What is best? Shoot on 16mm or this cam? This cam, I suppose?
I'm not talking about shooting 16mm for an artistic reason, if you want to do that, of course, but purely based on quality and budget...?
What's your opinion?

Without a doubt, HD. And, depending how you're showing it, even DV in 24p. Take a gander at the behind-the-scenes featurette for The Shield: Season 3 DVD entitled "Breaking Episode 315." It was shot with a DVX 100. On my TV it looked like 16 mm film.

How do you plan to edit and distribute? If you plan to edit digitally, you should go for HD. If you have any effects shots or intense color correction you want to do, I'd go with HD as well. However, my friend just shot something in 16mm with Fuji's new stock and apparently you can overexpose by 4 stops (4 stops!) without losing highlight detail. With the DVX, and presumably the HDX, even correct exposures may lose highlight detail unless you light things very carefully. Dynamic range is still an issue for video.

Also, the HDX will give you a much deeper depth of focus. You can use an adapter like the mini35 to fix this, but you may lose resolution and you also lose the (big) advantage of a very light weight.

Based on budget, the HDX should be much cheaper than 16mm and a lot easier to work with in post. However, quality is another matter. Both should have resolution good enough for projection on the big screen, and more than good enough for DVD, but the dynamic range and depth of focus of the HDX will style have a video-like aesthetic. With the money you save on stock and post-processing, however, you can probably buy enough lights to make up for this.

I don't see any cost savings right now when you consider the equipment you will need to edit and store the HD footage, not to mention the cost of the camera. The footage is unlikely to look "better" than Super 16 either. The way technology moves though, who knows, maybe editing HD footage will become as inexpensive and easy as MiniDV is right now. I'm especially excited about the possibility of an inexpensive Super 16 telecine using Panasonic's standard. That looks very promising to me, but it's going to take a few years for the technology to catch up.

If one would wonder, I myself ain't having a new project or something which I am doubting for choosing equipment, I just asked myself this question and thought it would be interesting to post and learn and read. Maybe for others as well.
But please, let the opionions keep coming, it's interesting to hear!

Without a doubt, HD. And, depending how you're showing it, even DV in 24p. Take a gander at the behind-the-scenes featurette for The Shield: Season 3 DVD entitled "Breaking Episode 315." It was shot with a DVX 100. On my TV it looked like 16 mm film.

without a doubt HD you say...i say no way. firstly the HDX is not available for another 6 months at least so no one knows how good or bad it'll be. no one knows how good or bad the images will look. even when its released late this year it'll still take a number of months to figure out the camera ie: best settings for certain looks, editing, how it handles highlights etc etc.

i can almost guarantee a super 16 image with good optics in front of the film will out perform the HDX. film handles highlights much better than video. all the features i've worked on as a loader or AC have all used Arri SR3's & none of the producers have even considered any of the prosumer/low end pro cameras for feature work. to put it simply, if you have the budget, the knowledge & have used film before it is definetely a better choice when it comes to image quality for feature work.

but since you've asked the question on this board, i can only assume you don't have a huge budget therefore a video camera will be more suited to you ie: the DVX100, XL2, Z1, etc & the HDX when its released if you can wait 6 months or so. these cameras will still produce good results if you can't afford film & frankly most self/private/indie films usually dont have that type of money for film stock/processing/telecine unless you can make a deal or get funding.

also consider renting a camera. i've said this many times before but renting definetely makes sense, especially if you only need the camera for a feature. almost all feature films rent their cameras.

all the advice i'm giving you is just basic common sense really...

Well put James.

As far as budget, I think that once your pipeline is set up with the P2 system, your per-minute cost for storage is far below that of film.

Quality-wise, film is film and digital is digital. They do look different (although I admit I have been fooled by certain projects). That's a subjective choice.

"based on quality and budget "

the HVX200 quality is a unknown. 1/3" chips do not give you the quality of 2/3" chips ... the chip set is still under development ...anyone thinking this camera is going to equal the Varicam is going to be disappointed ...

budget? is this a one time project ? or a camera you will use on many projects ?

