16mm or DV?

[nextspielberg]

Cavity, I have relatives living in Ottawa. I've been to Canada a few times before.

Your slow connection is probably why it skips frames, and seems to move in slow-motion.
It looks perfectly fine on my computer.
The picture quality on the trailer is so clear, half of you would probably think it was shot on 35MM before I told you.

To answer someone's question above:

I have shot quite a few shorts on Super 8, just for practice in film.

It is helped me when I moved onto 16MM. I have produced 7 short films on my Arri S camera. I am currently writing a feature script that I also plan on shooting with my arri.

I use Kodak film, usually with Kodak Vision 250D for exteriors. I'm still experimenting with film for all my interiors.

[N. Foster Tyler]

You can only really see a major difference between Super-8 and 16mm if you blow up the Super-8 footage to 16 or 35mm.

If you shoot Super-8 and just transfer directly to videotape, the look is quite similar. It doesn't look EXACTLY like 16mm (Super-8 tends to have its own distict look and feel) and its not as clear or sharp, but its pretty close. Close enough to make costly 16mm pointless if you are simply going to release your movie on video, anyways. It would be much cheaper, easier & smarter to shoot Super-8.

[Jim Bird]

Hi,

The script and sound track are more important than the picture quality anyway.

Check out the Blair Witch Project for starters.

This renders the 16 mm or DV question as purely superfluous.

Jim Bird.

[sdchown]

Not really a good argument, as personnaly I thought the Blair witch project was a load of poo. And the image quality sucked.

Later
Stephen