64T: "seperating the men from the boys"

[ccortez]

I know a rich kid who went to USC film school. When he graduated, his rich father paid 100k for him to shoot a 10 (15?) minute short on 35mm. It was a bland, no-risks-taken story about a little boy's trip with his family to a kitschy hotel in Arizona.

He paid a known DP to shoot the thing. It looked great. So fucking what? There was no there there. In his case, his professional reputation probably *suffered* b/c he used 35mm rather than 16 or S16. Why? B/c a) he didn't get anything out of the 35 that he couldn't have gotten from the less expensive 16 process and b) it was obvious he didn't have to make any hard choices (any choices at all) because daddy gave him the money. Had he made the same film on a hard-candy-xmas 16mm budget he'd have looked more "professional".

(Regardless of the format, marketability was not an issue because it's a SHORT. Ever try selling one? SkyItalia offered us $1k for an 8 minute movie we made several years ago. We felt like we hit the jackpot! ;) )

I saw the thing on the big screen because his dad rented out a theatre in a Dallas multiplex to show it to an audience of 200 friends and family. I'm fairly certain it was the last viewing of consequence.

[Evan Kubota]

True, but from 10 minutes of footage I wouldn't expect more than 2 minutes of finished product...

[MovieStuff]

This isn't just a technical comparison. It is an issue of budget because you stated that working in 35mm hardly cost more than working in 16mm and that simply isn't true, if you are going after the same production values. You can't keep ignoring the budget if the budget is what you are basing your comparison on.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

I was talking about a short - maybe 10 minutes of film. Ten minutes of film, developing, and telecine, be it 16mm or 35mm, is withing the realm of possibility for me, and probably others.

And you think that shooting such a short on 35mm will increase its commercial viability and that a studio will be more likely to watch it? I think they are going to watch a video dub of your short and, frankly, won't care one way or the other if it was shot on 24P, 16mm or 35mm. Studios have practically zero commercial interest in shorts so it will only serve the purpose of representing your skills as a film maker and the ability to navigate a budget with sound decisions.

Regarding such, you had previously written:

I understand all of your budget arguments. but what I am saying is that all things being equal, a 35mm film (or 16mm) is more marketable.

But they aren't (see above). I truly mean no disrespect but if you really understood the budget arguments, then you'd know that all things aren't equal and it is the differences that are important when choosing which format to work in.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[timdrage]

If I were shooting a short on 35mm it would most likely be animation of some kind, and thus a much lower shooting ratio would be feasible.

[audadvnc]

If you can make contact with a stock footage house that is interested in the material you shoot you may be able to make that 35mm scheme work for you. Find some beautiful places and perfect weather, and shoot some time lapse landscapes. Make a 5 minute demo reel that will leave them wanting more, and you're in business.

But obviously, 16mm will still be cheaper.

[steve hyde]

I know a rich kid who went to USC film school. When he graduated, his rich father paid 100k for him to shoot a 10 (15?) minute short on 35mm. It was a bland, no-risks-taken story about a little boy's trip with his family to a kitschy hotel in Arizona.

He paid a known DP to shoot the thing. It looked great. So fucking what? There was no there there. In his case, his professional reputation probably *suffered* b/c he used 35mm rather than 16 or S16. Why? B/c a) he didn't get anything out of the 35 that he couldn't have gotten from the less expensive 16 process and b) it was obvious he didn't have to make any hard choices (any choices at all) because daddy gave him the money. Had he made the same film on a hard-candy-xmas 16mm budget he'd have looked more "professional".

(Regardless of the format, marketability was not an issue because it's a SHORT. Ever try selling one? SkyItalia offered us $1k for an 8 minute movie we made several years ago. We felt like we hit the jackpot! ;) )

I saw the thing on the big screen because his dad rented out a theatre in a Dallas multiplex to show it to an audience of 200 friends and family. I'm fairly certain it was the last viewing of consequence.

.....Good point made with a succinct story. 35mm is over-rated and I agree, if the kid made it on Super 8 and made it "look" good I would probably think that it was cool that he was getting his story out on film. On the other hand if I saw that it was shot with bottomless pockets on 35mm, I'd likely just groan and look down into my pop corn. In some ways a "great looking" boring film is worse than a scratchy looking boring film...IMHO

Many create films here and other places because it is a venue of artistic expression and creativity. Not because they are gearing up to a meeting with the big guy at Universal Studio. Do not get me wrong, if you get a deal with a big studio - ALL power to you! In the process, the users of the format ( R8, Super8 ) sharpens their skills in ways that can be helpful on many levels. It bothers me whenever someone dismisses such things in their bid to define the PRO quality of something while emphasizing the 'hobby/amateurish' aspects of something else. In such a way they are missing the whelo entire point of why so many of us create films and enjoy it. It is like landscaping. How if you come to my place and describe my efforts at gardening, which are excellent by the way, as 'amateurish' because I have not made it into "House and Garden' magazine. Imagine the look on my face as I stare at you and tell you to go get a life!