If you can afford it, I would have to echo the super16 route as well. With a qualified, and complete crew you will be able to move much faster than shooting video, because film lights faster and easier, and is so much more forgiving than video, when it comes to ratios, and highlights. Audio is also uncoupled from the camera, so it is less of a hassle. You also get the benefit of a colorist and correction on a real telecine (video originated footage also benifits greatly from a telecine session, and should be given consideration as part of a video "film" workflow), and your footage is bullet proof for the future, meaning you can output it to virtually any format in existence, or yet to be devised. These, and other benefits already described are the strong points of film. The drawback is cost. Also, your project is likely to be taken much more seriously if it originates on film, all other things being equal. Film is still the main medium of filmakers, in general. Video is gaining acceptance, for instance, Nancy Shriver ASC's performance at Sundance with a DVX originated project.

(don't get me wrong... I'm very excited about the HVX)

Well put James.

As far as budget, I think that once your pipeline is set up with the P2 system, your per-minute cost for storage is far below that of film.

Quality-wise, film is film and digital is digital. They do look different (although I admit I have been fooled by certain projects). That's a subjective choice.

thanks Charles....

i think this thread is under the alias of "film vs digital" really... & I don't think we want another one of those debates because we all know that film is better! j/k :)

one thing I can't seem to understand is people commonly compare cameras against one another or capturing formats (film/digital) but we rarely hear on forums people comparing optics which is probably more important than what captures behind it....

i'd actually like to hear more about the lens on the HVX.. maybe that should be my next topic...

but since you've asked the question on this board, i can only assume you don't have a huge budget therefore a video camera will be more suited to you ie: the DVX100, XL2, Z1, etc & the HDX when its released if you can wait 6 months or so. these cameras will still produce good results if you can't afford film & frankly most self/private/indie films usually dont have that type of money for film stock/processing/telecine unless you can make a deal or get funding.

As I stated before in this thread, I don't have the need (or budget, for that matter) to use one of them, I'm just a student who's learning with his XL1s, but I just asked this question out of curiousity, to hear what people's opinions are about this.
And they are very informative, by the way :-)!

If you can afford it, I would have to echo the super16 route as well. With a qualified, and complete crew you will be able to move much faster than shooting video, because film lights faster and easier, and is so much more forgiving than video, when it comes to ratios, and highlights. Audio is also uncoupled from the camera, so it is less of a hassle.
In what way is lighting for film faster than for video? Can you provide details please.

Is this a general concensus that shooting film is faster than video?

In what way is lighting for film faster than for video? Can you provide details please.

Is this a general concensus that shooting film is faster than video?

Yes, because if you shoot with film, your dynamic range is bigger. If you expose a stop or two to many or less, you still are going to have enough details. Of course which celluloid you use depends too, but at video, if you overexpose, you immeditaly loose all your details.
Your highlights.
So if you want to lit for video, you really really have to lit perfect almost to get a very good picture. With film, if your lighting is good, but not perfect, it's still going to look very okay, because your dynamic range is bigger and it's much more 'forgiving' in contrast to video.
As far as I know anything about it.

In my experience, shooting film is faster than shooting video. The setups are faster in terms of lighting, because the lattitude is greater. (There is more 'forgiveness' in film lattitude)

The film workflow tends to be faster, because there is less "Lets look at the tape" time. And yes, I've worked on 35mm film with a video tap for review. Because there tends to be fewer takes, the setups move faster.

On an HD shoot, there is an enormous ammount of 'adjusting the exposure levels' that is done on set. Essentially, the post part of filmmaking flow has been moved to the set.

Basically, in my experience, because film is more expensive, it requires more discipline on the set. This creates a faster workflow.

But I would expect someone like Charles, to excercise the same discipline on a video set, that he uses on a film set.

Just my personal experience on narrative films.

Run and gun ENG or Doc work is probably a wash. You get what you can get when it happens. The benefit of tape in documentary and newsgathering is the low cost, immediate turnaround and high footage rate.

