Super 16mm or HDV JVC Brazilian feature, any DOP out there?!?

[Daniel Moloko]

Hello, my name is daniel.

im almost ready to shot my first feature film.

i only have 100k to start and finish the shooting scheduling.

so, the producer is only giving me the option to shoot it in Digital Dv or HDV. AND I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO SHOOT IN SUPER 16MM, but he thinks is not. and hes the producer...

if i shot in HDV JVC, how can i made the transfer possible?

or,

so, the only way for me to shoot in super 16mm is to find a DOP who has a super 16mm cam and wanna try to get this job for a low profit. anyway, if this movie get made in 16mm, it will be a good international alternative movie.

so, who wanna try the Third World production style!?!?!?????

ciao

[Les Dit]

If you decide to use 16mm, let me quote you on getting that footage scanned to digital at an extremely low price. You can then do a digital intermediate with the high bit depth and end up with a better looking finish!
-Les

[Christopher C. Murphy]

Be aware that 16mm isn't a "worldwide" standard really. The only true standard that is played in most professional theatre's is at least in the USA is 35mm. (Recently, I actually had the pleasure of projecting real film in an old theater near my house. I ran The Alamo, Kill Bill 2 and a few others...it still comes in on multiple 35mm reels and you have to splice it all together at certain frames!)

If I were you I'll buy a couple HD10U cameras, so you have a backup and shoot with it. You will save lots of money in production costs.

Also, I'd do this:

I'd buy or rent the right amount of lights in relation to your production. If you shoot a lot outside in good weather you're not going to need that many lights. But, if you have nighttime or a lot of inside work you'll need lots of lights. But, you will need lights for any film shoot you do anyway. (16 and 35 need lights no matter how you slice it)

I would buy a seperate audio rig for capturing all your audio. This should probably be a DAT, but you have a decent budget, so I'd talk with some audio people on here and get an opinion.

Buy a bunch of 4hr batteries, lens hood, boom mic with fishpole and lots of extrad connectors and cords.

Use DigitalMaster Sony tapes or EX - I've found these work really good with no dropouts (yet).

Get a decent playback monitor for the field, so you can actually see what the hecks going on while it's happening.

Consider a matte box, but definately stock up on filters and lense cleaner!

Get a HDV deck (JVC has one, I forgot the model number), so you can digitize the footage while you're shooting the film.

When you digitize from the deck - I would use Powerbook G4 with Final Cut Pro HD, and buy LumiereHD. While you shoot on the camera I'd have someone getting all that footage in there...do rough cuts while you're shooting. (digital dallies are the norm in Hollywood, so there isn't any reason not to digitize and rough cut on indie films) After you get the footage into the computer you can run a line to a standard monitor, so you can check out your footage. It's going to benefit you to be able to have all that stuff right there. You can get a decent cart with wheels and a few chairs. The main crew can basically shoot and cut the movie as you go. The extra time encoding the footage could be cut down if you want get a G5 dual machine instead and mount it in the cart below. (I prefer this myself, so I have everything at an arms reach just like in my edit suite.)

That's all I can think of right now, but also hire an American crew because we always give jobs to everyone else in the world and now we could use some jobs in this country!

:)

Murph

[Rob Belics]

Unfortunately your producer is only budgeting this film through production and is not considering the cost of distribution at all. If he did he would realize S16 is the only way to go and by far the easiest and cheapest as well as the best looking.

But if you have no one with a film camera or who knows how to operate it then that is the real problem. Tell your producer that the cost of transferring dv to film, if that is the intent, will cost him as much, if not more, than if he originated in film first. In most cases, international distributors require film and will not accept dv.

[Christopher C. Murphy]

Actually, that's something I hear all the time and read about everyone on the Internet. It's always video people saying they need to transfer their movie to film.