Yeah!!! I'm with you. Who gets to define "professional"??? Is this a term that references marketability or artistry? I opened the movie section of the New YorK Times today to find page after page of high concept "Home and Garden" - "professional" bull shit. The quality is in the concept not the format. Let's face it, for a lot of Executive Producers filmmaking is just a hobby. (e.g. something to spend money on)

Steve

[mattias]

Ha ha. Mattias, I thought you had thicker skin. And congrats on resorting to the personal attack.

what does skin thickness have to do with anyting? i will always reply in the same manner as i'm spoken to, whether i get offended or not.

As far as super8 being a pro format, I'm sure I can find lots of people that agree with my statement (probably not on this board though!).

not likely, unless you mean other ill-informed people. i know a lot of professional filmmakers and for what it's worth i consider myself one, and nobody defines the level of professionality by the format used. a lot of people on this board have the idea that they'll shoot super 8 instead of 35mm but that's a misconception the opposite way. pro's normally shoot whatever's best for the job. many times it's super 8.

/matt

[mattias]

that was plain rude...

and the post i was replying to wasn't? if you ever see me being rude to someone who didn't deserve it feel free to point it out. until then i suggest you shut the fuck up.

/matt

[super8man]

And people wonder why new people are afraid to get into the hobby of super 8...nicely done gentleman.

[jean]

"I was talking about a short - maybe 10 minutes of film. Ten minutes of film, developing, and telecine, be it 16mm or 35mm, is withing the realm of possibility for me, and probably others. "

Not to rain on your parade, but that would be a very *short* short. For my purposes, 3:1 is a pretty good shooting ratio. I've allotted 12 carts for my 10 minute summer project.

You can even attempt to shoot at 1:1 ratio. I always do, and while of course some shots always go wrong, I'm still far from 3:1 or more. If budget is a factor, I recommend to shoot accordingly, and not to try to achieve something that's not possible with the available ressources.

Plan shots carefully, visualize what you want to have. If it's something you've seen in another film (most likely everything has been done before), analyze this and then do it yourself.

It has worked out good for me to rehearse with a video camera when I'm unsure about the results, or want to experiment.

From time to time I work on a "real" set and see the pros shooting over and over again, for coverage, and then just in case, and once more just because lighting and everything is there and the catering is late. Many decisions are made later while editing. Try to make those decisions before filming. For them this is good and works, but don't try this at home, unless you have a lot of cash to burn..

I have a 300 feet short end, and want to squeeze at least a 5 min short out of it

Well, most shorts are waaaay too long anyway! icon_smile.gif

Exactly. Applies even to many features I see. And not all directors are so gentle to fill the time with girls moving in slomo like Rodriguez, but insist on blabbering.

[steve hyde]

"I was talking about a short - maybe 10 minutes of film. Ten minutes of film, developing, and telecine, be it 16mm or 35mm, is withing the realm of possibility for me, and probably others. "

Not to rain on your parade, but that would be a very *short* short. For my purposes, 3:1 is a pretty good shooting ratio. I've allotted 12 carts for my 10 minute summer project.

You can even attempt to shoot at 1:1 ratio. I always do, and while of course some shots always go wrong, I'm still far from 3:1 or more. If budget is a factor, I recommend to shoot accordingly, and not to try to achieve something that's not possible with the available ressources.

Plan shots carefully, visualize what you want to have. If it's something you've seen in another film (most likely everything has been done before), analyze this and then do it yourself.

It has worked out good for me to rehearse with a video camera when I'm unsure about the results, or want to experiment.

From time to time I work on a "real" set and see the pros shooting over and over again, for coverage, and then just in case, and once more just because lighting and everything is there and the catering is late. Many decisions are made later while editing. Try to make those decisions before filming. For them this is good and works, but don't try this at home, unless you have a lot of cash to burn..

I have a 300 feet short end, and want to squeeze at least a 5 min short out of it

Well, most shorts are waaaay too long anyway! icon_smile.gif

Exactly. Applies even to many features I see. And not all directors are so gentle to fill the time with girls moving in slomo like Rodriguez, but insist on blabbering.

