My SF film - UPDATE -

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

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

Sasounet
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 3:22 am
Location: Montréal, Canada

My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by Sasounet » Wed May 26, 2010 5:18 am

Hi,

You might remember this thread from last summer:
http://www.filmshooting.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=154

Just to let you know that, only 10 month late, filming has now begun. Here are a few pictures that you might like.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

P.S. I am not in any pictures. The guy is my friend and helper Pierre, and the girl is my wife.
Sasounet

Sasounet
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 3:22 am
Location: Montréal, Canada

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by Sasounet » Wed May 26, 2010 5:21 am

Well, the pictures got truncated for some unknown reason... check them here :

http://picasaweb.google.ca/francoislanc ... directlink

François
Sasounet

DonFito
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:08 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by DonFito » Wed May 26, 2010 9:20 am

Impressive work
Cheers,

Rafael Rivera
www.donfito.com

mauka
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by mauka » Wed May 26, 2010 11:03 am

Yes, REALLY impressive. Those spaceships and the cockpit look incredible. But why 8mm and not 16mm? Just for the looks?

aj
Senior member
Posts: 3535
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 1:15 pm
Real name: Andre
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by aj » Wed May 26, 2010 11:08 am

Hope you can shoot the scenes which you had in mind. Should after all this effort.

Have you stocked up on single-8 material? Or, who is your supplier and who does the processing? Would be a shame if you run out when you finally made it to shooting.
Kind regards,

André

User avatar
Andersens Tears
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 2:13 pm
Real name: Jamie Noakes
Location: Östersund, Sweden
Contact:

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by Andersens Tears » Wed May 26, 2010 2:09 pm

I was only thinking how this was going the other day!

I really wish you all the best with this - you have an excellent model really good lighting and you are shooting on film. This will look MORE realistic than any CGI created fiasco!

User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6113
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: The wilds of Pipe Creek, Texas
Contact:

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by MovieStuff » Wed May 26, 2010 7:07 pm

Looks really, really good. I have to echo the same question: Why not 16mm? With all the work you are doing, 8mm is really not going to do it justice and you will find less that you can do with it commercially with 8mm.

Roger

woods01
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:09 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by woods01 » Wed May 26, 2010 8:53 pm

Wow man, this could be one of those terrific labour of love projects. The model looks incredible. Are you for hire? :)

Old school SFX + 8mm = Pure Heart

I hate to be another one to chirp in on the old 16mm question but I'm sure you have your reasons. I assume camera availability is part of the equation and I hope you are animating it for 24 fps.

But I'd encourage you to looking into the possibility of blowing up the 8mm footage to 16mm and finishing your print in 16. There are many film co-ops that can train you to use a JK printer and you can do it yourself.

super8man
Senior member
Posts: 3980
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:51 pm
Real name: Michael Nyberg
Location: The Golden State
Contact:

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by super8man » Thu May 27, 2010 5:32 am

Nice stuff for sure - let me guess, you are doing it in 8mm for the depth of field on the space ship shots?
My website - check it out...
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/

Sasounet
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 3:22 am
Location: Montréal, Canada

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by Sasounet » Thu May 27, 2010 7:40 am

mauka wrote:Yes, REALLY impressive. Those spaceships and the cockpit look incredible.?
Wait until you see it in motion with the central portion rotating ;-)

About that cockpit: it is an auxiliary set having only about 3 mins of screen time, mostly in the dark. Nevertheless beside the numerous lights and switches, it has no less than 7 working computers when everything is switched on. :-)

The main set, still under construction, will have about 15 working computers...
mauka wrote:But why 8mm and not 16mm? Just for the looks?
Ok because so many people are asking lets talk about 16mm film.

You have to remember that at the beginning this project was supposed to be a small sf film, made just for fun in the course of half a year. At the time, super 8 / single 8 seemed like a logical choice mainly because of budgetary issues.

Now, 4 years later, the project has grown into something much bigger. My quality control in so strict I ended up spending a lot of money to get things right. And now, I am not sure that single 8 was a good choice anymore... Keeps me awake at night.

The problem is that I already have many shots in 8mm. Also, I have spent many hours and cartridges on exposition and other kind of tests. I am not sure I want to start over. Also, the money to buy a camera, 16mm films and positive print at the end might be better spent on hiring professional actors. Remember, the highest risk of having a bad movie is the quality of the acting, not the image quality.

Beside, would I gain that much working in 16mm ? I want your opinion on the following:

I already have big depth of field problems.