The fact is that making your movie is the only thing you need to worry about and getting it "ready" for transfer. The AFM (American Film Market held in Los Angeles www.afma.com) doesn't care that much if you transfered the movie to film - they factor that cost into buying your finished film. It's going to cost you no matter what, but it's a lot easier to sell your film at the AFM and tell them to deal with the transfers then do it yourself. You need a quality copy of your film to show there (the formats are probably listed on the website), but probably doesn't even need to be 35mm because no one has time to deal with that when buying a film. I bet they even take VHS still. They fast forward 3-5 minutes into a movie and if there is action or something that YELLS "money" to them...they keep fast forwarding another 5 minutes...if they see "money" they keep going...and if they get to the end with enough "money" they buy it. They then want ALL the materials - meaning, all associated pieces related to the project. The MOST important thing is the legal papers. All releases, copyrighted materials, etc etc. They won't even talk to you if you don't have this all prepared. (there is a name for all this stuff, but I forget it...it's a word that means "everything")

Anyway, I'm rambling. But, I know this for a fact that making your movie and keeping extremely good records of everything is way higher up on the list then getting a 35mm transfer. It's just not important if you are trying to get it sold to a distribution outlet. (If you are going to make the festival circuit then ok, maybe you want a print. But, what a waste of money...just play it digitally like everyone else does now. Getting a print made is more of a "hey, I got a 35mm print of this thing...I'm cool.")

I believe all real distributors that you should be looking at actually want to do it themselves anyway. If a buyer wants your movie it's because they expect to make a lot of $$$ of it, so paying for a transfer is not much money to them. I'm talking about wide release movies here too...not your direct to DVD stuff. I'm talking indie movies that actually get in theaters. If you look at the indie film companies pumping out films that we actually see in theaters...they ain't doing the transfers, the distributors are dealing with it. Otherwise, what are the distributors for?? They take your movie (not just the movie now...remember, they want EVERYTHING associated with it in regards to ALL legal issues because it's the #1 thing they look for is a properly prepared film with all transferables.)

I think that's the name I was looking for!! It's called "transferables". Think of it like selling a house...you don't just hand the keys over. You have a stack of documents that are all connected in some way. If you are missing one document the whole deal is shot.

Remember, you can wheel and deal a few ways. But, you will probably be the last one to get paid...the distributor will get paid before you do. They will probably stipulate in the buy that you will only get paid if they make a profit...and that probably won't happen. (it's the unfortunate truth in indie film...it's like 1 in 1000 make real profit! ok, it's something like that...but, seriously indie movies just don't make real profit in the grand scheme of things. they sell these movies in markets that usually barely make it even. but, they all hope for the one that will catch on and bring in real dollars.)

Someone you should contact is the guy that founded Film Movement - Larry Meistrich. He'll probably email you back if you contact him. After talking with him I learned a lot about what I just talked about! He's been in the trenches of film distribution and barely survived. He was successful, yet not really...it depends on what way you look at it. He ended up turning his back on traditional film distribution (even though he's got a bunch of theatrical successes like Sling Blade etc.) and starting Film Movement. Check out his company...it's a cross between traditional distribution and a new way of getting DVD's to a membership. (http://www.filmmovement.com/HowItWor...name=Meistrich)They do a traditional premiere at a theater for certain films, but ultimately they get DVD's in the mail to subscribers who aren't in a geographical area lucky enough to see the indie film in the theater. (that's like 90% of the popular of USA...can't see indies in theaters because they live outside the cities!) It's unique and it's where indie's need to go. I think his estimate was almost NO indie distribution in the theater's in a few short years....Hollywood blockbusters only. It's makes sense because there are 1,000,000 places to watch movies now...even on your cell phone! The movie studios and theater owners want SURE things and indies ain't a sure thing. The trend of sequels, A list actor movies, CG only films (Hollywood is ruining true films by creating CG movies with no actors!! The Shreks of the world with soon take over and I bet in 3-5 years there will be 50-50% split of actor and non-actor movies!! Hollywood will lock out indies shortly...it already has I think.

