16 mm or HD?

Pete Wilie · April 29th, 2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

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>

Dave Ferdinand · April 29th, 2005, 01:04 PM

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.

Richard Alvarez · April 29th, 2005, 01:14 PM

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

Michael Struthers · April 29th, 2005, 01:21 PM

*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...

Kurth Bousman · April 29th, 2005, 02:00 PM

>>>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

Michael Struthers · April 29th, 2005, 03:50 PM

Yep, it's wait and see. I don't think the HVX will look like what we think of when we thing "HD", although it will certainly better than mini-dv. But 1/3" chips are limiting.

I've found that the sdx900, which is a 25k cam with 2/3" chips, looks about like super16mm when used in closeups and interiors.

Pete Wilie · April 29th, 2005, 11:18 PM

Can someone explain the basic workflow for S16 from acquisition to distribution. Just the basic steps. I understand that there's no room for a soundtrack on S16, so what format do you release it in? Oh, can you also provide the "normal" cost for each step. Let's take a 110 minute feature as an example. Don't forget to include the cost of printing dailies.

Marco Leavitt · April 30th, 2005, 09:46 AM

I'll take a stab at this, but I've never actually shot on film. I've just done a lot of reading and called a few labs. Anyone with actual experience, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The cheapest cameras that are quiet enough to shoot sync sound are the Eclair ACL, Eclair NPR and Cinema Products CP16r. You can get them for $1,500 to $4,000. Plan another $2,000 to have them reconditioned, which you will want to do unless you know and trust the seller. These cameras are decades old now. It would also be about $2,500 to have them converted to Super 16.

For the film istelf, it runs about 19 cents a foot for each step of the process -- film stock, developing, and telecine. This can vary a lot, especially if you shoot short ends, which is a good idea with the ACL since it's designed to use 200 foot mags anyway.

Check out Kodak's film calculator at:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16...=0.1.4.7&lc=en

One hundred and ten minutes of film is 2,520 feet. Many people budget a five-to-one shooting ratio, but a lot of working pros say that's unrealistic. Even a seven-to-one ratio is considered tight, and 10 to one is recommended.

So, 2,520 feet x five x .19 x 3 is $7,182. That figure will easily double on you if you can't keep the shooting ratio to five to one, which you probably won't be able to do.

No idea how dailies work in the process. The 19 cents a foot telecine figure is for a one light transfer to miniDV. I would guess you just watch those when they come back. A 2K transfer, which like the name implies is about 2,000 pixels horizontally (not exactly for some reason) is really expensive. I don't have exact figures because that seems to be budgeted by the hour, but they talk in terms of dollars per foot, so you get the idea. Creating a print from miniDV is also out of reach for do-it-yourselfers because of the cost. It would apparently be cheaper to create a projectable print by foregoing the digital intermediate and editing manually so that an optical print could be made. It would look much better too. I don't know anything about that process though, so maybe somebody else could help.

Richard Alvarez · April 30th, 2005, 12:05 PM

S16 is designed to be transfered, not projected. You either transfer it to video (SD or HD) for television/tape/dvd or optical print blow up to 35mm.

I would not reccomend shooting with the old 'synch' sound systems. Just rent a new s16 camera. Shoot double system sound. I'd do that anyway even if I was shooting a feature on my XL2. You want a good sound man with good gear (DAT) anyway. Synch in post on your NLE. So that workflow/ and cost is the same... whether you shoot 35, s16 or HD/DV (I'd use the audio track on mini-dv as a kind of synch track/backup)

I'd probably do a 'best light' instead of a one-light transfer. Get the footage back on DVCAM, synched with the DAT. Pull it into my AVID, cut/color corrrect and "Bob's your uncle" you're ready to send the video out to festivals. Plus with Avid and to a lesser extend FCP, you can generate a frame accurate cut list to send to your conformer IF you go to film out.

