My Lousy Feature Film for Ten Grand

[Nigel]

Super16 wouldn't be less grainy necessarily. It is still 16mm film just a wider aspect ratio.

To me it was more a function of the film and DP. The 7279 is the old 500T which was pretty grainy all the way around. Then if it is being underexposed I coulld see why you weren't thrilled. Perhaps if you shot the 7274 which is of the same vintage it would have looked better...

It also sounds like the colorist didn't do much to help you and the way it looked either. BetaSP should hold some prety nice color so I can't see that as being part of the problem.

You can't go back in time but hopefully your next project will be on film and will look up to your standards.

I would bet you that if you were o take that same film back and have it Xfred again that you would be able to make it look much better if you told the colorist what you wanted.

It is always better to overexpose than under expose...

Good Luck

[richard.fisher]

I've long been of the opinion that the only way to turn a profit with low-budget film-making is to move over to porn. Does your website turn a profit? or is it just for fun? I remember reading about some film-makers having shot porn when starting out (Barry Sonnenfeld among others i believe) and then moving into serious film-making (like Wild Wild West). I wonder how many of us will start out trying to shoot worthy films that say something, and after years of dissapointment say fuck it and join the capitalist gang-bang.

[r_gibbons]

Hi Nigel,
I certainly appreciate how nice a project shot on film can look, but to be perfectly honest I really couldn't see myself shooting any flavor of 16mm again.

That's not to put down the format or anything, but with cost considerations and the availability of inexpensive HD camcorders, my days of 16mm are over. Plus, since making my film, I've been shooting fetish erotica, a subject that's not well suited to shooting on film without a budget. So I'm pretty firmly in the digital camp these days.

If I re-did my feature I'd probably use something like this...

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...-Camcorder.htm

But again, that would just be my preference today...

Originally posted by Nigel:

You can't go back in time but hopefully your next project will be on film and will look up to your standards.

I would bet you that if you were to take that same film back and have it Xfred again that you would be able to make it look much better if you told the colorist what you wanted.

...
Good Luck[/QB]

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[r_gibbons]

Hi Richard,
Yes, internet porn is a great thing ;-)

But seriously, I actually shoot bondage erotica and transvestites, which is my big kink. I don't shoot sex or nudity, not that I have anything against it, but it just doesn't float my boat.

But yes, I started out just doing it for fun and as a hobby and creative outlet, and because I was so sick of my "real" movie, and it kind of grew from there. It only became really profitable after about three years, but yes, the numbers are much better than my feature. It's pretty much what I do now all the time. If you want the URL just drop me a line off the board...

Yeah, and once you hit 40, capitalism doesn't sound so bad ;-)

Originally posted by richard.fisher:
I've long been of the opinion that the only way to turn a profit with low-budget film-making is to move over to porn. Does your website turn a profit? or is it just for fun? I remember reading about some film-makers having shot porn when starting out (Barry Sonnenfeld among others i believe) and then moving into serious film-making (like Wild Wild West). I wonder how many of us will start out trying to shoot worthy films that say something, and after years of dissapointment say fuck it and join the capitalist gang-bang.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[Nigel]

I have done the math of HD and you really don't save money in relation to S16. When you look at the hard numbers of a full Varicam rental and then an Aaton rental the Aaton is about a 1/3 to a 1/4 less. Then you can pay for film and processing with the money you save...

You still need to color correct and online HD so those costs will be the same.

Hey, if you feel like you got burned by 16 that is OK. But based on what I saw it seemed more like choices that your Key-Grip and DP made that really cost you the money.

Good Luck

[r_gibbons]

Hi Nigel,
Sorry for the delay, busy here...

Well, not to be argumentative, but really the DP didn't cost me any money at all. He was great. And there actually was no key grip. Basically it was just me and Jim, the DP, and whoever was available that day to roll sound.

What cost me money was Kodak, and the processing and transfer costs, about $7,000 total. Overall the film looked good, some grain issues due to the high speed film and a few underexposures, but for the most part it was good, considering the film stock we used.

All I'm saying is I wouldn't shoot 16mm again in retrospect. I love the look of film, and up till then all my shorts had been shot on 16mm, but my goal was to make a film for less than ten thousand, preferably much less.

There wasn't any getting around that $7,000 dollars while shooting film, but shooting on video (especially DV, but also HD) would allow me to chop off a few thousand dollars. Of course, I'd do the online with someone - like Jim - who has the equipment to do it and thus avoid those costs.

I mean, if someone else were footing the bill, I'd shoot 35mm, but that just wasn't in the cards.

Just my thoughts...

[miker]

It's my experience that when trying to keep budgets low by pulling in favours etc (thus avoiding costs) that the logistics cost the most (ie, travel, bed&board etc, location costs). If using digital acquisition basically the cost is for the tape (about a fiver). Unless you spend time and energy collecting short-ends of film, I find film is just not viable for the types of budget I run. For post-production I am totally geared up for digital workflow, I never have to pay for a transfer and colour correction tools are readily available for free in suites like FCE and FCP. It's still Garbage-In-Garbage-Out.
A budget for marketing is more important than a budget for film stock IMO.
It's (relatively) easy to get a movie made, but getting people to give a damn is hard work which could be made easier when money talks.
If somebody else was paying and I had a "name" actor, sure, I'd follow the more well trodden Hollywood filmmaking method. But why wait, when the itch is now ...

[Nigel]

No worries on the argument...I like them.

All I am saying is that you wouldn't save with HD.

You will save if you shot MiniDV or HDV but true HD will not save you much if anything.

I will put a beer on it that if you look into just the camera rental on a Varicam or F900 you will be in for far more than 7000.

Miker is once again spot on...Garbage in--Garbage out.

Good Luck

[miker]

but true HD will not save you much if anything

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">that's a very good point. people (including myself!) forget. acquiring HD (on those little cards) is still a very expensive hobby today and you'll unlikely to find anyone to pull a favour with. HDV is a different matter entirely but the quality is not as good as HD. personally i think true HD is very encouraging

i don't know how HDV compares with 16mm, but it always looks a bit soft to me compared to film or 'proper' HD. clicky - that's proper HD and frankly i was gobsmacked (and it's only a frickin still frame).

[Nigel]

HDV is to compressed to look really really good. At least in my opinion.

Here is the thing with film (Everyone already knows I am biased towards it) you can always get whatever you want with it....

Shoot film have DigiBeta.

Shoot film have HD.

Shoot film and have MiniDV if fo some fucked up reason you think you want it.

You are sitting on a format that will stand up to time and exceed any electronic medium today and in the close future.

HD is looking good and looking better all the time. Yet HD still requires a pretty narrow lighting range to look good. Also, Panasonic doesn't like to admit it but even their HVX200 has been getting some flack from people saying that it isn't true HD...Why?? "Pixel Shift". They are adding information to make up for not having a true HD chip.

Good Luck