Our best bet as indie filmmakers is to embrace the cable, broadband and satellite markets. They need to fill up all those extra channels...we'll probably have Short Film Channel's galore in a 3-5 years. I think the home theater is where our final distribution point will be...no need for 35mm transfers there. Hence, my original point of using the HD10u....it'll probably be just as good in the longrun for your purposes!


Am I talking to much?! Probably...

Murph

[Daniel Moloko]

sorry but all of you need to know that this 100k is only the FILMING BUDGET, for the shooting.

the next budget, for post-production, will be around 90k!

so, dont worry about the post. just about the shooting...

and this 90k its including the 35mm tranfer...!

but i still dont know if its possible to do a decent JVC HD10 TO 35MM TRANFER...

anyone?

[Christopher C. Murphy]

If you insist on doing a transfer, I read something here recently about it.

http://www.hdforindies.com/

murph

[Barry Green]

If you're intending on doing a 35mm blowup, then that rules out the JVC cameras.

There is no satisfactory way to get from 30P to film at 24 frames per second.

You would be far better off shooting on S16, or finding the additional budget to shoot on the Varicam at 24 frames per second.

[Ken Hodson]

"There is no satisfactory way to get from 30P to film at 24 frames per second."

That can be debated. Programs by Algolith and Twixtor are stated to be quite capable of this feet. It may take some time and energy, and your final product quality will be reflected by how much time and energy. One thing is for sure is it will look a lot better when blowen-up than any SD material!
Ken

[Daniel Moloko]

i think it is possible to make a trannfer from a HD1 if we process the video on twixtor at 24fps and uncompressed avi.

so we just send the HD to the lab and they do the transfer.

is it possible right? anyone tried it?

anyway, if its going to demand a lot of energy and time, i dont think this process will be good for a feature film... maybe it will work just fine for short films...

thats right?!

i just cant believe that even more than a year after the release of this camcorder nobody tried to transfer the footage to 35mm!!!

?

[Heath McKnight]

A transfer costs $400 a minute.

heath

[Steve Crisdale]

<<<-- Originally posted by Daniel Moloko : i think it is possible to make a trannfer from a HD1 if we process the video on twixtor at 24fps and uncompressed avi.

so we just send the HD to the lab and they do the transfer.

is it possible right? anyone tried it?

anyway, if its going to demand a lot of energy and time, i dont think this process will be good for a feature film... maybe it will work just fine for short films...

thats right?!

i just cant believe that even more than a year after the release of this camcorder nobody tried to transfer the footage to 35mm!!!

? -->>>

This whole 'transfer to film' thing has me wondering....what is the actual process? Is the digital 'footage' actually 'printed' on film - frame by frame, or does the film get exposed to a projected version of the digital image?
If the later case is true there would be no reason to convert frame-rate at all, and all the concerns expressed about using the HD10's output would be put to rest.

Also, for a feature length film, uncompressed AVI would require massive hard disk space to store. Use of AVI during editing is fine, though render times can be excessive. If I was you, I'd be looking at AspectHD (PC),or Lumiere HD (MAC), for performance and quality in my editing codec with a feature length project.

And, if I was involved in a feature length project using my HD10, I'd be totally engrossed in getting it edited and out to distribution.....rather than cruising the HD10 forums. I've certainly not seen any posts from anyone involved in producing the TV show that is 'supposedly' being shot with HD10s!!
Maybe they're too busy making the show, or just too ashamed of how it's turned out to post anything!!

[Rob Belics]

Daniel,

If you have $100K just as a shooting budget then why aren't you going 35mm? That is more than enough for a 10:1 shooting ratio and a two hour film. You have no transfer expenses, you have a better image and more flexibility and so much more.

To even think of shooting DV is a waste of time.

[Heath McKnight]

I'd say 5:1, if he's lucky.

hwm

[Les Dit]

If you want to do a small test, I can shoot out a half a minute or so with an ArriLaser, on a short end, for cheap.
Email me privately if you are interested.
-Les