My limited understanding of depth of field tells me that I am going to have even more trouble in 16mm than 8mm for the same lighting / aperture. However, instead of shooting Fuji T64 I could go with a 200ASA or even more gaining about 3 stops solving my depth of field problem.

But would the grain of a 16mm 200 ASA negative transferred on a positive print end up being much better than the Fuji T64 reversal in Single 8 (very tight grain structure) ?

Also, 16mm has much better stability than super 8... But Single 8, with its metal pressure plate is quite stable too.

Lastly, I have absolutely no plan for commercialization. Heck, I am not even sure I will show the film outside of a very small circle of close friends. It depends on the quality of the final product, and my criteria are very high.

I don't know. I guess I will wait to see the quality of the T64 footage I am shooting these days to decide. I could always blow up the existing footage to 16mm.

Francois
Sasounet

User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6113
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: The wilds of Pipe Creek, Texas
Contact:

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by MovieStuff » Thu May 27, 2010 2:09 pm

Having spent my former life doing special effects for a living on many a low budget film, let me just say that 16mm is going to be your friend in many, many ways. Stability is number one. The ability to rewind and double expose with superior registration is going to be stunningly different than even single 8. Even if you use a higher asa film in 16mm, remember that the area of 16mm is 4 times greater, not two. So, in reality, the higher asa 16mm film will most likely look less grainy than the finest grain single 8. And depth of field accompanies the lens, regardless of what camera that it is on. Super wide angle lenses, which are best for shooting miniatures, are hard to come by for Super 8mm cameras. But put the same ordinary 8mm wide angle lens on a 16mm camera and you suddenly have a super wide lens with the same depth of field.

I understand the whole time/resources investment issue and how something that started small got bigger. But, honestly, you will be sooooooo much better off if you at least use 16mm for the effects. But switching to 16mm for the whole project would really be ideal. Short ends for 16mm are abundantly available and 16mm color neg is so forgiving, you can practically guess at the exposure. This is going to be particularly handy when doing special effects work where you feel the need to stop down all the way for maximum DOF.

Anyway, keep up the great work. It all looks just terrific.

Roger

User avatar
Patrick
Senior member
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 3:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by Patrick » Thu May 27, 2010 2:39 pm

Absolutely stunning! That spacecraft rivals anything you'd see in Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica. Although Super 8 / Single 8 is capable of great image quality, I do share the sentiments of others in that this would look sensational in 16mm. It deserves it! Though I see that you have already shot some of the film in Single 8 already...a real dilemma.

woods01
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:09 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by woods01 » Thu May 27, 2010 6:02 pm

The frame registration you'll get in 16mm is alone worth considering. The cost of equipment is higher but you could get a decent Bolex start-up kit for $500 and 16mm film is actually slightly cheaper for stock and processing that 8mm. For what you're doing I'd say not to bother getting short ends or re-cans its better to have fresh film stock for this kind of work. Especially if you use a 500asa film as these have a short life and can get quite grainy with age. Maybe try short ends if you want to do a test.

I'd suggest you talk to Main Film: http://www.mainfilm.qc.ca/
They can rent you a Bolex or other 16mm cameras for tests to see if you like the results. Also membership in a co-op can make it easier to access the Kodak indie film discount and many labs have special prices for co-ops.

I don't know much about the lab situation out there but getting 16mm prints is getting harder and harder, you might have to use a Toronto lab.

Sasounet
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 3:22 am
Location: Montréal, Canada

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by Sasounet » Fri May 28, 2010 5:34 am

Patrick wrote:Absolutely stunning! That spacecraft rivals anything you'd see in Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica.
No it does not! When you look carefully it does have A LOT of rough finishing... and many details have a tendency to drop on the floor at the worst possible timing.
woods01 wrote:I'd suggest you talk to Main Film: http://www.mainfilm.qc.ca/
I checked their web site and I going to see them next week for sure. 16mm is definitely not out of the question. I can always re-shoot the special effect footage already done. Re-shooting live performance is more problematic.

François
Sasounet

marc
Senior member
Posts: 1909
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 12:01 am
Real name: Marc

Re: My SF film - UPDATE -

Post by marc » Fri May 28, 2010 6:02 am

MovieStuff wrote: remember that the area of 16mm is 4 times greater, not two. .
Roger
3.5 but whose counting?
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS GOING THROUGH TSA SECURITY IN THE AIRPORT BUT ANYONE CAN CROSS THE BOARDER BETWEEN THE U.S. AND MEXICO WITH NO CHALLENGES WHATSOEVER? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Post Reply