I cannot base my oppinion on a lot of experience because this is my first year of experimental cinematography, but I do disagree with some of the things you have said here. In my own work I have noticed the best shots come out of long takes. My short takes are usually rubish. I would never plan to shoot 1:1 for a short. I think that is a lot like stretching paint. If you are working on a large canvas (ten minutes is a long short) I would not want to add gel to the paint so that I could cover the whole surface because in the end I will have a nasty looking drab painting that lacks the true vibrancy of the colors. If you want a nice looking painting you need more paint. I think the same principle applies to a short film. Shoot 10:1 and you will have more material to work with. You might actually capture those magical moments that only happen in the first and seventh take. The folks that made THE LIGHT OF EONS shot at a 30:1 ratio (if I understand correctly 125 carts) Personally, I'd rather make a 2 min short using a 10:1 ratio than a longer short shooting at 1:1. That said, I have seen some good shorts editied in-camera on a single cartridge of super 8. I admire people who can do that.

my opinion, for all that its worth....hopefully something.

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

"You can even attempt to shoot at 1:1 ratio. I always do, and while of course some shots always go wrong, I'm still far from 3:1 or more."

Do you mean that you get significantly better than 3:1? IMO, that's pretty impressive.

My ratio so far on S8 has been about 2:1. It's taken me 2 carts to shoot what is about a 3 minute film, of which 75% is film. However, I only spent about 25-30 feet per cart on the project. The rest was used with various camera tests and landscape shots.

30:1 like they did on "The Light of Eons" is crazy. I don't even have that high of a ratio when I shoot on DV (usually around 5:1). My rule of thumb is that I try to get 2 good takes and leave it at that. I can't afford to have 5 times coverage on film.

Of course, the genre you're working in can largely determine your shooting ratio. The SF project I'm working on now has a lot of long shots a la Tarkovsky, so it won't be practical to run more than 1 or 2 takes. I *always* rehearse at least twice before the camera rolls.

[munnin]

until then i suggest you shut the fuck up.

since we are in a row with the f word:

go fuck yourself you arrogant fucker!

cheesh! damn childish behaviour...

I'll be removing myself from this forum, much to my loss indeed, but I really don't have to put up with this crap from the high and mighty...

cheerio guys and gals

[steve hyde]

"You can even attempt to shoot at 1:1 ratio. I always do, and while of course some shots always go wrong, I'm still far from 3:1 or more."

Do you mean that you get significantly better than 3:1? IMO, that's pretty impressive.

My ratio so far on S8 has been about 2:1. It's taken me 2 carts to shoot what is about a 3 minute film, of which 75% is film. However, I only spent about 25-30 feet per cart on the project. The rest was used with various camera tests and landscape shots.

30:1 like they did on "The Light of Eons" is crazy. I don't even have that high of a ratio when I shoot on DV (usually around 5:1). My rule of thumb is that I try to get 2 good takes and leave it at that. I can't afford to have 5 times coverage on film.

Of course, the genre you're working in can largely determine your shooting ratio. The SF project I'm working on now has a lot of long shots a la Tarkovsky, so it won't be practical to run more than 1 or 2 takes. I *always* rehearse at least twice before the camera rolls.

I hear you. And sometimes you want to roll the camera during a rehersal. I think one of the benefits of shooting 8mm is keeping costs down on projects that require multiple takes. The guys that shot LIGHT OF EONS on a 30:1 ratio could have spent the same amount of money making their film on a 3:1 if they shot 35mm. I haven't seen the picture, but it is safe to assume that it would be a very different film had they gone the way of 35mm. I want to see the film. It sounds like a ten minute super 8 short made on about a $10,000 budget. ( I'm just guessing)

That sounds like a good investment to me if you want to work in filmmaking. How much is film school???

Steve

[jean]

Do you mean that you get significantly better than 3:1? IMO, that's pretty impressive.

Well, let's say sometimes I do. I mentioned it because I feel that it is wrong to scare folks away saying that a 10:1 ratio is minimum to come up with anything. It depends on how you work, what your goals and what your ressources are. A 10:1 seems to me that some decisions have been made in post thant could have been made before filming, but that is of course just a guess, it really depends on what you are doing. A scene with 6 people with movements and dialogue is something different than a landscape.

My ressources force me to aim for a 1:1 ratio. Something always goes wrong, and that brings me closer to 3:1 but I could not afford to aim for a 5:1 ratio. I plan and research my subjects accordingly, and can say that there is no law that says 10:1 is minimum to have anything useable. If I had more ressources, I would become more relaxed with the rolls of film I burn.