If you can afford it, I would have to echo the super16 route as well. With a qualified, and complete crew you will be able to move much faster than shooting video, because film lights faster and easier, and is so much more forgiving than video, when it comes to ratios, and highlights. Audio is also uncoupled from the camera, so it is less of a hassle. You also get the benefit of a colorist and correction on a real telecine (video originated footage also benifits greatly from a telecine session, and should be given consideration as part of a video "film" workflow), and your footage is bullet proof for the future, meaning you can output it to virtually any format in existence, or yet to be devised. These, and other benefits already described are the strong points of film. The drawback is cost. Also, your project is likely to be taken much more seriously if it originates on film, all other things being equal. Film is still the main medium of filmakers, in general. Video is gaining acceptance, for instance, Nancy Shriver ASC's performance at Sundance with a DVX originated project.

(don't get me wrong... I'm very excited about the HVX)

I agree with you on all your points but 1 Jason. Digital is way quicker to light and set up than film. On any digital feature's behind the scenes or what ever directors that have used both film and digital mediums are always saying how the production went so fast because digital is so fast to light and they go so many more set ups a day and blah blah blah. Unless your trying to make every shot look artistically different in it's lighting, digital is way quicker to light than film.

the highlights and ratios thing is true though but that doesn't make the process quicker

I saw November last night projected in a large theatre.

An interesting movie, helped by the fact that:

a) They had a star
b) Greg Harrison was an editor before being a director and it was well-edited (15 weeks in a room!)
c) Sound design was great (skywalker ranch)

Without these things, the film would not have flown, imo. Despite Nancy doing what she could with the camera.

Super16mm will spank the hvx200. Hands down, far and away. Even a standard definition 2/3' chip cam will probably beat the HVX. There is only so much you can do with 1/3 chips.

That said, someone somewhere will make a feature with the hvx and do well.

That was cut on AvidXpressPro as I recall. I saw some of the footage at an Avid conference.

Super 16 looks way better than even Varicam footage in my opinion. Film is film. No context for me. The cost and post-production path may look like a bad deal when compared to a prosumer like the HVX200, but when you start going up the HD ladder, it doesn't look so bad anymore. Specially if you are talking about buying rather than renting. Of course, if you are the type who likes to shoot high ratios, video is for you. But for serious feature work, the more you shoot,the more time it takes and time is money.
I was just talking about it on another board. I was talking about the Drake camera. They are selling it for US 20,000. That's for a homemade camera(basically).Don't get me wrong, I realy tip my hat off to their team. It seems quite and achievemt what they did. But you can get a nice used Super16 camera (good thing about film cameras is they never get obsolete:), with 2x 400' magazines and lens for less than 8k. You can find good deals on film stock including processing and telecine those days. If you keep your shooting rate lower, which you would want with the Drake as well I guess, since the files sizes are huge, you can manage to shoot your whole feature on Super16 and transfer it to HD for editing for probably less than the price you would pay for the Drake. As a bonus you would get the real film look, film latitude, film quality and rich colors. If you go with 16 rather than super16 you probably could still save another 5k or so from the 20k price tag.
S16 is a really good option for feature. HD, while good, still not as good as film. Even the F900 is not. The HVX will sure not tbe comparable to S16.
While S16 is expensive if compared to a prosumer workflow (but way better as well), it's not so if compared to more expensive HD systems. Of course, S16 is not nearly as hippie as HD is those days, but that could only work to your advantage ;)

the only thing concerning me about super 16 is the editing process. wouldnt it be easier to edit dv film than 16mm? im not well educated on film.

Many people are doing what's called a digital intermediate. You transfer the film to video (telecine), edit it that way, and go back out to film. Having the film print made is way too expensive for do-it-yourselfers. You send the video version out to festivals. If you get lucky (almost impossibly lucky), the distributor would pay to either have a print made from the video footage, or better, completely re-edit the movie using the original footage and have an optical print struck. Unfortunately, getting a telecine transfer at HD resolutions is crazy expensive, but a one-light transfer to mini-DV could theoretically be done for under $5,000. Notice I say theoretically. The biggest benefit of all this is your film stock will never be obsolete, or at least you will always have the option to transfer it to better video formats as the technology evolves, assuming your print doesn't get ruined.

I didn't see the forest through the trees... I guess what I meant to say was it was an inexpensive alternative to film, not taking into consideration how it would be outputted. Sorry for my kneejerk reaction in this case. HDV is kind of iffy still, from what I currently read. SDV is what I'd choose over film... just because.

Michael, Marco, Charles, Richard, etc (sorry too many names!)

its great to see that even though we live in a world where formats & technology change rapidly, "keeping up with the Jones" seems so important & this being a digital video forum, there are still people who can look past all that & appreciate film for what it is, still a great format....

If you haven't seen this thread.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=43670

Check it out. The links to the SUPERMAN stuff are really educational. The workflow with the NEW HD cameras, are slower than the film cameras, and the editor is getting the footage a full day slower than he would with film.

Read an article the other day, that stated it would take more than 8k resolution to mimic 35mm, still beyond what the new cameras are doing. Digital Intermediates are only scanned at 2k per frame now.

Don't get me wrong. Digital is the future, no doubt about it. So is 'tapeless'. But it's not a fair trade yet. Still a while to go.

As to costs of equipment. I'll just point out that my partner bought a COMPLETELY REFURBISHED 35mm Mitchell BNCR with six magazines, worrell gear head, two sets of sticks, angenieu telephoto, video tap and power supply for 10 grand.

That's right, ten grand and he owns a completely rigged 35mm setup. We shot our short film "After Twilight" which is making the festival rounds now. (Screening at Worldfest Houston this weekend) www.nu-classicfilms.com
He also shot a low budget horror/slasher with it. "Mr.Hell". As a production house, he can now offer Mini-DV, super 16 and 35mm workflows to clients. www.roadsterproductions.com


So if you look around, you can get some incredible deals on camera gear. My point being, it's not a foregone conclusion that 'film is out of your league.' Doing a cost-benefit analysis before you do a feature is absolutely necessary. Work the budget through completely in each format. MiniDV, HD, S16,35. BUY or RENT... work the numbers, don't just assume.

Gee, if S16 and 35 are so great and so cheap, I wonder what all the excitement is about the HVX200 and HD? <bg>

Seriously though, clearly there is room for both film and digital movie making. And with the advent of HD delivery in large quantities by cable and satellite providers to an increasing number of home HDTVs, the market for HD is growing by leaps and bounds.

Perhaps we need to broaden our thinking that the ultimate destination for movies is the theater. Or I should say the commercial theater. The "theater" has now moved into many homes.

One final thought. When the PC first came out all the big boys dismissed it as a toy. It took a few years, but now the PC reigns supreme, and the large mainframe has long since gave way. The analogy with digital and film is strikingly similar.

As long as movies are still being projected, film will still be shot. And even then, as an archaival medium, it far surpasses the digital formats.

I keep saying, digital is the future. It will replace film. It HAS replaced film in small format, short form and many indy venues. But that is because in these formats, the cost of film aquisition and processing is a HUGE hit on the budget. In large productions, the cost of film and processing is minimal compared to the other costs invovled, and the quality yield is higher.

When the studios and distributors manage to do TWO things, film will all but dissapear.

1) MATCH or Exceed film in resolution. For all the numbers tossed around by the various HD, HDV, 1080i or 720p arguments... when matched against a full resolution 35mm image, (lets not even compare it to Imax) HD still comes up short. The arguement degenerates into "Well, I couldn't tell the difference," or "Compared to a print that's been scratched or faded..."

2) DECIDE who will incurr the costs of the new projection technology, the distributors, or the studios. This is a big dealbreaker, and untill it's decided who will encur these costs... simply declaring "it's here" is not enough. Even declarint HI DEF TV is here, is not enough to push it into consumer's homes. It's still not as cheap as SD. And times are tough.

When will every megaplex have a digital projector and every hollywood movie be shot digitally? Best guess from me, not in five years... probably ten.

"As to costs of equipment. I'll just point out that my partner bought a COMPLETELY REFURBISHED 35mm Mitchell BNCR with six magazines, worrell gear head, two sets of sticks, angenieu telephoto, video tap and power supply for 10 grand."


How was handling that thing? I heard they weigh 165 lbs. I thought about getting one, but that is way too much weight.

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but I always wanted to know from someone else what it is like to work with that behemoth.

Yeah a mitchell is a friggin tank *L* But it served Hollywood for a long time.

But to sum up, if you've got ANY kind of budget, try to shoot on something better than mini-dv. I know this is a digital forum, but you'll get more respect from actors, festivals and distributors if you avoid DV. The festivals are glutted with bad dvx movies.

But even films that make to distribution that are shot on DV make it because they have stars or some other compelling reason. Even "Open Water" which had no stars and was shot on pd150's, got picked up because it was a) genre b) compelling c) the marketers could instantly envision "Jaws Lite" as a sales path d) still cost 120k and two years to bring in.


A great script is the key.

The buzz about these cams is of course, the portability and cheapness. DVCPRO50 in the palm of your hand. Hey I'm gonna buy one, to shoot stuff with. But if I'm taking a chance on a feature, I'm shooting super16mm. The new super16mm stocks are great too.

The festivals are glutted with bad dvx movies.
Mostly what makes them "bad" has nothing to do with digital vs film.

Just attended Worldfest, and talked with one of the principals of the festival. They received over 1,500 digital entries, and picked about 100 for the festival. When I asked how did they ever wade through that mass of movies, he said it easy. Within the first 1-2 minutes you can tell whether or not a movie is crap. Out of 1,500, most of them were crap. Mostly it was no story, camera moving/zooming all over the place, terrible lighting, or no lighting at all.

On the other hand, one of the digital shorts that won an award, "I Spy with My Little Eye", was great, and was very well received. In fact, all of the digital shorts that I watched were very good. Would have shooting them with film made them better -- well, they would have looked more like film :-)

One of the issues with viewing digital movies at a film festival is that although they have a very high quality digital projector, all entries must be submitted on DVD. So, even if you shot in HD, you lost quality when burned to DVD. Maybe next year or so they will accept HD DVDs.

The real problem is that the cheap DV camcorders, combined with the manufacturer's marketing, lead almost everybody to think they are a filmmaker. And it's cheap to produce. So we get garbage.

The Mitchell IS a beast, for sure! It was a studio cam, used by Paramount on sit coms. But hey, great features of the past were shot with bigger cams. It just takes an understanding of 'old school' principals. Mostly it was on a dolly. No big deal. Whisper quiet too. For a couple handheld shots, an Arri was used.

You can see a couple of minutes of footage of the trailer at www.nu-classicfilms.com

And yes, it's showing at Worldfest this weekend, and also in Dallas sometime soon. It's on the website.

Wow you guys shot black and white? Ballsy.

Good luck with the flick!

Yeah..."Ballsy" is right. Artistically it felt right to go with the Black and White noir look ... and I still think it's the right choice.

But as we make the push to shoot the full length feature, most of the distributors are telling us it will be easier to sell in color. So it's not a foregone conclussion that we will go forward in Black and White with the feature version.

I certainly don't want to be seen as bashing digital video. I'm really excited that affordable HD is coming within reach. Now if they can just work on the size of those chips ...

It all comes down to the final product! It's too expensive to have film prints made and it's too expensive to have hd film scans done.

I'd much rather ahve a project done with an hd final cut than and sd final cut that was shot on film.

In terms of shooting costs s16 and hd are about the same right now.

Here's an interesting quote from Robert Rodriguez in his interview on AOL (http://www.godamongdirectors.com/rodriguez/faq/aol.html):
Question: Robert, what was the REAL cost of "El Mariachi?" Was it really 7k?

RobtRodrgz: Yes. Usually when they talk about a movie's budget for an independent film, they talk about the budget up to the point where it gets sold to a distributor. What they teach you in film school and what most filmmakers do is to make a 16mm film print and show that to distributors. A film print costs you anywhere from $20,000 on up. What I did was to edit on videotape and show the videotape to distributors. Columbia Pictures bought the film off of videotape. That's the first time a studio bought a film from videotape. So, you can save a lot of money by using today's technology and not following what everyone else does.

I think its pretty common knowledge around these parts that the film 'El Mariachi" was not exactly a 7,000 dollar film. Props, but from my understanding Robert's tale from Austin underdog to Hollywood Mogul has some extremely glaring plot holes and some key data left out for dramatic effect.

Robert's great, but I give his agent, his publicist, and probably his wife (his producer) a lot of credit for grasping the way it all works, and then making it work for Roberts ultimate benefit.

With that said, Robert makes some really good points about using your money correctly -- however its very strange to see how HD has caused this incredible resurgence of super 16mm! With the new stocks, combined with high end video color correction super 16mm has been the benchmark.


At least this is according to Efilms in Hollywood. They have been doing lots of digital intermediates of super16mm recently.

So... to all you video cam makers - listen up!!! Bust out those dual exposure CCD's and lets get some latitude and lets get a super 16mm rez!

My input - is finished.

Dean

I don't really think Rodriquez is lying. He said the version he sold was 7000. In his book he says that after it was sold they remastered the soundtrack, did a film blowup and a few other things I can't remember. So the theatrical version and the version we buy isn't a 7000 dollar movie. Just the one he sold to the studio was.

I think the 7,000 figure is very believable. It's basically just the cost of the film stock and developing. That squares with current prices. He didn't spend a nickle on anything else. He got the telecine for free by befriending a local video company. He didn't even have a second copy. He was walking around Hollywood, talking to distributers with a single master!

In doing a business plan and budget, one of the things you figure in is "Cost of goodwill" this is often a deffered cost. In other words, if my dad, or the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS allows me to cut the film on their equipment instead of paying the going rates, than I have added many thousands of dollars to the budget of production, even if it doesn't show up in the cash collumn. This is a real value, and the IRS expects it to be listed. So if people want to do exactly what Rodriguez did, all they need are the same resources and connections. Simple as that.

When you make a film for a small initial outlay... it would be a bit innacurate to state that the film "ONLY COST" x amount of dollars. OF course, it would make great initial publicity, but you would spend the rest of your life explaining everything you got without having to pay for it FIRST.

I made a great twenty minute short that won some awards a while back. "It only cost three hundred dollars" to make. That's what I paid for the tape stock, pizza and beer. It was a period film, set in the 17th century. I had dozens of people in costumes and armor, that I already owned from my days of producing jousting/stunt shows at rennaissance festivals. The cost of the costumes was in excess of five thousand dollars. I called in favors from some friends, and got the use of their horses... would have been a couple of hundred for that. The use of the incredible 17th century pub, would have been many hundreds as well, but I had access to it because I was producing a show in it. The actors all agreed to defer their pay. Not only did I write, produce and act in it, I also did the fight choreography and some of the stunts. So those costs were 'defferred' as well. The gear for shooting and editing, was another favor called in. Would have rented for at least a grand.

When people see it, they are amazed at how good it looks. They remark on 'the production values' and estimate, quite rightly, that the twenty minute short would have cost ten to fifteen grand to produce.

Bottom line, a film 'costs' more than the price of the film stock and pizza and beer. Somewhere, someone has underwritten the costs that did not come out of your pocket. Maybe they were assets you spent money on earlier, maybe they were favors called in for 'sweat equity' you paid out earlier, maybe you wrote IOU'S that will be called for later... The point being, if you ignore the unwritten costs, it WILL come back to bight you later.

This is the fundamental workflow for ALL low budget indy productions... maximizing your production values, so every dime shows up on the screen. If you've ever filled out an application for matching funds in a film grant, they want to know what goods and services are being donated 'in kind'. These things have REAL VALUE. Nothing new in that. One of the things you DON'T do when you are negotiating to sell a project, is tell the people how LITTLE you spent on it.

I'm not knocking Rodriguez, hell I'm a local Houstonian who hopes to make good eventually. I just hate to see people think they can shoot a movie by maxing out their credit cards, without doing the legwork to cover ALL the other 'unlisted' costs that goes into shooting a 'low budget' indy.

I do agree that the statistic is widely abused. For one thing, if "El Mariachi" were released today, I doubt it would even get into Sundance. I don't mean to slag the movie, but even Rodriguez wasn't under the delusion that he'd produced some masterpiece or anything. He just wanted to make a quick buck so he could finance another, better movie. The phenomenon that the movie became was largely the result of timing, luck, balls, and hard work.