When we shot "After Twilight" we shot on 35mm (It was cut on FCP) and shot on weekends and some weekdays. This allowed us to view the footage between shooting weekends. But we also had a video tap, which S16 will have as well. We could review the videotap on set, for composition and continuity questions. The tap was fed into a DSR11, so at the end of the day, we could actually cut scenes off the tap, to look at how the footage was cutting together. This would have been done with 'dailies' on a hi-end production, but we skipped that. The same thing could be done with S16 of course.

We budgeted 6 to one on After twilight, and went a tad bit over. It takes discipline and planning, no question. Ten to one is pretty generous, I think for an indy, but I'd love to have it.

Film costs can be all over the place. Look for deals. We bought a HUGE chunk of unopened reels off EBAY from a film company that had them left over from a shoot in Canada. When my partner went to shoot "Mr. Hell" a few months after "Twilight" the pro-co got a GREAT deal on 35mm stock that was being discountinued by KODAK. Paid basically less than 16mm for 35mm stock. So that was a huge savings. IT takes some creativity, but then all aspects of Indy feature work are that way. My point is, shop around. Yeah, it's probably going to cost a bit more for film... but is it really the deal breaker, when you consider the trade off of increased resolution (even in S16), better DOF controll and all the other 'film look' qualities, and the negative for blow-up later.

Here's some interesting links.

http://www.kino-eye.com/archives/200..._to_build.html
http://www.catrack.com/pages/cam.htm

Again, I'm not saying Digital isn't the wave of the future... I'm just saying film still has a place in the workflow. Especially since digital is the main workflow of post anyway, even in feature films shot on 35.

Marco Leavitt · April 30th, 2005, 12:28 PM

Thanks Richard. Apologies. While I did write sync sound, I just meant that the cameras were designed to be quiet enough to use a microphone at all, and can use a crystal controlled motor to minimize drift. I assumed double system sound would be a given.

Mathieu Ghekiere · April 30th, 2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurth Bousman

>>>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

Maybe it is intertwined, it of course can be. I just thought of the example of a movie here in Belgium, Steve+Sky. It deals about hoockers and little criminials, but it is a love story (an a very beautiful one too). It's filmed on 16mm, positive (don't know if this is the right term, as I said: I haven't worked with 16mm or HD, just asked myself the question) but that brings out in the theatre (and even on the little screen) you have a rough image, but has little 'surealistic' shades of light to, because it's positive. I talked with the director, and he wanted that rough look, but he also said: the movie didn't have a budget for a 35mm stock. He even said he first wanted to film on video, because he likes to film a lot of footage, and improvise a lot, but the producer convinced him that he could shoot 16 mm too... So off course it's intertwined.

What I meant was: I haven't worked with HD. I haven't worked with 16mm. I have seen 16 mm projected (don't know anything of the 'new' super 16mm stocks or anything) in some movies (Steve+Sky, Leaving Las Vegas, some shorts...) and I have seen HD (Star Wars)...
And off course, 'quality' is very, very subjective, but with technical eyes, which one would be the best? That was my curiousity actually, and I wanted to hear some opinions.
Maybe the question is quite impossible to answer and one just has to see it for his self, and I'll do that one time, but in the meantime, I asked my question ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Wilie

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

I think that's a kind of ridicolous remark (don't want to attack you or anything, don't be offended) because I think we all know how DVinfo started, but became a lot bigger than that. People don't only speak here about digital video, they talk about movie techniques, advice for filming gigs, questions about film stocks, lightning, mic's, advice on shorts, books on filmmaking, what's legal and what's not, contracts,... and so on and so on. I think we can all agree it comes down on people working with camera's, going from Indie filmmakers to professional cameramen, to guys who want to make a living from filming events and such... and they all try to help each other.
That's beautifull at this forum, it's not that I can only talk here about digital video, but also have some advice on a script or in this case reall film stock, so I can learn.
Okay, the name is DVinfo, it camera from digital video (I hope :-)?) but it has grown and grown and grown.
First there were only 52 posts around here...
I wasn't a member yet, somebody posted a link to an old adress from the forum, or a picture or something, from this forum when it just existed some weeks so...
I'm happy to learn around here, I am sure you'll agree :-) about that :-).
Please don't take this as an offending or something, and if it was a joking remark from your part, then I just took it too seriously and I need to laugh more :-D

Richard Alvarez · April 30th, 2005, 02:20 PM

Mathieu,

I take it the term you are referring to is "Reversal stock". Unlike 'negative' film stock, which produces a negative image when developed, reversal stock produces a 'positive' image when developed. It has a much different look to it than negative. It's what most people shoot when they shoot super 8. The 'Chrome" stocks, ektachrome and kodachrome are 'reversal stocks' Yes, it give a much different feel to the image.

