-
March 12th, 2001, 10:48 AM
#11
Inactive Member
alex, i actually pretty much agree with everything you say. i have indeed shot a 10 minute film with no more raw stock than 1200 feet, encountering some of the problems you mention. but, we're talking low budget here, right? if you have the money to shoot a feature at a >10-1 ratio, maybe you should be considering super 16 or even 35mm?
-
March 12th, 2001, 04:20 PM
#12
HB Forum Moderator
Basically, when you say 4-1 ratio, that means if your film is 10 minutes long...you absolutely positively only shot 40 minutes of film.
A lot depends on your actors and their ability to remember their lines AND act their lines well.
If you've storyboarded when you are going into close-ups, perhaps you can only do a portion of the scene in a wide, then use mediums and close-ups as needed...but once you get into reverse angles...
Also, Sound continuity can be compromised with short takes.
In a wide shot, the boom will probably have a different proximity to the actors than in close-ups...
so mish mash bits and pieces of takes can be a real problem for effectively cutting your sound and keeping the ambient tone consistent.
(fixing it in post is never a guarantee)
`Even if you wait to start the camera...inevitably, the slate must be taken out of the shot, sometimes the camera has to refocus from the slate to the shot...
and after the shot, you still should roll 2-3 seconds just to make sure the film has comnpletely gone back into the cartridge and is protected from light leaks. (I know only 6 frames are exposed in the chamber at most)
There still is easily 15-25% waste on short take scenes, it's inevitable.
-Alex
-
March 14th, 2001, 09:16 AM
#13
Inactive Member
I think a 2:1/3:1 ratio is possible so long as the dialogue is easy (not a Kevin Smith film) and the actor can do it and there is not a lot of complex action.
Also no need for a slate if you record every reel with it's own minidisc. Simply label the minidisc and the reel the same number, put them together and forget about the slate.
The audio and placement of the mic may be the only problem but that would have to be worked out no matter what the shooting ratio was.
My last 16mm film was a 1:1 shooting ratio but it was silent. In other words if I can pull off all the silent shots in this movie on a 1:1 then that should also buy back some film.
Plus there is to consider NLE editing which is great for working audio and nicely trimming shots.
On a low budget feature being creative like this may be the only way to save money. Working with the film on to get the footage and do everything else digitally.
I know everyone probably brings this up but look at Robert Rodriguez. he only had a 2:1 shooting ratio on El M and that was with 16mm non sync and a couple straight cut 3/4 inch VCR's. Nowadays we have the benefit of computers to better align the audio and work with it and the picture. The only purpose for film is to get the footage with that film look.
-
March 14th, 2001, 09:45 AM
#14
HB Forum Moderator
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by roxics:
I know everyone probably brings this up but look at Robert Rodriguez. he only had a 2:1 shooting ratio on El M and that was with 16mm non sync and a couple straight cut 3/4 inch VCR's. Nowadays we have the benefit of computers to better align the audio and work with it and the picture. The only purpose for film is to get the footage with that film look.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know if I'll ever believe he really shot a 2-1 ratio. I think Hollywood picks one film a year to play a joke on the rest of the film world wannabees...
...they make up a story so demoralizingly attainable to the other 50,000 directors who dream of a career in Hollywood that the 50,000 aspiring directors either get crushed that someone else did it in ultra low budget way, or they get inspired.
Remember the 6 year old "director"...
....and movies like Blair Witch and El Mariachi still get 3/4 million dollar soundtracks before they are released.
-Alex
-
March 14th, 2001, 01:59 PM
#15
Inactive Member
> My last 16mm film was a 1:1 shooting ratio but it was silent.
i don't believe you. ;-) you didn't waste a single frame? anyway, i've actually been thinking about doing exactly that myself. i have a script that i might be able to stage so that i can shoot it in one take and time it to be exactly one cartridge long. shit, i think i'll actually do it this weekend. thanks for the inspiration... :-)
-
March 15th, 2001, 07:22 AM
#16
HB Forum Moderator
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
alex, i actually pretty much agree with everything you say. i have indeed shot a 10 minute film with no more raw stock than 1200 feet, encountering some of the problems you mention. but, we're talking low budget here, right? if you have the money to shoot a feature at a >10-1 ratio, maybe you should be considering super 16 or even 35mm?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When you say you only shot 1200 feet, if you were talking super-8, that would be 60 minutes...or a 6 to 1 ratio....
Or did you shoot on 16mm?
-Alex
-
March 16th, 2001, 05:34 PM
#17
Inactive Member
sorry, i meant to specify 16 mm...
-
March 29th, 2001, 01:00 PM
#18
Inactive Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by roxics:
One last question. I went to the super8sound website and they have a camera called "the classic pro' I've never heard of this one before. It looks like a blue BEAULIEU 4008 but it doesn't say BEAULIEU anywhere in the text. Did Super8Sound buy out BEAULIEU or what? Thanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, this camera is clearly a Hacked up Beaulieu 4008. Looks like they scrapped of the name plates, lopped off the handle, added a crystal synch port in the back and sent it off to Earl Schibe for paint job. The other camera there "the professional" is just a Beaulieu 6008 with the original name plate swiched to Pro8's own name.
-
April 10th, 2001, 05:27 PM
#19
Inactive Member
roxics: How is your Feature going? Did you pick a camera?
-
April 11th, 2001, 08:55 AM
#20
Inactive Member
Actually yes. We deceided to go digital video. I prefer the look of film but in the end this is easiest for us to work with. Plus we have some computer effect's going into the movie. I want to experiment alot with this movie so DV will be faster and cheaper to do that.
------------------
www.scapefilms.com
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks