mini35 vs. 16mm film

[Joe Lloyd]

Going to be shooting a short feature soon, I was wondering about the pros and cons of mini35 vs 16mm and blowing up to 35

Thanks in advance

[Josh Brusin]

I'm friends with a film grad that's constantly shooting 35 and 16.... his opinion is that the mini35 looks sharper than 16mm... I'd lean towards 35mm if you're shooting film... grab a 2c off of ebay and you can get matched 35mm ends cheaper than 16, not to mention that 35mm post facilities are more plentiful.

[Charles Papert]

The 2c is a fine camera (own one myself) but not exactly ideal for shooting dialogue! (I call it the "coffee grinder" meself).

I think the film-out from DV and the optical blowup from 16 will likely be on a parity, but the DV will certainly be cheaper to acquire (16mm raw stock/telecine for editing/neg conforming vs the cost of the DV stock, laughably low).

However, well-shot 16mm can be beautiful when blown-up. I've seen a few films ("Leaving Las Vegas", "The Station Agent") that were shot on Super 16; I saw them at the theater and had no idea they were not shot on 35mm until later. I don't believe I could say the same about DV, even with a Mini35 involved. Much, much less resolution and dynamic range than 16mm.

Basically, there's going to be a big price difference between DV and 16 up until the final step, outputting/blowing up to 35mm, which will be quite pricey for both.

[Joe Lloyd]

I'm not well versed in the costs of film to begin with. What would telecine cost?

[Paolo Rudelli]

Any way if you hare looking for small DoF
mini35 is smaller that 16mm

but 16mm :love: is film :) :)

and you can use film like vision 800T
for low light that whit dv cam and mini35 you never can do it

also is easy to sooth beautifull slow motion whit chip 16 mm cam (bolex, beaulieu, eclai)

i am using boot and i think depends on
the type of image you wont do it

for blow up to 35mm i think is the same if you do very good telecine (at least in europe)


any way if you find good producer is taking charge of this ;)

pR

[Dennis Hingsberg]

I think it's mostly already been mentioned here, but shooting on 16mm film for the most part will not achieve the look of 35mm film - the main difference being the depth of field between the two formats.

As for blow up, miniDV is typically about $295USD/minute where as 16mm to 35mm may cost less. As for quality it all depends on the process. "Love that Boy" was a feature film shot on DV and blown up to 35mm which looked amazing when I saw it both in theatre and broadcast.

[Josh Brusin]

why blow up?

[Richard Alvarez]

Blow up from 16 ro thirty five because most theatres project thirtyfive, very few project sixteen. Super sixteen has no space for a soundtrack *That's why its' "super"... the extra frame space takes up the track area. So you have to transfer or blow up to project.,

I went to a Kodak demo last night at world fest, saw the new Vision 2 stocks... absolutely amazing!

[Rob Belics]

Yes! Whoever thinks film is standing still hasn't seen Vision2. We wrapped a feature a few weeks ago and it is one beautiful stock to use.

[Josh Brusin]

why not project a digital film digitally?

[Richard Alvarez]

Indeed, digital "movies" should be projceted digitally. Digital projection systems are still rare in the major theatre chains (For a number of reasons too numerous to go into here.) When you go to the movies, you still see "film" projected on to a screen. (Aside from the theatres showing previews/ads/slides in digital formats).

The digital world is great for manipulating film images, especially effects. The new vision2 filmstocks are really great at this too.

In terms of making a choice of format for an indy production, there are a lot of decisions to be made re: film vs video. The big decision is going to be the choice of final product. Are you shooting for "Direct to Video" no theatrical distribution? Then digital or 16mm is perfect. If you are going for a theatrical distribution... at some point you will need a "blowup" to 35mm. This is where the cost saved in aquisition and processing on DV or 16mm up front will be (potentially) lost in the transfer to 35mm print.

All of this really depends on a number of factors, which is why when we budget a film, we work up a budget for Digital, SUper 16, and 35mm all the way through final print.

Hope this helps explain some of the process.

[Rob Belics]

Good point, Richard. Many indies don't budget all the way to release print and that's why they sit in the can forever.

[Alfred Tomaszewski]

(this was posted by Mitch Gross over that the cinematography.com forums. )

Film is the cheapest part of any HOLLYWOOD production, not in the low budget/no budget world.

Here's some of the numbers I suggested you look up. Running cost for buying raw stock, getting it processed and transferred to SD video for editing:
16/S-16 $20-$25/minute
35mm $55-$60/minute
HD $3/minute (for tape stock and downconversion)
MiniDV $.10/minute

If you shoot a 100 minute movie at a 7:1 shooting ratio (700 minutes of material), your stock costs would be:
16/S-16: $17,500
35mm: $42,000
HD: $2,100
MiniDV: $70

Assuming identical costs for soundmix, editing and such, you posting costs to get to a basic 35mm film print would roughly be (from memory):
16/S-16: $25,000
35mm: $20,000
HD: $50,000
MiniDV: $50,000

So your total relative production costs are something like this:
16/S-16: $42,500
35mm: $62,000
HD: $52,100
MiniDV: $50,070

Shoot at a higher ratio and the costs begin to shift, bringing the 16mm costs closer to that of MiniDV (at 10:1 the costs are 16--$50,000 v. MiniDV--$50,100). But there's certainly no huge savings by going with the lesser format. And make no mistake here, MINIDV IS A LESSER FORMAT TO 16MM FILM. If you want to own the gear or have the easy convenience of the little camcorder in your hand that's fine. but just realize that these are the advantages of shooting in MiniDV. Do not fool yourself or fall for someone else's hype.

[Richard Alvarez]

Those figures look realistic to me. A lot of people don't understand the true cost of generating a "Feature film" on film regardless of the acquisition format. And often they forget to factor in shooting ratios. Always high with a cheap format, but even that can cost you in the "long" run.

We are currently shooting a short on 35mm, using a Mitchell BNCR acquired for about ten grand. We've already booked a low budget feature shoot that will pay for the Camera, and another (smaller) camera package as well.

I love digital video, shoot with our Xl1s a lot. But I really enjoy the images that come back from that bad old classic 35mm studio cam we are shooting with.

[Josh Brusin]

not to denegrate film in the slightest... and cost aside:

how many indie films are watched in the theatre as opposed to on dvd/vhs?

Of the ones screened in a theatre – what's the % of festival screenings vs. art house circuit screenings?

I'd like to think that my next movie will be a "big fat indie hit" but honestly I'd be happy with a positive festival experience and motivation (maybe some scratch) to work on another.
I cannot realistically expect a theatrical release. I hope for one but I won't risk other people's money on it. Especially since they don't seem to be profitable to begin with.

That being said I think a DV blow-up is an utter waste of money. Festivals will screen on DLP... It's a direct to digital world. Unless you have the $$ and obscene urge to use film. If you do go for it. You should be encouraged. Film is art even with HD a pro-35 and a brilliant lighting director it's still not the same. On the other hand if you're distributing digitally...? or since you post digitally...?
Anyway.

It's a great discussion as I think either defines a tremendous difference in process that trickles down to how actors/directors/producers play their roles. The production process... pre-pro... writing... etc.

Both have tremendous upsides but it really depends on the project.