feature on super 8, a good idea?

[MovieStuff]

.... this one is an art piece with a dreamy setting, no mainstream ambition, and an ok though low budget, which sounds a lot like super 8, thus.....

After reading this thread, I am fairly convinced you need to shoot this on DS8 or not at all. I realize you have some S8 cameras that haven't given you trouble but Kodak just moved their facility for carts and have already had one recall. This seems like a dangerous time to do a feature with carted super 8 film. My offer to send you my Canon Scoopic DS8 still stands. Lord knows I'm not doing anything with it right now. It is really a terrific run-and-gun camera for what you want to do. I have not done any research on what neg stocks are available in DS8, though. You might contact John Schwinn.

Roger

[T-Scan]

DS8 is a good option, but for now the only stocks you can get are 100D, foma, and sometimes K40. No negs are available. The recall had to do with code printed on film cut for S8, not stability issues.

[npcoombs]

this one is an art piece with a dreamy setting, no mainstream ambition, and an ok though low budget, which sounds a lot like super 8, thus.

Either this is self-funded or Sweden is a film making Mecca. I'd like to know!

[npcoombs]

HDV is actually not that bad, in fact it can look pretty good.

True, there's a lot of pompous nonsense in the cinematography world about highly-compressed HD formats. Truth is, unless in exceptional circumstances a good HDV camera (JVC-HD210 for instance) produces an image which looks as good as an F900. Especially for outdoor shoots, where dynamic range is the major issue.

I've seen examples of both in the cinema (on 35mm print) and they look as equally good/bad.

Most likely I will shoot HDV, or whatever the semi-pro standard for HD is late 2008.

[mattias]

Either this is self-funded or Sweden is a film making Mecca. I'd like to know!

sweden is a good country for art- and "young filmmakers" grants. it's very easy to find a few thousand euros for your film, as grants with few strings attached and no responsibilty to make any money back.

the reverse happens when you need a million, which is hard everywhere but close to impossible here even with the government's support, and with impossible revenue sharing that never ever gives the producer a dime, so he can't self fund anything even if he wanted to.

/matt

[npcoombs]

Either this is self-funded or Sweden is a film making Mecca. I'd like to know!

sweden is a good country for art- and "young filmmakers" grants. it's very easy to find a few thousand euros for your film, as grants with few strings attached and no responsibilty to make any money back.

the reverse happens when you need a million, which is hard everywhere but close to impossible here even with the government's support, and with impossible revenue sharing that never ever gives the producer a dime, so he can't self fund anything even if he wanted to.

/matt

What about in the £100K range. There are quite a lot of these funds sloshing about in the UK right now. But they tend to be heavily regulated and produced to encourage a sort of conformity with unachievable aspirations for mainstream appeal.

[mattias]

What about in the £100K range.

that's growing fast, but there's no infrastructure for it and no goverment support. this is, as we all know, an amount you can raise yourself by mortgaging your house, asking all your restaurant owning and stock market working friends for ten thousand each, by selling a few of your shorts to television, working construction one summer, and so on. many people have gotten tired of the mainstream industry and are doing this, and i think it's fantastic, even better is that the government are starting to help these people out with finishing funds. maybe they will realize in a while that it's starting funds we really need. ;-)

to be honest i'm not so much into that range myself. i think €20,000 is a good budget because it's small which gives you freedom, and a €500,000 because it's reasonable. between them there's too much work and angst. i've worked on some of those so i know.

/matt

[npcoombs]

to be honest i'm not so much into that range myself. i think €20,000 is a good budget because it's small which gives you freedom, and a €500,000 because it's reasonable. between them there's too much work and angst. i've worked on some of those so i know.

/matt

Well, if its self funded you can do what you like with the money, but you are right that £100K productions usually come overburdened with expectations beyond their means.

I will be working with a £12-£20K budget and aiming to produce a film that looks like it was shot with a £50-£100K, so probably will be equally stressed.

[mattias]

Well, if its self funded you can do what you like with the money, but you are right that £100K productions usually come overburdened with expectations beyond their means.

yes, for example people think they can afford a team, but even a small team of eight people or so costs a lot of money, and if you pay them peanuts and feed them peanuts they will be grumpy, which is no fun, and then people think they have to spend more than half the budget on post production, because that's what the post houses say when they give them a quote based on commercial prices, and then they have no choice but to go over budget on the shoot, which always happens because there's no contingency in the budget, and they think there will be no film because they can't afford 8 weeks of flame artistry, which makes the director and producer grumpy, which the actors see and become grumpy, which leaves only me, the assistant director, and i don't get grumpy until afterwards when my paycheck is late by a couple of months. ;-)

no, i will barely have a team and i will do all the post work myself.

/matt

[npcoombs]

yes, for example people think they can afford a team, but even a small team of eight people or so costs a lot of money, and if you pay them peanuts and feed them peanuts they will be grumpy, which is no fun, and then people think they have to spend more than half the budget on post production, because that's what the post houses say when they give them a quote based on commercial prices, and then they have no choice but to go over budget on the shoot, which always happens because there's no contingency in the budget, and they think there will be no film because they can't afford 8 weeks of flame artistry, which makes the director and producer grumpy, which the actors see and become grumpy, which leaves only me, the assistant director, and i don't get grumpy until afterwards when my paycheck is late by a couple of months. ;-)

no, i will barely have a team and i will do all the post work myself.

/matt

Nice story! Yes, I think it is important not to fall into the trap of commercial budget pretensions. I will pay my small crew (DP, AC, runner) a pittance (and be very upfront about it), pay actors a pittance, shoot on the cheapest format possible, with the minimum lighting possible, with the cheapest locations possible and do all editing and post on my own suite.

I will either go for no music or get friends to do original soundscapes completely signed over to me.

[mattias]

I will either go for no music or get friends to do original soundscapes completely signed over to me.

oh, but "we'll get a good deal on this famous pop song the actor is singing in one scene. i know a guy who works at sony".

/matt

[npcoombs]

I will either go for no music or get friends to do original soundscapes completely signed over to me.

oh, but "we'll get a good deal on this famous pop song the actor is singing in one scene. i know a guy who works at sony".

/matt

What are the quotation marks signifying?

Anyway, "pop singers suck, unsigned indie musicians and composers rule"

[wado1942]

produces an image which looks as good as an F900.

You've obviously never worked with the F900 because the images it produces are a night & day difference from the lower end cameras. Far wider lattitude, sharp and anything, GREAT LENSES, more bandwidth so color correction doesn't cause the image to fall apart.

[woods01]

If you can afford and its what you want to do then yes shoot the S8
feature! You'll just have regrets otherwise. Now of course if the budget
is too small than go the video route. You'll regret it more if you can't
afford your lab bill!

There are valid points on the the grain issue with a S8 feature. I've got
DVDs of Greendale and The White Stripes and they are very much alive
with grain. I even saw Greendale in a theatre and it was golf ball sized
at times. The intensity of the grain with those films really created a character of ther image. It was almost like the image was fighting
to hold together at times. Good & bad depending on your point of view.

The neg does work well on a TV screen. But I prefer the grain size of reversal E64, which seems a lot like the old colour 16mm newsreels of the 1970s. Consider using that as your daylight stock and then switch to a neg stock for night.

[mattias]

What are the quotation marks signifying?

um, that it's a quote?!? no guy at sony, especially not your mid level white collar friend, will get you free famous pop songs for your no budget feature. but try telling that to some people... ;-)

/matt