The Digital BANDWAGON...

[redlum]

Film is so pretty.

Miker perhaps you can help me out: How does the surface area of a ccd effect the depth of field?

i.e. standard 1/4 inch CCD compared to 35mm film cell.

[LeeMXT]

hey yo redlum - what DV you shooting on?

theres shitloads of filters and diffusers what we use - and we get pretty good results

[Alex]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 05, 2003 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[Yammeryammeryammer]

Hm. Here in Canada the cheapest I can find Super-8 for is about $10/minute with processing. Transfer is more. So, if I want to shoot the next project I have lined up on Super-8, I should plan to shoot at a probable, but not generous ratio of 4:1. So, since the projected length would be say 35 minutes. That makes 140 minutes of Super-8, at $10 a pop, that is $1,400 plus transfer to DV. 140 minutes? 3 tapes get me that much, and would cost $10. Plus they have sound, you don't have to wait 3 weeks to see if you screwed up. And if nothing comes of the project I can't look back and wish I would have bought a new editing suite, a new camera, a new harddrive, a car, or maybe a semester of university? But no, that is crazy talk when you could have a Super-8 project. Don't get me wrong, I plan to shoot Super-8 sometime, but not when I'm learning, and have a not so regular income. DV is the way to go.

Does anyone know what a rough resolution difference is between the average consumer MiniDV and typical Kodak Super-8?

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by miker:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Music Videos, Commercials, Short Films can be enhanced by shooting in film, but I've never said shoot only film, rather, don't only shoot video. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

as a director this argument is utterly irrelevant, so long as you know what is possible with each of these formats. you do not need to shoot on either to appreciate the differences, you can just get opinions from respected industry professionals.

[/URL]</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can relate to what you are talking about. In essence, there is one school of thought that says "to be a filmmaker, know how to do everything". There's another school of thought that says to be a director, "let others around you do their job."

Many times the "director only" gets work because the producer is at ease knowing that their director will focus on directing only and let others handle responsibility.

In terms of this forum, the term "Guerilla" filmmaker probably deals more with learning how to do everything, but learn how to do everything as cheaply as possible.

[redlum]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Lee - twisted films:
hey yo redlum - what DV you shooting on?

theres shitloads of filters and diffusers what we use - and we get pretty good results</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im using an XL2. The best I can do at the moment for a narrow DoF is Zoom.
What kind of filters are you using then? Some kind of Tiffen Close Up filter?

[belovedmonster]

i really dont understand the piont of this debate. Everyone agrees that film is better, but at the end of the day video is cheaper, and easier and thus makes a far better learning tool for those starting out. Once youve shot 30 ****** shorts on video thats when you maybe think about spending all your money and using film, when you are serious about entering festivals and what not.

"One of the biggest problems most beginning filmmakers have is FINISHING their films, and being at peace that it is indeed a done project, and then being able to show their film without interrupting the screening by adlibbing excuses as to why the film isn't as good as it could have been."

Thats called bad film making, it doesnt matter what medium you use, if you **** you **** , and lets be honest 95% of wannabe film makers **** .

This just goes further to prove why video is great, why spend money on film to **** ?

[Alex]

BM, I think your missing a point here. Not only does film, even Super-8 film, give a better look in many scenarios (but not all) than video, but you learn to plan your shots because it costs more than video. That is a key part to many successful film or video projects.

But lets not kid ourselves, we all have different economic realities. One may think that spending $300.00 for film, developing, and transfer for one project is a lot.
But keep in mind, many have spent 3 or more grand on a camera, plus a couple more grand on their computer, always can use another hard drive, and there is always one more software program you just have to have...etc.....so if one were to say that spending 3 hundred bucks to shoot with film is a lot I would find that a flawed statement.

I made one cartridge of super-8 film last me 10 nights and over 50 hours of shooting, and I did time-exposure effects that I could not do on any Mini-DV camera to boot.

[Yammeryammeryammer]

Alex, my three weeks turn around time was based on the one roll of super-8 I have had developed. However, the overnight thing is possible. But when you shoot all day, by the time you get it in the mail, a good turn around time if money isn't much of an issue would be like what 3 days? I live kinda in the middle of nowhere filmwise. So it would take marginally longer on a conserved budget. Also I do tend to write and produce dialogue heavy stuff, cause it mostly powers the plot in my movies. So having 45 minutes of a three minute scene isn't uncommon, but the performances are great. A wide variety of takes, set-ups and energies. But that doesn't matter much, because right now I am learning as many are, and the cheapness makes DV a good choice as has been said many times. I have almost zero problem finishing a film. I write them, then they may sit in the scripted form for whatever amount of time. But once it is started, it gets finished. Watching movies and ad-libbing excuses? Why would you do that? Shouldn't a movie speak for itself? The $300 for a Super-8 project vs. a few grand for a computer, camera, program. Personally, I needed a computer for university, scholarships bought it. But it wouldn't look good used on Super-8 and processing. The program came with the computer. Camera has paid for itself with event videography 3 fold since I got it 10 months ago. Video has more practical and profitable uses for me at this time.

Also, writing a movie with the format in mind is something I don't really like to do. Something may run long or short, and you can change it any time you want. I just concentrate on being happy with the script and have DV as the default.

[Yammeryammeryammer]

Sounds good. Has anyone else taken on event stuff, or other minor commercial work as a way of funding more creative projects? I just kind of fell into it recently.