How about 16mm

[crimsonson]

Regarding somebody else is paying for 16mm-
not necessarily.
Many DPs, aspiring directors and producers I know have their own 16 cam. If you ever decide to shoot a short for calling card purposes- most aspiring filmmakers use their own money to shoot it in 16 or at least be partially pay with their own money.

Many DPs I know never touched S8. Their first film cam was 16 and shot their first major short in 16 with their own money.

Just a thought. Many think 16 is expensive. It is in a way, but if you are serious about filmmaking 16 is an important step - even more important than S8 IMHO. The approach to 16 filmmaking mirrors 35mm in every basic way (different lenses, varying speeds, magazine loading, manual iris, more tripod-less handheld, video tap, etc).

Just thought

still renting/borrowing 16/saving for a NPR/ACL,
Crimsonson

------------------

[jefury]

I don't plan on filming with 16mm in awhile. Super 8 is the big thing in my life now.

What's the difference between S16 and 16mm?
What's a good camera for shooting 16mm if I want synchronized sound? And if I doo want synchronized sound for 16mm, what's the best sorta device?

Thanks
Jeff

------------------

[Actor]

The overwhelming difference is the cost of raw stock and processing. The difference in the cost of cameras, telecine, etc. is not significant in the long run. 16mm costs about 50% more than super8.

Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi on 16mm and had it telecined. His cost was $7225. He spent $3700 on film and processing. If he had shot on super8 he would have saved $1233 and the film would have cost him $5992.

By my reconing the film would cost $10,500 at todays prices or about $8500 on super8.


------------------

[Actor]

The overwhelming difference is the cost of raw stock and processing. The difference in the cost of cameras, telecine, etc. is not significant in the long run. 16mm costs about 50% more than super8.

Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi on 16mm and had it telecined. His cost was $7225. He spent $3700 on film and processing. If he had shot on super8 he would have saved $1233 and the film would have cost him $5992.

By my reckoning the film would cost $10,500 at todays prices or about $8650 on super8.


------------------


[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 11, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 11, 2002).]

[Actor]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
What's the difference between S16 and 16mm?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The frame on 16mm is 0.404 x 0.295 inches, an aspect ration of about 4:3. Super 16 is 0.488 x 0.295 inches, an aspect ratio of about 5:3. Super 16 cameras always use single perf film. Most 16mm cameras will take single perf film but some require double perf film.

To get the wider frame super 16 uses space normally used for a soundtrack, so you cannot make a super 16 print with a soundtrack. Super 16 is intended for telecine or else it is blown up to 35mm.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
What's a good camera for shooting 16mm if I want synchronized sound?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For regular 16mm I'd go for the Arriflex 16BL but a lot of people like the C.P.16R. For super 16 go for the Aaton A-Minima if you can afford it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
And if I doo want synchronized sound for 16mm, what's the best sorta device?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Get a used Nagra, an SLO and the best mike you can afford. Or hire a sound man who knows his stuff and has his own equipment.

I personally would go for an Arri 16S with a couple of lenses and fight the sync battle in post. (like Rodriguez.)


------------------


[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 11, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 11, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 11, 2002).]

[jefury]

Is it basically next to impossible to get sound sync with those 16mm Bolex cameras?

Jeff

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Actor:
"... The difference in the cost of cameras, telecine, etc. is not significant in the long run..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are either ill informed, or insane.

The most expensive Super 8 cameras anywhere, will run you from say $750.- $2,500.
The most expensive 16mm cameras can exceed $25,000 easily, not counting lenses, which can run anywhere from fairly cheap, to many tens of thousands of dollars.
I'd say that's quite a difference. If you're talking about the low, low end of 16mm cameras, compared to the high, high end of Super 8 cameras, then sure. There's not that much of a difference. (I paid $750 for my Nizo 6080, and $331. for my Canon Scoopic).
But generally, there's a big difference.

Also, minor footnote:
Keep in mind that the $7K dollar amount always tossed around for El Mariachi, was to get the movie IN THE CAN, which is just a BS totally dishonest way to market a movie as being made for "virtually no money" as I've read a million times in indie film magazines (I love that line. What a load of crap!)

