X-files made with 35mm adapter?

[Postmaster]

Just watched some X-Files episodes fromm DVD on my high resolution computer monitor.

For the first time I relized that you can see the GG grain.

But maybe it was made on 16mm abd the grain is from the telecine.

Does anybody know how they shot the Yfiles and if they used adapters?

Thank´s Frank

[jenningsp]

it was all shot on 35mm film except one episode "X-Cops (1999)"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106179/technical

[Postmaster]

Oh, I see. Thanks, Frank

[HBlack]

Why would they bother shooting 35mm for a TV show? Seems a bit overkill.

[puredrifting]

95% of all narrative style television shows you see today are shot on 35mm although they are slowly switching over to Hi-Def. All of the shows I have worked on shoot on 35mm - 24, Prison Break, Ugly Betty, etc.

Of course, "reality" shows are shot on video.

Dan

[dwilliam]

I believe most TV series are shot on 35mm.

[HBlack]

Wouldn't 16mm be enough? Or are the differences between the two formats more than resolution?

[Aerialsfilm M*]

There is really a huge change between the formats, but especially lenswise and dof, fov -wise

[puredrifting]

Wouldn't 16mm be enough? Or are the differences between the two formats more than resolution?

Certain shows like Twin Peaks and Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman used to be shot on S16 film. It was always a matter of economics, if your show budget supported 35mm, why wouldn't you shoot 35mm?

The two shows above, in particular, never looked as good as 35mm to me. They looked good but they were definitely grainier than 35mm. With 35mm, you have such a larger negative = less grain. Shallower DOF. More exposure latitude. More cinematic FOV.

35mm overkill? I guess it all depends. 35mm is a superior format to S16 in every way except cost and weight of cameras for handheld.

I keep going to new sets on new shows and expecting to see some HD cameras, but so far, every time it's good old 35mm.

Dan

[HBlack]

Right, I'm feeling a little silly that I didn't remember those differences. Thanks for explaining it.

[puredrifting]

Right, I'm feeling a little silly that I didn't remember those differences. Thanks for explaining it.

No problem H.

I have only shot two projects myself on 35mm and I love shooting it, but as a producer, I am always sweating having enough film stock on hand. You don't want to buy too much because you lose money when you sell it, but you want to have enough to shoot your project, account for blown takes, etc. It's a fine line. It's so expensive too.

That is the beauty of digital. Since I began shooting with the HVX, I have shot so much footage that I never would have shot on film because I take a lot more chances. Timelapse is 100 times easier, experimenting with different looks is so much easier. I love my HVX, it is one of the best tools I have ever bought.

But damn, sit in a telecine bay when you are transferring your 35 footage and it looks awesome. 35 is so easy to shoot in comparison to digital too. Insane amounts of latitude so it's easier to light for, in a way. I miss shooting it but all of my current shows under development/pitches for shows are being shot digitally, there is no way I can afford 35mm for speculative projects.

Best,

Dan