Super16 and HDCam numbers...

**assyrix** · March 31st, 2005, 09:26 AM

28 Days Later looked utter kack in the cinema.

On a similar note, I have watched the BAFTA-nominated shorts yesterday. They were shot on DigiBeta, 16mm, Super16mm and HighDef (no BetaSP). The winner cost ?15K to produce (in HighDef).

The DigiBeta looked by far the worst. Colors bleeding all over the place and lots of fuzzyness. This might also be sloppy post since the guy only brought the film in minutes before it was supposed to be screened so the team in the projector room had no time to adjust the hardware. Funny enough it also had the worst story.

(S)16mm looked okay albeit a lot of grain (less on S16). The best looking picture was the HighDef feature.

My conclusion: if you really want your film to be displayed properly in a cinema shoot HighDef or 35mm, S16 only if you really cannot afford either of the other choices. Everything else just looks shit and/or cheap.

[ March 31, 2005 05:35 AM: Message edited by: assyrix ]

**jb_617** · March 31st, 2005, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by miker:
My personal opinion is that Boyle fucked up on The Beach so bad that he couldn't secure a budget for a celluloid flick with big names in it. The PR machine then spins it into "stylistic choice" with suitably inflated/exaggerated budget figures (all the more for the marketing campaign) and the "cool" factor of being "street" and "down with the kids". Format aside, I quite liked the film but it was so obviously 720x576 pixels, no fucking expensive lens is going to change that unfortunately. (Have to confess I only saw it on DVD, no idea what it actually looked like on the big screen but I would suspect "fuzzy" with a lack of definition).

Jeez, you just can't win with you guys can you? I mean you bang on and on about why you shoot video because you don't have the money for film and how video is the way forward, digital projection blah blah blah...

THEN you slate some guy for DOING EXACTLY THAT!

I mean, seriously, what do you want? Is your way of doing things all that there is and everyone else should give up now? What do you suggest is a good way of making a feature for cinema distribution?

Another important point, it was not Boyle's project. It was produced by Greg Caplan, Simon Fallon and Andrew Macdonald ( of Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, Twin Town, A Life Less Ordinary, The Beach and others). I guess since Macdonald has worked with Boyle a lot before, he hired him for 28 Days Later (jobs for the boys and all that).

Very few directors originate films, mostly they get hired after the Screenwriter and Production Manager and just before the Actors.

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

And don't forget, it still cost almost ?6 million.

[ March 31, 2005 05:59 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]

**Tasty Fish Lips** · March 31st, 2005, 12:14 PM

Why does every post, well almost every post end up with this debate? UHHHHHHH! I desperately feel the need to stab myself in the neck.

Just tell good stories through our movies guys. That's all we have to do. Good luck with that.

If it were just a matter of good storytelling then we could just write novels. Or just screenplays.

The visual medium has an effect on the audience.

Live action.
Traditional animation.
Computer animation.
Color.
Black and White.
VHS.
Pixelvision.
HD.
8mm.
35mm.

All of these formats are quite different and affect the impact that the story has on the viewer.

I remember Linklater saying he did Waking Life in that specific animation style because if it were live action, it'd be seen as being way too pretentious (which some may already say). But that type of animation he chose fit the concept of that story.

Sure, story is important. But that doesn't mean the medium should be random or arbitrary.

[ March 31, 2005 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]

**Matty2phatty** · March 31st, 2005, 02:19 PM

I think to some degree, it is actually true that it's just about the story.

Michael Mann talked about how he filmed Collateral in HD to get a more real feel to his film, and to capture the LA night the way it's really seen, and yet at first i just couldn't get over how much it looked like something shot on a home DV camera (but much sharper).

Once the movie got going i quit caring about the quality of it, and just got completely immersed in the story.

I realise i'm not bringing anything new to the whole debate, but all i'm saying is, if you can tell your story good enough, the audience will forgive any format...

But then again, i haven't ever seen DV blown up to 35mm, so POSSIBLY that might just be TOO distracting.

