16 mm or HD?

Michael Struthers · April 27th, 2005, 12:55 PM

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.

Richard Alvarez · April 27th, 2005, 01:10 PM

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

Michael Maier · April 27th, 2005, 05:31 PM

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 ;)

Steve Law · April 28th, 2005, 12:00 AM

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.

Marco Leavitt · April 28th, 2005, 06:38 AM

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.

Hugh DiMauro · April 28th, 2005, 06:49 AM

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.

James Darren · April 28th, 2005, 06:55 AM

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....

Richard Alvarez · April 28th, 2005, 08:11 AM

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.

Pete Wilie · April 28th, 2005, 11:27 AM

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.

Richard Alvarez · April 28th, 2005, 11:38 AM

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.

Jim Exton · April 28th, 2005, 02:51 PM

"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.

Michael Struthers · April 28th, 2005, 03:26 PM

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.

Pete Wilie · April 28th, 2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

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.

Richard Alvarez · April 28th, 2005, 04:43 PM

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.

Michael Struthers · April 28th, 2005, 05:52 PM

Wow you guys shot black and white? Ballsy.

Good luck with the flick!

April 27th, 2005, 12:55 PM	#16
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	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. __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

April 28th, 2005, 06:49 AM	#21
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,207	OOps! I may have mistaken... 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. __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

April 28th, 2005, 03:26 PM	#27
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	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. __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

April 28th, 2005, 05:52 PM	#30
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	Wow you guys shot black and white? Ballsy. Good luck with the flick! __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

April 27th, 2005, 01:10 PM	#17
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	That was cut on AvidXpressPro as I recall. I saw some of the footage at an Avid conference.

April 27th, 2005, 05:31 PM	#18
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	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 ;)

April 28th, 2005, 12:00 AM	#19
Steve Law Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 29	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.

April 28th, 2005, 06:38 AM	#20
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	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.

April 28th, 2005, 06:55 AM	#22
James Darren Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 235	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....

April 28th, 2005, 08:11 AM	#23
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	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.

April 28th, 2005, 11:27 AM	#24
Pete Wilie Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 331	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.

April 28th, 2005, 11:38 AM	#25
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	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.

April 28th, 2005, 02:51 PM	#26
Jim Exton Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Memphis Posts: 103	"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.

April 28th, 2005, 04:43 PM	#29
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	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.