Shooting on film - the usual

[collele]

I'm looking to shoot a feature next summer on FILM - but first I want to figure out if it's plausible. The budget will probably be around $10,000 and I know that's a harsh obstacle, but it will be a very low-budget and much will be devoted to the technical aspect. I've shot with the DVX, and the FX1, but I'd like to shoot this feature on film.

The thing is I don't know where to start. If we can make this thread a resource for everything - where to start and where to end.

- I want to shoot sync sound, do I get a camera with crystal sync or do I sync to an external device?
- 8mm or 16mm? Super8/16?
- What camera?
- Budget-wise. Is it plausible? Do I just go with a DVX?
- Where to go if I want to buy all this stuff for film?

P.S. - I've shot shorts on film before so I know how to use it, I'm not completely stupid.

[Dmitry Kichenko]

10 thousand for a film feature? Hmm. You will probably need to befriend a rental guy, date the secretaire at the film lab, and somehow get free access to whatever else you need besides the camera.

It's a little late here, and I'm supposed to drop off film at a lab early in the morning, so I'll answer the first one for now.

1. If you want to shoot dialogue, you want a crystal sync camera. That doesn't mean that sound gets recorded on film. None of film cameras record sound nowadays. Crystal sync simply means that later in post you will be able to sync up your sound recorded on an external device without the visuals drifting off. The MOS/non-sync sound cameras not only will drift offsync when the visuals and sound are lined up, but will in most cases make so much noise that any recording of the dialogue will be next to impossible. There are blimps and pillows that you can hide your camera in, but you will still have to spend some time in post time-warping the dialogue to match the visuals.

At this point you should be wondering why on earth anyone still bothers to shoot film. I ask myself the same thing every morning.

[collele]

Well that's true - but you look at El Mariachi.

Thats 1 out of a billion- but still.

I knew I'd get, "Oh, you'll never make it it will never happen," but if I tell people my method they'll laugh. So, yeas, it's very late here, I was expecting the posts to come in tomorrow.

Thanks for taking the time!

[NathanPresley]

I really don't think 10,000 is gonna do it. Im directing a short at the end of this
year its 30min long and its budget is 10,000 and its not being shot on film, but HVX+redrock adapter.

[collele]

Wow -

Alright, look at a Clerks-esque budget. 30,000 on 16mm? Or am I totally out of my league and should just stick with digital for now.

By the way I totally agree with your sig.

[SE7]

If you check out http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com/Film.html and scroll down to the discounted 16mm film packages, namely the 4000' film package, you see at that company it's $3149 for 110 min. of 16mm film (the film stock itself, processing, telecine is all included).

But if you're trying to make a 100 min. long film, that isn't gonna cut it because you will need to shoot a whole lot more footage than the length of your film (unless your actors never make a single mistake, you never mess up a shot, and everything goes absolutely perfect... but this never happens in filmmaking unfortunately haha)...

But that might be an option... I think you will need to pay for the shipping and handling expenses and of course you will still need to actually buy a 16mm camera. (or rent one)

Hope you make it though..

[Billy Pilgrim]

Ask yourself: Why film? I'm guessing for completely aesthetic reasons. Ask yourself if it's really practical to shoot on film. But before you ask yourself that, think about your script. It's probably been said a million times here, but it's true, regardless. The way I see it, it really doesn't matter what you shoot your movie on. Anything can be transferred to film or blown up (Slacker even has pixelvision--which is an old toy camera from the '80s that records onto audiotape--transferred to 35mm) but celluloid won't give you an engaging story, unique characters, and good dialogue. I'm not telling you what to do, mind you, just offering my perspective.

[Dmitry Kichenko]

Another question to consider - do you the contacts and experience to shoot on film? If this your first time, it will be a learning experience. Learning means mistakes, and mistakes mean money. Quite a bit of it sometimes.

I suggest you either go for video, or if you really want to shoot film, take out a single scene out of your script and shoot it on film. You will then have a pretty good idea if you can pull it off and what it will take to shoot the rest of your script.

By the way, the talent will probably get really tired of your extensive rehearsals; if they're paid with pizza there is a chance of them loosing interest quickly.

You've got the desire, that's very good. However, the large part of film is extensive preparation. If you jump straight into it thinking you'll learn on the go, you will probably run out of your budget far before you're done shooting.

[Dmitry Kichenko]

Oh, and on the 8 vs. 16mm question - 8mm gives more of a distinctive look than 16, so unless it's the look that the plot calls for, I think you'd be better off shooting 16mm. Once you compare the costs, it's not that much more expensive to shoot 16mm either, so I would just go for 16.

[collele]

The way I see it, it really doesn't matter what you shoot your movie on. Anything can be transferred to film or blown up (Slacker even has pixelvision--which is an old toy camera from the '80s that records onto audiotape--transferred to 35mm) but celluloid won't give you an engaging story, unique characters, and good dialogue. I'm not telling you what to do, mind you, just offering my perspective.
This is a good point. It is rational to shoot digital and save money. However, I've heard numerous times, "Don't put too much money into digital, don't do digital films unless they're "effing" amazing... you have to be on film."


Another question to consider - do you the contacts and experience to shoot on film? If this your first time, it will be a learning experience. Learning means mistakes, and mistakes mean money. Quite a bit of it sometimes.
I've shot on film several times before and definitely have the technical experience to shoot film - of course problems will arise but not significant enough for my efforts to be thwarted.


You've got the desire, that's very good. However, the large part of film is extensive preparation. If you jump straight into it thinking you'll learn on the go, you will probably run out of your budget far before you're done shooting.
I'm looking to shoot NEXT summer. I want to get ahead entirely and have a YEAR to prepare. This way I can make sure the least amount of scheduling and money and business type problems arise.

Thanks for your concerns, I appreciate it. Let's forget about budget for a second. Let's say I want to shoot 16mm color film sync sound. Can you guys help me to find a package for that? I've searched on ebay for stuff and don't feel entirely secure about it.

Thanks again.

[NathanPresley]

you gotta think about how much it cost to have actors that don't suck and to feed them.

the list goes on

[Vern]

i'm thinking about doing the same thing. You'll (or rather "we'll") probably want to shoot a 3:1 ratio (three minutes shot, one minute actually in the finished product). If you're shooting 400' cans, and each can runs for 11 minutes, you're going to end up needing about 25 cans of film (25 x 11 = 275 minutes divided by 3 = 91 minutes = feature film)
I hear you can get a 16mm can of film for about $75, so $1875 for film. Probably around $3000 for developing/dailies.

that's about $5000 total. so if you can do everything else (pretty big EVERYTHING) for another $5000, you're all set.

I have not done this. This information has only been passed onto me. So feedback would be just fine...

[Batutta]

It can be done.

http://www.primermovie.com/story.html

[Dmitry Kichenko]

No one doubted it can be done. The problem is pulling it off. Whereas with video there is a bit more leeway, here everything else has to be top notch, because if the actors don't rehearse properly or aren't motivated enough, you're kind of screwed.

[collele]

I've actually seen Primer.

Didn't know the budget was THAT low, but it's understandable. You can actually hear the director mutter "cut" in a couple of scenes because he was directing and acting. Good link.

Also, thanks for coming back to the thread. This is important info and thanks to Vern for posting the technical stuff. I'm definitely looking into this.