Well, I didn't intend to start a debate about the real cost of shooting "El Mariachi". :-) However, I don't think I'd call the man a liar without some very substantial proof.

Here's the main point I got out of the quote:
So, you can save a lot of money by using today's technology and not following what everyone else does.
Rodriguez's comments are directed at independent filmmakers just starting out, who don't have the budget for any kind of film. I think his point is if you have a good story, good script, good actors, and you make a decent shoot, you can promote your movie just using video. Then if you get a deal, you can print to film, reshoot, or whatever.

Translating this to today's technology, it seems to make a lot of sense to shoot your first few movies on HD with something like the HVX200. Whether or not this will be as good as S16 or 35 is not the point. It will still be great footage provided you have the content, and many would say, that you properly light it. IAC, it will be much better than miniDV SD.

So by shooting in HD, you can very inexpensively produce a movie that can be shown to distributors. It can also be sold to cable/satellite HD channels, perhaps just as it is.

No doubt digital has lowered the cost of getting ninety minutes onto 'film'. Even if it's tape.

My point about the Mariachi legend, and it's often missed - Is that it's not how much you SPEND, it's how much you LEVERAGE that matters. That's what is often overlooked. What is a great story worth? What are the volunteer or deffered costs of great actors worth? What great assests do you have access to? I think what Rodriguez, is saying is that low cost/deferred cost options to high costs are more readily available nowadays. But I think it might be benneficial, if he were to actually come out and say... "Look, I got XXX thousand dollars worth of free stuff and services too, and when I sold the movie, I went back and paid the deferred costs that ammounted to xxx dollars as well... so IF I had paid for everything up front, it would have cost me xxx dollars.

Too many people count on never paying deferrments, which makes for two problems... ONE) You are betting against yourself TWO) You leave a bitter taste in cast and crew's mouths, which makes it much harder for someone else to shoot.

I think a disservice is being done, by perpetuating the myth "All you need is a credit card and a mini dv"...

I think a disservice is being done, by perpetuating the myth "All you need is a credit card and a mini dv"...
I don't think anyone is saying this.

Your point of leveraging, and then repaying, the non-cash resources available to you is well-taken. But your message seems to be so negative... :-)

In fact almost everyone who starts up a new business on a shoe string leverages all the resources available to them, if they are smart. If you read Rodriguez's interviews you will see that he relies a lot on family and friends.

The point Rodriguez is trying to get out is to not let the establishment/system keep you down. If you have a great story, find a way to shoot it now cheaply, rather than waiting till later when you can afford a big budget.

This thread is about 16 mm vs HD. The point is to that shooting HD is a great way to realitively inexpensively shoot a high quality movie. Don't let not being able to afford 16mm hold you up.

That's exactly the problem with the Mariachi myth - and it has spurred me on to make my own stuff, but it has given a lot of people the impression that with just enough money to buy film you can make a film. The fact is that movie cost a lot more than $7,000 before he sold it to distributors.

He borrowed an Arri, didn't rent it. The squibs were given to him. The actors mostly worked for free. The bus belonged to a friend of a friend. The rig for sliding down the wire was made by a blacksmith friend for just the cost of the material His friend Carlos, who played the Mariachi, is the son of the wealthiest man in town and the family apparently owns half the buildings in town, including the hotel, the villains ranch (the interior of which doubles as Domino's house) and one of the bars they went to. And many of the actors, extras, and occasional 'crew' worked for Carlos' family, or were friends who thought making a movie would be cool (as you can tell from the performances). Even the bath tube was given to him by the makers of Like Water For Chocolate because they liked him and he talked a good game. He had a stuntman friend who provided all the blanks and squibs for him for free and at one point was going to blow up a car (provided by Carlos) for him for free, but they never got that far becuase he had to return the camera.

And he did all of his post work at school on equipment he wasn't paying for, well in advance of selling it to a distributor.

He really made a $50,000 or $60,000 movie, he just didn't spend that much cash on it. And he knew that's what he was going to do. He wrote the movie specifically to use that which he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt he could get his hands on.

