Film or digital?

[bertrandc]

ok ive got a dilemna, either i film my film on 16mm this summer or on Mini DV. I need advise, what do you guys think looks better? is the price worth it? and if so what camera would be the best for my buck, i already have a jvc mini dv but i would really like to film this on film, what do you guys think?

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

[seekaee]

Both formats have their pro and cons, so It really depends what you wan't to do:

FILM
PROS: Higher quality, last for ages, Considerd the more "respected" format.
CONS: Expensive, Archaic, time consuming,non-reuseable, prone to more screw-ups,

VIDEO
PROS: Cheap!,Easier to use,reuseable, Less time consuming, Getting better each day.
CONS: Dosn't measure up in quality to film most of the time, not as respected.

Personaly,I perfer the look of film over video any time of the day but I do respect video for it's many uses.However,in the end some sort of "digital" format will eventualy take over. And with cameras--like Sony's P24--that day may come sooner then we thought!



[This message has been edited by seekaee (edited February 18, 2002).]

[tim.callaghan]

First off,

What is it for? Is it your first attempt? Do you have anybody with experience shooting film? How much money do you have?

If it's just so you can make a film, then forget about 16mm, unless you or your parents are loaded. If it is for possible distribution, then 16mm will be expensive, but it'll sure look better, but content will still be your major selling point. Consider renting and shooting BetaSP/DigiBeta and then post will be a lot less complicated and cheaper.

If this is your first attempt at making a film, then shoot it on DV. You WILL make costly mistakes using 16mm. Walk before you can run, run before you can fly.......and then fly!!!!! If you have got a little bit more cash and you really want to learn what it's like shooting film, then try S8, believe me it looks good, and at the risk of getting flamed, it looks better than DV, but is a lot tougher getting good results out of it. If you can get good results out of S8, then you will be able to get good results out of the bigger guages.

If you have somebody with experience (good experience) then shooting 16mm becomes more viable, providing you are 100% happy with your content and talent. You will be able to rely on this person, but I still would recommend starting on S8 or DV if it's your first attempt.

It all boils down to money. If at this point you are asking about what format to shoot on then you really haven't done your homework (not in an insulting way), it's just you really should know, what is for what. Consider what you are doing will not make a penny, and decide how much you are willing to lose on this project.

I personally think film is better than DV, but in some scenarios I will not be able to even justify the cost for shooting on S8. Everybody loves film, but not everybody can afford it.

My recommendation would be to shoot on DV and the money you save, use on getting better sound equipment as many first timers are put back by how bad there sound is. A good shot gun mic, boom, softie, and XLR box will get you more pro results, because your sound will not be amateurish. Images are forgiving, sound is not, get your sound right, it is the most overlooked area. Lighting and exposure is very subjective, trying to create this and that look, but sound is purely technical and doesn't get categorized as art.

I use Sennheiser K6/ME66/ME64 with rycote softie, fed into a beach box. Not the most expensive,and not the cheapest either but it produces excellent results when used with a boom, or on the camera. The whole outfit cost over ?800, which may seem ludicrous, but it's better to spend 800 less on a camera and get this gear.

Good luck with your shoot.

Tim Callaghan

PS - If you need any tips about lighting DV, get in touch with chance1234 as he has extensive experience on DV/DVCAM and seems to have lit some awkward situations recently

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

[shirt]

Someone mentioned that 'film looks better than video "most of the time."

All I have to say is YEAH RIGHT!

Even the BEST digital film cameras can't compare to film. Not only does the image quality of video not even come CLOSE to film... and do I mean NOT CLOSE. Like if we talking people and film was a 90 year old man.. video wouldn't even be born yet. Anyways, you all know that.

Now, the advantages of film (or disadvantages if they're not what you want!):

1. The depth of Field with film is amazing. You amount of DoF control you get with ANY film camera is incredible. Even the latest digital camera's don't have the control and DoF that film camera's have.

2. The choice of lenses, etc. you get with film. Especially, considering that you can use PRIME lenses with film. Video quality would be that much better if you got rid of one or two of the lenses that are most camcorders, etc...

3. The choice's of formats, screen size and film stocks are all superior to film. Only one with digital and that is 4:3 and tape.

Anyways, I am just going on about nothing and realize that. I guess my point is that if you feel comfortable enough with your story and you want to learn how to shoot for film than... SHOOT WITH FILM!

But only if you have the money...

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

[seekaee]

I didn't say video looks better ALL time time or that it looks bettter sometimes. What I said was it dosn't MEASURE up to film quality most of the time, and the only reason why I said that is because of the recent technological advancements in the last few years--and even more so--the ones comming in literally the next few months.

So, if i'm wrong, then I guess people like George Lucas are as well too.




[This message has been edited by seekaee (edited February 20, 2002).]

[miker]

yep. and how many ppl have noticed the trend to shoot adverts on DVcam or similar and then transfer them to film for cinema trails.

of course it looks inferior, but it also looks 'okay'

and i recently saw Episode 2 trailer at the cinema and it looked no worse than something that had originated on film, surprise. of course, the clones looked oh so cgi and it really brought out the bad acting ...



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

[deanl]

Hey there.

E.R switched from film to the new HD cameras a while ago. Who noticed?

If a movie is bad it doesnt matter what its shot on. Joe Public doesnt give a flying donkey bollock what a movie is shot on as long as it ENTERTAINS them.

Despin out.

------------------
"Ive got bad feeling about this."

[This message has been edited by Despin entertainment (edited February 20, 2002).]

[tim.callaghan]

Too true,

Well shot video will always look better than poorly shot film.

Tim

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

[shirt]

Lucas just shot Episode 2 on Digital 24P, but I've read a few rumours that contrast that he is both happy and very disappointed with it.

Now, I've seen negative film, and digital 24P SIDE BY SIDE. Kodak had some of the World's top cinematographers use both and compare. Each turned out to react totally different to lighting, situations, etc... for example you need more light for the 24P, but with more light you get much less depth of field... etc... etc..

Anyways, this is pretty stupid. You shoot on what you can shoot with. Personally, I love shooting on film and the fact is that it is hard to screw it up. Video is good if you want to become a director, but if you want to become a DP or something more visual than at least read up on film. Overall, you pretty much have to be an idiot to screw it up as long as you do enough research and learn about using lenses, filters and light meters.

If anyone is interested here are few links.
http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/sw24p.html
http://www.editorsnet.com/article/ma...108321,00.html
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/H..._editorial.htm

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

[Picture House Films]

Okay, first ask yourself how do you want the audience to see this project, as a small screen video, large screen video projection or as a full cinema projection. Does the project aim to astound the viewer or will it simply tell a story.(Oh yeah, have you looked at Super8mm, there are 3 pro negative stocks, 50/200/500asa Kodak Vision and 7 other color-reversal stocks- Speak to the Widescreen Centre in London) I notice one reply tells you film is prone to a lot of f--k-ups, don't listen to that , it's poor workman blaming the tools. Remember the systems whether film or video are only as good as the operator. Video can achieve a lot these days but still lags behind the 100 years-plus of film experience. You should also perhaps consider combination work, e.g. using film for effects sections on your project. Film certainly costs more but is more affordable than some would have you believe and it offers greater flexability. There are some effects you can do live with film that would see you having to buy expensive high-tech gadgets to do the same in video post-production. One more thing, if you aim to show the film as video projection of cinema you could use 2x Anamorphic lenses for Panascreen imaging to astound your audience with the visual field. An Anamorphic lens costs from ?60 (Widescreen Centre) and can save money and hassel you get from digital 16:9. Anyway, think about the finished production before you start it.

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