And as I mentioned, the DIGITAL part of filmmaking was initially introduced in the post process, in editing. Not in the capture process... so filmmaking has been 'digital' a lot longer than the digital cameras have been around!

Mathieu Ghekiere · April 30th, 2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

Mathieu,

I take it the term you are referring to is "Reversal stock"

Yes, that's it!
I know the word in Dutch, but sometimes it's hard to find the english one. Thanks!

Pete Wilie · April 30th, 2005, 08:13 PM

Mathieu,

Quote:

Please don't take this as an offending or something, and if it was a joking remark from your part, then I just took it too seriously and I need to laugh more :-D

My remark was indeed a "joking remark", tongue-in-cheek, as I tried to indicated with the "<bg>" tag, which means "big grin". This is just one reason we need the similies turned on in this forum. No matter how serious the subject there's always room for humor.

Best Regards,
Pete

Michael Summers · April 30th, 2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

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?

... do you realize what forum you have chose to post this in? you will get a biased answer anyway because everyone here is here because they want dv info!

me? 16mm in a heartbeat.

April 29th, 2005, 01:04 PM	#47
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	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. __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

April 29th, 2005, 01:21 PM	#49
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	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... __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

April 29th, 2005, 03:50 PM	#51
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	Yep, it's wait and see. I don't think the HVX will look like what we think of when we thing "HD", although it will certainly better than mini-dv. But 1/3" chips are limiting. I've found that the sdx900, which is a 25k cam with 2/3" chips, looks about like super16mm when used in closeups and interiors. __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

April 29th, 2005, 11:18 PM	#52
Pete Wilie Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 331	S16 Workflow/Costs Can someone explain the basic workflow for S16 from acquisition to distribution. Just the basic steps. I understand that there's no room for a soundtrack on S16, so what format do you release it in? Oh, can you also provide the "normal" cost for each step. Let's take a 110 minute feature as an example. Don't forget to include the cost of printing dailies.

April 30th, 2005, 12:28 PM	#55
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	Thanks Richard. Apologies. While I did write sync sound, I just meant that the cameras were designed to be quiet enough to use a microphone at all, and can use a crystal controlled motor to minimize drift. I assumed double system sound would be a given. Last edited by Marco Leavitt; April 30th, 2005 at 12:48 PM.

April 29th, 2005, 01:14 PM	#48
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	HD vs 16mm. Not HDV vs 16mm I thought was the thread.

April 29th, 2005, 02:00 PM	#50
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	>>>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

April 30th, 2005, 09:46 AM	#53
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I'll take a stab at this, but I've never actually shot on film. I've just done a lot of reading and called a few labs. Anyone with actual experience, please correct me if I'm wrong. The cheapest cameras that are quiet enough to shoot sync sound are the Eclair ACL, Eclair NPR and Cinema Products CP16r. You can get them for $1,500 to $4,000. Plan another $2,000 to have them reconditioned, which you will want to do unless you know and trust the seller. These cameras are decades old now. It would also be about $2,500 to have them converted to Super 16. For the film istelf, it runs about 19 cents a foot for each step of the process -- film stock, developing, and telecine. This can vary a lot, especially if you shoot short ends, which is a good idea with the ACL since it's designed to use 200 foot mags anyway. Check out Kodak's film calculator at: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16...=0.1.4.7&lc=en One hundred and ten minutes of film is 2,520 feet. Many people budget a five-to-one shooting ratio, but a lot of working pros say that's unrealistic. Even a seven-to-one ratio is considered tight, and 10 to one is recommended. So, 2,520 feet x five x .19 x 3 is $7,182. That figure will easily double on you if you can't keep the shooting ratio to five to one, which you probably won't be able to do. No idea how dailies work in the process. The 19 cents a foot telecine figure is for a one light transfer to miniDV. I would guess you just watch those when they come back. A 2K transfer, which like the name implies is about 2,000 pixels horizontally (not exactly for some reason) is really expensive. I don't have exact figures because that seems to be budgeted by the hour, but they talk in terms of dollars per foot, so you get the idea. Creating a print from miniDV is also out of reach for do-it-yourselfers because of the cost. It would apparently be cheaper to create a projectable print by foregoing the digital intermediate and editing manually so that an optical print could be made. It would look much better too. I don't know anything about that process though, so maybe somebody else could help.

