Anyone here shooting on film?

[assyrix]

I wouldn't mind shooting on film but the main problem I have is with the editing. I use a decent DV-Camera (JVC GY-DV500) and use a Media Illusion setup on an sgi Octane (I got the whole thing cheaply from a dissolved editing suite). In principle I could edit anything from VHS to 4K.

BUT...

The DV can just be transferred onto the workstation without any problems whereas I haven't found an economical way of digitizing film. An Arri filmscanner will set you back a cool ?40K. Has anyone found a solution to this (apart from handfeeding each frame into a scanner)?

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by eddie:
hello

I dont know. I honestly dont think super8 has the kudos of a grown up format (rightly or wrongly) whereas 16mm (and DV) do.
I suspect that it would have come across, been treated as, and writen off as a wacky novelty if it had been super8.
Whereas because it was 16mm it had more integrity.
Sad but thats how I feel. Perhaps it would have been the exclusion and woken the film world up to super8, but thats up to another film now.

Cheers</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


It's almost as if once a filmmaker has their vision and characters well focused in their mind, they try and hedge their bets with as good a format as possible.

I think they could have succeeded in Super-8, especially because it was in black and white, which has much more flexibility than color when it comes to creating a negative and the like.

I don't think clerks would have worked in DV because it would have given it a live feel versus a filmic feel. If it had been shot on dv, they would have had to change the "style" of the piece.

[Yammeryammeryammer]

Hello,

I like and respect film, and would probably use it if I had the money. But it comes down to I could spent $10,000 on a 16mm project, or I could make 10 projects with a comfortable budget for me. The thing is, if the people are too distracted by the 'live' feel (good way to discribe it by the way), then chances are I've 'lost them' with the content.

[steven_craig]

im sure Argos did a thingy for transferring film to tape - pretty sure it wasnt a Arri Film Scanner tho

[Actor]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Posted by assyrix

The DV can just be transferred onto the workstation without any problems whereas I haven't found an economical way of digitizing film. An Arri filmscanner will set you back a cool ?40K. Has anyone found a solution to this (apart from handfeeding each frame into a scanner)?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Roger Evan's Workprinter is the talk of the super8 world and he now produces a 16mm model. Check it out.

http://www.moviestuff.tv/

[Alex]

What do you mean by economical?

I know rank cintel facilities that charge $175.00 per hour. Considering the time and effort that goes into making a film, you can shoot quite a lot of film before you "feel" the pinch of film to tape transfers.

Because film costs can rise if one is not careful, more time is usually spent in pre-production for film shoots, the result usually is a better planned production that has less takes/footage shot than video.

You need a lot of perpheral gear besides the workprinter to do it yourself.

When one can scan in their own films on their own scanner, the ballpark will truly be leveled, and that day is fast approaching.

It can be done now, but I believe the scanners are still too expensive.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 01, 2002 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Super8 Filmmaking in the DigitalAge ]</font>

[Actor]

The $175 per hour that rank facilities charge is per lab hour. That means the time it takes for whatever prep, setup and teardown they do. The rule of thumb seems to be a ratio of 3:1, meaning that one hour of lab time will transfer 20 minutes of film.

[Alex]

I agree with that 3-1 ratio. If one were shooting a music video, and had planned their shots, they could probably do a decent job by shooting the proper coverage with 30-40 minutes of film.