Digitally Overwelmed... Can't I just shoot on Film???

Cody_Jordan

Cody_Jordan

Active member
Hey guys,

I've been an original DVX100 owner for a couple years now. I've been wanting to upgrade for a while. Only problem is I've been out of the loop on the latest HD cameras. After a little bit of researching and contemplating, I feel pretty overwelmed.

Like most of us technology hungry filmmakers I've realized that it's very easy to go overboard with equipment (especially for those of us who are resolution whores). As for me, I'd like to get back to the basics of film making. Whether or not that means just keep shooting with my faithful DVX100 or go out and try to find a basic 35mm film camera and get some nice PL mount lenses.

My inspiration behind this also comes from being a professional photographer that has gone from film to digital back to film. There's is just something about taking a full frame 35mm picture that I enjoy so much. Not too mention while looking through the lens of my 35mm picture camera I'm alway thinking to myself, "Man I wish I could shoot this in motion."

Also, I love getting technical with photography. I sometimes scare people off talking too much about f-stops, shutter speed, lenses, and lighting. Perhaps I'll enjoy this approach due to the similarities with film photography and cinematography.

The only thing that would stop me is the RED camera. This thing looks ridiculous. But so does the price. I know that the cost of a film and processing is always a problem but we all know that digital has its limitations and problems. (but that red camera seems pretty much limitless!!)

So HD or Film?? It's a hard question to ask and a lot of advantages and disadvantages. Actually, I've asked these same questions on photography forums when I went digital. Sure, I found the advantages of shooting digital, (unlimited pictures while viewing them instantly) But at the same time, I still love the simplicity of my 1979 Canon A-1.

Well I guess just sharing all this and asking these questions helps me out enough. Any thoughts?
 
Red is actually "dirt cheap" compared to other cameras below its specs....

If you want something better, install the Andromeda mod into your camera... you'll be right at home with a system like that, sync sound and all.
 
Well, the price of the RED is JUST for the camera body... Wait till you see how much a set of lenses would cost...
 
cardmaverick said:
Red is actually "dirt cheap" compared to other cameras below its specs....

If you want something better, install the Andromeda mod into your camera... you'll be right at home with a system like that, sync sound and all.
Click to expand...

High Five!

Yes that would be a good way to go.
 
tommyinla said:
Well, the price of the RED is JUST for the camera body... Wait till you see how much a set of lenses would cost...
Click to expand...

Very true... gotta love those $20,000 + lenses :grin:

But at any rate, you could just rent them or go with more modest, yet still high quality Nikons. $10,000 should buy you a handful of really killer Nikon glass.
 
But at any rate, you could just rent them or go with more modest, yet still high quality Nikons. $10,000 should buy you a handful of really killer Nikon glass.
Click to expand...

A whole set of Zeiss ZF primes, the 17-35, 28-70, and 14mm wide angle Nikon lenses to be exact. :thumbsup:
 
16mm would be the realistic alternative to shooting RED, cost wise.
a super16 camera with crystal sync and PL mount would probably be similar to the red in cost, then you have all the big cost of film stock, processing and telecine. but at least you don't have the archiving problems that a system like the RED would have and you get the fact that your originating on film (RED may be nice and all, but it still doesn't look like film).

I'm in no position to shoot on either at the moment, so i just use super8. it may have it's problems, but i like the film look and workflow. i was considering getting a DVX but i'd rather invest in a format that continues to survive after nearly 30 years of obsolescence than a format that's just about to contend with it.
 
Funny, you never mentioned the most critical part of your question: shoot WHAT?

Every project is different. There are some that I wouldn't dream of shooting on anything but film - the other options are still more expensive or more limiting. For others, your DVX100 will be just fine. 16mm film has resolution limits. RED has workflow and early-adopter issues. 35mm has cost issues. Andromeda has usability issues. There are tons of other formats right now, and none of them are perfect.

So your question isn't as simple as that. It depends on what you're shooting, where you're shooting it, how mobile you need to be, what your budget is, what kind of experience and crew you have (production and post, separate questions)... there's a lot of factors. You have to consider all of them.

I think these film/digital debates are not really helpful, unless you stop and really put things under the microscope.
 
Guys,

Thanks for all the feedback. It's always good to hear what everyone on this forum has to say.


Option 1: Andromeda

I do like the idea of uncompressed footage & more resolution. I don't like the idea of using a mac + a monitor every time I film. I really want to know what people are saying about Andromeda and how they are overcoming the usability issue.


Option 2: Mini35 Adapter

This is something I've always coveted for my DVX100. The one I was really excited about was Johnathan's Guerrilla 35. I was looking for something pretty short and didn't make the camera look like a freaking bazooka. Which is most of these adapters do. Can anyone recommend a good one that is short in length? (sorry i'm behind of these things)


Option 3: Film

One day I would love to shoot 35mm film. I think we all do. I may have to just do as much as I can with this DVX until the finances are there. Thanks everyone!!
 
If you are shooting planned controlled projects, I see no reason why you cannot rent a S16 camera and film on a per project basis. If you are still developing and honing your craft, nothing beats taking your DVX out and playing with it every other day.
 
Cody_Jordan said:
Option 1: Andromeda

I do like the idea of uncompressed footage & more resolution. I don't like the idea of using a mac + a monitor every time I film. I really want to know what people are saying about Andromeda and how they are overcoming the usability issue.
Click to expand...

http://www.chrisnuzzaco.com/special_uploads/casesetup.jpg

http://forum.reel-stream.com/index.php

These links should help you.

So many people make it out to be harder than it really is. It's just not the case, you simply need the right approach, its an awesome film style system. I don't ever hear older film DP's complaining about the way film mags need to be changed, heck, you can't even look at what your hands are doing... Nor can you see what you just shot, unless you're using a video assist, and even at that, video assist looks like crap.

But after decades of use, people just worked around it, then accepted it. I just don't see why some "film" people can't take that same attitude with HD formats.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Here's a big difference: I can pick up any film camera and go do an extended handheld shoot anywhere in the world. Can I do that with Andromeda? Maybe, if I'm willing to make some pretty awkward compromises.

I think it's a fine solution for studio shooting. For anything else the downside starts to outweigh the benefits.
 
dougspice said:
Funny, you never mentioned the most critical part of your question: shoot WHAT?
Click to expand...

Great post, Doug.... and probably the most important point brought up so far, in my opinion.

:thumbsup:

Formats, cameras, and codecs - OH MY!
These are all tools, and should never be looked at as absolutes - instead they should be looked at as options, as decisions to be made.

It's akin to asking "What should I use, a hammer or a saw?"
I don't know...what do you need to do?
 
dougspice said:
Here's a big difference: I can pick up any film camera and go do an extended handheld shoot anywhere in the world. Can I do that with Andromeda? Maybe, if I'm willing to make some pretty awkward compromises.

I think it's a fine solution for studio shooting. For anything else the downside starts to outweigh the benefits.
Click to expand...

Some would argue that shooting film involves awkward compromises, which it does, but people still shoot it because of its quality. The same thing applies to Andromeda shooters, were after quality.

I actually just spent a few days shooting Andromeda footage in the mountains, so its possible to run around. I'm planning a return trip to hike even further into the back country to shoot some waterfalls.

Just to put this in perspective, my camera setup isn't super light weight (its mostly due to my battery, which I'll soon replace with very light weight and small lithium ion batteries), but its a much lighter rig than the IMAX camera that got lugged to the top of Mt. Everest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top