April 30th, 2005, 12:05 PM	#54
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	S16 is designed to be transfered, not projected. You either transfer it to video (SD or HD) for television/tape/dvd or optical print blow up to 35mm. I would not reccomend shooting with the old 'synch' sound systems. Just rent a new s16 camera. Shoot double system sound. I'd do that anyway even if I was shooting a feature on my XL2. You want a good sound man with good gear (DAT) anyway. Synch in post on your NLE. So that workflow/ and cost is the same... whether you shoot 35, s16 or HD/DV (I'd use the audio track on mini-dv as a kind of synch track/backup) I'd probably do a 'best light' instead of a one-light transfer. Get the footage back on DVCAM, synched with the DAT. Pull it into my AVID, cut/color corrrect and "Bob's your uncle" you're ready to send the video out to festivals. Plus with Avid and to a lesser extend FCP, you can generate a frame accurate cut list to send to your conformer IF you go to film out. When we shot "After Twilight" we shot on 35mm (It was cut on FCP) and shot on weekends and some weekdays. This allowed us to view the footage between shooting weekends. But we also had a video tap, which S16 will have as well. We could review the videotap on set, for composition and continuity questions. The tap was fed into a DSR11, so at the end of the day, we could actually cut scenes off the tap, to look at how the footage was cutting together. This would have been done with 'dailies' on a hi-end production, but we skipped that. The same thing could be done with S16 of course. We budgeted 6 to one on After twilight, and went a tad bit over. It takes discipline and planning, no question. Ten to one is pretty generous, I think for an indy, but I'd love to have it. Film costs can be all over the place. Look for deals. We bought a HUGE chunk of unopened reels off EBAY from a film company that had them left over from a shoot in Canada. When my partner went to shoot "Mr. Hell" a few months after "Twilight" the pro-co got a GREAT deal on 35mm stock that was being discountinued by KODAK. Paid basically less than 16mm for 35mm stock. So that was a huge savings. IT takes some creativity, but then all aspects of Indy feature work are that way. My point is, shop around. Yeah, it's probably going to cost a bit more for film... but is it really the deal breaker, when you consider the trade off of increased resolution (even in S16), better DOF controll and all the other 'film look' qualities, and the negative for blow-up later. Here's some interesting links. http://www.kino-eye.com/archives/200..._to_build.html http://www.catrack.com/pages/cam.htm Again, I'm not saying Digital isn't the wave of the future... I'm just saying film still has a place in the workflow. Especially since digital is the main workflow of post anyway, even in feature films shot on 35.

April 30th, 2005, 02:20 PM	#57
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Mathieu, I take it the term you are referring to is "Reversal stock". Unlike 'negative' film stock, which produces a negative image when developed, reversal stock produces a 'positive' image when developed. It has a much different look to it than negative. It's what most people shoot when they shoot super 8. The 'Chrome" stocks, ektachrome and kodachrome are 'reversal stocks' Yes, it give a much different feel to the image. And as I mentioned, the DIGITAL part of filmmaking was initially introduced in the post process, in editing. Not in the capture process... so filmmaking has been 'digital' a lot longer than the digital cameras have been around!