Which camera to use with 35mm?

[Zack Birlew]

$330USD huh? Well, geez that's a lot of money for a 90-minute movie that I'm planning to make. Is it possible to get funding/sponsoring from movie studio companies (Sony Pictures, Dreamworks, ect.) or is that for an entirely different process?

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Well your original post said short film but I guess if you're looking at a 90 minute feature you will definitely need funding from somewhere. If there is any interest in the film by funding agencies or movie distributors they may very well be willing to pick up the tab if the finished product has potential in their perspective and with their plans.

The potential with the mini35 is great but if you are strongly gearing towards a feature and think you might be ready for it I would shoot on HD 2/3" chips and if you still want 35mm depth of field rent the Pro35Digital Image Converter by PS Technik.

Nothing compares to these results for shooting digital and going to 35mm film for theatrical release!

[Wayne Morellini]

Dennis

<<<-- Originally posted by Dennis Hingsberg : I just want to comment in respect to "loss of light" shooting through a mini35:
In that scenario there should be no difference with details in blacks, etc.. I did however shoot a short film using f3.5 (or worse) rated lenses and there was definitely something funny going on with the blacks between the background and foreground subject. Now I only use f1.2 of f1.4 rated lenses.
-->>>

My meaning was that the glass was trying to shave off a set amount of light, thus largely cancelling light below a certain level. instead of a percentage, that we normally get in systems. Does anybody see this in real life? Maybe I am asking in the wong forum as P+S must have taken this into consideration, but I have noticed it on the home mades. But the real question is, has any body noticed a good net gain in light with any lense?

I think Jack needs to compare actuall footage between cameras, like the PD170, XL1s, to a normal DVX in cine mode for the blacks (unless he likes that style). I think the results on the HD10 would not be worth it compared to the newer HDV cameras (HDV2 pro cameras also much better again). If the adaptor is not available for the HDV of your chioce then pick the best home made design (a few different methords available) and make one for it.

thanks

Wayne.

[Rob Belics]

There is no such thing as a lens "gaining" light. Lenses cannot create light that isn't there.

Jack,

The only way to get funding from a studio is presenting a script or a finished product. They will have to love your script over all others. Then they will give you millions and you will shoot it in film. Talk to your agent.

[Zack Birlew]

Heh..heh...what agent? ^_^; <---currently has none

So where can I find an agent? Should I maybe attend some big name film festivals (like Sundance) and see who and what goes on there? L.A. Newspaper ads?

But anyway, back to the camera stuff. I'm really not into renting equipment at this point because I live in an area with no rental places ANYWHERE. So, no 2/3" HD cams unless I can buy one below $35,000 (my opinion of worth). However, I was looking at the Panasonic AJ-SDX900 and thought that maybe this would be a better alternative to getting a PD170 or DVX100A with the P+S Technik 35mm adapter, whaddya think? DVCPRO = Better film blowup friendly? 2/3" CCDs and 24p to boot. Would this be better than getting the P+S Technik adapter with one of the MiniDV cameras supported? The only disadvantage I can think of is that DVCPRO tapes will be hard to come by in my area where Panasonic MiniDV cassettes (personal perferred tapes) are plentiful.

Also, I'm thinking about getting a new comp/NLE for this stuff because Premiere just isn't cutting it for me. I've already done research on AVID and Final Cut Pro but which one would be better to get?

AVID- The Industry Standard and future upgradeable to additional AVID hardware/software suites that the big boys use.

Final Cut Pro- Apparently the same basic features of AVID, but without the upgradeability, but also has the advantage of being the best for HD editing support ATM.

[Wayne Morellini]

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : There is no such thing as a lens "gaining" light. Lenses cannot create light that isn't there.
-->>>

Rob, I'm not talking about creating light out of thin air, but talking about larger lenses gathering a larger area of available light and delivering this through the adapter to the CCD, so that the CCD gains more light than it did previousely.

Jack, except for low light, detail and range the DV/HDV + mini 35 should look better than the 900 (though I haven't researched that yet), but you could buy, rent, or build an adapter for it anyway. As you said, wait till NAB, see the time frames and decide. It is simple, estimate the life of the camera, and see if there is a model you can be COMPLETELY happy with for that period of time. HDV is allright, and you can imagine what they eventually will be able to do in blowing that res up, compared to DV, but in sequences with lots of movements it can fail. If you can wait for HDV2 cameras, with high bit rates, you might have a suitable cinema camera for the rest of it's life, or find out if any HDV model allows direct uncompressed to disk recording (for the future). There is a rumour page on the web, but half of it should be taken as rumour.

http://www.geocities.com/mammacow3/index.html

See ya

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Film festivals are a great place to show your style of work, your potential and possibly what you can do on a small budget. If your film gets into a festival (and you attend) you will have a great opportunity to meet potential distributors and talk about your "new" feature film which you are trying to get made and also have distributed - It's a great way "in".

There is no question that the SDX900 is definitely a better camera than the PD170 or DVX100 in terms of quality, the real question is do you think you need it for what you are doing. Only you can answer that question. For now I'm using the XL1se mini35 rig until I can afford otherwise or someone else simply pays the bill! As for whether or not the SDX900 alone is better than a mini35 and miniDV camera - better in quality, but not the same depth of field you get shooting with 35mm lenses (if that matters to you).

This summer I will be DOP for a feature length film and so far the plan is to shoot using the mini35 but the filmmaker is talking to a distributor now who in the end might very well call the shots and say "it's fine" or "no, shoot it on HD, here's the extra money you need". Right now we don't know because we just only recently established a relationship with the distributor, but hope to talk to them soon about the project.

As for your editing woes, use what ever you think is best. I like easy so I'm still on Premiere and have no complaints.