SUPER 8 OR VIDEO?

[PITIRRE]

For a long time I was thinking on making a short film (probably 15 min) a documentary "how to" type of film with a very simple theme. It's going to be straight to video when is finished.
My question is, which medium, super 8 or mini dv?

Some of the answerds will be, "that depends on the look you want to achived", and this is fine. For example if I shoot on super 8 I don't have to make it look like film because it is film already, If I shooted on video I would like that it look like film so I think I have to put it some kind of effect to make it look like film.
So both, super 8 or video when viewing on a t.v. set will be similar or one has suppose to have more definition or quality. My opinion is if I shooted on video trying it making looking like film I'll be cheating on film.

[fritzcarraldo]

I would shoot it in super8, then transfer it.

It looks better.

Hasta luego

[agingeri]

If you want it to look like film, shoot it in film. Generally speaking, it is beyond the reach of all but the high-budget feature to make video look the way film ACTUALLY looks. Sure, there are effects like "film grain," but they don't come CLOSE to making the footage look like real film.

It also depends on your camera. Unless you have a 3-CCD video camera, film is going to get more accurate colors. Even if your camera IS 3-CCD, film is going to get more vibrant color.

[PITIRRE]

Thank's to you all, it help me a lot.

[rollemfilm]

You should consider your budget first. I would start by doing a script or an outline of what the film will be. Try to figure a shooting ratio. For example, how many minutes of film will need to be shot to cover everything.

So let's just say you have a ratio of 10:1. This means you will need to shoot 10min of film for every 1min of finished screen time. Now, how much will 10 rolls cost you? Processing included...

This will be your camera budget for the shoot. Any other expenes? Add them in. This then becomes your shooting budget. Now, what about post production? This is the next step. On and on...

So, can you afford to shoot the film you want to make, on film? If the answer is yes, then go for it. If not, you need to cut corners until you can make it work.

If you can't, then shoot video. The only reason to shoot "film" is because you like it and can afford to.

Be realistic and brutal with the budget. It's easy to go over but better to stay under.

[studiocarter]

How much film would one need to fill up one DVD at high quality?

If wild sound sync were used, using two sync claps, head/tail, and a few takes for every shot, that would be about 4/1 or at most 5/1.

About one hour or 45 min will fit onto one DVD right?

That is about 5 hours of film to edit. ooooooooooo that's expensive. Especially at 24fps.. It could be done, I'm not saying that it could not.

For example, it could be shot in R8, using 100 foot rolls, filming at 16fps instead of 24, playing 1/2 hour for every two rolls, needing about 4 rolls per hour, adding more for the shooting ratio.

If the first takes were made using video, a lot of mistakes may be ironed out before film is used. That could save some material.

[jean]

10:1 ratio, folks.. even 5:1 is incredible for a one-man-low-budget production. If the filming requires much try and error (much talking, no real actors, complicated choreography), than by all means do it on video. If done on film, work hard to get it in one take. Don't even give you the excuse for a second one "just in case".

I'm not hollywood - I don't try to work like them, so I really try until it is all the way I want it to be, and then the film rolls. If it goes wrong, well.. then another take.

I once was on set with pro's, they really filmed away many times until everybody was exhausted. They have the budget, film and processing is the most unimportant factor for them.. for me it is a neck-breaker!

[Santo]

10:1 ratio, folks.. even 5:1 is incredible for a one-man-low-budget production. If the filming requires much try and error (much talking, no real actors, complicated choreography), than by all means do it on video. If done on film, work hard to get it in one take. Don't even give you the excuse for a second one "just in case".

I'm not hollywood - I don't try to work like them, so I really try until it is all the way I want it to be, and then the film rolls. If it goes wrong, well.. then another take.

I once was on set with pro's, they really filmed away many times until everybody was exhausted. They have the budget, film and processing is the most unimportant factor for them.. for me it is a neck-breaker!

Are you ever right, Jean. I just spent a couple months on a major Hollywood film and it was ludicrous! Every day after the plan was complete was "the window" where they shoot whatever comes to mind and try stuff as long as the light held out. Multiple cameras going. Mind-boggling for a micro-budget indie filmmaker to consider what it would cost to buy and process. And no black Lincoln Navigator to whisk the micro-budget indie filmmaker off the set back to a base camp when the day is done, either. :lol:

There really isn't any reason to shoot more than a 4:1 ratio provided you've planned everything out properly and get your actors to do some rehearsals -- with the filmmaker behind the camera. Especially if you've done some storyboards/floor plans and whatnot. Really, if you can't get it in three takes, you're doing something wrong!

