-
March 16th, 2000, 05:37 PM
#11
Inactive Member
I made a short movie on a video camera and I was really pleased with the results but it came nowhere near the excitment I felt when I finished my next short movie which I shot on film. In answer to the question of cost try to get hold of super 8 camera. They are cheap, the film is cheap,even processing is cheap. Its not as good as 16mm but at least its film and will give you experience at working with film.
-
March 16th, 2000, 07:17 PM
#12
Inactive Member
Ok here's another side to it. Speaking as an experienced 16mm guy who also shoots a hell of a lot on video adn DV.
You buy a 16mm camera, it lasts forever. HEll I've had my Arri 16SR II for 3 years now. It's 11 years old and still a top of the line camera. I have a DV Camera that was top of the line when I bought it...Now it's virtually obsolete. That's the difference right there. DV technology changes within the camera itself thus forcing you to buy a new one to stay up to date which gets costly. With 16mm or any film camera the technology changes in the film. IT's a hell of a lot cheaper to (i get it cheeper f through my university) buy a $70 roll of Kodak's cutting ege top of the line film than buy an entirely new camera. You can use a 1950's Bolex and be up to date! That's the difference. I'm sure for a beginning film maker shooting on film seems like a daunting task but once you get the hang of it, It's no problem,
And dont whine about time spent doing this and that and trying to cut corners. That pisses me off. If you're going to make this your craft or artform be willing to duke it out with that dastardley Steenbeck. If you find it a chore or don't look forward to it. Then this isn't the right field for you. Film isn't for the faint-of-heart it will kick your ass and leave you feeling like a failure if you dont dive in head first and rip and tear your way through. It can also make you feel like a king!
Later,
J16mm
-
March 16th, 2000, 07:24 PM
#13
Inactive Member
Oh and BINXALOT, BTW, I guarantee you I can tell what's been filmed and what's taped. GUARANTEED. any filmmaker on this forum should be able to. They're totally different mediums. It's like drawing with pastels or crayons. You're still drawing but you can tell it's not the same thing.
-
March 17th, 2000, 03:20 PM
#14
Inactive Member
ok, we all know that video casettes are cheaper than film stock. and i'm not trying to "defend" film. i'm just trying to explain a few things that you seem to have misunderstood. you don't have to use film if you don't want to and i don't feel threatend if you don't. i'm just asking you to consider what you get for the extra money you put into a production if you use film. i use video for some projects and film for some, depending on what i need. i really encourage you to do the same. and by the way: drop that stuff about who can tell the difference. everybody can see the difference. it doesn't matter if they can articulate it or not. they still see it. i promise.
-
March 17th, 2000, 04:29 PM
#15
Inactive Member
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla.... Say whatever you have to. In the end your films going to be transferred on to some type of electronic media anyway.
What's funny is how everyone will defend film like it's their only child about to be attacked by a lion. Regardless, Its almost always going to be cheaper to shoot something on video. Whether or not production goes fast depends on how organized you are.
Film:
15$ for 100ft B&W reversal = about 2 & 1/2 minutes worth.
To view your film you have to get it developed, If you can find a place close by that can do it the same day its good. If you can't its still about 15 dollars to get it developed. Once its developed you need a projector to watch it.
Sound? No sound.
Video:
15$ will buy you one or two 60 minute DV cassettescolor .
To view your video you can watch it back in your camera immediately after shooting, or hook it up to your Tv.
Sure, to edit the video you need a computer, which can cost anywhere from 1000 - 3000 dollars, but its a one time cost, and a computer has about a million and one other uses besides video.
Adding special effects and titles to your video can be done easily on your computer. Making copies of your video can be done easily too. You will need a computer to add any type of special effects to your film anyway. So my advice is to go with DV.
Johnny16mm, I wrote "anyone who IS NOT
involved in film making cant tell the difference."
-
March 17th, 2000, 08:58 PM
#16
-
March 18th, 2000, 12:18 AM
#17
Inactive Member
Listen up everyone, i know what im talking about.
YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GET A REAL FILM LOOK FROM ANY DIGITAL CRAP. DONT BE FOOLED, IF YOU ARE SERIOUS, USE FILM, IF YOU WANNA FOOL AROUND, USE DIGITAL
END OF STORY
-
March 18th, 2000, 01:04 AM
#18
Inactive Member
Great points (with the exception of "I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT" but really I am niave moron.)
Anyways,
Before going into the whole "quality" issue, looking into what you want your movie to portray. Not only can we as makers tell the difference, but so can a mass amount of the audience. Think about this.
Also, if you've never used a film camera before, and your using your own pocket money to make the movie... then I highly recommend you do it on digital. It will save you loads... loads... and loads... of money in the long run. I personally love digital. Most digi camera's produce excellent footage that edits well. (Esp. on computer.)
Keep on smilin' and replyin'!
Thanks.
-
March 18th, 2000, 01:55 AM
#19
Inactive Member
-
March 18th, 2000, 02:16 AM
#20
Inactive Member
I spent my formative years as a film maker shooting on a Super8 and also a family owned VHS and did everything in my power to make the VHS look like film. When I discovered computer editing and it
s ability to add scratches and dust and gamma correction I was elated! FINALLY I can make vhs look like film. BUt then I came to a realization. These cameras are tools we use to bring a vision to fruition. Why should we spend so much time trying to make one look like the other? WHy not spend this time and creativity to be innovative with the tools? I'll use the example I used earlier. Artists dont try to make craons look like acrylic paint? It's stil art but just different realizations of it. Should we not celebrate this as film makers and use the different formats to add layer and depth to our films? Just a thought!
Later,
J16mm
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
)
DV will continue to improve and become more and more accessable in the near future, many commercial picture houses are investing in high quality Video projectors and from what I have heard its becoming almost universaly accepted standard at film festivals !
Bookmarks