Moving to 16mm

[sdchown]

Oh. Okay. I'll take your word for it. But my recollection of the commentry on the DVD was that he said he used super-16. Oh well.

Later
Stephen

[ComingApart]

I wasn't wanting A big argument to break out, I was just asking for some input. But for the record, I'm not trying to be the next Scorsese, or even the next Rodriguez, I make films becasue I WANT to, not because I expect to make it big... I would like to maybe have one of my films shown at a film festival or the like, that would be great, I would be thrilled, but I'm not expecting to go any farther than that. On the subject of video vs. film or this vs. that, I was just curious, the goal of me making films is to make me happy, and If I can entertain somebody, then I've succeeded. I don't care I you work with a $100,000 top of the line 35mm setup or if you use a stolen 7-Eleven security camera, as long as you're getting your point across your successful, and thats what matters to me.

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

[Kowalski]

Just for the record Rodriguez used an Arriflex 16s (or as it's known here, 16 ST) which shoots standard 16mm and has excellent optics and all round construction. I own one, and it looks identical to the one pictured in Rebel Without A Crew. So long as you don't need sync sound, it's the best one to go for.

However, while it's a great camera I'd only use it for a feature if I knew the result would stand a good chance of a cinema screening, otherwise it's definately miniDV.

[yak]

yeah man, your right!!!!

[N. Foster Tyler]

What's so bad about video distribution? More people will see your film that way. Shit, and most festivals will put your film on the big screen with a BetaSP tape. Hell of a lot cheaper than a film print!

[nextspielberg]

Rodriguez shot on an Arri 'M', not the 'S'. You can even read the '10 minute film school' portion of this site and somewhere in the middle he points out an Arri 'S' camera, says it's almost exactly like his and he shot his with an 'M'. I do agree with the second last poster that the clear format is definetley dv if you doing a short, unless your a millionaire, and you don't mind putting thousands of dollars into a short film on 16 or 35.

[HH3]

Sorry Mr. Speilberg but IMDB says Arri S
http://us.vdc.imdb.com/Technical?0104815

I remember seeing pictures of the making and clearly it was an Arri S. Remember, that this was before the Vision stock! With the right camera and lens 16mm can look great. Ultimately it's the quality of the film that should decide whether it gets blown up to 35mm. Shoot on 16 and if it's that good then someone will want it on 35, or at least pay to have your next film done on 35.

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, helvetica, sans serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ComingApart:
I've been wrestling with this decision for a while, I don't mean to start any arguments, but I'm gonna post the Pro's/Cons of each format, as I see it, maybe the discussion will help me make my decision

16mm Pros-
Good Quality
Blows up better (35mm)
Quality video transfers and blow ups are cheaper
Credibility (people take 16mm projects more seriously than Super 8)


16mm Cons-
Equipment Expense (huge factor)
Film Stock expense
Loss of portability (compared to Super 8)
Alot more noticeable than Super 8 (this could be a pro or a con)

Super 8 Pros
Inexpensive equipment
Easier to work with "in the field" (cartridges as opposed to magazines)


Super 8 Cons-
Quality (compared ot larger formats)
Lack of available film stocks
Long turnaround on lab work
No sound film
Crystal motor for sync sound costs at least twice what the camera is worth
Lack of lenses/filter/attachments for cameras
No chance of getting a theater screening
Lack of credibility


Feel free to append the list as you see fit, I'd like to think I'm not the only person out there trying to make this decision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Super-8, there are PLENTY of film stocks, both negative and reversal and fast turnaround on all film stocks if you know where to go.

Also, the high-end, (yet still low priced) super-8 cameras come loaded with cool features.

the Super-8 con not mentioned is the cameras are aging.

And Super-16 rocks compared to regular 16mm.

------------------
Discuss This...<A HREF="http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=&number=30" TARGET=_blank>
Super-8 Filmmaking in the Digital Age...</A>

[Alex]

I just saw some transferred Super-16mm, it looks really good.

If I ever invested in other than Super-8 cameras, I'd probably jump to either Super-16mm or 35mm.

------------------
Discuss This...<A HREF="http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=&number=30" TARGET=_blank>
Super-8 Filmmaking in the Digital Age...</A>

[gaspode]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, helvetica, sans serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HH3:
Sorry Mr. Speilberg but IMDB says Arri S
http://us.vdc.imdb.com/Technical?0104815

I remember seeing pictures of the making and clearly it was an Arri S. Remember, that this was before the Vision stock! With the right camera and lens 16mm can look great. Ultimately it's the quality of the film that should decide whether it gets blown up to 35mm. Shoot on 16 and if it's that good then someone will want it on 35, or at least pay to have your next film done on 35.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well Rodriguez says I used this one for El Mariachi, almost the same one, I used a 16M this is a 16S

------------------
'It comes in Pints?!'