[S8 Booster]

10:1 ratio, folks.. even 5:1 is incredible for a one-man-low-budget production. If the filming requires much try and error (much talking, no real actors, complicated choreography), than by all means do it on video. If done on film, work hard to get it in one take. Don't even give you the excuse for a second one "just in case".

I'm not hollywood - I don't try to work like them, so I really try until it is all the way I want it to be, and then the film rolls. If it goes wrong, well.. then another take.

I once was on set with pro's, they really filmed away many times until everybody was exhausted. They have the budget, film and processing is the most unimportant factor for them.. for me it is a neck-breaker!

hmm.... Your fellow filmmaker Rainer Werner Fassbinder (1945 - 1982) usually gave the actors one shot.

Initially due to no-lo budgets and time limits - later due to: "It brings out the best in actors if they only get one shot"

R


(Re Fassbinder: Some of his films are total mindblowers - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001202/

A selected few:
Ehe der Maria Braun, Die (1979)
Händler der vier Jahreszeiten, Der (1972)
Lola (1981)
Liebe ist kälter als der Tod (1969)
Bitteren Tränen der Petra von Kant, Die (1972) )

[rollemfilm]

10:1 was just a working example. But, many filmmakers go beyond that and to think you'll get it right the first time every time is not realistic. Filmmaking cost money and that is why you need to have a budget worked out in advance. If you do budget 10:1 (example) but come in at 4:1 then you are under budget and you're doing it right. However, if you end up with 15:1 then you need to look at what's happening and correct it.

So what do you do if you want to make a 15min film but can only afford to shoot 1:1? The you cut the film down to 5-7min. Otherwise you'll end up using less than adequate footage and your film will look less than amateur.

[Santo]

Reading this over again, i feel i should specify that i'm talking about a 4:1 ratio for each shot in terms of how much film you shoot, which includes slates and before and after bits, so that you can get at least one really good take of the shot. For somebody who knows what they want, a Hitchcock style storyboarded meticulously planned approach, this works. That ratio might even go down to 2:1 if that first take nails it.

If you don't know exactly what you're looking for and are unsure of yourself and saving decisions for editing, it might be somewhat bigger than 4:1 and be perfectly acceptable if you're doing things in a very traditional method and shooting a master shot and shots of actors close ups and reversals and cutaways and all that, your ratio of film shot to the film that actually makes it into the film once it's edited is going to go way up. In that case, 10:1 is not outrageous.

However, I agree completely with Jean's philosophy of doing everything to make it in one great take for each shot.

Also, I don't buy the argument people make talking about "style" as a justification for shooting a 1000 kilometres of film. People who were notorious for doing that later in their careers (Kubrick and Coppola come to mind), were very tight and in control earlier on when they had no money and had to optimize their budgets and had very low and economic shooting ratios like we do.

[jean]

If you don't know exactly what you're looking for and are unsure of yourself and saving decisions for editing

I know, that is one of the challenges, at least for my level of experience when I have not the routine to see what works and what does not work. In a perfect world I should have the decisions made even before i buy the first roll

With a rigid script and storyboard, I believe there still is plenty of room for effective experiments and changes! But going to the set without a clear vision, I'm afraid this could kill a microbudget film very soon.

As a preparation, I use a camcorder for all kind of experiments, and have a "dummy" actor (whoever is around) move and try different framings, poses... That way i can film with more confidence, and be sure about the results.

What I consider most important: keep it simple. The project should be within the possibilities, both technical and financial. Especially complicated characters and dialogues mostly are way beyond what friends and family can deliver. Good sound is a very difficult thing to achieve (for me at least) so I try to avoid complications as much as possible. A 5min short that is really good and well done is much better than a 15min that was just a little to much for the available ressources, and where the audience feels that many times the effort was ot enough!

I don't know, I hope after mastering 5min with little talking, perhaps the next one can be more sophisticated, and slowly I may work up towards longer films!