**Nigel** · April 1st, 2005, 04:12 AM

You guyts bring up some great ideas and concepts Miker's spot on when he says that my numbers are only a small part of a bigger picture.

However, the thread is starting to morph and move away from the main topic.

Good Luck

**jb_617** · April 1st, 2005, 08:38 AM

You know what is amazing? The ammount of Pixelvision references you still see. Those things must have touched us all deeply at some level.

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

Mmmmmmmmm...fisher-price.

**miker** · April 1st, 2005, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by jb.:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by miker:
My personal opinion is that Boyle fucked up on The Beach so bad that he couldn't secure a budget for a celluloid flick with big names in it. The PR machine then spins it into "stylistic choice" with suitably inflated/exaggerated budget figures (all the more for the marketing campaign) and the "cool" factor of being "street" and "down with the kids". Format aside, I quite liked the film but it was so obviously 720x576 pixels, no fucking expensive lens is going to change that unfortunately. (Have to confess I only saw it on DVD, no idea what it actually looked like on the big screen but I would suspect "fuzzy" with a lack of definition).

Jeez, you just can't win with you guys can you? I mean you bang on and on about why you shoot video because you don't have the money for film and how video is the way forward, digital projection blah blah blah...

THEN you slate some guy for DOING EXACTLY THAT!

I mean, seriously, what do you want? Is your way of doing things all that there is and everyone else should give up now? What do you suggest is a good way of making a feature for cinema distribution?

Another important point, it was not Boyle's project. It was produced by Greg Caplan, Simon Fallon and Andrew Macdonald ( of Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, Twin Town, A Life Less Ordinary, The Beach and others). I guess since Macdonald has worked with Boyle a lot before, he hired him for 28 Days Later (jobs for the boys and all that).

Very few directors originate films, mostly they get hired after the Screenwriter and Production Manager and just before the Actors.

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

And don't forget, it still cost almost ?6 million.

[ March 31, 2005 05:59 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]<hr /></blockquote>For ?6 million I'd rather shoot on Super8 than miniDV. Napoleon Dynamite was shot on some film format or other (I suspect S16) and cost a fraction.

For ?10K I'd rather shoot on miniDV.

Context, dear boy.

**jb_617** · April 1st, 2005, 11:02 AM

I think on 10K you would be hard pushed to shoot on anything except miniDV (assuming you don't own the kit).

I'll tell you something though. Good lighting rental is getting cheaper, the prices have been coming down for a few years now, not really sure why.

It's been stated a few times around here that bad lighting can wreck any format from DV to 70mm, so it's worth thinking about renting/borrowing some good kit before you shoot. A few places (in the UK anyway) are willing to loan you some lights or give a massive discout to no-budget projects as a lot of the time they have stock sitting around doing nothing.

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

I can see!

**eddie123456789** · April 1st, 2005, 11:50 AM

> A few places (in the UK anyway) are willing to
> loan you some lights or give a massive discout
> to no-budget projects as a lot of the time they
> have stock sitting around doing nothing.

This is true. also remember those 500 Watt Halogen worklights? If you arent too fussy you can hire these for literally pennys, since most lighting companies dont take them seriously as lights, but often have them for hire.
Plus they may have sympathy for you if you are on a tight budget.

If you are in the south west you could do worse than trying these guys:

http://www.enlightenedlighting.co.uk/

Friendly and helpful.

**Nigel** · April 1st, 2005, 03:11 PM

I think that for ?10,000 you could shoot S16 at least for a short. When I have Indie gigs I charge them simply for my equipment rental...

The last Indie short I did we shot B&W and they got out for around $5,000. It was a three day shoot and I charged them a day and a half rental on my camera. The final film will be around 10 minutes. Plus, he wasn't very wise with his cash and could have saved a lot through planning.

?10K is almost 20K USD...That is a hell of a lot to make a short on.

Good Luck

Thread: Super16 and HDCam numbers...

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions