16mm today, worth it? [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Jack_Felis

10-05-2005, 05:27 PM

Hi, I'm currently a college student at UNLV, as some of you may already know. A camera store, Casey's Cameras, down the way from the school has a Bolex 16mm camera with 400' magazine and lens for about $2000. Would an investment in this camera be worth it in today's world with all of these new HD cameras coming out? I had planned on getting an HVX200 or, by June 2006, possibly an HVX200A. Would I be backwards in investing in this 16mm camera? The Bolex cameras we use in film class are pretty bad (ie. dirty and hard to focus). But this one looks to be a much better quality version. What would you guys recommend? I'd ideally use this as a supplementary camera to my digital ones, I'd get an HVX200 anyway but probably much later down the road. Would the 16mm help at all for independent film productions? Or should I just stick with digital? Editing will be different and possibly expensive, I know, but what do you guys think?

dudeguy37

10-05-2005, 05:50 PM

I worked with 16mm this summer and personally I didn't like the process at all. Obviously though your comforatable enough about shooting with it so I won't go into that. A few important things...is the camera sync sound? If it's not, you can probably scrap the whole idea for indie films. If it is, have you budgeted for a sound recorder. (About $800 bucks for a Marantz Flash media recorder, plus mics, cables, cans, etc.) So assuming that right there, plus you'll probably want more lenses (let's say $500, though I'm not entirely sure how accurate that is) and you're already hovering around $3200 (assuming you have tripod, lights, etc. but that would all be the same for and HVX...so, 16mm equip, $3200 plus roughly $10 a minute of footage shot for film purchase and processing, and than another good chunk of change if you decide to have the negative conformed. So lets assume your shooting a 90 minute feature with a 5:1 shooting ratio (that's a total of 450 minutes) you'll spend $4500 on film alone. So, with your new purchases and the film stock, this feature just cost about $8700, and that stock will never be shot again. At spec-comm.com (not an endorsment for them as I've never worked with them and certainly not a un-endorsment (?) for Rush at EVS, spec-comm's is just the only price I've seen listed) you can get the HVX-200 and 16GB worth of REUSABLE p2 for $200 more dollars ($8895) and be ready to watch dailies and edit at a moment's notice. As for the look of the picture, obviously I can't be sure, but add a 35mm adapter ($1000 roughly with 2 or 3 primes) and you'll be pretty darn close. So you're now $1200 over budget, but shoot another feature down the road and the HVX will have paid for itself and saved you $3100.
Obviously I don't have to tell you my "official" opinion now, but than again, what does a punk kid like me know?
Peace,

-Harry

Barry_Green

10-05-2005, 06:13 PM

$2,000 for a noisy, probably non-crystal camera? I wouldn't do it. You can pick up a crystal-sync, silent, TTL reflex 400' mag CP16/R system off ebay for half that.

The DVX and XL2 have really done a number on 16mm. Standard-16 is just not in demand at all, and S16 has some life in it, but HD is really squeezing that too. I still have like four 16mm cameras, but I haven't used any of 'em in about a year. If you want to get into 16mm, I'd say skip the Bolex and get a more general-purpose camera like a CP16/R or Eclair ACL 2, something that can be used for dialogue as well as wild shooting.

dudeguy37

10-05-2005, 06:19 PM

Darn it! Barry makes a better point in 6 lines than I do in like half a novel...oh well. Either way, hope whatever happens works out for ya Jack.
Peace,

-Harry

khmuse

10-05-2005, 06:37 PM

I think that S16 with Vision 2 (7218) still has a lot of life left to it. I know someone who shot second unit on a recently released feature and his shots looked damn good, even next to the 4 perf 35 of the first unit.

I agree with Barry, don't bother with a non sync and/or noisy camera. Look around on the used market (eBay, rental houses, ect) and find something that you can really put to good use.

