Moving to 16mm

[Arjun Menon]

hi,
i just finished shooting my first feature film using an arri SR, i don't know if its available at where you are but it still is available here. just keep in mind that you can keep your budget down to whatever you like provided you don't get into the whole
special effects bit (by effects i mean dissolves, fade in, fade outs etc) because that would mean opticals and believe me opticals for 16mm are extremely expensive because of the stock needed.
just stick top a cut-to-cut kind of an edit and if you can keep your shooting ratio down to about 1:3 then you're home free.

[nextspielberg]

You can still do fades if you transfer your 16MM footage to video and edit on video. It's 10 times faster then editing with film and you can add a lot more effects to the film when its on video.

Remember, never pay for a film print, they cost way too much. Just transfer straight to video and edit on video. You can then take your rough copy of your film and show it to interested distributors and they'll pay for the Blow-up to 35MM (If they want it in theatres). It's their Job to do the blow-ups so you don't have to pay for it or the film print.

[N. Foster Tyler]

Sometimes that doesn't work out. Most filmmakers have to do the blow-up themselves because nobody else will, and they want to be taken seriously by the big distributors.

[sdchown]

16mm Cameras are not as expensive as you thing. You can get an Eclair ACL (which is sync sound) for less than 2000 pounds.

It can be converted to Super 16 (Like mine!).

Its less than some people are spending on a digital camera. And its the Biz!

Later
Stephen

[nextspielberg]

Good point, some of them are cheaper then dv cameras and you'll get better results with film anyways.

N. Foster Tyler, by saying 'Big Distributors' I'm pretty sure you mean the companies down in Hollywood.

Even if you did have the money to do a blow-up to 35MM, I know as a fact that anyone interested in buying your film would rather watch it on videotape. It's easy and it's fast. Or you could just show them a trailer on VHS and If they like that, that's when you move in with the videotape.

But what if the distributors don't want to buy your film and you've already made the film print? Then you're screwed. So you'd might as well just show the people down in Hollywood your film on VHS. There's no point in spending money on something they'd be paying for. You'll be taken seriously as long as you shot it on film. Even today, Hollywood people take DV as an unproffessional format. It's sad, but that's how it it.

[his Dudeness]

Well to that I'd say: bollocks.

I don't think its necessary to make the Matrix and shoot on 35 in order to get noticed.

And since you seem to be quoting Rebel Without a Crew word-for-word, I don't think you'll find he got where he did because it was the best film ever, but simply because it was such an achievement.

It showed people that he could make a film on his own, hit each beat with something interesting, and tell a decent story.

The above can be proven on fucking Instamatic polaroid cameras or on Super 35, but whatever you use, that's what you need to prove.

Don't forget, Columbia weren't even going to buy Mariachi originally, they only did because they wanted him to make a sequel for them and they didn't want the original floating around at the same time on video.

[sdchown]

Here is my 2 cents.

I think you are being either naive or overly optomistic here.

The chances of somebody taking your work seriously ARE much greater if you shoot on Film (and by film I mean 35 or 16mm). Or rather nobody is going to BUY your work if its not on film.

None of the breakthrough indy movies would have been purchased if they weren't shot on film (Pi, Clerks, El Mariachi).

Films like Blair Witch or Timecode are an exception, as the premise for the movie justified the poor quality medium.

These are plain and simple facts about how the world is now. Perhaps given time, consumer quality imaging will progress to a level sufficient for it to reach distribution.

So I would say that shooting on film, justifies the expense.

Later
Stephen

[Dirk Diggler]

I agree, If you want to be taken seriously in the profession of filmmaking you have to use the professional tools. Digital is good because it's cheap...and thats about it...if film was a cheap as tape stock I wonder what the people would use? Use you camcorder to practice...once you think your good enough...try film...

Dv for show...film for a pro!?..???????

[his Dudeness]

Yeah but that means you need to be using 35mm (or at the very least Super 16).

16mm does look shit compared to a proper film done on 35 mil.

Shoot on film (even 16mm) just because its the tool professionals use???? That is a complete load of arse. If that's the case you cannot discriminate against 8mm, because that is also film, even if the quality is not up to Hollywood standards - newsflash!!!!! Neither is 16mm!

I assume your films also have Dolby Digital 5.1 sound mixes then?

For your information, formats such as Beta SP and mini DV are used by broadcasting houses such as Channel 4 and the BBC. Are they not professional enough for you?

I know its only TV, but have you ever actually had one of your features aired on TV???

If not why not then?

As for all this 'being taken seriously bollocks' - have any of you lot been taken seriously yet???? SO how do you know???

If you had been taken seriously then the rest of us would already know about you, and you'd be more than just a nickname on some messageboard.

[nextspielberg]

Hey, wait a second. Dudeness, don't go crazy over this. If your a DV filmmaker, I can see why your not taking this so easy.

I do agree that if you do want your film to make it somewhere you should shoot on film.
Obviously 35MM is the standard format of all films. And nothing should be stopping anyone on this board from shooting 35, if they want to make it to hollywood bad enough.
There's a 35MM Camera on Ebay right now thats auctioning for something like 3K (U.S. Dollars)

But why 16MM? http://us.imdb.com/Trailers?0104815
Watch this trailer of El Mariachi and try to tell me that it looks like shit. You know it doesn't. I agree, some 16MM cameras have terrible picture quality, basically all hand held cameras, bolex, etc. But just like everything, there are also 16MM cameras with great quality. The Arriflex 'S', is definetley one of the greatest 16MM cameras ever built. If you shoot with an Arri, and you know what your doing, you can have fantastic results. But since a lot of people still think 16MM looks like shit, no one ever shoots with it. So when they try to make it into Hollywood with their DV cameras and they don't, they'll be wondering what went wrong.

Anyways, if you want to break into the industry, don't shoot DV. You can fight over it as much as you want, nothing's going to change about that.

Also News and TV shoot DV because its television and they don't want to be spending money on film.