The Santo wrote:It's a shame I don't check this forum more than once a year and a half or so on average.
Santo
Ah, human memory. You are too modest. One registration and two posts on separate moments makes for 3 active-visits in just over half a year. Not to count the uncountable (i.e. no count kept) read-only visits
you've probably noticed that i haven't been here much lately, mainly because i've been first researching digital cameras for my feature on other forums, and then actually shooting my feature. we finally decided to use the nikon d90 slr, the super 8 of video. soft, unpredictable, and beautiful. here's the trailer, please don't give the password to people.
we're currently finishing up the editing and it's scheduled to be finished in november, then released to swedish theaters and international festivals in february. stay tuned.
/matt
Nikon D90! Nice moves dude. The trailer looks great and nice rhythmic editing. Keep us posted.
I know some filmmakers in Seattle who have been blowing up footage from a Canon MK2 but haven't see the print yet.
steve hyde wrote:
Nikon D90! Nice moves dude. The trailer looks great and nice rhythmic editing. Keep us posted.
I know some filmmakers in Seattle who have been blowing up footage from a Canon MK2 but haven't see the print yet.
Suerte!
Steve
I love the still capabilities of the MK II, but was very disapointed by the video mode where if you do any quick tilts and pans you start to see that crappy jello effect.
With that said, I've been hearing excellent things about the upcomming 7D and from what I've seen from the video below it does look promising.
i'd like to keep this discussion out of this thread if possible, but while the 7d finally has 24/25 fps making it useful for filmmaking unlike the otherwise pretty awesome 5d it still has the same jello as all the others. however, i used the d90 which is the worst of them and it wasn't a problem really. moving the camera quickly and irregularly is a style i rarely use and definitely not for this film. my next feature will most likely be shot on film though, but in the same guerilla/documentary style. the aaton ltr isn't much bigger than the d90, right. ;-)
i don't know. i would never have shot the film on a d90 if i hadn't considered super 8 before, only people who need extremely portable gear and at the same time like to overcome serious obstacles should do either. i always though 16mm was the best low budget filmmaking medium and i still believe that.
finally, world premiere at the stockholm international film festival. we're screening a 35mm print and it looks awesome. come join us if you're in town.
It's not just the look (which is one thing) but the discipline. Video is certainly easy to shoot - but that's not necessarily a good thing. You can fall into the trap of shooting anything and everything (because you can) only to find that you've shot nothing at all and you've got twenty hours of it.
With film it forces you to think. You ask yourself: What is the best shot you can get? - because with limited film stock you can't do otherwise.
With video the question can easily become: What should I shoot just in case I need it. It's a way of not having to think - to defer decisions to the editing table - but then it's too late.
It shouldn't be like that but strangely it is. Make every shot special. On the day.
a common beginner's mistake for sure, but we took care to avoid it. both the dp and myself have almost only shot film before so we had discipline. except for some nightclub stuff where we shot 4 hours of material for a 2 minute scene, most of it crap and a nightmare to edit. proves your point i guess. ;-)
I haven’t followed the entire discussion in detail, but in my opinion the answer to the original question should be a simple ‘yes’.
A feature on Super 8 is not an odd idea, I personally know a lot more people are seriously thinking about it and I think very soon someone will make a good feature on Super 8. Super 8 has come along way in the past two decades and when used with digital post-production, the final piece is truly amazing.
There are a many reasons that using Super 8 makes sense. Firstly, as many have pointed out it’s very portable and with Super 8 there will be less equipment to lug around and therefore a smaller crew. If the crew is getting paid [if it’s a professional production they should get paid, otherwise they are being exploited?] then having a smaller team means bringing the costs down and making things a little simpler. Few talk about costs such as labour, insurance and mobility etc and often overlook that these things add up to a lot more, when putting together a proper budget the cost of Super 8 will be very small.
Secondly, shooting film requires a discipline [which is already been talked about here] that’s almost always missing when shooting video. Of course this discipline applies to 16mm and 35mm too. People are more careful before pulling the trigger with film, there’s a lot of planning, you don’t film everything as you probably would with video and as a result you don’t end up with hours and hours of footage. I have had camera operators shoot a lot of footage simply because they can and I have had to pay someone to sift through and find anything worthwhile, it can be very time consuming and expensive. In my experience this ‘film’ discipline ensures a smooth and fast shoot and since I’m usually paying people by the day it’s in my financial interest to wrap up my shoots as quickly as I can. In this sense film saves money, which is critical in this current economic climate.
A lot of people who use Super 8 use it to create a certain ‘look’, this is usually a ‘classic’ home movie ‘retro’ look, which is easily created on Super 8. A lot people aren’t sure about the versatility of Super 8 and how good it can look especially when post producing digitally. You can do a lot with the image and make it look extremely good with things like grain reduction, stabilizing and sharpening the image, all this can be done with software like Avisynth and Virtual Dub
Super 8 can be challenging, it’s not as easy as video, yet it’s cheap and effective, the rewards for the filmmaker is that it gives the unique film ‘look’ where the image quality is great, a look that almost everyone who use digital is aiming for. All the filmmaker really needs is some basic know-how and to see what options are available them. There are so many different cheap cameras, a lot of thenm with great features, although most are over thirty years old. There are so many choices in filmstock, a lot more choices than in Super 8’s heyday as the chief home movie format.
my thoughs exactly. keeping the crew tiny was crucial, because as you say on a low budget production salaries is the only cost that is hard to cut. i don't think it matters much if it's "professional" or not when we're talking features, few people can work for a month without pay. using the d90 gave us the same benefits and we just had a dp, i did sound and the producer was runner. very cheap. ;-) i really really want to make a super 8 feature in the future though...
the premiere in stockholm went great, next is san francisco independent film festival in february (not official yet so don't blog/fb/twitter it). who lives around there and wants to offer two poor filmmakers a place to sleep? u.s. festivals should really get government funding like the european ones so they can pay for travel and accomodation. your tax dollars at work. for me.
Matt I reckon you should just do it. You know all the pro's and cons - and you've got the talent and technical skills to do a really good job if it - so I'd just go for it, regardless of any of the reasons not to do it.
Just find a story that would suit the Super 8 look, and make sure you can afford it, and then do it - I think it will be worth it
Good luck
Scot
Read my science fiction novel The Forest of Life at https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01D38AV4K
