16mm a compromise in qaulity?

[freddiesykes]

I really need to open my copy of Diarios de motocicleta. I've been meaning to watch it for months. S16? I can't believe it!

[edgebsl]

I just watched a little of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre on Monsters HD on my 720p front projector.

Man, I love the look of that film.Some of its beaultiful and even the parts that are ugly are still really cool.

The pep talk worked a little.He's warming up to more film shooting.

He did point out that this is a film -biased board.

But I think most people on here have shot both. If I were to take this conversation to the dv boards I would undoubltly get the posts by people saying they would rather work with 24p dv over 16, but I bet most of them have never worked with film and havent shot nearly as impressive footage as the folks on this board or the other cinematography boards.
I hate to generalize but it seems its usually the younger guys who dont have a lot under their belt who take the dv side of the debate.

I don't have very much at all under my belt but I do try to learn from the pros by listening to what they have to say.

It seems most of them would rather shoot 35,then super16 ,then HD,then a split between 24p dv or super 8.

I think my buddy would rank it 35mm/HD/24p dv/30p dv/16mm/8mm
I cant agree with that.

[edgebsl]

To make things fair here are the images in motion.
http://www.extremesoundonline.com/video ... cember.wmv

You can probably tell which is film and which is dv.

The dv is crisp and the 16 is looking like bad super 8.

Something definitely went wrong with the film.It wasnt exposure because the printer lights I was told were dead on according to the lab.

It was, heat, bad stock, bad processing , the little bit of smoke,a soft lens or a combination.Who knows.

Note the green room shots are done on the shadow.

The shots of the book pages and the end sequence of the girl walking up the hallway towards the old man were done with a zeiss jena, the rest with the mc zenitar 16mm.Most of the time we were shooting wide open.

I'm curious to see what a difference the ultra t makes.

[freddiesykes]

I hate to generalize but it seems its usually the younger guys who dont have a lot under their belt who take the dv side of the debate.

Interesting point, edgebsl. The local film school has a graduation rate of 1% (according to my friend who is currently attending). She says that most people quit because learning film is too hard and too expensive; they'd rather pull out their XL-2. This is depressing and upsetting on many levels.

[sarmoti]

There's no question that properly shot and transfered 16mm blows SD away, Super16 it also a great production medium for HD. If you don't believe me watch this video here.

http://www.hd-channel.com/videos/mounta ... easons.wmv

Its a side by side comparison of the Panasonic Varicam, Sony F900 (CineAlta), Super16 and Digital Betacam, they even zoom in on detail for you to see the difference.

Yes, S16 film can have some visible grain in HD but I don't view it as a bad thing, I don't know why people are so concerned about having the lowest amount of grain. Grain is part of what gives film it's look and sets it apart from sterile textureless HD video. Grain is also a tool that is flexible, some scenes might benefit from tons of grain and some others might not.

John Pytlak mentioned the recent TV movie Frankenstein as some of the best 16mm he's seen. That film was shot mostly on 500ASA film (even some exteriors) intentionally to take advantage of the aesthetic quality of the grain.

My point is 16mm is a great format for HD production and that grain is not evil, it's a controllable storytelling asset.

[MovieStuff]

One thing that makes a low budget video look cheap is that the video is usually edited together without the benefit of involving a professional colorist, whereas filmmakers naturally involve a colorist during the telecine process.

This is so very, very true that more people need to consider it before trying to make generalized comparisons between digital and film. I have yet to see non-pro digital originated footage that could not benefit from modest color grading and contrast adjustments but too many people shooting digital just use it "as is".

It is the digital equivalent of people that shoot K40 and proclaim its superority, even though they consistently have blatant exposure and filtration problems. The recent comparison of the K40 and E64 stills come to mind where everyone bashed the E64T over and over without stopping once to consider that the K40 still didn't look particularly good, either. People tend to ignore what they don't want to see in favor of the medium that provides the comfort zone they are used to, regardless of results.

As reflex noted above, when people shoot film and have it telecined, they bring into the equation a professional colorist that isn't present when they come back from the field with a fist full of DV tapes and sit down to edit. There seems too often to be an assumption that DV just looks like it does and there is nothing to be done about it. Kind of funny, really, considering the sophisticated post processing tools available in even the cheapest NLE package.

Roger

[mattias]

for the record hdcam is a tape format and thus isn't a very good abbreviation of "hd camera". just "hd" is better, unless you want to specify the format i.e. hdv, hdcam, hdcam sr, dvcpro hd, d5 and so on.

as for being scared of film that's only natural. for a client expecting crisp results seeing 7222 can be a really painful experience. especially if mixed with video footage.

btw i'm shooting a video on hdv w/ mini-35 this weekend. i'll let you know how it goes.