John Michaels

10-05-2005, 07:09 PM

I still prefer the aesthetic of film over digital and think 16mm would be worth your consideration. A production that shoots film will always fetch a greater budget. And, what keeps people interested in film (which cost more) is that the majority still associate it with a more desirable/pleasing look. This includes feature films, TV commercials, music videos, etc... So, you may be on the right track with film.

I also hear that kodak has some new film technology they are using on their 50D (7245) Vision 2 film replacement (for 16 and 35mm) that should really make a difference in picture quality. This will eventually make its way up the chain of higher ASA films.

The camera you are interested in may not be what you want. If you come to this conclusion, I encourage you to keep looking until you find something quiet with crystal control and sharp lenses. 400' mag capability is also a good feature. Try to get everything you need in one package to save on expensive accessories. Take your time and don't jump into anything without careful thought.

Since this is a considerable investment you should also insist on shooting a film test before you buy (even if you are looking at a camera from a reputable camera store). Look for solid film registration, picture sharpness, etc.. Test all features and run the battery hard as long as possible (batteries are often very expensive to replace).

You will need sound equipment to use your sync features but it is not necessary when you shoot mos (non-sync). When you do require sound you will already have the crystal in your camera and can rent professional recording equipment at very low cost until you are ready for the additional investment.

Best of luck with your venture!

David G. Smith

10-05-2005, 07:19 PM

It depends on what you want to do. If you are looking to master the techniques of moving visual story telling, framing, composition, editing, acting, pacing and the like, I think that getting a very good DV camera (like the DVX) would be a much better investment. You can shoot, make mistakes and learn for a heap less money than using 16mm film. If your school has cameras and equipment, just do the best you can with what you have. If you are going to drop your own cash, get something that you will get more use out of, which I believe would be a DV camera. Once you have the DV camera, you can shoot hundreds of hours of footage and learn ever step of the way for very little cost. Once you have mastered the basics and are ready to move to a more professional level, rent film equipment if you need to.

Just my IMHO.

James Gerber

10-05-2005, 08:18 PM

Any body here follow the tv series LOST?
(If you 'do' and haven't seen the most recent episode... do not read any further as it may be a spoiler)

If not, you probably have no idea what i'm talking about... but if you do, you will... any rate... they had this scene where the characters are watching a 8mm film via projector (it may not be 8mm but that's not the point)... the point is, the film they were watching totally looked like it was shot in digital and used some sorta crappy 'aged film' effect. I think it would have been like tons better, if they would have just shot that footage in 'actual film' and telecined it or whatever... but I could be wrong. Any case, this is the second time within the past week where I've seen a tv show or film, 'try' to make a part look like vintage film but turned out (in my eyes) to be a cheap rendition.

Jack_Felis

10-05-2005, 08:31 PM

Huh, well I didn't expect so many replies so soon! =)

Ya know, I didn't think about audio. The Bolexs we use in class don't have any way for audio to be used and it didn't look like that camera did either. I guess I'll just stick to digital and a 35mm adapter (which I plan to build soon). Thanks guys!

thisiswells

10-05-2005, 08:38 PM

Digital offers more opportunities for experimentation at the expense of not looking exactly like the film format. Fortunately for me, I have other things to work on, like my comps, for example...

Tibby

10-05-2005, 11:41 PM

I say get with the future of filmaking why not be ahead of the curve instead of behind it. This aesthetic people speak of can be replicated by digital video, maybe not at a consumer level....yet. I'd be willing to bet money on 1080p footage from an HVX transfered properly to 35mm will look better than Super 16.

Let the flames begin...

Personally I think the whole "Shoot on Film" aesthetic is pure snobbery, but hey, opinions are like @$$holes and I'll admit I'm one of the biggest. For those who want to shoot on film well, you're polishing the brass on the Titanic.

ropbo

10-06-2005, 09:53 AM

Hum .... sometimes I think people underestimate the quality of Super 16mm. If you get some good lenses and know how to light a scene, the results can be just amazing.

Watch the larger version of these clips:

http://www.alexlinden.com/showreel/ericsson_ims4.php

http://www.alexlinden.com/showreel/ericsson_ims.php

http://www.alexlinden.com/showreel/ericsson_ims3.php

This guy shot all those clips on S16 and it's difficult for me to believe that you could achieve the same results with a prosumer digital camera under the same conditions.

I know this is Quicktime, etc but still ...

khmuse

10-06-2005, 10:31 AM

I too am a big fan of S16, with modern film stock, the results can be stunning. I am in preproduction on a feature that will be shooting early next year, it will be S16 -> DI -> 35mm.

By the way, really liked the clips, great work!

Shiloh Arts

10-06-2005, 03:59 PM

khmuse

10-06-2005, 04:05 PM

It's hard to find anyone willing to spend time and money to waste on film anymore unless it's 35MM. :thumbsup:

I beg to differ. There is a lot of theatrical projects that get wide release that have some of or all of their shots in S16. Certainly, 35mm for the release print is almost an absolute must, but shooting in S16 and then doing either a DI to 35mm or a optical to 35mm is a very valid way of reducing the shooting costs. The resolution of modern negative film is so good that S16 today is a serious rival for 35mm from a few years ago.

Michael Summers

10-06-2005, 11:27 PM

if you have the money for 16mm, do it. just not with that camera for 2 grand. like barry said, CP16/R on ebay or something of the like.

vaderdust

10-07-2005, 09:48 AM

As a filmmaker, I don't believe that just one medium works with everything.(at this point in time anyway) For me personally, short films are perfect for using film. I use alot of super 8 and 16mm, and as I'm a next generation kind of guy, I get more respect and attention. I do use DV also, but it seems not to be taken as seriously by crew and actors alike. IMHO, rent cameras, especially when the technology changes so rapidly. I like being able to use a variety for a different view. I've even used my cell phone camcorder for pieces of a documentary.

Shiloh Arts

10-07-2005, 10:21 AM

if you have the money for 16mm, do it. just not with that camera for 2 grand. like barry said, CP16/R on ebay or something of the like.

Well I completely understand why, I mean as far as the quaility and technology of the S16 camera's today. However, I was referring to the old skool S16 technology compared to new digtial.

Dean Bull

10-09-2005, 04:30 AM

Rent... rent.... rent...

For me, the huge learning curve about shooting film was unlearning the ownership mindset that surrounds prosumer equipment.

With film equipment you get to use hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear for short amount of time, and hopefully achieve professional results (and with the higher end gear, film is freaking EASY!, especiallly 35mm, it's bigger and much easier to thread)

If you are gonna do a short on film, rent the gear. If you wanna do a short of the HVX I would still say rent the gear... the camera is but one element of an expensive and time consuming venture such as making a film.

And don't buy a bolex!

Super 16 is still better than HD for features that can afford it -- the reasons, I have no doubt, have been discussed here countless times.

reflex

10-10-2005, 12:30 AM

And don't buy a bolex!

and why is that? :shocked:

Chayse_Irvin

10-10-2005, 02:48 AM

City of God looked great on S16 and I always push for it on my projects. Film will always have a life to it that digital will not beable to mimic. But if I had a choice of shooting S16 without a DI, than to shoot HD with a DI... you bet I'm going with the HD.

Shiloh Arts

10-11-2005, 07:56 AM

Super 16 is still better than HD for features that can afford it -- the reasons, I have no doubt, have been discussed here countless times.

Ah... :huh: that's become subjective over recent times.

Zig_Zigman

10-11-2005, 03:26 PM

Super 16mm still has a much better aesthetic than Varicam. You've got to go to Genesis levels to beat it.

Still, if you are doing a video game kind of flick, HD, even low-end like the hvx, might work as well.

Rent the film equipment though. In fact, unless you are pro DP, better to rent ANYTHING that costs more than 10k.

