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

[cdg]

This might be jumping in a little too late, but let me share my 2 cents here. I know this is slightly off the original topic, but maybe somebody will find this catchy...

Shooting digital, or VHS, or Hi8 or whatever it is you want to shoot, in still or motion photography is a great way to jump in and get things done. Obviously digital works, and obviously people can take some stunning movies or frames with the latest and greatest tech. That's what so great about modern technology.

Film is a great medium. It's a cut above the more modern technologies. Why? Go out to a site with a Ricohflex TLR camera and tell me how many frames you take. Now go out with your Nikon D80. How many frames did you take? How meaningful is each shot on that D80 compared to the RicohFlex? There are limits to the film medium, but I think that's the whole point of using it. We take these limits and turn them to our advantage. Plus it's so damn expensive you learn to be careful with what you shoot!

So buy your camcorder, and enjoy it. Learn how to use it. But don't discount film, because I think when the day is done, I would trade 100 hours of video for the 3 minutes of fame I get when I break out that crusty old projector and show a little sliver of life on the old silver screen.

I shoot Polaroid, I shoot pinhole, I shoot 35mm, I shoot medium format, I shoot digital, I shoot regular 8mm. Some day, all of these films might be gone, but until that day arrives, I will stubbornly hold my film cameras the dearest. I encourage everybody to try film, and to try digital.

When the day is done, photography and cinematography are the means through which we can frame the world. With this in mind, who really cares what we use to do this with, as long as we reach our respective objectives with our chosen medium?

[mattias]

Telecine at $100 an hour ( if you went to Filmworks or Yale Labs) for 248 minutes worth of footage -$400

you want to transfer a little over 4 hours of material in 4 hours? if you can do it in under five i'm impressed. most likely you'll want to make some adjustments as well, even if it's not a full grade, which takes another hour. i'd budget for 6.

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

it is actually. even a 1:1 ratio usually works out to around 1.5:1 in the end. cut away the heads and tails on each shot, however short, and you're already screwed. 70 rolls could work though.

/matt

[sk360]

you want to transfer a little over 4 hours of material in 4 hours? if you can do it in under five i'm impressed. most likely you'll want to make some adjustments as well, even if it's not a full grade, which takes another hour. i'd budget for 6.

Actually, I think both places charge $80 and hour ( or maybe it's just Yale). None the less, yes six hours would be better, but worse comes to worse you could do it four ( so long as the lab doesn't add any additional charges) and maybe color correct on your own or who ever is doing the post production.

it is actually. even a 1:1 ratio usually works out to around 1.5:1 in the end. cut away the heads and tails on each shot, however short, and you're already screwed. 70 rolls could work though.

Sure 70 rolls is better, so is 60. But I do think it's possible to do it at 50. That is, if you have the capability of doing so and by that I mean you have a well thought out storyline that can be executed with the people, resources and locations around you with the needed amount of time. In theory, you have 115 minutes with those 50 rolls and if your set to make a feature at the minimum length of 90 minues, you should have close to 25 minutes of extra film to use at your disposal ( i.e. retakes). Like I said, it really depends on the project. If you setting out to make an " El Mariachi " style film, the odds are heavily againt you. However, if your going for something a bit more minimalist like " Strangers In Paradise", you may have a better chance of pulling it off.

[sk360]

I shoot Polaroid, I shoot pinhole, I shoot 35mm, I shoot medium format, I shoot digital, I shoot regular 8mm. Some day, all of these films might be gone, but until that day arrives, I will stubbornly hold my film cameras the dearest. I encourage everybody to try film, and to try digital.

I agree with you 100%. I think it's inportant to try out and experment with different mediums and technologies. That's why I find music videos, commercials, video presentations, photo/ art exhibits so much more interesting thease days then what you would find playing at your local theatre chain because you find more people trying to express a new way of telling a story or idea. I have nothing against big budget commercial moves ( I actually dug the Transformers movie) but I just find myself more excited these days by what you can shoot on a $20 Toy Camera then a million dollar Panavision Genesis.

[sk360]

Double post.

[BigBeaner]

you want to transfer a little over 4 hours of material in 4 hours? if you can do it in under five i'm impressed. most likely you'll want to make some adjustments as well, even if it's not a full grade, which takes another hour. i'd budget for 6.

Actually, I think both places charge $80 and hour ( or maybe it's just Yale). None the less, yes six hours would be better, but worse comes to worse you could do it four ( so long as the lab doesn't add any additional charges) and maybe color correct on your own or who ever is doing the post production.

it is actually. even a 1:1 ratio usually works out to around 1.5:1 in the end. cut away the heads and tails on each shot, however short, and you're already screwed. 70 rolls could work though.

Sure 70 rolls is better, so is 60. But I do think it's possible to do it at 50. That is, if you have the capability of doing so and by that I mean you have a well thought out storyline that can be executed with the people, resources and locations around you with the needed amount of time. In theory, you have 115 minutes with those 50 rolls and if your set to make a feature at the minimum length of 90 minues, you should have close to 25 minutes of extra film to use at your disposal ( i.e. retakes). Like I said, it really depends on the project. If you setting out to make an " El Mariachi " style film, the odds are heavily againt you. However, if your going for something a bit more minimalist like " Strangers In Paradise", you may have a better chance of pulling it off.

Um, it took us 2 hours to transfer 33 minutes worth of footage. Why get a supervised transfer if you're just going to rush through it, as rushing through it means that you shot everything in really pretty controlled lighting and don't require a supervised transfer...

[sk360]

I agree. If one feels confortable with the footage shot and feels like they don't need a colorist to do any additional work on the footage, then they can bypass that step.