He did a 3/4 video edit at his local cable access channel, and after Rodriquez got his distribution deal, they put over $120,000 into post production costs, which is what you are looking at when you rent this video.
A $127,000 movie, not a $7,000 movie.

Same thing with the excremental BLOOD, BULLETS AND OCTANE.
I talked to Joe Carnahan, a local filmmaker who made that piece of shit, and he bragged about how it cost him $9,000 or whatever, but when I questioned him, he admitted that New Wave put over $100,000 to finish it.

Same thing with Blair Witch Projectile. They spent over $100,000 on the film by the time any of you saw it.
$32,000 alone, for the 35mm neg and print to go to Sundance, which is where they got their distribution deal.

IN THE CAN, is not the total budget for a film, it's now much you spent up to the last day of shooting!
Total budget is total budget; including everything spent on the film, AND post production is easily more than half of any movie.

(Sorry, this just drives me nuts, that's all. Everyone is always buying into the BS marketing ploys about now little these films were supposedly made for, thinking they can do it themselves, when in fact, it was not that cheap after all. I've had to explain this many times, when I tell people I spent $25,000 on Lost Tribes. They go; "Twenty five thousand? El Mariachi was only seven thousand!" Yeah, right!).

Matt Pacini


------------------

[crimsonson]

Matt:

I understand your beef with low budget films getting extra attention for the cost of the film and ignorance of additional cost paid by the distributors.

However, in Actors defense he did say "His cost..." Meaning, the filmmakers cost and not overall cost. Yes, the distributors cost is part of the project but it is something you not need necessarily worry about since the point of making the film in this case was to get picked up and let the distributors pay for the rest (like all the movie examples you gave.).
Remember, if you count what the distributors paid then you have to count - prints, advertisements, parties, etc, etc. Yes I agree 100% this is the FINAL cost, but it is paid after you got the movie's distribution deal AND you got it in the can by the distributor. Anyway, any budget you hear from AC mag to Access Hollywood is only to get the movie in the can. Many studios dont say how much it cost them to advertise and campaign for awards (heavy right now).

Actor - I disagree that camera noise battle should be fought in post. Any filmmaker you know you had to deal with such will say the opposite (including me). Trust me - YOU CANT FIX IT in POST. Even if you can, the time and money you spent could have been avoided if it was decided in pre poduction that the camera should be a *silent* camera. Ask your editor and soundperson what they think - 99% of the time they will say get a quiet camera.

------------------

[rollemfilm]

someone asked if you can shoot sync with the bolex. the answer is yes. infact, there are many ways to shoot sync with a bolex, h16 & h8! the h16 ebm is the best bolex buy for sync. it comes from the factory with an installed electric motor. any of the older non-RX h16 & h8 models can shoot sync by using a tobin sync motor. they recomend models with a serial number over about 115,000. that's when bolex upgraded their claw and film gate. all reflex bolex cameras will also sync. later models like the RX4 & 5 have a 1:1 spindel, but they all accept a motor as well as being able to shoot with the spring motor. the draw back to using a tobin motor on an older bolex is that the motor can cost more than the camera. new for about $900.00. i've seen them go cheap on ebay for less than half. so buying used would make more sense. i would say go with the EBM h16 and save yourself the extra work and bulk.

------------------

[Nigel]

I have an Aaton S16 camera that I shoot with a lot. I have a Beaulieu S8 camera that I shoot with a lot. Is 16mm more expensive--It depends like the first post said.

There are far more resources for 16mm. You can get Rank Xfers for 150 dollars an hour. You can get you film processed for .08$ a foot.

There is a time for S8 there is a time for 16/S16. I love shooting S8 more than any other format. However, I have never made more than a few hundred bucks off of it. Whereas, with my S16 I am almost to the point where I can "quite my day job."

S8 will show you the world on film. It will show you the way of larger formats but without the blackeyes when you get harder hit in the wallet.

Good Luck

------------------