Ready for Film Medium?

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Post by MovieStuff »

mattias wrote: to get "excellent" quality using super 8 or video you probably need to spend as much or more than you would to get the same results on 16mm.
That is so very true. If going to video, you can practically shoot by available light on 16mm and get terrific results, compared to busting your nuts to achieve the same thing with a ton of lighting in super 8. 16mm neg is just so forgiving compared to reversal that it makes lighting much easier. If printing the negative, then things are a bit more complicated but the larger format is still easier to work with, in general.

Roger
Golden
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:13 am
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Golden »

woah 8O

Thats a lot of info. After reading your suggestions, I think I will just go with a cheap Super 8mm to get my feet wet with film, then if I like it invest in some 16mm equipment. If I don't like it, I'll just get a better DV than I have now. I am looking at the Nizo 106XL, S1 or S2, for the prices.
Golden
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:13 am
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Golden »

I have been reading some reviews on the Nizo's, many saying that they are overpriced. (http://www.marriotworld.com) If this is true what is another good cheap camera? I am trying to find where to buy the Quarz's new, but I cant find a site.
JoshuaRyan
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:49 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by JoshuaRyan »

I myself just got out of highschool. I started using super 8 around my last days of it at least even. I definitly suggest getting a 3ccd camera. Now before Im burned at the stake, here are my reasons. First off, you are learning. Mini DV is MUCH more forgiving. in the time and money you spend on a Super 8 film, you could have 4 mini-DV ones done. Its also more durable, and easier to edit. Your films arent going to be sold, and many wont be seen by that many people, so right now the look and quality in format isnt important. First make mini-DV look good, then try film. You cant run before you walk. Now im not saying dont shoot super 8. Do what I did, and am doing. I write shorts that I save up for to pay for it every now and then. Its kind of like a treat that I give myself occasionaly. The one consistant thing that filmmakers tell us newbies for advice is Make movies and lots of em. Mini-DV just does that alot easier. But dont forgot to Super 8 a little along the way.
BigBeaner
Posts: 930
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 5:50 am
Location: Boston-MA/Los Angeles-CA
Contact:

Post by BigBeaner »

Mini DV is MUCH more forgiving. in the time and money you spend on a Super 8 film, you could have 4 mini-DV ones done.
Mini-dv is definately much more forgiving. My film came back from the lab today all blank. Whatever, just get film stock from a reliable place and kinda of makes you appreciate when you get it right even more than with video.
For the price of a 3 chip mini dv cam far exceeds the price of a decent super 8mm camera, 10 carts of film stock and to get all of those developed (walmart) and maybe some cash on the side for whatever else you need to make atleast a 10 minute short film. I love mini-dv but pick a script you really want to make into either a film or video and just make a budget and compare the prices. It might seem bothersome but if that helps you out. Just screw around have some fun and save up money for both options you can't lose.
Find out what your school has and what you can do also. Thats always fun.
norb
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:48 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

Post by norb »

With any medium you choose, you're still going to have to learn how to light and record sound. Badly lit video will still look as bad as badly lit film. The mic's on video cameras? They're all horrible, you'll end up using a boom mic or another recording system. What matters though when you're first starting out is how often you practice filmmaking.
JoshuaRyan wrote:The one consistant thing that filmmakers tell us newbies for advice is Make movies and lots of em. Mini-DV just does that alot easier. But dont forgot to Super 8 a little along the way.
I agree with JoshuaRyan on this... I'm not sure of your filmmaking background, but if you're just starting, focus on getting the basics of storytelling, shot composition, editing, etc. down first. With film, you can be hindered with all the technicalities that get in the way of finishing a project. Granted, all the technicalities are part of the process of learning/filmmaking, it'll make things easier to finish your projects with the least amount of stress... I find that getting a project actually finished and then learning from the overall experience very important (and helps as an ego boost for whatever's next).

With video, you get the most bang for your educational buck. Like others have said, it's the most forgiving of the mediums you mentioned. For what you're focusing on, dialogue and story, video lends itself for multiple takes of a scene. Especially when you're starting out, and just working with actors, this helps out a lot. With film, you worry about how much stock you have left, and while people may argue that this may lead to a bad habbit, video gives you the chance to keep on shooting <i>if you have to. </i>

This of course works the other way around too. With film, you <i>have to </i>be better prepared before you shoot. This doesn't mean that you're allowed to be lazy when you're shooting video, but with film, storyboards & outlines become more important, as the time to setup and rehearse scenes eat up more time. You're constantly aware of the fact that you have "two or three takes for this scene." However, with this sort of background, you'll come out with a better discipline that can carry on to both in video and film.

Some quick things to consider before buying a camera in either medium.

--Technology for video is constantly improving. At the current rate things are going, camcorders get replaced with a better model in 2-3 years. The biggest thing for miniDV was 24p for a while, but now it's HD. Who knows, maybe in another 2-3, there will be native anamorphic cameras at consumer prices... With a film camera, there are less things that change. The most you worry about is whether or not Kodak will continue producing your favorite film stock.
--On the resale level, video cameras drop in price after better models are released, so I would recommend picking up an older camcorder that's in good condition instead of buying a new one. The resale on film cameras from what I've seen, stays the same. The amount you spend to buy a film camera, is usually what you can sell it for later.
--If you choose to continue making movies/films/etc. Eventually you'll want a different camera more intune with the features you want. Try to choose something that'll help you feel things out and not splurge on getting "the best."

Eww. This post became super long. I hope this helps in some way.
matt5791
Senior member
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 2:46 pm
Location: Birmingham, England
Contact:

Post by matt5791 »

norb wrote:Badly lit video will still look as bad as badly lit film.
norb wrote:With a film camera, there are less things that change.
I see what you are saying, but I have to disagree with the way it is put.