Case in point, a friend of mine is making an HD feature right now for nothing. He's friends with a DP who owns his own CineAlte rig and HD editing suite, they came up with the story together using locations they knew they could film and just about all he's actually spending money on are the tapes and food. So for about $3K - bam, HD movie.

And if you can get all those ducks to line up in a row for you, you can make a film with far more production value than you are actually spending money on as well - but it's not a foregone conclusion.

This is a great thread.

RR is devoted to HD, that's his path. El Mariachi isn't great, but it's got a kinetic energy and shouts out "I have talent!" What the guy really needs is a good script.

The 7k myth is used by studios to pump up movies by young filmmakers..."Novermber" shot for 150k, but they don't mention the sound mix from Skywalker Ranch and the blowup must have cost 3x times that.

Anyway, I submit that super16mm not only looks better, but is now cheaper to shoot and edit. But that's only because HD has forced kodak, telecine etc into competitive pricing. A dp with his own super16mm? 500 a day. Just to rent the damn HD equipment is 1500 a day....

Anyway, whatever path you choose, the point is to get there. But as has been pointed out by posters, the "digital" is the only way is rubbish, and in fact I think a lot of momentum has swung to super16mm.

One of the things that Mariachii and the DV revolution has done, is allow film to be shown, simply as VIDEO. The digital revolution in post production and the increasing willingness to look at a digital film as a 'work print' is a huge plus for indy filmmakers. This saves enourmous ammounts of money on prints. Heck, shoot on super 16, telecine, transfer to DVD and you're in the festival circuit. Save on work prints, conforming, film out...

My point being do the numbers. Work up your shooting schedule, then plug in the cost of renting HD (Don't forget HD monitors/decks etc.) vs renting Film gear, filmstock and telecine costs. See how much money is saved, vs. what you have at the end. A negative to blow up to 35?

A lot of people don't take the time, to do the numbers. And, frankly, I think some new filmmakers are intimidated by the discipline of film.

Just to rent the damn HD equipment is 1500 a day....
Don't know where you rent, but it's way to high. :-) In Houston, the Sony Z1 rents for $190, with package deals available. I would expect the HVX200 to be comparable to this.

Who said "digital" is the only way???

So please explain to me how 16mm is cheaper than HVX200 HD after you include the developing/printing of the film?

BTW, did I just pass through to an alternate universe where DVInfo.net is really a film forum? <bg>

The El Mariachi myth has a big flaw on it... Most people seem to discard the fact that he got EXTREMELY lucky! The chances of another filmmaker doing as well as he did for $7k are probably lower than winning the lottery!

Look at Blair Witch, it really sucks in my opinion. Very basic movie, not scary at all, but hugely successful... But if we take this two films has reference we are forgetting that 99.9% of indie films never get anywhere, no matter how much they cost.

Also, most budgets strangly don't include the cost of the camera, so if you're going to fork out $10k for a HVX is that going into your film budget? Most budgets are BS; just another way of marketing your film.

You could shoot a movie with an Optura and get a deal signed by a big studio, whereas zillions of people with their fancy XL2s or HD cameras will get nowhere...

It's all about marketing, a bit of content and a stroke of luck.

HD vs 16mm. Not HDV vs 16mm I thought was the thread.

*L* The Sony is not an HD cam. HDV is definitely not HD.

Hey, shoot with the Sony, and see if you like what you get in post...

>>>I'm not talking about shooting 16mm for an artistic reason, if you want to do that, of course, but purely based on quality and budget...?<<<
Mathieu- aren't quality and artistic reason intertwined ? Hd and S16 each have their own advantages as does hdv. Digital imagery is flexible - film is more aestetically pleasing to most people but far more expensive for bugeteers. Some rationalize our present preference for the film look as something learned , which in turn implies the ability to unlearn it . Rodriguez got the job more for his business and organizational skills than for his cinematic talent. Please , the guys' no Cassevetes ! But , by the location of the thread , I can assume we are talking about a comparison between the AG-HDX200 and S16 - or, have we reached with the HDX a close enough approximation of 16mm quality that it makes the difference acceptable for the cost advantages of shooting digital ? We got to wait and see. Kurth