/matt

[audadvnc]

He did point out that this is a film -biased board.

Just about all of us here shoot both film and video. We have opinions based on our experience.

You can probably tell which is film and which is dv. The dv is crisp and the 16 is looking like bad super 8.
I'm curious to see what a difference the ultra t makes.

I'm curious to see what using real lights makes. Looks like you shot DV under existing fluorescent lights, which don't make for good film or video.

If your 16mm looks like bad Super 8 you've got more to worry about than Ultra T lenses. Get the basics right first. Start with proper lighting. You should be able to take any old Bolex or Filmo (or DV camcorder) and get great images. If you can't do that, the most expensive gear in the world won't help you.

[BigBeaner]

I really think the way to go is film and video united. Shoot film, edit video on NLE for the best of both worlds.

[edgebsl]

You can probably tell which is film and which is dv. The dv is crisp and the 16 is looking like bad super 8.
I'm curious to see what a difference the ultra t makes.

I'm curious to see what using real lights makes. Looks like you shot DV under existing fluorescent lights, which don't make for good film or video.

If your 16mm looks like bad Super 8 you've got more to worry about than Ultra T lenses. Get the basics right first. Start with proper lighting. You should be able to take any old Bolex or Filmo (or DV camcorder) and get great images. If you can't do that, the most expensive gear in the world won't help you.[/quote]

We used 3 lowell dp 1000 watt quartz lights.Problem is...we mostly bounced them off the ceiling to avoid getting too many shadows.I think we should have used a more direct key for the faces. But like I said,the lab said the exposure was dead on ,I dont think that was the problem with the grain...although better lighting would have made for better images.

Not saying I want to shoot at 1.25 but its nice having some headroom since we had a max aperature of 2.8 on a lens that probably wasnt sharp till f8.

I have a filmo 70dr too. If the gsmo gets shipped off for awhile to get s16-ed I will practice with that for awhile too.

[etimh]

From what I understand large parts of 'Mondo Cane' were shot on R16 and it looks fantastic.

Are you referring to the classic Italian shock film? Isn't that all archival news footage? Saw it many years ago and can't really remember it.

Going to check out Seppuku based on your comments about the B&W cinematography--thanks for the recommendation.

Tim

[Freya]

I just watched the video and it seems to me like some of it was shot on colour reversal and some of the indoor shots look like really early eastman negative. The black and white shots look like black and white video gone bad (is this double x film?)

What were all these bits really shot on?

I assume when you were talking about 200asa in black and white earlier that you meant tri-x? Personally I like tri-x a lot, but it is known for its distinctive grain which people actually like. You could shoot plus-x which would be less grainy. However if you are looking for a modern proffesional look, then I would shoot a modern colour neg such as the vision stocks.

I'm not sure what the cp lens is because presumably cinema products just rebadged the lens of another manufacturer.

If you are only shooting bits of the music video on film, then you may not need to slate unless you shoot bits with lip sync. I giuess if you have a standard performance video in mind then this could be an issue.

love

Freya

[jaxshooter]

audadvnc
I may be paying to work ,but I need practice since I'm new to film.
I think having some good work shot on film would improve our demo reel.

I used to run across those arguments when I was shooting commercials.At some point,I quit arguing and just shot a few test reels of color neg (free sample rolls from Kodak,Fuji and Agfa who was around at the time)and managed to sweet talk a lab into transferring a roll for free with the promise that if I talked them into film,I would use them.I got a beautiful couple of test rolls and managed to convince a few producers to try film on at least a few shoots.

[Evan Kubota]

"Are you referring to the classic Italian shock film? Isn't that all archival news footage? Saw it many years ago and can't really remember it."

1. Yes

2. No, they shot virtually all of it in various locations, using several international film crews.

I think the version currently on DVD is the director's cut which has some additional scenes.

[edgebsl]

Freya ,you asked for a breakdown...

The BandW stuff is vision200t(not v2) double perf framed for 16:9 and desaturated in post and dirtied up a bit. I think the whites are blown out a bit much so maybe thats why you thought "video"

The color film is fuji eterna 500t.

The only shots done with the xl2 are in the room with the sunbeams coming through the back windows and there are some s16 mixed in that are really grainy and cloudy looking.

We used a bit of smoke in that room which the xl2 loved but the film hated.

I actually shot 3 tests rolls prior to this on v2 500t and eastman exr 100t and those tests came out better than our project but were still somewhat grainy.Although some of the 7218 was very nice looking.

I wa stold by the tech who worked on my GSMo at clairmont camera that the ultra t was supposed to compete with the first gen zeiss super speeds and does fairly well next to them. Like a budget alternative.

I have a test done on 7245 coming back so I will post my results.