IMHO film is a LOT easier to light than video, any video, for a number of reasons. In other words it is easier (and cheaper) in terms of lighting to get a great image on film.

So badly lit video looks absolutely terrible - and badly lit film can still look good there is more flexibility, especially with modern negative stocks.

Also one of the best aspects about film equipment is that it diesn't really change - it is the film that is continually updated. Whilst video moves on a pace, film does too - Examine the available filmstocks just 10 years ago - big difference. Examine the available filmstocks 20 years ago - someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the fastest stock 20 years ago was a grainy Fuji 250ASA.

Now you can take 500 speed film in 16mm and go out at night and get great images in just available light - superb images with just a little extra light.

Matt
Birmingham UK.
http://www.wells-photography.co.uk
Avatar: Kenneth Moore (left) with producers (centre) discussing forthcoming film to be financed by my grandfather (right) C.1962
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

i agree with matt.

/matt
studiocarter
Senior member
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:13 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
Contact:

16mm

Post by studiocarter »

Using 16mm is very easy on your own. All the needed equipment is available now on the bay at the lowest prices I've ever seen; photographing, editing, pojecting, and other supplies are all there.

If I were just starting out I'd get a 16mm camera and stick with it. One format, one set of equipment for editing, projecting, and storing films; one lab, one supplier of film, one shipper means no need to change anything for a long time. That makes the job easy.

If you go the route of using different formats, video, R8/S8, 16 then you really complicate matters. There accumulate boxes full of video tapes, many different film collections because of the different sizes, and a lot of different cameras, showing, and editing things. It's enough to drive me nuts! :cry:

If I were just starting out I'd only use one 16mm camera. It hardly matters which one as long as it worked properly. I'd even only use one lens, a prime lens. Just starting out, that is. As long as it were 16mm, the films could be copied, adjusted, corrected, printed, blown up - whatever. A 25mm f1.9 focusing lens would do, just move in closer or back more to frame shots diffenently. If the camera had a 'C' mount other lenses could be added later. You have to learn to use filters first.

I might go so far as to only shoot negative color stock. Maybe I'd say never even try reversal. Only shoot neg and get work prints made. Store the neg away and play with the work prints. Yor really need to see the films projected.

Work prints project and splice differently than reversal films. When you shoot reversal and then negative, you need to have two different sets of reels and all. It needlessly complicates everything. There is enough to learn about film making without muddying up the waters. Record keeping with film is a nightmare for me anyway.

Keep it simple Simon. The rule of KISS really applies to filmmaking. I wish I had followed it.

Michael Carter
norb
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:48 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

Post by norb »

matt5791 wrote: I see what you are saying, but I have to disagree with the way it is put.

IMHO film is a LOT easier to light than video, any video, for a number of reasons. In other words it is easier (and cheaper) in terms of lighting to get a great image on film.

So badly lit video looks absolutely terrible - and badly lit film can still look good there is more flexibility, especially with modern negative stocks.
I did overstate what I said earlier, but because video is wysiwyg and you get instant feedback... IMO, this helps out a bit when you're starting out with lighting.
JoshuaRyan
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:49 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by JoshuaRyan »

It would be great if we could all start out with 16. But seriously, can a high school senior afford that? Maybe, but they will definitly not be making as many movies as they would with mini-dv.
matt5791
Senior member
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 2:46 pm
Location: Birmingham, England
Contact:

Post by matt5791 »

If the following are important to you:

1. image control

2. image quality

3. versatility

You have to shoot film. Honestly this is the only option, and 16mm is the happy medium. If the above are important to you, film will also be cheaper.

Matt
Birmingham UK.
http://www.wells-photography.co.uk
Avatar: Kenneth Moore (left) with producers (centre) discussing forthcoming film to be financed by my grandfather (right) C.1962
studiocarter
Senior member
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:13 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
Contact:

Post by studiocarter »

My money is very limited, too. However, one film a month would be enough using 16mm. In a short time you would have a bunch of films to deal with.

Now if you are really gung-ho to make miles of films, and try to unravel all that mess, then consider shooting Regular8mm in a Bolex H8 camera using 100 foot spools of film. That would be the same as shooting 400 foot loads using 16mm film. That way you would get to deal with editing in a big way.

Even so, I'd still rather only shoot 16mm, now that I've done it the complicated way, using many different outfits. Eventually, we film makers need to seek funding for our films. If you are in High School you could write a grant application for funding, ask the Librarian or at the local film college. Mayby you could only pay for one roll of 16mm color negative and a one light work print once every two months. That is still something and done consistantly will add up to 600 feet of film in one year. The time will pass anyway; which would you rather have this time next year, 8mm or 16mm color negative. A part time job doing anything would pay for a lot more film. Professional film. 16mm film.
JoshuaRyan
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:49 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by JoshuaRyan »

Or you could make a short movie every 3 days with mini-dv (or every day if you really wanted) and then once you get good with that, then progress to 16. Sorry if I seem anti film here, im not in any respect. Its just that digital is such a great opportunity that would be dumb to turn down. When you are learning how to drive a car, do you go out and buy a porche? no, you drive moms old minivan to learn. I dont know this for a fact, but im sure back in the day film students practiced on 8mm before they went to 16 or 35 because it was cheaper and easier to deal with. Its the same kind of deal with digital, once youve learned the basic techniques of filmmaking, then change the format. The raw basics of filmmaking are blind to format, so why should it matter in those early stages?
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

JoshuaRyan wrote:Or you could make a short movie every 3 days with mini-dv (or every day if you really wanted) and then once you get good with that, then progress to 16.
well, this thread is not about directing but cinematography, and not about learning but creating. if you're a beginner and/or don't care that much about taking great pictures, by all means go ahead and shoot minidv.

/matt
Post Reply