Scott_Spears

10-11-2005, 10:38 PM

DV and low end HD is a great learning tool. I think that film as a primary capture format has a decade left, so you really need to know both film and video if you plan on working, especially as a shooter, for the next ten years, you better know both. Shooting film teaches discipline because it's hard and expensive. Shooting high end HD takes a lot of skill also. The "what you see, what you get" aspect makes it a bit easier than film, but matching film's look with HD is a tall order.

All that said, if you want to learn how to shoot film, either get a K3 or a inexpensive Bolex (under $600) and start playing around telling stories with pictures only or limited sound. If you want to shoot fullblown movies with lots of dialogue, hunt down a CP-16.

I am saddened by the demise of Standard 16 as a capture medium. I think if you're going to a standard TV image, it's still very good, but everybody is stuck on dreaming of the big screen even when there's no chance. My Arri SRI has been sitting in my closet for over a year.

I just shot a feature on Super-16 and was blown away by how great it looks with the new Kodak 7218 (500T). It looks as good as 35mm I shot several years ago.

I still love the aesthetic of film over HD, but realize that HD is becoming a viable tool.

Scott

BLUESPIDER

10-12-2005, 03:12 AM

would I? If I? what if? Hell, my ass is poor! I'm sticking with digital!

film is always great but damn it I can't afford it! Shooting Star Wars on film wouldn't even made a difference! Content!

cellulararrest

10-16-2005, 07:28 PM

David G. Smith

10-16-2005, 07:38 PM

has anyone seen Paradox? A new film from Standard Films? It's a snowboarding film. I believe it's shot on 16mm as most of the snowboard films are. Check out a trailer here: www.standardfilms.com. If you can get that look on video I'll be astonished. Another good reason to shoot on film is for the overcranked look. That's the big reason for film.

"The big reason for film".

Yeah, overcranking is cool, but I think that resolution, lattitude, color rendition, the gamma curve and texture of film count for a lot also.

The bottom line is that film is more expensive and we have modern video cameras that have more than acceptable image making capabilities for most users. If you took a poll of the individuals on this board, I would bet MOST would want to be shooting film.

16MM today, worth it. You bet!!

cellulararrest

10-17-2005, 12:59 PM

I definitely agree with you. There's just no comparison to the latitude negative film gives you. It's just one of those things you can tell. Whether something has been shot on film or video. There's no comparison. I just wish it wasn't so expensive!

MichaelP

10-17-2005, 01:23 PM

Take a look at "Hustle & Flow", shot on S16 with a DI to 35mm film.
Take a look at "November" shot on DVX with a DI to 35mm.

Both shot by great cinematographers, they each told the story with their own palette, but they do not look the same on the big screen.

Michael

MDKfilms

10-18-2005, 08:30 PM

Its been a long time since I have posted on this board, not much has changed. If you can afford it shoot on film. Shooting film teaches you so many things, too many to go into. Even super8. Learn on film, the skills are tranferable to video, but not the other way round. This is going to piss off a lot of people here but the only thing that the digital revolution has brought is the ability for a lot more people to make a lot more crap. It is sad to here people talk about the death of film. On another note anyone want a used DVX100? You could be the next Lucas.

Shiloh Arts

10-19-2005, 06:20 AM

Learn on film, the skills are tranferable to video, but not the other way round. This is going to piss off a lot of people here but the only thing that the digital revolution has brought is the ability for a lot more people to make a lot more crap. It is sad to here people talk about the death of film. On another note anyone want a used DVX100? You could be the next Lucas.

Ah… no hard feelings there chap, it’s alright. People will make crap with what ever medium they choose to use. In the music industry it's digital versus analog, whereas in movie making you have the digital vs. film. In all they carry some weight of their own power to production. Nevertheless, with this said MDK, no one here seems to be talking about whether or not they believe that 24P video is going to make them a Lucas. However, keep in mind that because of 24P video you at least can know if you are a George Lucas quicker and cheaper, instead of knowing you’re not while bankrupt. :thumbsup: :laugh: