experience.

My 1014XL-S didn't cost me much but film, processing and transfer (not to mention postage) for a few minutes all add up.

Alternatively I can borrow a HDV or DV camera and shoot hours (for almost nothing) and experiment in creating different looks.

The reason I shoot S8 is because it looks like nothing else (and when done well it can look good too :lol: ).

[super8man]

I "like" film. Personality may win some contests but beauty is what I like. I like film.

[sk360]

No question about film being pricy. But filmmaking has always been an expensive medium from the very beginning. That's why when someone who's new to filmmaking ask's me what sort of movie camera they should buy, I always recomended picking up a digital still camera first. DSLR's are a great learning tool as all the technacalities like shutter speeds, F-stops, ISO ratings, ect can be learn in a faction of the time compared if you were shooting on film. AND if you have the urge to shoot some "moving images", you can do that as well as most DSLR's have the capability of letting you shoot video.

Maybe in the past you could go off and shoot a dozen rolls of film as a learning process and not break the bank. Thease days you have to take a different approach...

[super8man]

...you can do that as well as most DSLR's have the capability of letting you shoot video.

Which ones?

[sk360]

Just about every company puting out a pro-am and below camera has video capabilities. Minds you, the footage you shoot generally is heavly compressed and not at all broadcast level (at least not yet) but the quality is good enough to show on your computer or post onto youtube. I've been amazed how good some of the video I've shot with my little Olympus 3040 has turned out.

[super8man]

digital SLRs do NOT usually provide mpg movie options...only non-interchangeable digital cameras have that. There is a difference. Otherwise, sure, youtube makes everything look good/bad/same.

SLR=Single Lens Reflex = ability to change lenses (unless the camera is from the 50s or 60s).

[sk360]

Your right, I was taliking about single lens cameras( hence why I brought up my 3040). My bad :oops:

[Actor]

.So, if things run smoothly and the actors hit their marks (cross your fingers)

You're asking for a temporary suspension of Murphy's Law! :lol: